Jump to content

Would national service make sense again?

Recommended Posts

Rather than a military biased national service call up, would a pioneer corp craftsman/tradesman style organization be of more practical long term benefit?

 

I'm thinking of the American Peace Corp type of setup that President Kennedy started in the 60s.

 

They could be sent abroad to help rebuild after natural disasters or to help build better housing in poorer areas.

 

We could then reduce our overseas aid and replace it with practical on the spot assistance.

 

Might cut down on some of the corruption that occurs when cash is involved as a bonus.

 

Following a year or so of that type of activity the youngsters involved would have skills they could use to make a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I alone in remembering early on in Cameron's stint as PM, him saying with great aplomb, that "he was bringing back National Service"?

 

Turned out that it was only for two weeks. He forgot to mention that...

 

A bill reintroducing national service, or conscription, in the UK has been put forward for discussion in parliament. The legislation would make it mandatory for 18-26-year-olds to participate in military or charitable service for a period of one year.

 

The bill was brought to parliament by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone, who has championed the legislation as a way to inspire young people in Britain with “self-respect, personal reliance, discipline and behavior.”

 

“I believe that the introduction of a modern form of national service would prove popular with the public and be of immense benefit to the young people who take part,” Hollobone said.

 

The year of charitable or military service could range from care for the elderly or disabled to work with the emergency services or the armed forces. Those who do not participate would be guilty of a criminal offense.

 

http://rt.com/news/national-service-uk-reinstatement-693/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See how just asking a question brings about a really good solution. Mjw47 brings up a very good answer with the peace corps style scheme. Maybe when the young people came back from an experience like that they would have a new found respect for themselves and those around them even if they had no work here to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this a little more, the Government are planning on reducing the Armed services by making thousands redundant.

 

Amongst those losing their jobs will be many well trained instructors who have the ability to instruct and inspire youngsters using discipline and expertise gained over years of service.

 

These people would be ideal to take control of such an enterprise.

 

The attraction of such a scheme would be that those who took part would get to experience life in parts of the world which would bring it home to them how lucky we are, despite our ability to moan on an international class standard.

 

I include myself in the moaning category. :), but then I am a Blade :(.

 

This program would be financed by a reduction in overseas aid. This has become a bone of contention because of the obvious corruption taking place.

 

Replacing financial aid by straightforward 'hands on' practical help can hardly be objected to can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The attraction of such a scheme would be that those who took part would get to experience life in parts of the world which would bring it home to them how lucky we are, despite our ability to moan on an international class standard.

 

 

Which is precisely what they need - a good dose of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the army for many years it was the best years of my life,everything I do and think now is what the army did for me,I've never been out of work I am successful in my life,it did take me a bit of time to adjust to sivy life true,unfortunately national service would not work now as the army now is to professional there is no time for mass induction of poorly educated young people the army is not a correction school for bad behaved young people, the British army is a small professional highly trained fighting force ready to deploy to any theater of warfare through out the world .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Theatre of war[fare]' is a fascinating euphemism, isn't it. Makes it sound like an evening's entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Theatre of war[fare]' is a fascinating euphemism, isn't it. Makes it sound like an evening's entertainment.

 

 

Very illuminating :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very i islluminating :rolleyes:

 

It wasn't intended as anything other than a passing thought about how we subvert language to make things sound more palatable than they really are. Military language is full of euphemisms, don't you find? Collateral damage (= dead civilians), taking someone out (= killing them), etc. Why don't the Army just call somewhere that they go to fight in, a war/conflict [zone], or a battlefield? Why does it have to be a 'theatre of warfare'?

 

Just a thought.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than a military biased national service call up, would a pioneer corp craftsman/tradesman style organization be of more practical long term benefit?

 

Following a year or so of that type of activity the youngsters involved would have skills they could use to make a living.

 

Yes MJW47, a scheme for true "National Service" not necessarily national military service.

Maybe similar methods of encouraging participants to keep themselves and their equipment clean and in good order, and cultivating a sense of loyalty to comrades, but not necessarily to "travel the world, meet interesting people, and kill them"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't intended as anything other than a passing thought about how we subvert language to make things sound more palatable than they really are. Military language is full of euphemisms, don't you find? Collateral damage (= dead civilians), taking someone out (= killing them), etc. Why don't the Army just call somewhere that they go to fight in, a war/conflict [zone], or a battlefield? Why does it have to be a 'theatre of warfare'?

 

Just a thought.:)

 

I think you have been watching too many films and/or playing stupid Call of Duty type games. Apart from the 'theatre' bit, the rest is mainly nonsense. I never heard such euphemisms being branded about. There were euphemisms, but they were quite frank compared to what you quote above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.