Home & Garden1 min ago
National Service, Soon To Be Compulsory....
128 Answers
https:/
Surely that's against EUSSR regs? Don't get me wrong, good idea, we should do it.
Surely that's against EUSSR regs? Don't get me wrong, good idea, we should do it.
Answers
I don't like the way that the younger generation are so scornful and judgmental of older people. It never used to be like this years ago. When I was young we respected older people . Nowadays we might just as well be thrown on the scrapheap or put to death when we reach 80 years. National Service brought discipline, respect and a sense of pride in your country....
10:29 Wed 26th Jun 2019
Spath^^^^^^ you're posts don't make me laugh. You are one of the most shallow individuals on this site. Full of your own self importance. I would like to say a lot more but last time I sounded off about you in no uncertain way my answer was removed. If this goes the same way then so be it. !!!!!!
Would you write about your grandmother in the same vein.?
Would you write about your grandmother in the same vein.?
I did National Service in the 50s and it taught me many things which have benefitted me through life. Discipline, yes, but more important, self discipline and taking care of your mates.
It will never return to this country in its original form. The military
want people who want to be there, not people like Spath. I wouldn't want to share a trench under fire with someone who was only interested in f-ing off instead of watching my back, as I would be watching theirs.
In my day, there were too many conscripts with little to do and the military was involved in developing vast numbers of scroungers, work dodgers and time wasters, unless, of course, you were dying in Korea or Malaya. Many hours, weeks and months were spent blancoeing stones outside Guardrooms and performing other useless tasks. The scheme was designed to counter high unemployment after the war, and that's the truth.
It will never return to this country in its original form. The military
want people who want to be there, not people like Spath. I wouldn't want to share a trench under fire with someone who was only interested in f-ing off instead of watching my back, as I would be watching theirs.
In my day, there were too many conscripts with little to do and the military was involved in developing vast numbers of scroungers, work dodgers and time wasters, unless, of course, you were dying in Korea or Malaya. Many hours, weeks and months were spent blancoeing stones outside Guardrooms and performing other useless tasks. The scheme was designed to counter high unemployment after the war, and that's the truth.
"Would you write about your grandmother in the same vein.?"
Yes if she was playing a victim of the younger generation as you just did. Then went on to say how good she was as a young person. Right on.
Why does it mater if someone is a grandmother or not? We're all someones kid.
U got age on da brain.
Yes if she was playing a victim of the younger generation as you just did. Then went on to say how good she was as a young person. Right on.
Why does it mater if someone is a grandmother or not? We're all someones kid.
U got age on da brain.
National service gives nothing back to the community. It's something done in the extreme of being at war where normal rules are replaced by emergency ones. Unwilling soldiers are little use to anyone, and not all react favourably either. Plus it takes young folk out of the workforce where they could have made a useful contribution. It's just a controlling other people's lives, and can not reasonably be linked to getting them to contribute, in fact it is the reverse.
My eldest son took part in the National Citizenship Service - two weeks were community/charity focused (probably the two weeks he enjoyed the most), one week was preparing for university life and one week was a residential, team bonding week - I’d be quite happy for something like that to be compulsory.
-- answer removed --
The point made about national service having engendered a sense of belonging, cohesion, camaraderie I can accept as true although I have never been through a compulsory service other than education - the experience left me with exactly that sense at every level. National service may well be necessary, for/among some groups at least, but it need not at all be a military one.
I am unequivocally opposed to the core concept/aims of the military at every level but I do subscribe to the notion that if one is attacked then a need arises for defence - I accept that there is an apparent contradiction involved but I am left with distinct discomfort over the fact that "defence" can and has so often been subverted into offence (political expediency marrying military glee). This is a mistrust of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument which is buried in the "we need defence" doctrine.
If a military force must be kept anywhere near where I am likely to be for any length of time then I would choose a pan-national command rather than a national one. Thus, a pan-European force under joint European command strikes me as a much better choice than each nation having its force. Because of its recent record (operating substantially at the USA's bidding), I would much prefer the British military to be to be succeeded/replaced by a European one. However, at and beyond the point of Brexit one assumes that will not happen but a European force seems potentially likely to replace national forces within the remaining EU. On the other hand, it does not seem entirely fanciful to suspect that post-Brexit the British military will increasingly "co-ordinate"/merge with the USA military, perhaps not openly but more in below-the-surface reality. That would then be a curious kind of independence.
I am unequivocally opposed to the core concept/aims of the military at every level but I do subscribe to the notion that if one is attacked then a need arises for defence - I accept that there is an apparent contradiction involved but I am left with distinct discomfort over the fact that "defence" can and has so often been subverted into offence (political expediency marrying military glee). This is a mistrust of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument which is buried in the "we need defence" doctrine.
If a military force must be kept anywhere near where I am likely to be for any length of time then I would choose a pan-national command rather than a national one. Thus, a pan-European force under joint European command strikes me as a much better choice than each nation having its force. Because of its recent record (operating substantially at the USA's bidding), I would much prefer the British military to be to be succeeded/replaced by a European one. However, at and beyond the point of Brexit one assumes that will not happen but a European force seems potentially likely to replace national forces within the remaining EU. On the other hand, it does not seem entirely fanciful to suspect that post-Brexit the British military will increasingly "co-ordinate"/merge with the USA military, perhaps not openly but more in below-the-surface reality. That would then be a curious kind of independence.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.