Do you know why (most) Nordic countries have mandatory military service? Because they were "occupied" in World War Two, or other wars. These countries don't want it to happen again, that's why they have a strong military, as a deterrent to invasion by hostile countries.
That's true, but equally the Netherlands, France and Belgium, who were also occupied, have no conscripion.
No matter what practical arguments there are for conscription, or history making forced military service more or less attractive, for me the first question one must broach is that of the individual's rights.
Does a government have the right to force people to carry out work - even if it is non-military work?
I say no. End of argument. For me.
On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with incentivising people to undertake some form of National Service, military or otherwise.
Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest". Apathy and lack of engagement in politics is a serious problem in the West. Maybe those who actually get off their ass and do something for their society - by volunteering for a few years of National Service in military or non-military forms - are the ones who should be allowed to vote.
Terrorism is never going away. We will be fighting it for decades, maybe even centuries.
If you can get a decent job, an education, are not oppressed... well, a new Plasma TV and a holiday are an awful lot more tangible than any number of virgins in the here-after. Comfortable people do not become terrorists unless they have pretty big internal issues - and we will always have nut-jobs, like McVee (sp?).
Whilst there is no justifying terrorist's actions, given the backgrounds most are recruited from one can see attacking those backgrounds one can stop a generational supply of terrorists from the same culture.
As for the War on Terror;
List the names of people involved in the Reagan administration.
List the names of people involved in the Bush II administration.
In the '70's and '80's, the USSR knew it was never going to be able to match American military spending. The economy was getting stretched. Their attempts at detente were rebuffed. They were forced to continue spending vast amounts, and yet large portions of their defensive strength was seldom as good on the ground as it was on paper. The 'Soviet threat' was vastly exaggerated, people in the US were happy to see vast amounts spent on arms, the financial backers of the Administration made huge profits. People felt the government was keeping them safe and voted for them again.
In the '00's the 'Terrorist threat' is vastly exaggerated. A war? Talk to the people in Iraq about a war. Talk about tens of thousands of dead, sometimes hundreds in a day, day after day. That is war. The innocent lives lost in the West to terrorism are as tragic as those in the Iraq and Afghanistan, but 'us' in the West... unless we are in the military we are not at war. We watch the news.
The chances of any one Western civilian being harmed by terrorist activity is very low. Say 800 million people. A few thousand deaths in the US, not yet a thousand in Europe. Over seven years. Do the maths. There is not that appreciable a difference between your chance of death due to Soviet aggression in the 1980's and your chance of death by terrorism now. In Iraq there are 20 something million and hundreds of thousands have died. That's a thousand times greater chance of dying in Iraq than in the West during the War on Terror. We watch the news.
Just as back in the Cold War days, where Soviet capabilities were hyped up, so too was Saddam capabilities hyped up, and an attack on Saddam equated to an attack on terror. People in the US are happy to see vast amounts spent on arms, the financial backers of the Administration make huge profits. People feel the government are keeping them safe and vote for them again.
Except this time round rather than a vast political Empire with nuclear weapons, we are fighting a small percentage of a few hundred million Muslims (most Muslims are not even risks, it's the Arab cultures and the prostelyzation of their Islam that are dodgy), the military elements of which have to spend almost all their time hiding, and to whom IED's, AK-47 and RPG's are the acme of their armoury. Some of them are even so desperate, and so incapable of inflicting damage in an open direct attack, they kill themselves and others indiscriminately. I mean, come on, whilst one may or may not feel threatened by suicide bombers, you got to admit they are still pretty desperate.
Yet despite the contracts (vast military Empire; bunch of extremist idiots who can be stereotyped as people who can't hold down a decent job and live in a cave), we're spending roughly the same in real terms...
Funny that? That means the ONLY people who really benefit, are those who have shares in arms companies. Everyone else; Arab, Jew, Christian, Muslim - gets shafted.
Oh, yeah; match up the common names from the two Administrations mentioned above. They've done it twice.
