Conscription's role in society

In a world so focused on the maintaining of individual rights, many people question the morality and practicality of conscription (the draft). Is it really necessary in the world today? Should it be used as a means to combat terrorism, political unrest, etc.? Is it a violation of people's rights to force them into serving their countries in wartime? State your views on the topic and justify claims.

Well, I think it should be used only in dire need. If the President just wants to improve his countries chances of winning a war, then absolutely not. If he just wants to steal some oil, then absolutely not. But if, however, said country is being invaded, and the military is greatly outnumbered, and really the fate of the country depends on repelling the invaders, only then, in such a life-or-death situation, would conscription be necessary to survive.

I tend to agree, but what about for larger nations? What about nations like the United States, countries that can muster an adequate defense without the use of conscription? Is there any reason to have such practices as the draft in situations where the defense of the country can be maintained in other ways?

Personally, I am an advocate of conscription, particularly in America. Paid soldiers, as in the U.S., are becoming increasing expensive to recruit and maintain (advertising expenses and enlistment bonuses amount to somewhere between 15 thousand and 35 thousand U.S. dollars per U.S. soldier). Conscription allows for the aquiring of a broader range of soldiers, each with different specialties that could help the armed forces as a whole. Copnscription gives the army access to not only the typical, run-of-the-mill soldier types, but also to the scientists, the engineers, those memebers of society that could contribute to the armed forces in distinctly unique ways. Anyway, more to come in a bit...

I personally am against it. While i am all for serving my country and whatever, i don;t particularly want war. I don't want to have to kill anyone. I don't start wars my nations leader does and I don't think its fair that something he does should result in my life being risked. The only time i think it is fair is when fighting defensively. So if someone invaded my country i would be happy to defend it; but i would never want to be sent off to some unknown corner of the world just because there is a war there. I am also very strongly against national service unless our nation really needs military support because it is defending its borders.

Yes, I agree that it should only be used when it is absolutely necessary, and not when George Bush wants some more Oil.

A conscript soldier means forcing someone to put their life on the line. It's not worth it unless our country is in peril. A bit of oil and some fake weapons of mass destruction certainly does not justify this.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

A conscript soldier means forcing someone to put their life on the line.

In my opinion, conscription is not forcing them to put their lives on the line, but is requiring them to fulfull their obligation to prolong the freedoms brought about as the result of their entrance into a social contract. A concscript soldier should be happy and willing to serve, regardless of risk, as long as the cause is just.

Originally Posted by Dalaran_Guard

In my opinion, conscription is not forcing them to put their lives on the line, but is requiring them to fulfull their obligation to prolong the freedoms brought about as the result of their entrance into a social contract. A concscript soldier should be happy and willing to serve, regardless of risk, as long as the cause is just.

It's always forcing someone to put their life on the line. The cause only depends whether it's their duty to the country or a politician's greed.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

A conscript soldier means forcing someone to put their life on the line. It's not worth it unless our country is in peril. A bit of oil and some fake weapons of mass destruction certainly does not justify this.

Fake WOMD? There WERE no Weapons of mass destruction in the first place, fake ones or otherwise.

Originally Posted by brad.dude03

Fake WOMD? There WERE no Weapons of mass destruction in the first place, fake ones or otherwise.

Fake as in the Bush man made it up.

one thing about the war in iraq, although i have always been against it there was at some point (5 years ago?) a risk that iraq has WOMD. whether this risk turned out to be partially true or completely false is irrelevant; the coallition took a "better to be safe than sorry" approach. its not like there was no evidence of WOMD and its all a conspiracy. there was evidence and it just turned out it was wrong. some people even believe there were WOMD that were destroyed or removed before they could be found. no matter what the end result at least we know now there are no WOMD; but that doesnt stop it from being a rather pointless war.

I really honestly think the chances of Iraq harbouring any WOMD's are the same as Russia having a stockpile of ICBM's hidden somewhere and looking to finish where the Cold War left off.

Originally Posted by brad.dude03

I really honestly think the chances of Iraq harbouring any WOMD's are the same as Russia having a stockpile of ICBM's hidden somewhere and looking to finish where the Cold War left off.

Well, even if Iraq did have the WOMD's, they were long gone by the time the U.S. got there. A real big round of applause for American media crews: "Hey, Iraq. We're coming next month to take away all your high tech weapons. See ya soon!" Can we really expect to find any WOMD's when we give the country months to remove, dismantle, or otherwise dispose of the aforesaid weapons?

Yep, that's what the media does. Sad, isn't it? But in all honesty I doubt there ever was any WOMD's to begin with. It was all just a grab for oil, using the WOMD's as a cover.

There was enough evidence for WMDs that Congress allowed Bush to go into Iraq, with blessings. Also, it wasn't just that the media let Saddam know, but Saddam wouldn't let the UN conduct any surprise inspections on his facilities, which is pretty damn suspicious. I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is that the US is still in Iraq, when the original objective (WMD confirmation, removal (lol, nothing to remove)) has been accomplished. While I do not agree with the rest of you about what instigated the US occupancy of Iraq, I certainly concur that the US is still in Iraq for the resources.

Back on topic:

Originally Posted by Dalaran_Guard

In my opinion, conscription is not forcing them to put their lives on the line, but is requiring them to fulfull their obligation to prolong the freedoms brought about as the result of their entrance into a social contract. A concscript soldier should be happy and willing to serve, regardless of risk, as long as the cause is just.

The problem is not everybody can agree on what constitutes a "just cause." For some people, others' suffering is enough. For others, personal safety (self, state, country, w/e) is what it takes.