Compulsory Army Service

This will be another way for them to continue their ‘culture war’ nonsense. This story will do the rounds and be talked about seriously on the BBC, where a group of people who oppose it will be invited on purely to be subsequently portrayed as ‘unpatriotic’ or part of the ‘wokerati’ by those who stoked it up in the first place.
 
Last edited:
VestasBoro said:
Why was National Service stopped?
Some countries do you have it, and in a new guise it might not be a bad thing if before you hit 21 you've had to do 6 months of it, or 6 months of some form of a national service. Would certainly help ground quite a few little upstarts.
Click to expand...
It was stopped, because it used up too much time and expense of having actual soldiers in charge of them, rather than carrying out their normal duties. It also took huge numbers of people from the general workforce.

If it was brought back in it's previous form there would be a huge outcry.
 
I am massively in favour of compulsory national service but in a general sense and certain not in the military.

National service should be paid but would include civil duties like keeping the place clean and tidy; nursing; police; maintenance workers, coast guards.
Kids could choose to do national service by going to college and getting a good education.
I would include unemployment payments for national service.

A highly skilled and educated society should be the aim for every government. But, of course, this is exactly what they fear the most.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
This will be another way for them to continue their ‘culture war’ nonsense. This story will do the rounds and be talked about seriously on the BBC, where a group of people who oppose it will be invited on purely to subsequently be portrayed as ‘unpatriotic’ or part of the ‘wokerati’ by those who stoked it up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sky news is effectively BFBS these days.
 
Unravel_Morrison said:
The difference is that the war between Ukraine and Russia is partly over the actual land itself, so you need boots on the ground.

Also our preferred companies of war produce fired from a distance based weapons and they're the most important stakeholders in this.
Click to expand...

I would have thought any war with Russia would be over the actual land so we would need troops on the ground.

Once a war with Russia gets to the stage that you are bombing them I would imagine the bigger bombs would be sent over and we wouldn’t have to worry about the outcome as we’ll all be dead.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Should age be a deterrent for them to show us how much they "love are country" and how patriotic they are ?
Click to expand...

If they have all the facts to make a decision that the fight is about 'love for the country' - then of course not.

Sadly - the politicians will be told what war they want, for whatever reason and the 'boots' will be the collateral damage.
Twas ever thus
 
VestasBoro said:
Why was National Service stopped?
Some countries do you have it, and in a new guise it might not be a bad thing if before you hit 21 you've had to do 6 months of it, or 6 months of some form of a national service. Would certainly help ground quite a few little upstarts.
Click to expand...
It is very expensive, not required as a rule and diminishes the standing of the 'professionals' who volunteer to do it full time anyway.

It is just flag shagging bait, along with stop the boats, bringing back pounds and ounces and blue passports etc.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Future wars will be fought mainly from control rooms and via drones etc, and so the idea of needing a couple of million civilians to "go over the top" is outdated nonsense. Those soldiers over in Helmand or wherever are trained professionals, and so the idea of just letting every Tom, d*ck or Liam roam around battlefields with minimal training and a AK14 is just jingoistic rubbish.

I'll be signing up as soon as the children of Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc sign up, especially given their parents close links to the warmongers involved in the first place.
Click to expand...
This, we just need to conscript all the e-gamers and have them flying drones.
 
MoggasDog said:
I am massively in favour of compulsory national service but in a general sense and certain not in the military.

National service should be paid but would include civil duties like keeping the place clean and tidy; nursing; police; maintenance workers, coast guards.
Kids could choose to do national service by going to college and getting a good education.
I would include unemployment payments for national service.

A highly skilled and educated society should be the aim for every government. But, of course, this is exactly what they fear the most.
Click to expand...
All of that is available? There's an entry course you can do at college?

Or do you mean compulsory employment for government jobs?
 
Alot of political views coming over here. I questioned why it ended and appears it stopped due to time/money.
I am 35, no military experience nor wish to have any. If WW3 started tomorrow and there was a voluntary service i wouldn't be first to the queue I'm just wondering if it COULD return in some form as mentioned above perhaps as a way to just ground 16-18year olds to get them out in the world they're about to begin their life/career in. Not necessarily military related but something whereby you must commit and complete 6 months of something such as voluntary work, community service etc unless you have college/uni/employment opportunities.

It was mentioned above somewhere regarding people on benefits, why can't these fit for work unemployed people be tasked with something similiar volunteer work, litter picking, painting fences type 'work' which entitles them to their weekly benefit? Case by case basis obviously. I was out of work when i was younger for about 6 months, and if i had to do something like this to qualify i would have - i bet the numbers of people claiming would significantly drop if they actually had to do something for their claim.
 
VestasBoro said:
Alot of political views coming over here. I questioned why it ended and appears it stopped due to time/money.
I am 35, no military experience nor wish to have any. If WW3 started tomorrow and there was a voluntary service i wouldn't be first to the queue I'm just wondering if it COULD return in some form as mentioned above perhaps as a way to just ground 16-18year olds to get them out in the world they're about to begin their life/career in. Not necessarily military related but something whereby you must commit and complete 6 months of something such as voluntary work, community service etc unless you have college/uni/employment opportunities.

It was mentioned above somewhere regarding people on benefits, why can't these fit for work unemployed people be tasked with something similiar volunteer work, litter picking, painting fences type 'work' which entitles them to their weekly benefit? Case by case basis obviously. I was out of work when i was younger for about 6 months, and if i had to do something like this to qualify i would have - i bet the numbers of people claiming would significantly drop if they actually had to do something for their claim.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they could fan your dim witted ar$e with the other hand 🚀 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top