Sweden to consider female conscription

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by oedo
in no country and in no time ever there was something like an equal conscription.
people weren´t drafted because they were privileged (like in France under Napoleon, in Germany from FreddyII-Hitler, or just think of Gerorge W. Bush), or rich enough, so they payed a fee for not being drafted (Turkey today), or they were lucky or smart enough to escape (Germany today, Sweden most likely too).
an equal conscription - with or without women - is nothing but an illusion.

That is true, but some are fairer than others, and some are just madder than others. Take the Russian conscription example - an incredibly big army that is underpaid and in some cases even underfed.

I think conscription is not a bad idea. Although professional armies are usually more effective, is this a good thing? For some countries, conscription is a better choice. In Sweden's case (no strategic position and a sensible independent stance) conscription is surely by far the more sensible choice.

OK, drafting females will cause problems, it more lower effectivess (or the reverse). But for any country that really thinks it is a democracy, it is the obvious way to go.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Conscription never! If an invasion can't get your people to the front lines voluntarily, then the country isn't worth saving. Conscription is always wrong. Period.

Well, if that belief was shared by American and British leaders, there never would have been a Western Front in Europe duing WW2... they just wouldn't have enough troops to launch D-Day from.

At certain times conscription is necessary. It's the price you pay to keep your way of life for future generations.

--

Though I'm still trying to figure out where I've been insulted.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well, if that belief was shared by American and British leaders, there never would have been a Western Front in Europe duing WW2... they just wouldn't have enough troops to launch D-Day from.

At certain times conscription is necessary. It's the price you pay to keep your way of life for future generations.

Now, now, no externalizing costs - if the future generations want something they should damn well pay for it themselves!

Seriously though, even if you can't convince people to voluntarily join the military to fight even the Nazis, then you still shouldn't conscript.

Draft-eligible people tend to be a small portion of the electorate (and one that tends not to vote). So it is really easy for the majority to strip this minority (young men) of their liberty and force them to risk their lives, be subjected to military "justice", etc. I find it morally wrong that a majority could impose such costs on a minority - even if there is a national emergency. I just don't believe you can defend a liberal democracy by destroying the very values of a liberal democracy in the process.

If you can't raise a sufficient volunteer army to deal with a problem, then the people - by their behavior - don't think the crisis is sufficient or don't think that what is being defended is worth their lives. If the people past draft age really think a cause is necessary, then they should volunteer (and demand that the military relax age restrictions if necessary). My guess is, a lot of the carping by older men for war is a function of their ineligibility to fight.

Moreover on a local note, I don't think a draft-dodger like Bush has any moral authority to reintroduce conscription.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think a draft-dodger like Bush has any moral authority to reintroduce conscription.

But he isn't . Neither did Clinton.

If you can't raise a sufficient volunteer army to deal with a problem, then the people - by their behavior - don't think the crisis is sufficient or don't think that what is being defended is worth their lives.

Yes, but people are, by their nature, selfish! Even when the sanctity of the country itself is at stake, I wager that most people will not rise to defend it. I think that is why conscription during war time should be allowed. Obviously most people don't want to fight, but if they don't then everything may be screwed.

For example if I'm France in WW1 (perish the thought), I'd want everyone on the front lines, whether they want to or not. Protect the government. If these young apathetic morons don't think it is important enough, too bad .

I think you seem to forget that I'm not a democrat, but a republican (small 'd' and 'r').. and I'm an 'ends justify the means' guy as well (well, most of the time) .

[Az]

Templar, If you're all about liberty change you goddamn avatar.

We don't like libertarians in our party so beat it.

[St Leo]

For example if I'm France in WW1 (perish the thought), I'd want everyone on the front lines, whether they want to or not. Protect the government. If these young apathetic morons don't think it is important enough, too bad .

1. France did have conscription in WW1.
2. France was gun-happy about dealing with deserters just like everyone else in WW1.

In fact, France performed very well and dissing it about WW1 is rather misguided. The Germans were already close to starving by the time the US decided to help Canada, UK, France, and Serbia and would have collapsed at most a year after their real-life collapse.

I could make proclamations like "If they conscript me, I'll desert" all day, but chances are I'd try to keep my head low instead and hope that the idiots around me catch all the bullets for me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

France did have conscription in WW1.

Duh.... we know this .

In fact, France performed very well and dissing it about WW1 is rather misguided.

I'm not dissing it about WW1, I'm dissing it about being filled with French!

[St Leo]

I'm not dissing it about WW1, I'm dissing it about being filled with French!

I am sorry you English-speakers lost the Hundred Year War. Let it go already. Don't be a sore loser.

[Chemical Ollie]

I don't think there's anything wrong about conscription if the army is used for pure homeland defence, as in Sweden's case. Conscription armies that are used for wars of aggression isn't a good thing though. But they tend to face low morale among the troops, like Argentina in the Falklands, Sovjet in Afghanistan or partly US in Vietnam.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Azazel
Templar, If you're all about liberty change you goddamn avatar.

We don't like libertarians in our party so beat it.

Haven't been accused of being a libertarian in a long time. Don't you have to believe in free markets to be a libertarian? Silly Stalinist!

[Winston]

I think we need more pictures like the one Combat Ingrid provided to fully illustrate this complex issue.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
But they tend to face low morale among the troops, like Argentina in the Falklands

Didn't I explain this?

Argentina sent its C grade troops.. it reserves... to the Falklands. Its A and B Grade troops were busy in maintaining positions a possible border war with Chile. The A and B grade troops were actually quite well armed.. the C grade troops were very poorly armed and often didn't receive enough food. The pay was also extremely lousy.

[Chemical Ollie]

Yeah Fez, that isn't good for morale either is it? And why start a war of aggression when you are already keeping most of your troops busy with another conflict? Soooo stupid.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Yeah Fez, that isn't good for morale either is it? And why start a war of aggression when you are already keeping most of your troops busy with another conflict? Soooo stupid.

Well maybe an Argentino can help me with this one.. but it was because the regime was nearing collapse, as the whole population hated the military leaders.

The conflict with Chile is beyond me..... I don't have any idea why they were so close to fighting. The situation didn't explode into a border war thank goodness.