Law1 min ago
Poland's national service
20 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=494661&in_page_i d=1770
How can Poland get any useage out of their young conscripts when they only have to serve 9 months?
Surely it is not worth kitting them out for such a small amount of time?
Do others think that it would solve a vast amount of the troubles we have with our young persons, if our Goverment introduced National Service once again?
How can Poland get any useage out of their young conscripts when they only have to serve 9 months?
Surely it is not worth kitting them out for such a small amount of time?
Do others think that it would solve a vast amount of the troubles we have with our young persons, if our Goverment introduced National Service once again?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'd have thought so, until some one brought up this discussion some time ago and mentioned they live in a garrison town, and that most of the public disorder there was caused by squaddies.
as for the Poles, doesn't seem to do them much harm... Any i've met (and there are a few in my workplace) are hardworking, polite and well turned out. I guess different priorities apply.
Related note: I read the attached yesterday and was not only surprised, I was appalled:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=31550&sec tionid=351020601
as for the Poles, doesn't seem to do them much harm... Any i've met (and there are a few in my workplace) are hardworking, polite and well turned out. I guess different priorities apply.
Related note: I read the attached yesterday and was not only surprised, I was appalled:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=31550&sec tionid=351020601
-- answer removed --
And apart from that one must consider the enormous cost of equipping your new soldiers/workers would probably amount to even more than that.
I don't really see that National Service/Conscription could solve any problems you couldn't solve through education. For instance increasing apprenticeships and offering more vocational courses (as well as academic ones) would be far more practical and constructive than forcing people into the army (which is also wrong from a libertarian perspective anyway).
Though having said that, it would increase the number of men in uniform...
I don't really see that National Service/Conscription could solve any problems you couldn't solve through education. For instance increasing apprenticeships and offering more vocational courses (as well as academic ones) would be far more practical and constructive than forcing people into the army (which is also wrong from a libertarian perspective anyway).
Though having said that, it would increase the number of men in uniform...
Two issues: one moral, the other practical.
1) The government does not own you. When warfare was less advanced and a nation's military strength was largely dependent on the volume of trained soldiers it had, you might have been able to get away with arguing that national service improved national security. These days we'd be bringing it back just to instill a bit of discipline.and turn citizens into more rounded human beings. Flying in the face of liberty, this would be central government trying to impose an arbitrary set of values on people against their will - robbing them of, what, two years of their life?
2) Would it really turn out a generation of disciplined, law-abiding young people? I'm certain the opposite would be the case. You can't erase decades of modern values and give people a mindset that hasn't existed for 50 years. People wouldn't shrug and gamely go along with it - there'd be uproar. It's be the Poll Tax Riots multiplied by 1000.
Even if you did drag people into it, you'd create swathes of disaffected young people who are deeply deeply resentful of the state for years to come. Thousands of young people would choose to flout the law on principle, even if it meant prison, so it would effectively criminalise a massive percentage of young people for very very little gain.
It's an absolute non-starter. Popular dissent, political suicide, huge cost, imaginary benefits and an affont to our freedom all rolled into one.
1) The government does not own you. When warfare was less advanced and a nation's military strength was largely dependent on the volume of trained soldiers it had, you might have been able to get away with arguing that national service improved national security. These days we'd be bringing it back just to instill a bit of discipline.and turn citizens into more rounded human beings. Flying in the face of liberty, this would be central government trying to impose an arbitrary set of values on people against their will - robbing them of, what, two years of their life?
2) Would it really turn out a generation of disciplined, law-abiding young people? I'm certain the opposite would be the case. You can't erase decades of modern values and give people a mindset that hasn't existed for 50 years. People wouldn't shrug and gamely go along with it - there'd be uproar. It's be the Poll Tax Riots multiplied by 1000.
Even if you did drag people into it, you'd create swathes of disaffected young people who are deeply deeply resentful of the state for years to come. Thousands of young people would choose to flout the law on principle, even if it meant prison, so it would effectively criminalise a massive percentage of young people for very very little gain.
It's an absolute non-starter. Popular dissent, political suicide, huge cost, imaginary benefits and an affont to our freedom all rolled into one.
It does not have to be for everyone though does it. those who refuse to work or are part of the monority who do cause trouble on our streets should be the target. i.e if you refuse to contribute to society then you will be made to. surely for many youngsters this may well give them a kick start without getting an ASBO/criminal record/jail sentence.
Of course National Service from 50 years ago is no longer appropiate but it could be made to be. Train them for something useful once they have completed it.
If you really want to stop the spiralling violence in our streets then something needs to be done and criminalising/jail is not necessarily the long term answer.
I don't totally agree with the sentiment that a squaddie goes out looking for trouble. In my experience it is often the locals that go out to provoke the forces because they know they will get a response (And this was goign on 30 years ago its nothing new)
Of course National Service from 50 years ago is no longer appropiate but it could be made to be. Train them for something useful once they have completed it.
If you really want to stop the spiralling violence in our streets then something needs to be done and criminalising/jail is not necessarily the long term answer.
I don't totally agree with the sentiment that a squaddie goes out looking for trouble. In my experience it is often the locals that go out to provoke the forces because they know they will get a response (And this was goign on 30 years ago its nothing new)
those who refuse to work or are part of the monority who do cause trouble on our streets should be the target. i.e if you refuse to contribute to society then you will be made to. surely for many youngsters this may well give them a kick start without getting an ASBO/criminal record/jail sentence.
Ah, I like this - see, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this specific idea on principle, but in practice it would just amount to encouraging people disinterested in other vocations to join the army. There's nothing wrong with that either, but it just leads back to what I was saying about education, so you've moved on quite substantially from National Service.
Ah, I like this - see, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this specific idea on principle, but in practice it would just amount to encouraging people disinterested in other vocations to join the army. There's nothing wrong with that either, but it just leads back to what I was saying about education, so you've moved on quite substantially from National Service.
Firstly no one has answered the first point of my question, how can Poland only call up their youngsters for only 9 months? They must find it affordable.
Perhaps no one answered this because they counldn't wait to wheel out their liberal negative views against National Service, ie rise in the basic rate of income tax, even more lawlessness from the squaddies, the goverment doesn't own you and robbing you of 2 years of your life, criminalising a massive percentage of young people.
First let me state that Naional Service does't have to mean Military Service. It could mean a youngster being taken away from their home enviroment for 2 years, trained in discipline, by which I mean military type of discipline, (there is the easy way and there is the hard way) you soon learn, and then educated in life and job skills.
Where would the money come from? Where do the huge costs of our present overseas ventures come from? There are also a multitude of stelth taxes that this goverment have introduced. We are also a very rich country they are always telling us. So no need to increase income tax.
Regarding "the goverment doesn't own us" this is a complete fallacy, we are owned and controlled by the goverment from birth to the very end. And to those that are still not convinced it will perhaps take for this country to be at war once again, and for that brown envelope (OHMS) to drop through their letter box, they could then take even more than 2 years of your life away.
Perhaps no one answered this because they counldn't wait to wheel out their liberal negative views against National Service, ie rise in the basic rate of income tax, even more lawlessness from the squaddies, the goverment doesn't own you and robbing you of 2 years of your life, criminalising a massive percentage of young people.
First let me state that Naional Service does't have to mean Military Service. It could mean a youngster being taken away from their home enviroment for 2 years, trained in discipline, by which I mean military type of discipline, (there is the easy way and there is the hard way) you soon learn, and then educated in life and job skills.
Where would the money come from? Where do the huge costs of our present overseas ventures come from? There are also a multitude of stelth taxes that this goverment have introduced. We are also a very rich country they are always telling us. So no need to increase income tax.
Regarding "the goverment doesn't own us" this is a complete fallacy, we are owned and controlled by the goverment from birth to the very end. And to those that are still not convinced it will perhaps take for this country to be at war once again, and for that brown envelope (OHMS) to drop through their letter box, they could then take even more than 2 years of your life away.
I do not agree with call up for military service in this country but they could bring in a form of civil conscipts to handle disasters such as the recent flooding and other type problems. Just think of the sandbags that needed to be filled. They could be put under the control of ex servicemen or prison guards who were familier in handling youths. In this case 9 months compulsory service would be about right.
AOG
But there would be an increase in tax to cover National Service, wouldn't there?
That's the first nail in it's coffin.
Remember the Poll Tax riots? People want change, but don't necessarily want to pay for it.
Also, an increase in income tax may put inflationary pressure on the economy which could lead to increased interest rates, higher borrowing rates etc etc...
...okay - that's worst case scenario...but the question of how to pay has to be addressed before any other.
Re: Poland's army...I have no idea. We need a Pole on the thread to tell us.
But there would be an increase in tax to cover National Service, wouldn't there?
That's the first nail in it's coffin.
Remember the Poll Tax riots? People want change, but don't necessarily want to pay for it.
Also, an increase in income tax may put inflationary pressure on the economy which could lead to increased interest rates, higher borrowing rates etc etc...
...okay - that's worst case scenario...but the question of how to pay has to be addressed before any other.
Re: Poland's army...I have no idea. We need a Pole on the thread to tell us.
AOG:
Firstly no one has answered the first point of my question
Yes, it does seem a bit short.
does't have to mean Military Service.
Nobody said it did. The same objections still apply regardless,
then educated in life and job skills.
Which you can do cheaper and more constructively through education. Which also affords more choice.
Where would the money come from? Where do the huge costs of our present overseas ventures come from?
You seem to think that the Treasury has a big lump of money sitting around in a pot - just about all the money raised through taxation etc. goes somewhere (depending on the tax) or to paying off national debt. Introducing a scheme of national service would result in a rise in taxation.
Regarding "the goverment doesn't own us" this is a complete fallacy, we are owned and controlled by the goverment from birth to the very end
Rubbish. Kindly explain if a government 'owns us' how we are (collectively) able to expel them from office every 5 years. Or emigrate. Or protest against the government. Or...
it will perhaps take for this country to be at war once again, and for that brown envelope (OHMS) to drop through their letter box, they could then take even more than 2 years of your life away.
You're making a ludicrous comparison. Those that have died in service today have done so having joined the services through choice, knowing the risks full well. And before you start waving the flag in my face - no, I'm not saying that makes their deaths 'worthless' somehow.
And if we were at war on the scale of WW2 then NS would become a simple necessity. But a war of that scale is impossible due to the nature of modern warfare.
Firstly no one has answered the first point of my question
Yes, it does seem a bit short.
does't have to mean Military Service.
Nobody said it did. The same objections still apply regardless,
then educated in life and job skills.
Which you can do cheaper and more constructively through education. Which also affords more choice.
Where would the money come from? Where do the huge costs of our present overseas ventures come from?
You seem to think that the Treasury has a big lump of money sitting around in a pot - just about all the money raised through taxation etc. goes somewhere (depending on the tax) or to paying off national debt. Introducing a scheme of national service would result in a rise in taxation.
Regarding "the goverment doesn't own us" this is a complete fallacy, we are owned and controlled by the goverment from birth to the very end
Rubbish. Kindly explain if a government 'owns us' how we are (collectively) able to expel them from office every 5 years. Or emigrate. Or protest against the government. Or...
it will perhaps take for this country to be at war once again, and for that brown envelope (OHMS) to drop through their letter box, they could then take even more than 2 years of your life away.
You're making a ludicrous comparison. Those that have died in service today have done so having joined the services through choice, knowing the risks full well. And before you start waving the flag in my face - no, I'm not saying that makes their deaths 'worthless' somehow.
And if we were at war on the scale of WW2 then NS would become a simple necessity. But a war of that scale is impossible due to the nature of modern warfare.
Kromovaracun
Which you can do cheaper and more constructively through education. Which also affords more choice.
Well this method doesn't seem to be having much effect at present does it?
You seem to think that the Treasury has a big lump of money sitting around in a pot -
Well they seem to find the money to bale out failed banks, When some country is in trouble we are quick to send someone out with a large amount of cash to help them on their way.
It is affordable, it would pay for it's self. The money they would save from not having to implement the various mad-cap schemes, that they say will solve the problem of anti social behaviour etc. would help to pay for it.
Kindly explain if a government 'owns us' how we are (collectively) able to expel them from office every 5 years. Or emigrate
You think you expel them from office every 5 years, but do you? They are only replaced by much of the same. We have no real choice.
And if you emigrate, you are still owned by the goverment of that country. And like a car some owners will treat you better than others.
Cont.
Which you can do cheaper and more constructively through education. Which also affords more choice.
Well this method doesn't seem to be having much effect at present does it?
You seem to think that the Treasury has a big lump of money sitting around in a pot -
Well they seem to find the money to bale out failed banks, When some country is in trouble we are quick to send someone out with a large amount of cash to help them on their way.
It is affordable, it would pay for it's self. The money they would save from not having to implement the various mad-cap schemes, that they say will solve the problem of anti social behaviour etc. would help to pay for it.
Kindly explain if a government 'owns us' how we are (collectively) able to expel them from office every 5 years. Or emigrate
You think you expel them from office every 5 years, but do you? They are only replaced by much of the same. We have no real choice.
And if you emigrate, you are still owned by the goverment of that country. And like a car some owners will treat you better than others.
Cont.
And if we were at war on the scale of WW2 then NS would become a simple necessity. But a war of that scale is impossible due to the nature of modern warfare.
It would not only be national service but wholesale conscription of able bodied adults also.
Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that a war on the scale of WW2 is impossible? The Russian Bear is waking from it's slumber once again. It is also supplying Iran with weapons. The Americans followed by us, are aching to have a go at Iran. The whole middle East could flare up.
Impossible due to the nature of modern warfare
Just tell that to our troops out in Iraq & Afghanistan they are fighting, just the same as they did in WW2. Close combat, dragging themselves in the sand on their stomachs, in fact, unlike WW2 they have very little (if any) back-up from Tanks, Artillery or from the Air.
It would not only be national service but wholesale conscription of able bodied adults also.
Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that a war on the scale of WW2 is impossible? The Russian Bear is waking from it's slumber once again. It is also supplying Iran with weapons. The Americans followed by us, are aching to have a go at Iran. The whole middle East could flare up.
Impossible due to the nature of modern warfare
Just tell that to our troops out in Iraq & Afghanistan they are fighting, just the same as they did in WW2. Close combat, dragging themselves in the sand on their stomachs, in fact, unlike WW2 they have very little (if any) back-up from Tanks, Artillery or from the Air.
Well this method doesn't seem to be having much effect at present does it?
Because it isn't really being done. Well, not to a sufficient degree. I guess I should've made it clear - educational reform would work better than national service.
Well they seem to find the money to bale out failed banks,
From emergency funds. Or government loans. A completely improper usage, but that's still where it comes from in that case. Think about the cost of equipping every young man (presumably) in Britain for whatever national service they go into. Every single one - the cost would be enormous, and you'd have to have a source of revenue more stable than in the case of a one-off. Thus it's either taxation or taking out some great big fat loans every year.
It is affordable, it would pay for it's self. The money they would save from not having to implement the various mad-cap schemes
See above.
You think you expel them from office every 5 years, but do you? They are only replaced by much of the same. We have no real choice.
Why? Because they want our votes. For some reason, it seems to work despite declining turnout. The fact is that despite the fact that politicians produce a lot of rhetoric, when it's rhetoric people like, they seem to be more akin to believing it. Thus politicians are going to you - you could make a case for being 'owned' by the majority of voters (in which case we get to the 'tyranny of the majority'), but it's still a far reach from being owned by gov't.
Also: compare William Hague and Gordon Brown. Or even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - they're quite different personalities.
[continued in next post]
Because it isn't really being done. Well, not to a sufficient degree. I guess I should've made it clear - educational reform would work better than national service.
Well they seem to find the money to bale out failed banks,
From emergency funds. Or government loans. A completely improper usage, but that's still where it comes from in that case. Think about the cost of equipping every young man (presumably) in Britain for whatever national service they go into. Every single one - the cost would be enormous, and you'd have to have a source of revenue more stable than in the case of a one-off. Thus it's either taxation or taking out some great big fat loans every year.
It is affordable, it would pay for it's self. The money they would save from not having to implement the various mad-cap schemes
See above.
You think you expel them from office every 5 years, but do you? They are only replaced by much of the same. We have no real choice.
Why? Because they want our votes. For some reason, it seems to work despite declining turnout. The fact is that despite the fact that politicians produce a lot of rhetoric, when it's rhetoric people like, they seem to be more akin to believing it. Thus politicians are going to you - you could make a case for being 'owned' by the majority of voters (in which case we get to the 'tyranny of the majority'), but it's still a far reach from being owned by gov't.
Also: compare William Hague and Gordon Brown. Or even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - they're quite different personalities.
[continued in next post]
Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that a war on the scale of WW2 is impossible?
Because the cost of equipping individual soldiers has dramatically increased since WW2. Plus warfare - while you still need people on the ground who are still vital - has shifted more substantially to the aerial theatre. Which has also become far more expensive since WW2 and is far more about quality over quantity.
Thus, armies the size of those in the 40s aren't sustainable and have far less point. As I say - it's far more about quality rather than quantity - the reason you get armies the size of Russia or the USA is just simply a greater population. And they were even a stretch back then - look, for instance, to the colossal debt the British ended up with after the War.
Because the cost of equipping individual soldiers has dramatically increased since WW2. Plus warfare - while you still need people on the ground who are still vital - has shifted more substantially to the aerial theatre. Which has also become far more expensive since WW2 and is far more about quality over quantity.
Thus, armies the size of those in the 40s aren't sustainable and have far less point. As I say - it's far more about quality rather than quantity - the reason you get armies the size of Russia or the USA is just simply a greater population. And they were even a stretch back then - look, for instance, to the colossal debt the British ended up with after the War.
Just tell that to our troops out in Iraq & Afghanistan they are fighting, just the same as they did in WW2. Close combat, dragging themselves in the sand on their stomachs, in fact, unlike WW2 they have very little (if any) back-up from Tanks, Artillery or from the Air.
That's because the stuff they're doing is extremely different - in Iraq, they're essentially security forces, not the kind of force used in WW2. Plus they're fighting a guerella enemy - unlike the battles in WW2. They're also using far more sophisticated equipment and weapons. They're still fighting, yes, but they're not fighting at all like the average footsoldier in WW2.
Well, they're getting shot at and things, but if that alone counts as being the same then that means that they're fighting the same way they were in the Napoleonic wars. Or the Zulu wars. Which is clearly false.
That's because the stuff they're doing is extremely different - in Iraq, they're essentially security forces, not the kind of force used in WW2. Plus they're fighting a guerella enemy - unlike the battles in WW2. They're also using far more sophisticated equipment and weapons. They're still fighting, yes, but they're not fighting at all like the average footsoldier in WW2.
Well, they're getting shot at and things, but if that alone counts as being the same then that means that they're fighting the same way they were in the Napoleonic wars. Or the Zulu wars. Which is clearly false.
Kromovaracun, Thank you for your indepth debate, I have enjoyed it, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree this time. Even though I still cannot see where you get your reasoning from, but at least I will not resort (as you have done) to calling some points in your argument RUBBISH or LUDICROUS, even though I may think it.
1 to 20 of 20
