Wikileaks releases video of US troops gunning down civilians and reporters

From what i already knew about national service before my apparent anal communion, and from a brief amount of research that i did upon you informing me of it, i gather that it would involve all men (with those who aren't married being called upon first) being made to serve in the military. In terms of the average standards (both moral and emotion) of troop, do you really think that our army would be better off if it lowered it's standards to anyone male and of a certain age?, would we be better served by young men whom aren't even certain enough of being able to cope with what will be asked of them to volunteer?
The less able they would be to cope, the more likely that they would seek personal Solis in demonising the enemy to make killing them easier and the more likely they are to create mental barriers between themselves and the enemy.
Taking young men whom are struggling to cope in a civilian environment in their own country and then forcing them into war may bring out the good and shining potential in some, but for most it would probably be a soul twisting and agonizing experience that brings them down to the level of those Americans in that video.

 

how is it lowering the standards?
intelligent people who would usually not join up because they had good jobs would also be in there.
are you saying that our army in the 50s was poor?

 

I think that it would be lowering the standards because the army would mostly consist of people whom aren't confident enough that they would cope to volunteer themselves; if you join the army voluntarily then you have at least shown that you are willing to be responsible for the consequences and that you know that you are putting your life on the line. People being forced out to war without any say in the matter would possible feel less inclined to exceed at their jobs, but rather just get on with it; they would possible feel the army has no right to expect too much from them as it was not their decision to fight.
I think soldiers were better conditioned for war than my generation; they had a more character building education system that wasn't mired in redtape and society wasn't as bureaucratic, soldiers were also better treated by the government and had more support from people generally in the 50s. I can't seem to find any statistics on mental health of soldiers back then but i've never heard of illness being notable by its numbers in the 50s; so i'm guessing it wasn't very widespread. A few years into the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mass stress related mental conditions began to be reported because of factors such as soldiers being forced to do too many tour successively, not having proper equipment and feeling under valued and not receiving enough support and help.
There are people at my college who moan when our tutor makes us stay ten minutes late to finish work, and whine because their latest Facebook proxy has been blocked: how long would they have to be out in Afghanistan before it got too much and they cracked? I'm not excluding myself from this either, although don't think i'm a very high-maintenance person and fairly resilient, i know that i wouldn't cope in Afghanistan under the conditions that our soldiers face.
This is apart from the fact that our government can't even give the correct/enough equipment to the soldiers we already have; there's no way they could afford to start taking on thousands more without either allotting more money to them than we can sustain or (more likely) plunge standards even further.
As for intelligent people joining up who usually wouldn't, it would work great for some; but for most it would be unlikely to bring out the best in them given that they would be forced into it. Apparently, in the 50s you were given time to complete apprenticeships and the like before you had to be trained for the army; maybe the extra time to grow up would lead to academics being highly valued members of the army, i'm just not sure though :\
I sit next to a guy at my college who says he wants to join The Signals at the end of our IT course instead of studying more, he is easily one of the most intelligent people i know and he's choosing to join the army; i don't think that our army is starved of intelligent people at the moment. Representatives of the army came in to talk to us a few months ago; they talked to our class mainly about positions for communications specialists and engineers (i suppose they thought that we'd be more likely to be interested in those roles because we're studying IT), the amount of training that it was explained we would need for these roles (or any specialist role in the army) would pretty much ensure that the soldiers whom complete training have enough skills anyhow; regardless of whether they did well in school (although good qualifications are necessary for some jobs).

I don't remember that program too well, the last time i watched it i was like 13. I remember this one guy who was completely arrogant and disobeyed and gave cheek at every opportunity; he was actually thrown out of the camp and never heard from again. I also remember a really lazy fat guy who was the same but also refused to do any of the exercises; i think he got thrown out too but i'm not sure...
I recall there being a lot of success stories (or at least they seemed to have been reformed), but for some of those guys their behaviour before the show was so abysmal that even teaching them basic courtesy would be considered a massive improvement; and that doesn't necessarily mean that they would make good soldiers. I'm not sure how to feel about them being given the choice of the army over prison; one one hand it would stop many young men whom have become criminals though are still ultimately decent people turn their lives around, on the other hand it's suggesting that the army views criminals worthy of representing our country. I suppose it depends on the individual in question.

 

thats exactly what im talking about, people today couldnt cope with it? they would soon learn and would take those skills/morals into the rest of their life. we haven't evolved into weaklings in 50 years, were the same as we were back then.
national service made our grandparents the people they are.
look at crime statistics, violence, divorce rates etc, national service had a LOT to do with that.

 

In retrospect i probably should have thought it through more before posting "an army of feckless chavs taken in by the army-", it seems pretty ignorant now, i was talking out of my arse; it was the idea of the people that are doing thinks like knifings and stuff on the news being given a gun and allowed to wear a British uniform. I don't think that it would be possible practically these days though (or at least not without massively increasing army funding and restructuring it). Although having a greater number of soldiers would help ease the workload in a war and thus may help bring down the number of stress related mental health problems; so i may have been wrong in suggesting mental illness would increase in my previous post. It would take more than national service to better this country though; decreasing the funding that prisons get and ceasing to run them like hotels would be a start, so would bringing back the death penalty for murderers and rapists, but i don't want to sound like a right-wing nutcase so i'll stop there.

 

something we agree on.
i also think we should stop sending out millions everytime some country has an earthquake or other disaster. Our hospitals dont have the funding they need so sending that money elsewhere is ridiculous.
if we had the money then not a problem.
ive got a lot more to say too but this thread isnt the place.

 

it works with other countries so why not bring it back?
because of all these do-gooders and human rights activists that why.
"no you can hurt that peadophile that raped, tortured and murdered 12 kids, hes got his human rights! were going to give him a new identity so he is safe"
WTF!?
same for national service - everyone has the right to choose. well sorry but i was forced to go to school, whats 2 more years serving my country?
i had qualifications in engineering so i joined REME, people with IT qualifications would join something relevant.

 

But how could it feasibly be implemented? I don't think the government is taking care of the troops we have particularly well (in regards to medical care and other facilities such as housing) and as i brought up earlier; our troops don't have enough equipment as it is, how could the government afford it?

I agree, i think people discard their human rights when they start behaving like monsters. If it were up to me, paedophiles, rapists and murderers (and also people whom knowingly help them or hide their crimes) would be given the death penalty (regardless of their age or gender, although pregnant woman should be exempt until they've had the child).

 

Then it won't be happening in our lifetimes

 

it will if everybody gets off their arse and votes

 

But the main parties have all been involved in some sort of financial scandal quite recently. I wish that we could vote individuals from whatever party we like into various government positions instead of just MPs and the next Prime Minster and their whole party. Every party has it's share of money grabbing scumbags, but it's their leaders that decide whether they get thrown out or punished at all instead of the public (unless the police get involved and try to make it look like they're doing something about it).

People whom would choose to watch that rubbish instead of voting probably aren't registered and/or don't care anyway. I envy the Australians and their system (everyone has to vote if they are adults), despite the fact that it would be forcing people to do something i can't really see it s immoral; if someone said to me that they don't like the idea of being made to vote, i would just point out places like China and Iran where people protest and die for the right to vote for their leader.

 

isnt that what local elections do?
my area is run by conservatives

 

Yes, but only for MPs. Whomever is Prime Minister can decide whom the Home Secretary and the Chancellor is (from their own party) without putting it to a public vote; they could choose to reward a close ally for their loyalty by giving them a high ranking job in the cabinet rather than give the job to whomever would do the best in the position.

I know, but not every MP in those parties was fount to be found wrongfully claiming expenses. I wish that we could have a coalition government consisting of the best people from all British parties, the Prime Minister wouldn't be able to apoint or dismiss anyone; decisions like that would be for the public. The public would also be able to dismiss any government figure from power at almost any time (i'm not sure how that would work; perhaps by having an online voting system regulated by an independent body that would follow public opinion and set up votes according to our will) Although, whilst i'm at it i may as well wish a flying car and a pet dragon; i'd be about as likely to get them.

Exactly

 

democracy doesnt work in todays society, whos up for a dictatorship?

 

Lol, until we get rid of Labour at the election we're already under one.