Mandatory Military Service in Canada?
kenmore @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:36 pm
there were many Canadians opposed to WW11...it wasnt just in Quebec .. conscription was brought in because of Canadian public opinion... but now in 2008 manditory service in the Canadian Military wouldnt fly.. there are alot of people opposed the the american war we are in and sick of the government telling us things are moving along well.. I support our troops but not the american war in afghanistan or Iraq...
PS yes I know Saskatchewan is a province.. and a beautiful one at that..
BartSimpson @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:01 pm
I like the argument that compulsory national service (not necessarily in the military, mind you) should be a prerequisite of suffrage. 
Bacardi4206 @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:14 pm
No offense MustangJay but military service is not the answer, for one good reason. The Canadian Government likes to keep the Canadian Military numbers short, because of that they do not have like 5 million stockpiles of weapons. Generally if everybody enlisted, only around 2%-5% would be getting weapons. The rest? Well they would have to be recieving some mighty fine marsial arts lessons 
All the acts like that one incident are due to the parents, they have shitty parents so they have shitty kids. It's not only Canada that has a problem with this, its every single country. It's what I generally like to think off, as just being a kid. Except as society's progress, life as a kid gets harder and harder and more political. In the WW2 days, nobody had a personal computer where they can access information, expecially political information. They were lack of expectations, and school was a lot easier.
As a kid now, it is completly easy to develope depression, anxiety, anger problems. Pretty much anything. Previous generations, all they had to worry about was there grades in a much easier school system, now you got to worry about school, parents, teachers, cool clothes, always got to make a good impression or you get casted as a reject by the students, and you always got to worry about if you are going to wake up the next day and got shot or stabbed.
That was America's worry for a long time, but now it's starting to be Canada's.
CommanderSock @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:22 am
It would be a failure.
Mustang1 @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:40 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I like the argument that compulsory national service (not necessarily in the military, mind you) should be a prerequisite of suffrage.
Hey, like in this movie?
kevlarman @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:41 am
It should be renamed and it's focus broadened. That way you take the focus off of it being JUST a military thing, something most Canadians support but aren't willing to ramp up to American levels and you DO offer something that builds upon Canada's strengths. Service. Service to fellow Canadians. Service to Mankind in both a defensive / military and a proactive / civilian sort of way. Providing security, unique Canadian know-how, and foreign development aid (the kind of foreign aid that actually builds nations and future customers of Canadian products and ideas... )
Have a mandatory two year service. Civilians can choose from two main categories. Civilian / government and military / national defence and sovereignty.
Two years as a Canadian soldier. These soldiers wouldn't be called upon for actual combat unless it was desperately needed or they signed up for it. Therefore you won't run the risk of these "mandatory" soldiers replacing the "volunteer" force of soldiers already in existence and supporting the main armed forces (Navy/Army/Airforce). No conflict there.
These soldiers would be there for assistance in natural disasters/emergencies, forest fire fighting, to assist the RCMP and other provincial police agencies as well as the border patrol and search and rescue services.
Two years as a Civil-Aide worker. These Canadians would be called upon to assist in civil work at home as well as international aid projects. They wouldn't replace foreign diplomats or their support staff. They would be just helping out our foreign affairs department folks deliver aid and development support worldwide thereby builiding relationships and parternships that could translate into further trade and technological exchange.
DerbyX @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:45 am
Robert Heilein had some very extreme political views on that subject. Not all his views were without merit mind you but he didn't seem to grasp alot of social concepts and society as a symbiosis but rather as a rigid heiarchy with his views holding sway.
The movie was great but it bore little resemblance to the book beyond a superficial militaristic society.
Arctic_Menace @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:54 am
$1:
As a kid now, it is completly easy to develope depression, anxiety, anger problems. Pretty much anything. Previous generations, all they had to worry about was there grades in a much easier school system, now you got to worry about school, parents, teachers, cool clothes, always got to make a good impression or you get casted as a reject by the students, and you always got to worry about if you are going to wake up the next day and got shot or stabbed.
That was America's worry for a long time, but now it's starting to be Canada's.
That was America's worry for a long time, but now it's starting to be Canada's.
Dude, what kind of crack have you been smoking?!
Back in the day, it was just as rough if not moreso!
The school system was not easier. If you wanted to pass, you'd better have straight A's...
They had to worry about their teachers who didn't tolerate shit and had every right to smack you with a yard stick, they had to worry about their parents expecting A's and you get B's and C's. And back in those days, parents would openly smack their children. School, cool clothes and making a good impression was also very important back then. There were bullies back then just like there are now. Kids were teased for having shitty hand-me-downs.
Compared to the "good old days", us kids have had it soooo fuckin' easy...
Mustang1 @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:06 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Robert Heilein had some very extreme political views on that subject. Not all his views were without merit mind you but he didn't seem to grasp alot of social concepts and society as a symbiosis but rather as a rigid heiarchy with his views holding sway.
The movie was great but it bore little resemblance to the book beyond a superficial militaristic society.
The movie was great but it bore little resemblance to the book beyond a superficial militaristic society.
Yeah, I know about the differences, that's why I did the Rico movie tribute
DerbyX @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:08 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Robert Heilein had some very extreme political views on that subject. Not all his views were without merit mind you but he didn't seem to grasp alot of social concepts and society as a symbiosis but rather as a rigid heiarchy with his views holding sway.
The movie was great but it bore little resemblance to the book beyond a superficial militaristic society.
The movie was great but it bore little resemblance to the book beyond a superficial militaristic society.
Yeah, I know about the differences, that's why I did the Rico movie tribute
A biiiig step down for the sequel.
martin14 @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:01 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
As a kid now, it is completly easy to develope depression, anxiety, anger problems. Pretty much anything. Previous generations, all they had to worry about was there grades in a much easier school system, now you got to worry about school, parents, teachers, cool clothes, always got to make a good impression or you get casted as a reject by the students, and you always got to worry about if you are going to wake up the next day and got shot or stabbed.
That was America's worry for a long time, but now it's starting to be Canada's.
That was America's worry for a long time, but now it's starting to be Canada's.
Dude, what kind of crack have you been smoking?!
Back in the day, it was just as rough if not moreso!
The school system was not easier. If you wanted to pass, you'd better have straight A's...
They had to worry about their teachers who didn't tolerate shit and had every right to smack you with a yard stick, they had to worry about their parents expecting A's and you get B's and C's. And back in those days, parents would openly smack their children. School, cool clothes and making a good impression was also very important back then. There were bullies back then just like there are now. Kids were teased for having shitty hand-me-downs.
Compared to the "good old days", us kids have had it soooo fuckin' easy...
aint that the truth.. right on AM
scarecrowe @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:08 pm
Mandatory learning of a trade (to support oneself if necessary) or into the military ala Germany.
MacDonaill @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:04 am
kevlarman kevlarman:
It should be renamed and it's focus broadened. That way you take the focus off of it being JUST a military thing, something most Canadians support but aren't willing to ramp up to American levels and you DO offer something that builds upon Canada's strengths. Service. Service to fellow Canadians. Service to Mankind in both a defensive / military and a proactive / civilian sort of way. Providing security, unique Canadian know-how, and foreign development aid (the kind of foreign aid that actually builds nations and future customers of Canadian products and ideas... )
Have a mandatory two year service. Civilians can choose from two main categories. Civilian / government and military / national defence and sovereignty.
Two years as a Canadian soldier. These soldiers wouldn't be called upon for actual combat unless it was desperately needed or they signed up for it. Therefore you won't run the risk of these "mandatory" soldiers replacing the "volunteer" force of soldiers already in existence and supporting the main armed forces (Navy/Army/Airforce). No conflict there.
These soldiers would be there for assistance in natural disasters/emergencies, forest fire fighting, to assist the RCMP and other provincial police agencies as well as the border patrol and search and rescue services.
Two years as a Civil-Aide worker. These Canadians would be called upon to assist in civil work at home as well as international aid projects. They wouldn't replace foreign diplomats or their support staff. They would be just helping out our foreign affairs department folks deliver aid and development support worldwide thereby builiding relationships and parternships that could translate into further trade and technological exchange.
)Have a mandatory two year service. Civilians can choose from two main categories. Civilian / government and military / national defence and sovereignty.
Two years as a Canadian soldier. These soldiers wouldn't be called upon for actual combat unless it was desperately needed or they signed up for it. Therefore you won't run the risk of these "mandatory" soldiers replacing the "volunteer" force of soldiers already in existence and supporting the main armed forces (Navy/Army/Airforce). No conflict there.
These soldiers would be there for assistance in natural disasters/emergencies, forest fire fighting, to assist the RCMP and other provincial police agencies as well as the border patrol and search and rescue services.
Two years as a Civil-Aide worker. These Canadians would be called upon to assist in civil work at home as well as international aid projects. They wouldn't replace foreign diplomats or their support staff. They would be just helping out our foreign affairs department folks deliver aid and development support worldwide thereby builiding relationships and parternships that could translate into further trade and technological exchange.
I pretty much agree with you. I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing for two years mandatory community or military service, for both young men and young women. I think it would help to better our communities here at home, and other communities abroad, while at the same time fostering a strong sense of national pride good citizenship in young people.
If I may add to your idea, after two years good service completed, I think there ought to be something in return such as a college or university education free of charge, the way they do in Europe, otherwise the youth will quickly come to resent the requirement and that will certainly not be good for the programme. Germany has mandatory community/military service, but afterwards you get to go onto university or trade school. After two years of service, they will have earned it.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:52 pm
MacDonaill MacDonaill:
kevlarman kevlarman:
It should be renamed and it's focus broadened. That way you take the focus off of it being JUST a military thing, something most Canadians support but aren't willing to ramp up to American levels and you DO offer something that builds upon Canada's strengths. Service. Service to fellow Canadians. Service to Mankind in both a defensive / military and a proactive / civilian sort of way. Providing security, unique Canadian know-how, and foreign development aid (the kind of foreign aid that actually builds nations and future customers of Canadian products and ideas... )
Have a mandatory two year service. Civilians can choose from two main categories. Civilian / government and military / national defence and sovereignty.
Two years as a Canadian soldier. These soldiers wouldn't be called upon for actual combat unless it was desperately needed or they signed up for it. Therefore you won't run the risk of these "mandatory" soldiers replacing the "volunteer" force of soldiers already in existence and supporting the main armed forces (Navy/Army/Airforce). No conflict there.
These soldiers would be there for assistance in natural disasters/emergencies, forest fire fighting, to assist the RCMP and other provincial police agencies as well as the border patrol and search and rescue services.
Two years as a Civil-Aide worker. These Canadians would be called upon to assist in civil work at home as well as international aid projects. They wouldn't replace foreign diplomats or their support staff. They would be just helping out our foreign affairs department folks deliver aid and development support worldwide thereby builiding relationships and parternships that could translate into further trade and technological exchange.
)Have a mandatory two year service. Civilians can choose from two main categories. Civilian / government and military / national defence and sovereignty.
Two years as a Canadian soldier. These soldiers wouldn't be called upon for actual combat unless it was desperately needed or they signed up for it. Therefore you won't run the risk of these "mandatory" soldiers replacing the "volunteer" force of soldiers already in existence and supporting the main armed forces (Navy/Army/Airforce). No conflict there.
These soldiers would be there for assistance in natural disasters/emergencies, forest fire fighting, to assist the RCMP and other provincial police agencies as well as the border patrol and search and rescue services.
Two years as a Civil-Aide worker. These Canadians would be called upon to assist in civil work at home as well as international aid projects. They wouldn't replace foreign diplomats or their support staff. They would be just helping out our foreign affairs department folks deliver aid and development support worldwide thereby builiding relationships and parternships that could translate into further trade and technological exchange.
I pretty much agree with you. I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing for two years mandatory community or military service, for both young men and young women. I think it would help to better our communities here at home, and other communities abroad, while at the same time fostering a strong sense of national pride good citizenship in young people.
If I may add to your idea, after two years good service completed, I think there ought to be something in return such as a college or university education free of charge, the way they do in Europe, otherwise the youth will quickly come to resent the requirement and that will certainly not be good for the programme. Germany has mandatory community/military service, but afterwards you get to go onto university or trade school. After two years of service, they will have earned it.
I don't think you would find too many guys serving or who have served willing to go to war with the likes of some of the total pinky losers on this site who could/would be drafted.
The military should remain professional and all volunteer. It doesn't need to be polluted by zombies or lefties diametrically opposed to the values of nationhood and military service.
It would be fun beating them up for a week then it would get boring and merely annoying.
Keep the military all volunteer.
Canadian_Mind @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:49 pm
Give folks a choice between 2 years of civil duties; which would include fighting forest fires, disaster response, maintaining federal infrastructure, etc; military manufacturing, whereby they would be involved in the construction of military hardware, be it ships, weapons and ammunition, or the extraction of resources for said weapons systems; and 2 years of Military service, all trades open.
Either way they aren't payed for what they do; however, a roof over their heads, food, entertainment, and possibly extra spending-money are all provided. But when they do leave their university or trades training is all payed for. In the case of where they decide they wish to stay in the military, their prior service would be payed for.
Most those who choose military service would likely be more pro-military anyways. I couldn't imagine someone like streaker ever choosing military, so we don't have to worry about the likes of him joining up. The worry would be the lardies and lazy folks. just give the kids the same scrutiny as you would give volunteer recruits. Those who wash out have to do one of the other two options.
Once you put the kids through all the training rituals, based on their performance, the best and most courageous and/or those who sign for it would go reg force, and the mediocre/spineless would go to the reservists. Rational behind this is to keep the ones who aren't good at fighting or to scared to fight off the battlefield.