Civil Service 76 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,192 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,013 Posts

6 Threads

#11 11 years ago
Karst;3561779 In a hotel? Why did they get a civil servant?

The hotel is property of the evangelic church. It was mostly a hotel, but was also used a lot for seminars, school-excurions, birthdays and sometimes even wedding-parties.




Young_Pioneer

Capitalize THIS!

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

547 Posts

0 Threads

#12 11 years ago

Good that you are doing some social work now :) . But basically you are saying that your country should completely depend on the military help of its neighbours without spending money on it on its own. I think this is quite egoistic.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#13 11 years ago

MrFancypants;3561869The hotel is property of the evangelic church. It was mostly a hotel, but was also used a lot for seminars, school-excurions, birthdays and sometimes even wedding-parties.[/quote]

Ah ok.

[quote=Young_Pioneer;3561874]Good that you are doing some social work now :) But basically you are saying that your country should depend on the military help of its neighbours. I think this is quite egoistic.

Let me put it this way: our neighbors make it impossible for any outside party to invade, simply because they're there. They don't even need to actively do anything. Either way, we don't really have any enemies anyway, since we are a small and neutral.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#14 11 years ago
KarstI don't need the military to learn any of these qualities. I get plenty of exercise, i like my co-workers, i do a variety of work. The military is, in a lot of places, simply obsolete.

Sure, but you would have to go into various courses and places to learn them, using a lot more money and effort. Nice how you totally rejected my arguments and think about the case just from the basis of just your life, I expected a lot more from you. In what "places" the military is "obsolete" anyways? Just for interest.

Russia is no direct military threat to Austria since they don't share borders and no bordering country would simply let them invade, not to mention that even if they were there would be nothing our tiny military could do.

You rejected possible reflection effects in Europe, especially in the world level and indirect attack. Can you guarantee that no neighbour of Russia will allow its troops in its soil in 15-20 years? In 1990 it was an impossible idea that Nato fighters would be flying over Estonia, well what's the current situation? In 1990 no-one seriously thought that the USSR would fall, well what happened? "Knowing" the next couple of years isn't even nearly sufficient for making extensive conclusions & factual points about the development in regional & world politics.

Österreichs Bundesheer can mobilize about 1,5 million men into military service and 49 000 men are reaching a service age annually, having good equipment like "Leopard 2" MBT's and "Eurofighter Typhoon" multipurpose combat aircrafts. Austrian armed forces is credible fighting force in very good defensive terrain, having ability of inflicting heavy casualties for an attacker and thus making whole invasion expensive and unthoughtable idea in the first place for aggressor nation.

Considering every country we share borders with is a member of the European Union (ok, except Switzerland and Liechtenstein but i really don't think they're a potential military threat), and they'd be economically doomed if they started a war within the Union, there is no reason to assume the military will ever be needed for homeland defense.

How can you know if the European Union is still around in 15 years or if it's only a shadow from its current self? A lot of trust was put into the League of Nations in 1921 and the UN in 1945, but what is the record of these two global organizations in preventing wars & conflicts? Besides, the European Union don't have security guarantees but just fine words in a nice-looking paper about giving support in times of crisis. Furthermore, reflection effects and possibility of indirect attack are again rejected.

What? Everyone could expect a big conflict was coming, everyone was preparing for it, it was just a matter of time.

False. Hitler wasn't in power yet but was just a small trouble maker for the German government (no more of a threat than Jörg Haider & his party for Austria today), Mussolini mostly concentrated on reforming his country like starting government employment programs & fighting against mafia, Stalin strenghtened the Soviet economy through the build-up of heavy industry, dams & state's farms and Japan was under the control of civilian government. Pacifism was popular ideology in many western European countries and it was just little over 10 years from WW I, the memories being firmly in people's minds. Leftist governments in France & Great Britain were cutting down the military funding for domestic social programs and the world was just trying to recover from Black Friday of 1929. There were no significant signs what so ever about next major global conflict in the start of 1930's or even 1935.

If you don't know the history, you can't understand the present and can't try to predict the future.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#15 11 years ago

I do civil service voluntarily at the moment. I feel it's more effective when you want to do it, as opposed to being forced.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#16 11 years ago

I think American civilians should be given the choice of mandatory military or mandatory civil service, but it should be required service for a period of not less than one year.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#17 11 years ago
Relander;3561902Sure, but you would have to go into various courses and places to learn them, using a lot more money and effort. Nice how you totally rejected my arguments and think about the case just from the basis of just your life, I expected a lot more from you. In what "places" the military is "obsolete" anyways? Just for interest.

I don't deny that people learn a lot of valuable stuff in the military, my whole point was that the military is not the only place that offers this. I'm just saying that for someone who doesn't want to join the military for one reason or another, that doesn't mean it's impossible to make those kinds of experiences. And i believe the military is no longer necessary here, for example. Or, say, Luxembourg. Small countries with no enemies in fairly tight unions. I'm not saying it should necessarily be dissolved, i just don't think it's really necessary anymore.

You rejected possible reflection effects in Europe, especially in the world level and indirect attack. Can you guarantee that no neighbour of Russia will allow its troops in its soil in 15-20 years?

Like i said before, if Russia directly invaded our military wouldn't help us anyway. And likewise, i believe Russia marching in the European Union would trigger a Cold War II-this time it's hot.

In 1990 no-one seriously thought that the USSR would fall, well what happened?

Again, that's not true. By 1990 it was certainly very obvious, maybe not in 1980.

"Knowing" the next couple of years isn't even nearly sufficient for making extensive conclusions & factual points about the development in regional & world politics.

I suppose you're right, but nonetheless i believe we can estimate well enough that our military won't be needed anytime in the near future. I could always be wrong, but i consider it extremely unlikely.

Österreichs Bundesheer can mobilize about 1,5 million men into military service and 49 000 men are reaching a service age annually, having good equipment like "Leopard 2" MBT's and "Eurofighter Typhoon" multipurpose combat aircrafts. Austrian armed forces is credible fighting force in very good defensive terrain, having ability of inflicting heavy casualties for an attacker and thus making whole invasion expensive and unthoughtable idea in the first place for aggressor nation.

Perhaps. But like I said, i simply don't see who could possibly be an aggressor. The whole thing with Russia is unlikely since Austria is not a member of the Nato. I think it's no more likely than in attack on Switzerland.

How can you know if the European Union is still around in 15 years or if it's only a shadow from its current self? A lot of trust was put into the League of Nations in 1921 and the UN in 1945, but what is the record of these two global organizations in preventing wars & conflicts? Besides, the European Union don't have security guarantees but just fine words in a nice-looking paper about giving support in times of crisis. Furthermore, reflection effects and possibility of indirect attack are again rejected.

You're right, the EU is not a military union of any sort. But -and that's the big difference between it and the UN- it is a quite tight economic union, making a war between two members economically disastrous for all parties involve.

False. Hitler wasn't in power yet but was just a small trouble maker for the German government (no more of a threat than Jörg Haider & his party for Austria today), Mussolini mostly concentrated on reforming his country like starting government employment programs & fighting against mafia, Stalin strenghtened the Soviet economy through the build-up of heavy industry, dams & state's farms and Japan was under the control of civilian government. Pacifism was popular ideology in many western European countries and it was just little over 10 years from WW I, the memories being firmly in people's minds. Leftist governments in France & Great Britain were cutting down the military funding for domestic social programs and the world was just trying to recover from Black Friday of 1929. There were no significant signs what so ever about next major global conflict in the start of 1930's or even 1935.

Still the situation is not comparable. The First World war was still vivid in everyone's memories, the reparations still had drastic effects on the German economy rendering many angry at the former victorious powers and increasing support for radical parties. At the very latest in 1933 when Hitler came to power it was obvious that Europe was in for rough times, it doesn't mean that everyone knew a war was coming but it is certainly nothing like the economical cooperation and extended period of peace we have now.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#18 11 years ago
Anlushac11;3561923I think American civilians should be given the choice of mandatory military or mandatory civil service, but it should be required service for a period of not less than one year.

seconded. Acceptance into public office should require at least an 8 year military or civil service stipulation.




Smitty025

The local Paultard

74,515 XP

24th May 2003

0 Uploads

6,469 Posts

0 Threads

#19 11 years ago

Karst;3560915My reason is because i don't want to lose my American citizenship which of course i would joining any foreign armed forces.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Check it.

[QUOTE="Roaming East"]Acceptance into public office should require at least an 8 year military or civil service stipulation.

I disagree, I feel anyone who wants to run for office should be allowed to do so. What would he/she gain from those years? If they don't already understand government and have a plan for their political future, then they are problably not even running. Sure, maybe they get a different perspective of the waste that exists in government, but what does that do? Everyone knows there is waste, and there are always politicians calling for change. Unfortunately, reelection is an important factor in our process, and racidal solutions (nearly any solutions actually) are rarely even officially proposed, nevermind enacted.

I also disagree with the idea that there should be compulsory service in the US. I firmly believe in my right to participate in government, yet I also firmly believe in my right to not participate in government. I enjoy the idea of the US as a free country, where I choose what I want to do with my life, not where the government tells me how to spend some of it. If I want to run for President, I can. If I want to live in my house in the forest for the rest of my life with minimal outside contact, I should be able to. Now there are, of course, certain situations where the government should be able to require service from me. War where there is a threat to my country. If I do not care about a genocide then I should not have to be involved. It sounds harsh, but who are you to tell me that I need to save people in Africa? (Darfur comes to mind) Personally I would participate in that kind of service, but if someone does not want to, then they should not have to.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#20 11 years ago

Smitty025;3562107Not necessarily. Check it.

I disagree, I feel anyone who wants to run for office should be allowed to do so. What would he/she gain from those years? If they don't already understand government and have a plan for their political future, then they are problably not even running. Sure, maybe they get a different perspective of the waste that exists in government, but what does that do? Everyone knows there is waste, and there are always politicians calling for change. Unfortunately, reelection is an important factor in our process, and racidal solutions (nearly any solutions actually) are rarely even officially proposed, nevermind enacted.

I also disagree with the idea that there should be compulsory service in the US. I firmly believe in my right to participate in government, yet I also firmly believe in my right to not participate in government. I enjoy the idea of the US as a free country, where I choose what I want to do with my life, not where the government tells me how to spend some of it. If I want to run for President, I can. If I want to live in my house in the forest for the rest of my life with minimal outside contact, I should be able to. Now there are, of course, certain situations where the government should be able to require service from me. War where there is a threat to my country. If I do not care about a genocide then I should not have to be involved. It sounds harsh, but who are you to tell me that I need to save people in Africa? (Darfur comes to mind) Personally I would participate in that kind of service, but if someone does not want to, then they should not have to.

Well for one, id prefer the guy who has unlimited control of the US military to at least have an inkling of what it does. Pretty boy Bush wouldnt have ever gotten office if that simple stipulation was met same goes for a bunch of the douchebags who have been president. its a simple requirement in theory to keep the silver spooned from setting up ruling dynasties that are disconnected from the average american struggle. Your Kennedies Bushes and others hold office indefinately through the family lines and their leadership abilities sharply degrade with each generation because each suceeding generation grows up more pampered and above the law than the last.