NationStates

New Visayan Islands wrote:

Greater Los Angeles wrote:It's nowhere near fascism.

Things would probably be better for America if compulsory military service was in existence.

It took the metaphorical Pain Glove* that was Vietnam to put that idea to rest, hence the modern US military being an all-volunteer force**.

* In the sense that the ground-pounders were draftees who, upon return, would have had insult added to injury simply because their numbers were up.
** That still has Selective Service on its books simply as a Hell-in-a-handbasket thing, but I digress.

This is the common wisdom, yes. But the reason the US military abandoned conscription isn't because it is immoral or even because conscripted troops are less competent than volunteers. The number one reason is that citizen-soldiers will defend their homes valiantly and to the death, and take the fight to the enemy if that is warranted (e.g. conscript troops won WWI, WWII, and Korea). But they will not tolerate an extended war whose goals are less crystal clear than the defense of their homes. That was the lesson of Vietnam: if the answer to the question "What in the name of absolute fuck are we doing here???" has to be massaged or abstracted, you're going to get fraggings and mutinies in the field, and massive political unrest at home. I'm not a Time Lord or a psychic with access to parallel realities, but it seems a fair supposition to say that with a conscript army, the American mission in Afghanistan would likely have been get in, get bin Laden, and GTFO with a minimum of amputated limbs, trillions of dollars pissed away in corruption and waste, and native allies dishonorably abandoned to vengeful religious fanatics upon our withdrawal. The catastrophically mass-fatal and destructive invasion of Iraq might not have happened at all.

...possibly. I could be wrong, but that's what I think. Unfortunately this is one of those realms where actual scientific experimentation is both too costly and utterly immoral to conduct, and so this kind of post-hoc analysis is about the only thing we've got. What I do say with confidence is that the capital-hostage American federal government prefers a volunteer force because it empirically, factually has not created anywhere close to the same level of unrest as we saw during Vietnam, even when the actual wars being fought are no more moral, clearly motivated, or free of war profiteering than the Vietnam war was.

Ifreann wrote:Fashy vibes, but obviously plenty of countries do compulsory military service without being fascist.

---

-Astoria- wrote:You have to pay for national service?

Based on a tiny bit of research, there's an option in some circumstances to pay a fee to reduce military service down to just the training instead of the full six months service. Which I imagine for some people can amount to basically a mandatory fee if they can't realistically take six months out of their lives to play soldier.

That's... rather rough.

It's unfortunate, and should be a last resort, but it isn't fascist.

As World War 2 taught us, sometimes conscription is the only thing holding fascism back. :/

Even more proof that the OP doesn't know what the word means, not that we needed it at this point.

No, it is not.

Shitty, yes. Fascist, no.

Check the definition of fascism. Sure, Compulsory Military Service is authoritarian and should only be used as a last-ditch effort, but it's not fascist.

Full conscription is practiced by states with serious security issues. The liberal democracies of Finland and South Korea practice it, as do their verging-on-fascism counterparts. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan do so as well, while Turkey and literally all of its neighbors (except Georgia) feel threatened by each other and internal conflicts to implement it. Cuba is scared by the US, Colombia is scared by domestic terrorists and drug cartels, and South Sudan is … yeah. Egypt and Iran are both authoritarian regimes with political stability issues, even though relations between the two remain chilly. The leader of Egypt is a Sunni Muslim and secularist who came to power by ousting an Islamist, while the leader of Iran is a Shia Muslim who is continuing an Islamist theocracy.

What does all this tell us? States that are seriously and directly threatened by conflict are more desperate to strengthen their militaries than those who are not. It’s not about ideology.

I oppose the idea of mandatory military service- especially considering that in this day and age, it is not men who win wars but resources and air/ground support, but at the same time compulsory military service is not fascism. Likewise as highlighted by Lazaro I also understand that there are reasons why some nations deploy this... even if I object to their methods.

Whatever it is, it's immoral

I do not believe conscription is fascist because the entire point is to be able to have a large amount of manpower, able to be called quickly into action incase a actual fascist state attempts to invade the nation. The government needs to be able to guard itself from internal (coups, rebellions, riote) and external threats to the security of the nation’s citizens.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

Greater Rostoria wrote:No, compulsory military service is not Fascism. Is it wrong? Thats arguable and depends from person to person.

Personally, I do believe compulsory military service is a noble and patriotic duty of citizens. But I do understand the concerns of those who think its wrong. But its not fascism, not at all.

killing people should never be glorified. Being a doctor and a teacher is a sacred duty, not a military service. I'm ashamed to be in the same world as you and people like you

Kerwa wrote:Under the rule of “everything I don’t like is fascism” - often applied around here - it most certainly is fascism. So yes.

Conscription is wrong in any case. And having to pay for it is insane. I hope you got to keep the gun at least.

I want to orgasm sinfully instead of holding a gun. If Greek and Armenian nationalists come, I will flee this country. I don't want to see warring creatures, I want to see humanists unite.

Would you call the police if a gunman was driving towards your house? Would you be okay with them shooting said gunman to prevent them from killing you?
If so, you agree with violence and this is just a display of cowardice.

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:killing people should never be glorified. Being a doctor and a teacher is a sacred duty, not a military service. I'm ashamed to be in the same world as you and people like you

I want to orgasm sinfully instead of holding a gun. If Greek and Armenian nationalists come, I will flee this country. I don't want to see warring creatures, I want to see humanists unite.

Would you call the police if a gunman was driving towards your house? Would you be okay with them shooting said gunman to prevent them from killing you?
If so, you agree with violence and this is just a display of cowardice.

How is that a display of cowardice? You have to defend yourself from someone who wishes you, your wife, your children harm. They want to hurt you, and you need to be able to help save your families lives. Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well be the horrible human-being attempting to take your life away, unprovoked.

How is that a display of cowardice? You have to defend yourself from someone who wishes you, your wife, your children harm. They want to hurt you, and you need to be able to help save your families lives. Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well be the horrible human-being attempting to take your life away, unprovoked.

You misunderstand me, I'm NOT saying the fact that he supports the police action is cowardice, I'm saying the fact that whilst he benefits from this protection, he refuses to serve his country, is cowardice.

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:

How is that a display of cowardice? You have to defend yourself from someone who wishes you, your wife, your children harm. They want to hurt you, and you need to be able to help save your families lives. Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well be the horrible human-being attempting to take your life away, unprovoked.

You misunderstand me, I'm NOT saying the fact that he supports the police action is cowardice, I'm saying the fact that whilst he benefits from this protection, he refuses to serve his country, is cowardice.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

Christian Republic Of Assyria wrote:

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:You misunderstand me, I'm NOT saying the fact that he supports the police action is cowardice, I'm saying the fact that whilst he benefits from this protection, he refuses to serve his country, is cowardice.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Hello nationstates family. I just came back from my compulsory military service (3000$). I feel robbed and humiliated. I used a G3 infantry rifle by force, it was very dirty everywhere and I got pneumonia, people were very rude. they don't give medicine, water and food for the sake of so called rules. Military service is a blow to the idea of ​​patriotism. I always sang national anthems (even though I didn't want to). Conscription should be abolished in Turkey and in the world because I don't want to do something I don't want. States that practice conscription are fascist.

No. Never was. It may be dirty and you get tired but you are serving your country and that's a thing you should be proud no matter what.

No.

The obligation of citizens, historically male citizens, to provide service during times of war and the power of the state to call them up for service during times of war has long been pivotal to the relationship between the citizen and the state, even from the earliest days of the poleis. It has existed under liberal and socialist systems. The fact that we've reached a point where many people want to cut this part from the political contract does not make it inherently fascistic. We may, of course, argue the merits of compulsory service, but I've found much of the discourse in this area has been more about the effects of bad foreign policy decisions than anything inherently problematic in the nature of compulsory service.

New Master wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Hello nationstates family. I just came back from my compulsory military service (3000$). I feel robbed and humiliated. I used a G3 infantry rifle by force, it was very dirty everywhere and I got pneumonia, people were very rude. they don't give medicine, water and food for the sake of so called rules. Military service is a blow to the idea of ​​patriotism. I always sang national anthems (even though I didn't want to). Conscription should be abolished in Turkey and in the world because I don't want to do something I don't want. States that practice conscription are fascist.

No. Never was. It may be dirty and you get tired but you are serving your country and that's a thing you should be proud no matter what.

Yeah and he complained about people being rude to him but on here he calls everyone he disagrees with "fascists", says he's above communicating with them and launches into tirades about their alleged erotophobia (pathological fear of sexual activity by definition).
All these debate tactics would be considered rude in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(or at least in England, Wales or Scotland I.e. Great Britain) , the United Arab Emirates or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

El Lazaro wrote:Full conscription is practiced by states with serious security issues. The liberal democracies of Finland and South Korea practice it, as do their verging-on-fascism counterparts. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan do so as well, while Turkey and literally all of its neighbors (except Georgia) feel threatened by each other and internal conflicts to implement it. Cuba is scared by the US, Colombia is scared by domestic terrorists and drug cartels, and South Sudan is … yeah. Egypt and Iran are both authoritarian regimes with political stability issues, even though relations between the two remain chilly. The leader of Egypt is a Sunni Muslim and secularist who came to power by ousting an Islamist, while the leader of Iran is a Shia Muslim who is continuing an Islamist theocracy.

What does all this tell us? States that are seriously and directly threatened by conflict are more desperate to strengthen their militaries than those who are not. It’s not about ideology.

Also, this.

Fahran wrote:

El Lazaro wrote:Full conscription is practiced by states with serious security issues. The liberal democracies of Finland and South Korea practice it, as do their verging-on-fascism counterparts. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan do so as well, while Turkey and literally all of its neighbors (except Georgia) feel threatened by each other and internal conflicts to implement it. Cuba is scared by the US, Colombia is scared by domestic terrorists and drug cartels, and South Sudan is … yeah. Egypt and Iran are both authoritarian regimes with political stability issues, even though relations between the two remain chilly. The leader of Egypt is a Sunni Muslim and secularist who came to power by ousting an Islamist, while the leader of Iran is a Shia Muslim who is continuing an Islamist theocracy.

What does all this tell us? States that are seriously and directly threatened by conflict are more desperate to strengthen their militaries than those who are not. It’s not about ideology.

Also, this.

Yes. And it's telling that he claims to speak for love yet he says here that if there was an invasion he would leave and supposedly abandon his sweethearts, refusing to protect them.

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:Yes. And it's telling that he claims to speak for love yet he says here that if there was an invasion he would leave and supposedly abandon his sweethearts, refusing to protect them.

Meanwhile I want Uncle Sam to make me subject to conscription because equal rights should mean equal obligations. And I say that even with the acknowledgement that I would make a terrible soldier.

No it’s not fascist, its good (under certain conditions).

Fahran wrote:

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:Yes. And it's telling that he claims to speak for love yet he says here that if there was an invasion he would leave and supposedly abandon his sweethearts, refusing to protect them.

Meanwhile I want Uncle Sam to make me subject to conscription because equal rights should mean equal obligations. And I say that even with the acknowledgement that I would make a terrible soldier.

Sister, I find your bravery inspiring. The fact that as a woman, and even more so, one would self-admittedly claims she would "make a terrible soldier", the OP should be eternally shamed by your courage.

Fan-T Pashtunistan wrote:Sister, I find your bravery inspiring. The fact that as a woman, and even more so, one would self-admittedly claims she would "make a terrible soldier", the OP should be eternally shamed by your courage.

I would not say I'm particularly courageous. In fact, I perceive war to be a great evil, one often punctuated by a lot of smaller evils. Innocent people die frequently for no just reason or cause, simply because they happen to be in a particular place at a particular time, and those who kill them have gotten swept in something bigger than themselves. I'm also of the opinion that governments often make poor decisions regarding when to go to war. But my conception of the political community is such that I can't really justify exempting myself from the obligation to render military service. Especially in the hypothetical event that my homeland was threatened, not that such an event is terribly likely in the foreseeable future.

Conscription is a tool that many states use, with merits and drawbacks. To call it Fascism would be like calling Hydrogen Socialism.

It's known that volunteer armies are more effective than conscription-based forces, but many states need the added manpower to defend their population.

I believe that Conscription is unethical, but it isn't fascist in any way.

edit: I finished this page.