Youngsters aged between 16 to 21 who are unemployed and refuse to go into further education should be made to do National Service to replenish our dwindling troops!

Absolutely, I agree 100%

I agree, but only if its Bad Lads Army style!

I'm not sure about that but maybe we could reduce some of the burden on the prison service, by making national service an option for some offenders.

Yes, let's send criminals, and 16-18 year old who can't be bothered to go to college, to Iraq. In my view this would sort out the situation in Iraq overnight and would greatly improve the reputation of the British Army around the world. It will send a clear message to any country that wants to mess with Britain "Mess with us and we will send a convicted car thief and a spotty 16 year old to sort you out".

Yes, that's an excellent idea... Send them to their deaths because they don't want to work...

Yes, that's an excellent idea... Send them to their deaths because they don't want to work...

What would your loony left solution be then?

Yes, let's send criminals, and 16-18 year old who can't be bothered to go to college, to Iraq. In my view this would sort out the situation in Iraq overnight and would greatly improve the reputation of the British Army around the world. It will send a clear message to any country that wants to mess with Britain "Mess with us and we will send a convicted car thief and a spotty 16 year old to sort you out".

Might turn the tossers into decent people!

Youngsters aged between 16 to 21 who are unemployed and refuse to go into further education should be made to do National Service to replenish our dwindling troops!

i have advocated this for some time now, in germany (not sure if this is still true) but it was compulsary for all men to do 1 years service after school - i like it, give todays youth a sense of discipline.
my only reservation is for people who just don't want to be there - could they be more of a hindrance than help?
plus i have a friend who was turned down by the army about 10 years ago as even though she was english, she had an extensive irish background.......

It will send a clear message to any country that wants to mess with Britain "Mess with us and we will send a convicted car thief and a spotty 16 year old to sort you out".I think it would sort the kid out pretty quickly. Some of the kids in the army are just a short step up from those you describe when they sign up but have the wherewithal to sign up and make something of themselves before their lives go down the pan. Giving everyone a push to have a stint in the army cannot do them any harm (unless they get killed in Iraq of course) and would be rather more interesting than nicking cars and taking drugs.

I agree, national service would be great especially in the current climate where all 3 forces are struggling to get recruits.

What would your loony left solution be then?

Anything that didn't require unvolentary suicde. I'm quite happy with people entering their army of their own free will. But forcing people into the line of fire is what the Russians used to do in World War 2. I suppose we should shoot them if they try and leave the army too eh?

Anything that didn't require unvolentary suicde. I'm quite happy with people entering their army of their own free will. But forcing people into the line of fire is what the Russians used to do in World War 2. I suppose we should shoot them if they try and leave the army too eh?

There's more to the forces than being pushed in the line of fire. There are all sort of trades etc which would come in handy when these people leave and might stand them in better stead when applying for work. it's not all about being an infantryman!!

it would cost more money and time trying to control the convicts and young offenders, its hard to get them to see their bad ways nevermind confincing them to join and stay in the army.

it would cost more money and time trying to control the convicts and young offenders, its hard to get them to see their bad ways nevermind confincing them to join and stay in the army.They would be under control round the clock to start with and would soon learn to respect their superiors and respond positively. If they went AWOL they would be court martialled and dealt with accordingly.

maybe a sense of value to their country and pride in themselves for doing something positive may help to change their ways

Anything that didn't require unvolentary suicde. I'm quite happy with people entering their army of their own free will. But forcing people into the line of fire is what the Russians used to do in World War 2. I suppose we should shoot them if they try and leave the army too eh?

Have you always worked ?

Have you always worked ?

Yes, as a matter of fact. I graduated from University three weeks ago and I've been working full time ever since :D

As already said above, the national service would be about giving them respect for themselves and for others. they would not have to be frontline troops. If they decided they didn't want to do their service i'm sure 6 mnths in Colchester would change their minds, as there they don't get rewarded with playstation usage as rewards for good behaviour like they do in youth offending institutes here.

As was once mentioned in Yes Minister, re-introducing conscription would release an unemployed army of trained killers on to the streets of Britain.

think it would be a good idea,should go in from 16 to 18 for 2 years.when they come out if they get into any bother then they should have to go back in for 10 years.no hand slaps,no asbos,no tags get in there my son.might give them time to think about doing anything wrong

As was once mentioned in Yes Minister, re-introducing conscription would release an unemployed army of trained killers on to the streets of Britain.That's why it was on a "comedy" show.

I have to say, considering that Sheffield is a Labour run city, I'm extremely surprised at all the right-wing attitudes. It's very interesting.

Nothing right wing by suggesting that they should reintroduce national service. most other countries have national service and it works perfectly fine.

Nothing right wing by suggesting that they should reintroduce national service. most other countries have national service and it works perfectly fine.

I disagree. I think it's very right-wing. It's of the same camp of wanting to re-introduce corporal punishment.

The best way to turn an ordinary young person into an aggressive testosterone-filled thug is to put them in the army.

I disagree. I think it's very right-wing. It's of the same camp of wanting to re-introduce corporal punishment.Left wing softie methods don't seem to work. Why is conscription right wing and what's wrong with corporal punishment, they both seem to have worked in the past?

Nothing right wing by suggesting that they should reintroduce national service. most other countries have national service and it works perfectly fine.

What gets to me about this is that the primary argument for introducing national service is that 'it will make the kids respect things'.

Will it make them respect human life? Will training them to primarily kill other people (not mentioning secondary trades) give them a respect for their fellow man, regardless of creed, colour or nationality?

Why not introduce national service that teaches them to save life as opposed to end it. Why not make national service into the health service, the police and the fire service, much like in France IIRC.

Yes those that want to could choose the Army but those that don't want to have the possibility of having to travel to foreign soil, fight a war they don't want to fight against people they couldn't really give a crap about whether they live in democracy or not.

So yeah, national military service, no thanks but if the emphasis was on the emergency services instead I'd be all for it.

Wilf

What gets to me about this is that the primary argument for introducing national service is that 'it will make the kids respect things'.

Will it make them respect human life? Will training them to primarily kill other people (not mentioning secondary trades) give them a respect for their fellow man, regardless of creed, colour or nationality?

Why not introduce national service that teaches them to save life as opposed to end it. Why not make national service into the health service, the police and the fire service, much like in France IIRC.

Yes those that want to could choose the Army but those that don't want to have the possibility of having to travel to foreign soil, fight a war they don't want to fight against people they couldn't really give a crap about whether they live in democracy or not.

So yeah, national military service, no thanks but if the emphasis was on the emergency services instead I'd be all for it.

Wilf


Interesting proposal. At least you give an alternative solution which is a good idea also...

I have to say, considering that Sheffield is a Labour run city, I'm extremely surprised at all the right-wing attitudes. It's very interesting.

It's encouraging!

Left wing softie methods don't seem to work. Why is conscription right wing and what's wrong with corporal punishment, they both seem to have worked in the past?

Really? You could have fooled me. Violence spreads violence. Most people only believe in corporal punishment because it's the easy way out. Numerous scientific studies have shown that it can be extremely detremental but people don't care because they don't want to learn alternative methods.

Plus, if "left wing softie methods" don't work then why do so many people vote Labour? Although, Labour are starting to swing extremely closely to the right hand bar lately.

I disagree. I think it's very right-wing. It's of the same camp of wanting to re-introduce corporal punishment.

Suppose you are against giving your kids a clip too! With technology to ensure we confirm their guilty status (yes I know why hanging was abolished) why should we not re-introduce corporal punishment!? Why should we not remove the testicles of rapists and peodiphiles?

I disagree. I think it's very right-wing. It's of the same camp of wanting to re-introduce corporal punishment.

You are looking at this the wrong way.. you seem to think that national service would be some sort of punishment. If someone does not have direction in life and is generally doing nothing then I see nothing wrong with making them join up for a year or so and learning a trade and maybe seeing something of the world.

So yeah, national military service, no thanks but if the emphasis was on the emergency services instead I'd be all for it.


This, I agree with. It sounds like an excellent idea.

What gets to me about this is that the primary argument for introducing national service is that 'it will make the kids respect things'.

The army is not in place principally to kill people. Soldiers are trained how to do it in case people try to kill them and it there as a deterrant to others which is the whole point of having an army. The army treats people how to respect authority, how to work as part of a team, it also teaches numerous trades which are very useful for life outside the army.

There is no evidence to show that people come out of the army as thugs, I have employed numerous ex army people and I know that if that is on their CV they will usually be reliable, hard working and conscientious.

Suppose you are against giving your kids a clip too! With technology to ensure we confirm their guilty status (yes I know why hanging was abolished) why should we not re-introduce corporal punishment!? Why should we not remove the testicles of rapists and peodiphiles?

And here we have a prime example of right-wing mentality. Not that I'm saying it's wrong, we all have our opinions. In fact, I do quite feel like ripping off the testicles of rapists sometimes. But it's proves my earlier post that it's quite interesting how might right-wingers there are in a Labour run city.

Really? You could have fooled me. Violence spreads violence. Most people only believe in corporal punishment because it's the easy way out. Numerous scientific studies have shown that it can be extremely detremental but people don't care because they don't want to learn alternative methods.

Plus, if "left wing softie methods" don't work then why do so many people vote Labour? Although, Labour are starting to swing extremely closely to the right hand bar lately.

Traditionaly they vote labor because they know they will get support from their unions when their non profit making industry goes tits up instead of embracing competition and doing something about it!

They vote lobor because they get fat pay checks for having children at 16 and are given a society that embraces fleecing the hard working though taxation and giving to the lazy*. And I thought Robin Hood took the p**s!

*I know there are SOME exceptions to the rule!

Really? You could have fooled me. Violence spreads violence. Most people only believe in corporal punishment because it's the easy way out. Numerous scientific studies have shown that it can be extremely detremental but people don't care because they don't want to learn alternative methods.

Plus, if "left wing softie methods" don't work then why do so many people vote Labour? Although, Labour are starting to swing extremely closely to the right hand bar lately.There is some middle ground and that is where Labour pitched themselves and kept the working class vote but added the disaffected Tories, they got in by default.

I'm not bothering with the corporal punishment argument on this thread as it's been done to death before except to say I don't agree with you.

This, I agree with. It sounds like an excellent idea.

Some common ground there between the right and the left :)

I don't like coercion, compulsion, has to be voluntary or options, remember the sentence given by the judge or magistrate is usually incarceration which they already have - and that's all

This, I agree with. It sounds like an excellent idea.

Ok, so you are for forcing people into jobs within the emergency services, but not the forces!! Surely, by your admission, forcing someone into some sort of employment is a right wing thing to do!!

Also, do you have an experience of the armed forces other than what you view through tunnel vision specs while watching news reports etc????

But would national service make any difference?

When they come out will there be a job for them? Or will they go back to claiming JSA and living off state handouts?

But would national service make any difference?

When they come out will there be a job for them? Or will they go back to claiming JSA and living off state handouts?Having had a taste of work, gained some skills and seen that there is a life beyond their estate, that is far less likely.

Oh, and people keep going on about being forced. If they don't want to do it they can go to college instead! They have a choice, just not a choice to do nothing!

Ok, so you are for forcing people into jobs within the emergency services, but not the forces!!

No, I believe I used the phrase "unvolutary suicide". I'm willing to bet there's a much higher fataility rate in the army than there is in the fire force. Plus, I happen to think that being in the fire/health/police force is much more beneficial to society than the armed forces.

Also, do you have an experience of the armed forces other than what you view through tunnel vision specs while watching news reports etc????

To some degree. I was an NCO (Flight Seargent) in the air cadets so I did have to spend a fair bit of time on RAF air bases.

No, I believe I used the phrase "unvolutary suicide". I'm willing to bet there's a much higher fataility rate in the army than there is in the fire force. Plus, I happen to think that being in the fire/health/police force is much more beneficial to society than the armed forces.



To some degree. I was an NCO (Flight Seargent) in the air cadets so I did have to spend a fair bit of time on RAF air bases.

Oh, you were one of those, were you? ;) Well, with even that slight insight into the forces, you should know that the forces aren't exclusively 'the army' as you state and you should also know that the forces have many trades etc that don't involve being thrown into the thick of things in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'm sure you learned many valuable things in your time in the ATC so why can't that same sort of discipline/team working ethic be passed on to others who seems to lack any direction/discipline/ambition etc etc??

No, I believe I used the phrase "unvolutary suicide". I'm willing to bet there's a much higher fataility rate in the army than there is in the fire force. Plus, I happen to think that being in the fire/health/police force is much more beneficial to society than the armed forces.The reason for the conscription argument is to instil discipline and respect into these people. The emergency "forces" do not do that a principle of tenet of the job, the military does. If people are conscripted those emergency "forces" may not be as stratched, however I think that quite a sizeable number of people of the emergency "forces" are ex military.



To some degree. I was an NCO (Flight Seargent) in the air cadets so I did have to spend a fair bit of time on RAF air bases.With respect I'm not so sure that is quite the same as being a professional serviceperson.

it would cost more money and time trying to control the convicts and young offenders, its hard to get them to see their bad ways nevermind confincing them to join and stay in the army.

Could be a burden on tax payers training them all up! Perhaps just incorporate the type of stuff they do in scouts etc into schools so kids are tought this stuff by doing more practical team working / survival type stuff amongst other things in the curriculum!

Youngsters aged between 16 to 21 who are unemployed and refuse to go into further education should be made to do National Service to replenish our dwindling troops!

Fine, make them do national service, but when a war comes and they won't fight.. then what do you do?

I agree, but only if its Bad Lads Army style!

No the army is worse than bad lads army!!

but yes i totally agree, it would make men out of them!!

Fine, make them do national service, but when a war comes and they won't fight.. then what do you do?

they sing up they fight easy as that

Fine, make them do national service, but when a war comes and they won't fight.. then what do you do?They will have to fight because they will be in the army. It would just be a normal and accepted part of growing up as it has been in the past and still is in many countries.

I don't know if there are any conscripted soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with the various different armies there. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Youngsters aged between 16 to 21 who are unemployed and refuse to go into further education should be made to do National Service to replenish our dwindling troops!
It would seem you are not aware that the military brass don't want national service as the massive through put of short term soldiers who don't want to be there is disruptive and training them up to the high standards we have in the British forces only for them to leave the moment they get the chance would be incredibly expensive and wasteful.

A motivated, highly trained professional army is better suited to the job the British forces face today than conscripts who don't want to be there.

Anything that didn't require unvolentary suicde. I'm quite happy with people entering their army of their own free will. But forcing people into the line of fire is what the Russians used to do in World War 2. I suppose we should shoot them if they try and leave the army too eh?

You were asked what your solution or alternative would be.

You have somewhat skirted round that by listing what you wouldn't do, not what you would do.

Are you an MP?

EDITED: Opinion put forward on subsequent post.

As long as the SGT Majors were allowed to give the scrotes a good kicking if they stepped out of line it sounds good to me.

I disagree. I think it's very right-wing. It's of the same camp of wanting to re-introduce corporal punishment.

Why is expecting people to get off their backsides and actually do something the same as corporal punishment?

You were asked what your solution or alternative would be.

You have somewhat skirted round that by listing what you wouldn't do, not what you would do.
The alternative to national service (which the Military incidentally don't want) is what we already have an all volunteer military.

If the present governments habit of starting unnecessary wars of choice makes recruitment difficult there is a rather obvious solution, pay soldiers more.

One or two people who have postd on here seem to think that the moment a recruit is conscripted they will be sent straight to Afghanistan or Iraq to get shot at, somehow don't think this would happen!

pity national service wasnt around when i was of a certain age: would they really have let me loose with a gun? yee haa

Edit. wrong thread!

The idea of giving bored, unoccupied youths something to do is excellent; diluting the armed forces with thousands of disinterested conscripts isn't the way to do it. An actual national service, where you do stuff for the country without risking getting shot at, would be the best way, but I don't think there's enough work around to keep everyone busy.

The idea of giving bored, unoccupied youths something to do is excellent; diluting the armed forces with thousands of disinterested conscripts isn't the way to do it. An actual national service, where you do stuff for the country without risking getting shot at, would be the best way, but I don't think there's enough work around to keep everyone busy.That's a good idea, it should be run to mikitary discipline though and the kids should be away from their home towns. Part of it could be to do some of the work which is currently done by the councils which is now done by expensive contractors and that would help pay for the scheme. Everyone should do it and it should be part of their growing up and education, having completed it they could then go onto further education if they chose to do so.

Unfortunately this solution is from a bygone age.

I know a few people who have been / are in the forces. And to be perfectly honest it hasn't done some of them any favours. One bloke I know is a violent alcoholic, who hates civilians even though he has been one himself for 20 years. Another has been in lots of low paid jobs for ten years and is now Training as a nurse. I know another who had a mental breakdown in basic training and when I last saw him was a broken man.

I don't see how this is going to advantage disinterested youth. They are just going to finish up on the long term sick and resentful. Which in the long run will cost society more.

One of the difficulties here is everyone is looking for instant solutions to long term problems. TV teaches many younger people that the answer to life's dilemmas is celebrity or a lottery win, when in reality what is needed is study and commitment over a few years.

Unfortunately this solution is from a bygone age.

I know a few people who have been / are in the forces. And to be perfectly honest it hasn't done some of them any favours. One bloke I know is a violent alcoholic, who hates civilians even though he has been one himself for 20 years. Another has been in lots of low paid jobs for ten years and is now Training as a nurse. I know another who had a mental breakdown in basic training and when I last saw him was a broken man.I'm sure we can all point to some individuals who don't seem to have benefitted from a career in the military but in my experience the vast majority come out as decent citizens.

I don't see how this is going to advantage disinterested youth. They are just going to finish up on the long term sick and resentful. Which in the long run will cost society more.The idea is to stop them having that disinterested mindset, in the army you can't swing the lead and phone in sick when you aren't.

I'm sure we can all point to some individuals who don't seem to have benefitted from a career in the military but in my experience the vast majority come out as decent citizens.

Indeed but noone can point to anyone British who has been forced to join up during the last 20 years. My estimation is that if they could, it would have no bearing upon society at all.

The forces are well known for hard drinking, instead of cannabis and cocaine they are just going to finish up alcoholics. With a bigger grudge than before. And teaching gangs of delinquents unarmed combat is hardly likely to lead to safer streets in the long run.

The idea is to stop them having that disinterested mindset, in the army you can't swing the lead and phone in sick when you aren't.

You can't phone is sick but you can finish up on guard duty all night for doing something wrong, like my friend usually does.
The army have already complained about "how soft" the modern recruits are, they are hardly likely to be keen on diluting the good officers with a shower who need three times as much work.

The army have already complained about "how soft" the modern recruits are, they are hardly likely to be keen on diluting the good officers with a shower who need three times as much work.
Thats why I said md25s idea was a good one because it is run separately to the "professional" army but to similar rules of discipline.

Why does everyone refer to the forces as the 'army'?! There are other forces too!!!

..and why does everyone think of national service as a military thing? It would have much more support if it was called citizenship duty or somthing where people did something useful for their community (e.g.spent productive time with people from other backgrounds and cultures) rather than learning how to kill people which isn't.

I still wouldn't supprt compulsory NS whatever form it took. It would have to be voluntary (and paid..if you see what I mean)

..and why does everyone think of national service as a military thing? It would have much more support if it was called citizenship duty or somthing where people did something useful for their community (e.g.spent productive time with people from other backgrounds and cultures) rather than learning how to kill people which isn't.I'll just repeat that killing people is not the principle mandate of an army and is a last resort that rarely happens outside a war scenario. The people need to learn about life outside their own community because it is usually peer pressure and other influences within the community that takes them off the rails. Having done some sort of service away from the community they would then come back and the community would benefit from their experiences.

I still wouldn't supprt compulsory NS whatever form it took. It would have to be voluntary (and paid..if you see what I mean)They would get paid but the whole point is that it should be compulsory or the scrotes that it would particularly benefit wouldn't take part.

I'm not sure about that but maybe we could reduce some of the burden on the prison service, by making national service an option for some offenders.

i can just picture the scene at court - ok, young chavster, says the judge, we've established that you're a wrong un, so now we're gonna teach you how to kill people :loopy:

I was discussing this very issue on the long tram journey home yesterday and came to a mutual decision with my partner that there should be something like the following set up.

When leaving school there should be 3 options open to a person, which are as follows:

Further education specifically designed to go down the university route;
Vocational training for a specific trade etc, and;
National Service, the person has the choice of either going into forces or doing charity work, community work or whatever.

i can just picture the scene at court - ok, young chavster, says the judge, we've established that you're a wrong un, so now we're gonna teach you how to kill people :loopy:FFS....:rolleyes:

i can just picture the scene at court - ok, young chavster, says the judge, we've established that you're a wrong un, so now we're gonna teach you how to kill people :loopy:

LOL! Excellent post, Pingpang!

Shows just how ludicrous all these silly ideas of putting wrong-doers in the army is.

Sheer loony tunes :hihi:

StarSparkle

i can just picture the scene at court - ok, young chavster, says the judge, we've established that you're a wrong un, so now we're gonna teach you how to kill people :loopy:

What a stupid counter argument. Soldiers are trained to kill in the form of a rifle and/or technical anti tank missiles etc.. You really think these kids are going to be carrying these around the streets with them???!! They aren't taught to kill people with their little finger as most seem to believe.

I was discussing this very issue on the long tram journey home yesterday and came to a mutual decision with my partner that there should be something like the following set up.

When leaving school there should be 3 options open to a person, which are as follows:

Further education specifically designed to go down the university route;
Vocational training for a specific trade etc, and;
National Service, the person has the choice of either going into forces or doing charity work, community work or whatever.

What about people who have got work already?
There are lots of careers suitable for young people.

What a stupid counter argument. Soldiers are trained to kill in the form of a rifle and/or technical anti tank missiles etc.. You really think these kids are going to be carrying these around the streets with them???!! They aren't taught to kill people with their little finger as most seem to believe.

The point is, in the army they are taught it's socially and morally ACCEPTABLE to be trained to kill/actually kill other people. The government is telling them it's ok - even desirable - for them to kill others.

StarSparkle

What about people who have got work already?
There are lots of careers suitable for young people.

I forgot to cover that one, but considered it added lol :)

The point is, in the army they are taught it's socially and morally ACCEPTABLE to be trained to kill/actually kill other people. The government is telling them it's ok - even desirable - for them to kill others.

StarSparkleNo they aren't taught that it is socially and morally acceptable, if anyone in the army does kill anyone it in investigated rigorously. If we didn't have an army that was trained to use lethal force if required we would be in a pretty pickle but that doesn't mean that it is put into practise.

But once again I will say that is not the principle pastime of people in the army.

The point is, in the army they are taught it's socially and morally ACCEPTABLE to be trained to kill/actually kill other people. The government is telling them it's ok - even desirable - for them to kill others.

StarSparkle

I'm in the forces and I havent seen anything in any of the training manuals that says its morally or socially correct to kill. In fact, they teach discipline in this area so it's nothing like this kill em all conditioning that you describe. Also, if I have been taught to kill then why ain't I going down the moor karate chopping everyone to death and/or shooting them?

No they aren't taught that it is socially and morally acceptable, if anyone in the army does kill anyone it in investigated rigorously. If we didn't have an army that was trained to use lethal force if required we would be in a pretty pickle but that doesn't mean that it is put into practise.

But once again I will say that is not the principle pastime of people in the army.

Of course they are taught it is socially and morally acceptable to kill - never mind all this training young men in a trade business, when push comes to shove, the purpose of an army has always been to defeat your enemy's armies, which generally means killing as many of the opposite side as possible.

The army doesn't do it through a little book of training that literally spells out to recruits it's morally acceptable to kill - it's just the whole ethos of the army, its reason for existence, to overwhelm the enemies of the state - or king, as it used to be. That usually involves killing someone, somewhere along the way.

The whole purpose of an army is to FIGHT for its country.

StarSparkle

Of course they are taught it is socially and morally acceptable to kill - never mind all this training young men in a trade business, when push comes to shove, the purpose of an army has always been to defeat your enemy's armies, which generally means killing as many of the opposite side as possible.

The army doesn't do it through a little book of training that literally spells out to recruits it's morally acceptable to kill - it's just the whole ethos of the army, its reason for existence, to overwhelm the enemies of the state - or king, as it used to be. That usually involves killing someone, somewhere along the way.

The whole purpose of an army is to FIGHT for its country.

StarSparkleSo should we not have an army then and be left to the mercy of other countries that do?

So should we not have an army then and be left to the mercy of other countries that do?

The point is - the army is an organisation that 'legitimately' teaches its recruits how to kill and maim, and how to use weaponry, and to physically defend themselves.

And you are then talking about forcibly placing young men, many of whom are already psychologically damaged, with extensive emotional problems, violent tendencies and who are probably not all that bright, into the army and training them to be killers. And you're expecting them NOT to use their newly-acquired skills when they back home again?

Please - it's la-la land, isn't it? It's bad enough having thugs and criminals around on the streets without them having been trained to fight/defend themselves by the army.

StarSparkle

The point is - the army is an organisation that 'legitimately' teaches its recruits how to kill and maim, and how to use weaponry, and to physically defend themselves.

And you are then talking about forcibly placing young men, many of whom are already psychologically damaged, with extensive emotional problems, violent tendencies and who are probably not all that bright, into the army and training them to be killers. And you're expecting them NOT to use their newly-acquired skills when they back home again?

Please - it's la-la land, isn't it? It's bad enough having thugs and criminals around on the streets without them having been trained to fight/defend themselves by the army.

StarSparkle
I think it's you who is in la-la land because you seem to have little idea of what the army actually does in practise on a day to day basis. Your theories remind me of 70's peace and love idea of no army at all and I remember the poster which parodied army recruitment saying "Join the Army visit far off places, meet their people and kill them" that all sprung up from the Vietnam war, it's not like that here. Nice idea but unfortunately not everyone gets on with each other and so we have a disciplined method of training people to protect the country. These methods should be used to instil some values in young people of today.

And you are then talking about forcibly placing young men, many of whom are already psychologically damaged, with extensive emotional problems, violent tendencies and who are probably not all that bright, into the army and training them to be killers. And you're expecting them NOT to use their newly-acquired skills when they back home again?


StarSparkle

Erm, no one said anything about people with psychological problems, we mentione people with no purpose or direction. Also, if this killing ethos is potent then why aren't there loads of ex servicemen and women out there topping everyone?! Also, there are trades in the forces and the people in these trades, after basic training, are taught nothing, but trade training so the weapon training and such-like are not such a prodominant skill.

Of course they are taught it is socially and morally acceptable to kill - never mind all this training young men in a trade business, when push comes to shove, the purpose of an army has always been to defeat your enemy's armies, which generally means killing as many of the opposite side as possible.

The army doesn't do it through a little book of training that literally spells out to recruits it's morally acceptable to kill - it's just the whole ethos of the army, its reason for existence, to overwhelm the enemies of the state - or king, as it used to be. That usually involves killing someone, somewhere along the way.

The whole purpose of an army is to FIGHT for its country.

StarSparkle
I think you’re basing your view on a whole lot of assumption and zero experience.

Young soldiers are taught discipline, self-control, respect (for themselves as well as others), and social and moral responsibility.
They even received guidance, in the form of two-way fora, with padres over the ethics of what they do. The purpose of this is not to make them murderers, it is to ensure that they understand the gravity of the responsibilities they are given.

There hasn’t been an all-out war since 1945 – there are always very strict rules of engagement, which restrict what can legally be done in conflict and mean that soldiers, even junior infantrymen, have to be able to make heavy decisions and only use extreme force as absolutely the last resort.

That’s why troops overseas get themselves killed in the defence of others, and show incredible restraint in the face of hostility and violence aimed at them. Our Armed Forces are not a bunch of bloodthirsty cutthroats.