Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Having a debate earlier, my father and I have both come to the conclusion that National service should be reintroduced, based on certain criteria. The criteria we have come up with is as follows, that the person in question is not in further education and is not in full time work, at the age of 20, two years grace to find a job is after all more than enough. Assuming they fulfil all of these criteria we have come to the conclusion that the best place for them is national service, this should straighten them out a bit and is as many have so rightly said, “Just what this sort of person needs.” Should we reintroduce National service?
Well it would keep the kids out of the Bars and strip clubs. Isreal has something like this. I think this would improve America and the UK(where Ged is at):uhm:
Hey, yeah, that would be good. Damn hippies.
I also agree that corporal punishment is what our society needs to fix some problems, or at least reduce them. Criminals are getting off way too easily. Some jerk judge let a man get off with pedophilia rape with only six months in prison. That isn't right.
These jobless losers who contribute nothing to society should be put in their place. Force them into the armed forces, make them become something out of themselves. Seriously, lets just take out the trash.
I think national service is a good idea. Or if you don't want to serve, you can join Ameri-corps here in America..at least put something back into the community.
I really don't want to go into the military. Then again I plan to be in college until I'm 22 and find a decent job when I graduate, so i would not meet the criteria listed above. It may be a good idea to reinstate Nation service, but you would just have more people dodging the "draft", breaking the law. Also, with that many military personal, you would need to greatly increase military funding, which should not be priority over school, social security, health care, etc. IMO, the military is fine the way it is, current budget and all. To answer the question, once a troublemaker, always a troublemaker. National service would cause more problems then it would reduce.
National service would be a great idea, if two things were added: free vocational training or college education for service (stipulating that the student must have a "C" average to pass the program), and options other than simply enlisting military. Drafting all nonworking high school grads (or nongrads) directly into the military is beyond idiotic. It weakens our armed forces by creating troops that don't want to be troops, troops that are new and unskilled in vast numbers, troops that are physically, mentally, or emotionally unfit for service, and a whole bunch more federal employees to pay and give room and board, which equals more money into the military budget. That doesn't inclue equipping and training them. Small, well-equipped forces trained to a razor's edge are the most effective forces on Earth. That's what we have. Why would we add a whole bunch of new, unskilled, expensive soldiers? Instead we should implement mandatory national service and give the following options: 4 years military service, 4 years of AmeriCorps, 4 years in the Peace Corps, or free college (with the same stipulations as above) followed by being a teacher for 4 years.
1. The first option, military service, should have the following guidelines: a. Any individual who does not meet the physical, mental, or emotional standards for the armed service of their choice must pick another armed service or another option. b. Any individual who wants to become an officer may do so either by going to 4 years of college straight out of high school, then being commissioned, or by serving 6 years as an enlisted armed forces member and then going to Officer Candidate School, after which one would be commissioned. However, any individual who wishes to enlist must serve their full 4 year term before entering college. If, at any time, a college student who went straight to college out of high school is expelled, they will have to serve 4 years as an enlisted armed forces member. c. Upon agreement to service, recruits do not have the option of changing to a different service unless they wash out.
2. The second option, AmeriCorps, should have the following guidelines: a. Any individual who does not meet the physical, mental, or emotional standards for AmeriCorps must pick another option. b. Any individual who wants to join AmeriCorps may do so either by going to 4 years of college straight out of high school, then joining, or by serving 4 years and then going to college. c. Upon agreement to service, members do not have the option of changing to a different service unless they are found unfit for AmeriCorps.
2. The third option, the Peace Corps, should have the following guidelines: a. Any individual who does not meet the physical, mental, or emotional standards for the Peace Corps must pick another option. b. Any individual who wants to join the Peace Corps may do so either by going to 4 years of college straight out of high school, then joining, or by serving 4 years and then going to college. c. Upon agreement to service, members do not have the option of changing to a different service unless they are found unfit for the Peace Corps.
Basically, the military would get the same types that always consider the military. The Peace Corps would get the people who want to see the world, work in strange cultures, and make America look good. People who want to stay in America, or are physically unfit for rough climates, etc., go to AmeriCorps.
This would give America a full array of human resources, improving America, the world (which improves our image), and keeping us safe. The services would be strongly emphasize integrity, selfless service, and excellence in all things.
I do have to disagree if you are talking about a 'Draft' scenerio.
The Army, Airforce, Navy, and Marine Corp at this moment, are not prepared to re-instate a draft. Hell, right at the moment, they're having issues properly equipping the current amount of personnel.
17th June 2002
I have just one thing to say: you're all insane. I-N-S-A-N-E. With an I. Not a Q.