Army!!

[Ramy Mahrous]

Just one question flashed in my mind who spent Mandatory service (Military service)??? and what do you think about Army??

[Ancient Dragon]

Army sucks. Go Air Force :) (I'm retired US Air Force if you hadn't already guessed)

Manditory military service is good for the soul and for what ails you. Joining a military will make a man out of you. Every young man ages 18-25 should experience at least two years in the military because you will be a better person when your time is up.

We don't have a manditory military service any more and voluntary service has worked pretty well for the country, but can't say the same for the millions of men who never spent one day in the military.

[jwenting]

conscription teaches kids discipline and respect, as well as skills that could come in handy when they go hunting for jobs (many get training as vehicle mechanics, cooks, nurses, etc. etc. as well as obedience to their superiors and not questioning everything your boss tells you to do).

When they cancelled it here in the 1990s youth crime exploded.

[zandiago]

I know that a few countries are planning to implement that compulsary military service to help discourage the high gang voilence among teens...I wonder what everyone thinks of a military draft?

[Ancient Dragon]

compulsary military service = draft :)

[DimaYasny]

three years in Israel Defense Forces. Combat service, lots of action.
was drafted as an 18 year old kid, came out an adult. not sorry for a second I spent in there - I was doing some REAL things, not just training.

[zandiago]

Thanks AD for the clarification...I thought the US draft is only in the event when needed...the mandatory military serivice is carried out even if a country isn't at war?

[Ancient Dragon]

AFAIK the draft used to apply all the time but I don't recall having mandatory military service when we were not at war. we have not had mandatory service or the draft for quite a few years now (ended in 1973). Since then an all voluntary military force has worked pretty well, millions of brave men and women have volunteered to fight for their nation.

[jwenting]

Draft is NOT conscription, though the two are related.
Draft is for the duration of a conflict, conscription is for a fixed duration irrespective of whether there's a conflict.

The draft in the US ended with the Vietnam war, and has never been renewed (despite calls by the Dems to do so, veiled as "rumours" that "Bush wants to start a draft for Iraq").

[Ene Uran]

Well, I can't remember when the US was not in some kind of a war. Professional soldiers are so much better than draftees. Why draft someone that is not a soldier at heart?

[jasimp]

To throw them in front of a bullet that would kill a real soldier.

[DimaYasny]

Well, I can't remember when the US was not in some kind of a war. Professional soldiers are so much better than draftees. Why draft someone that is not a soldier at heart?

it doesn't take too much to turn someone into a soldier. about a year of proper training is enough

[Ene Uran]

it doesn't take too much to turn someone into a soldier. about a year of proper training is enough

It depends whom you are shooting at.

[Ramy Mahrous]

Thanks for all your replies, but why they need engineers, doctors and computer scientists to serve as soldiers???
They can make useful of them in militral units without apply some restrictions!! like waking up at 5 am, no vacations, ......
I hate being in army!!
And the most stupid point in army they treat who has qualifications like who hasn't! in that moment you feel you waste your time learning and in that moment also you'll see someone who is ignorant controlling you!!!!!!!!!!!
I've learnt very very bad things from conscription. I need to back again as free man I am in need to all your prayers :(

[Ancient Dragon]

>>but why they need engineers, doctors and computer scientists to serve as soldiers???
Just who do you think supplies all those weapons, cloths, food, housing, tends to wounds, etc? I heard once that it takes 10 people to support 1 soldier.

>>no vacations
US active duty people get 30 days paid vacation a year. When I was on active duty and in VietNam we also got a week R&R (Rest & Recouperation) at a resort outside the war zone. Don't know if they do that in Iraq or not. We also got special combat pay and no federal or state taxes while in combat zone. I reinlisted while in VietNam and my reinlistment bonus was also tax free.

Just like every other occupation military life is not for everyone. Not eveyone has the guts it takes to be a succful soldier. If you really hate it then my suggestion is to get out when your time is up and do something else that you do like.

[DimaYasny]

not every soldier is doing the shooting

[DimaYasny]

don't know about Egypt, I only met your border guards - nice guys really, but in the Israeli army, high-educated soldiers usually serve as officers, getting paid more, and except for having to wear a uniform, everything else is pretty much like in any classified software company.
My ex is a Java developer for the IAF, she was telling me exactly the same thing I hear from friends who are developers in non military companies

[Lardmeister]

The upcoming military budget for the US is $700,000,000,000. Many of the weapons we are buying don't have an enemy yet. IMHO, we could just throw a lot of that money out of a plane over a battle area and the enemy would start fighting amongst themselves rather than against us.

[jwenting]

the best army is one that's so good noone dares oppose it on the field of battle, one that by its very existence makes war unnecessary.
So having weapons that don't have the name of an enemy written on them is a good thing, it makes people take pause and notice that there's room enough for their name...

[Ancient Dragon]

But that hasn't stopped the terrorists, or is it that terrorists are too stupid to realize they are outgunned. And if they are outgunned why didn't we defeat them in Iraq years ago ? Answer: politics, we could have just nuked that country and been done with it, or bommed it into the stoneage.

[twomers]

>> Many of the weapons we are buying don't have an enemy yet.
I like that, Lardmeister.

>> We don't have a manditory military service any more
How/why did that come about, actually? I thought it was still there. Politics and HR activists believing everyone has a choice?

[Lardmeister]

... we could have just nuked that country and been done with it, or bommed (bombed) it into the stoneage.

A good way to make friends around the earth. All the countries receiving the nuclear fallout would sue us for decades! Would keep the lawyers busy and our treasury empty (emptier than it already is). We would have to go to the Chinese and borrow even more money.

[DimaYasny]

Dragon is right. That is exactly why Israel is still fighting the Palestinians, tolerating terror in the streets and everyday bombings of the cities - they are reluctant to use enough force to bomb the terrorists into the stone age. Because the first world countries are being led by scared politicians who are afraid to give orders to the army. They all think about their own career, instead of the damage the country is sustaining.

[Ancient Dragon]

A good way to make friends around the earth. All the countries receiving the nuclear fallout would sue us for decades! Would keep the lawyers busy and our treasury empty (emptier than it already is). We would have to go to the Chinese and borrow even more money.

They can't sue us if they're all dead :) One problem, of course, with my suggestion is that some of those nations can shoot back and we might get a taste of our own medicine.

[Lardmeister]

They can't sue us if they're all dead :) One problem, of course, with my suggestion is that some of those nations can shoot back and we might get a taste of our own medicine.

Think about it! If you nuke Iraq, the fallout will go to downwind countries like India, China, Indonesia, Australia and so on.

[jwenting]

Dragon is right. That is exactly why Israel is still fighting the Palestinians, tolerating terror in the streets and everyday bombings of the cities - they are reluctant to use enough force to bomb the terrorists into the stone age. Because the first world countries are being led by scared politicians who are afraid to give orders to the army. They all think about their own career, instead of the damage the country is sustaining.

Well said.
Both Syria and Jordan had the exact same trouble with the so-called "Palestinians" (a name invented by the guys who invented the PLO to deliberately drive a wedge between Arabs and Jews in the area) in the 1950s and '60s.
Both countries resorted to the same tactic. Drive a few tens of thousands of them together in a city somewhere you don't mind destroying, surround the place with several army divisions, and use the entire area for target practice for artillery, tanks, and aircraft until there's nothing left standing.
Then send in the infantry and shoot everything that moves, men women and children alike.

The PLO never bothered either country again.

Israel however has gone down the path of self destruction, is committing national suicide. Their political leadership (like that of the US during the Vietnam war as well as today) is too weak and afraid of "international opinion" to do what is needed to succeed.

[DimaYasny]

jwenting, you wouldn't believe how glad I am to hear this from someone outside of Israel.

I know the IDF very well, it is capable of reducing any opposition to dust, but the orders to do so aren't coming. Because instead of dealing with problems, we are dealing with the UN and the EU, where people mostly have no idea what is going on.

[hammerhead]

Think about it! If you nuke Iraq, the fallout will go to downwind countries like India, China, Indonesia, Australia and so on.

Also there will be internal pressure from people against it. I remember that many Americans opposed the war on Iraq. Nuking them will trigger an outrage.

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Nuking them will trigger an outrage.
Yes of course it would, and it should. But as I said if we as a nation decided to go that way I doubt there will be another terrorist attack anywhere in the world because we would just nuke them whereever they happen to be. Nice to think about, but to be realistic it isn't even the remotest possibility.

[jwenting]

well, it IS possible.
The conspiracy theorists think "Bush" lied about Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc..
So what's to stop them from dropping a few nukes and claiming it was normal bombs dropped on workshops where terrorists were making nukes?
It'd be so out of character that the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe it to be a lie, they don't think the president is capable of such creative thinking :)

Bigger problem would be to convince the Russians, but they're I think aching to try out their own nukes so it should be possible to make it a joint operation with them with both sides getting to nuke someone, their choice from a mutual list of targets.

Dima, most people don't bother to do their own research into the history and current status of the Middle East. They'll lap up whatever the press tells them, and the press has been firmly in the terrorist camp for the last 30 years or so.
Remember that anti-semitism is still rife throughout the world, and most people don't shed any tears over dead Jews while being outraged at any Arab who so much as is inconvenienced when his television doesn't work because of a brownout.