Mandatory Canadian Military Service: Solving the Recruitment

by **Ipberg** » 04/ 23/ 02 6:58 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by True Blue: At the risk of stating the obvious, this would be electoral suicide. Try an expanded "Peace Corps" maybe or some mild "workfare" schemes first.<hr /></blockquote>The Peace Corps in the USA in the 1960s generated some of the most strident anti-war protestors! That's completely contradictory to the stated objective: conservative social engineering of young Canadians.

Along with all my objections to mandatory military service, here's another. The Canadian government has no moral authority to demand a commitment to military service from citizens before it commits itself to a vastly improved military. The Catch-22 is that a vastly improved military would have no problem getting more voluntary applicants than it needs and would turn away people. [ 04-23-2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Ian Berg ]

by **True Blue** » 04/ 23/ 02 7:01 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ian Berg:
[QUOTE] That's completely contradictory to the stated objective: conservative social engineering of young Canadians.
<hr /></blockquote>I would not be comfortable with that as an objective. I would not object to it as a by-product.

by **Ipberg** » 04/ 23/ 02 7:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WestViking: I think if you speak to anyone that has served a tour in the military they do not regret the experience or training they received. <hr /></blockquote>That isn't even the case of Canadian soldiers who served just in peacekeeping missions. Many express regrets about the ROE imposed on them which forced them to observe massacres without having the right to intervene unless they were attacked. Letters from many Canadian soldiers during the Great War, Second World War, and Korean War and documented testimonies of veterans afterwards reveal many have regrets about their wartime experiences.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Conscientious objectors have no case unless they are asked to go into battle. There are a thousand non-combat roles in any nations military.<hr /></blockquote>Conscientous objectors to war in general (the much-maligned "peaceniks") will refuse to serve the military in non-combat roles as well. They're opposed to having any role that supports military action, even potato-peeling in a ship's galley.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />ignore them unless they get unruly and riot. If they do, send in the army and the rioters become the next class of recruits. Riots will stop, pronto.<hr /></blockquote>Pressing people into the military like that in the British Empire went out of style around the same time as powdered wigs.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The AG figures that it will take 30 years for the military to recruit enough people to fill its ranks properly, even in its currently anaemic state. We have a serious problem that needs to be addressed very soon. <hr /></blockquote>I don't see how forcing people who don't want to serve is the solution. Commit to improving the conditions of soldiers in the military and provide them with better equipment to increase voluntary recruitment.

by **WestViking** » 04/ 23/ 02 10:53 pm

Those who demand rights earned through the sacrifice of thousands and are unwilling under any circumstances to serve their country are in the wrong.

As a society, we have always suffered the parasites that feed off the labours and sacrifices of others, but we are not required to exalt their moral sloth.

<img border="0" alt="[Viking]" title="" src="graemlins/viking.gif" />

by **Barry Stagg** » 04/ 24/ 02 12:27 am

To pick up on several good points raised: Principled conservatives must tap the wells of common sense patriotism in our citizenry. One way is to hold fast to a straightforward obligation to do Militia service-no social euphemisms like peace corps or volunteer foodbankers. The enthusiasm is there for the tapping by the courageous and principled conservatives among us.

by **True Blue** » 04/ 24/ 02 12:41 am

At the risk of stating the obvious, this would be electoral suicide. Try an expanded "Peace Corps" maybe or some mild "workfare" schemes first.

by **ian_vaughan** » 04/ 24/ 02 12:52 am

You seriously expect citizens to join the militia when the scum in charge of canada won't even let us have weapons?

by **LondonLady** » 04/ 24/ 02 1:01 am

If it turns out that the reason those four soldiers died was because we didn't have the little GPS thingies that American soldiers have to allow pilots to distinguish enemies from friends, because the Liberals were too cheap to buy proper equipment, and the Liberals have gone ahead and purchased these un-necessary Challenger jets for Chretien and company, then outraged Canadians will riot in the streets from coast to coast and demand Chretien's head!!

OOOOPSIE, wait a minute, I forgot, this is Canada. They'll do nothing.

by **WestViking** » 04/ 24/ 02 1:57 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ian:

You seriously expect citizens to join the militia when the scum in charge of Canada won't even let us have weapons?<hr /></blockquote>Of course not. Our troops have just as much trouble with their command as they do with 'enemies'.

The regular armed forces must be fully and properly equipped and then a militia organized, equipped and finally manned after we rid the government of Liberal parasites.

When the army and militia came to Manitoba to help with flood control and citizen rescue, we were appalled at the state of the equipment they were using. How they manage to perform in spite of the obstacles put in their path is a wonder that we do not want to perpetuate.

<img border="0" alt="[Viking]" title="" src="graemlins/viking.gif" />

by **Ipberg** » 04/ 24/ 02 4:36 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WestViking: Those who demand rights earned through the sacrifice of thousands and are unwilling under any circumstances to serve their country are in the wrong.<hr /></blockquote>And as a result they will vote against a party that promises to draft them.

by **Ipberg** » 04/ 24/ 02 4:44 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WestViking:
The regular armed forces must be fully and properly equipped and then a militia organized, equipped and finally manned after we rid the government of Liberal parasites.<hr /></blockquote>Besides saving money so it can be spent on Shawinigan resorts and Bombardier, maybe another Liberal military objective behind keeping the regular armed forces ill-equipped is to ensure only the most dedicated, practical, loyal and patriotic soldiers remain in its ranks.

by **WestViking** » 04/ 24/ 02 2:25 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ian Berg:

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WestViking: Those who demand rights earned through the sacrifice of thousands and are unwilling under any circumstances to serve their country are in the wrong.<hr /></blockquote>And as a result they will vote against a party that promises to draft them.<hr /></blockquote>And we should consider this a concern?

by **True Blue** » 04/ 24/ 02 2:36 pm

Well, it's only a concern if we want these ideas we have to actually have some implementation in the real world. Obviously it's of no concern if this debate is along the lines of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", in other words, completely dismissive of any practical implications.

by **WestViking** » 04/ 24/ 02 2:59 pm

The numbers of slugs and sloths out there is rather small. They tend to be very noisy which gives an illusion that they are far larger in number than they are in reality.

If we are to govern ourselves by what vocal minorities may take offence at rather than what we consider to be right, we will wind up as Liberals.

by **Ipberg** » 04/ 24/ 02 3:16 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WestViking: And we should consider this a concern?<hr /></blockquote>I'd rethink my support of the Canadian Alliance if this was party policy since a professional military whose members have asked to join is in every way superior to a drafted one except for the raw number of soldiers.

Who is online