Joining the Israeli Defense Force?

[waynesan]

After watching this I would like to sign up. Would they take a 55 year old man? Great recruiting tool. What say ye?

[ame]

[/ame]

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

IDF Rocks! My friend did some program where he was in it for 6 months, then came back to the states. He loved it.

[Mike.357]

maybe two years mandatory service should be instituted here.

[Marswolf]

I think that would be a good idea, Mike.

I used to oppose that concept, but I now think that would do a lot for pride in this country and common sense in evicting the gun grabbers from their political seats.

[Guest Len]

IMO, IDF has it right.

I doubt this thread was started as a place to discuss the role of women in the military, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of those who have served or currently do serve.

There is also much to be said for mandatory national service of some kind.

[Guest GT_Rat]

I all for women in the military but I don't think they should lower the physical standards for them to serve. I'm against mandatory military service. I wouldn't want to serve with people who didn't volunteer to be there and I don't think people required to serve have or even attempt to gain any kind of understanding of why military service is important.

[Guest Ghostrider]

Nomex on/

Women should absolutely be in all roles in all branches of the service.

When women settled for "equal rights" they got the short end of the deal. So suck it up and live with it.

No physical or mental test challenges should be changed. When I was in, a 55 year old guy had as much time to run 2 miles as did an 18 year old woman. So does that mean that a 55 year old guy is as good as an 18 year old woman, physically. Were I a female, I'd be majorly offended.

I can see arguments for and against mandatory service. But if we tie the right to vote to an honorable military discharge (ala Starship Troopers - read the book, it's a LOT different than the movie) it would not be a problem to find enough troops. Since you couldn't hold office unless you had a honorable discharge, then only veterans would be able to vote and hold office.

Yes, I consider this "fair", I don't think you should be able to make a decision about how to run the country unless you're willing to put your butt on the line for it.

Obviously, we'd have to do some "grandfathering" to be fair to those that "didn't know when they were 18" but, overall, I think it's the right thing to do.

Waiting the flame fest...

[saintsfanbrian]

I agree with women in the military, however, I also think that equal rights are just that regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, IQ, etc. I don't care who you are, if you want to join, join, but by God, you are held to the EXACT same standards as anyone else. No special treatment because it's "that time of the month" or because your great great great grandfather was a slave, or because you hurt your little toe this morning.

That goes for everything, not just the military.

[Mike.357]

do a lot for pride in this country

Spot on, (lways wanted to use that expression).

The two years service would not have to be military. There could be other options for serving, but certainly the majority of service would be in the military, I believe the majority would choose that option. There could be public works administration for fixing infrastructure, aiding in hospitals, maybe as simple as a trash detail, teaching etc....

There could be lots of ways to serve.

[The Rabbi]

The question was addressed to active and past duty personnel, but I'll toss my opinion in anyway.

Women have no place in the military. They create lots of problems and solve none. Their role in the IDF hasn't been wonderful or without problems either.

I am also opposed to universal service. Training people takes time and costs money. It also deprives the economy of some of its most productive citizens. In all, a draft is a very expensive proposition. I understand the ideal of inculcating values and all, and I think that's great. But conscription isn't the way to do that. The system we have now works pretty well.

[fury2neon]

Conscription or universal service or whatever you want to call it for the military or service organizations is just another name for slavery to the state. It runs against everything the nation was originally build on.

[bteague2]

IDF Rocks! My friend did some program where he was in it for 6 months, then came back to the states. He loved it.

I don't have one but, doesn't it say something on the US passport about forfeiting US citizenship if you join a foreign military?

[Marswolf]

Conscription or universal service or whatever you want to call it for the military or service organizations is just another name for slavery to the state. It runs against everything the nation was originally build on.

Missed this until now.

Actually, the nation was founded on the idea that every man would serve to defend the country. That's what that "militia" thing is about in the Second Amendment. No one was supposed to get a free ride while others defended their freedom.

[TGO David]

http://israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=13

Conscripted service, for the win.

[fury2neon]

Missed this until now.

Actually, the nation was founded on the idea that every man would serve to defend the country. That's what that "militia" thing is about in the Second Amendment. No one was supposed to get a free ride while others defended their freedom.

Militia service, defending ones home, is a lot different that being a conscript in a standing army. Militia service was alway based on protecting the town YOU lived in. Where as conscripted service, the draft, etc... is forced service in a national army. The continental army was all volunteers, the militias that fought with the continental army volunteered to leave their homes and go with the volunteer standing army. Thats a whole lot different than the British conscripted army or navy at the time. As Robin Williams said you would drink a couple of rum drinks and end up on an English ship and you had just joined the English navy.

Our conscription lottery is a lot more humane than the old get em drunk and drag then to Waterloo to fight method but its still forced service, i.e. slavery.

[Marswolf]

Actually, states always had the right to conscript you. Up until the national conscript acts of both the US and Confederacy in 1862, the way conscription worked was that the central governments of the nations would call upon the states for X number of soldiers and the states would raise them, by conscription if that was their choice, and supply those troops to the central government.

I think I've mentioned that I don't like the draft, but I also have no use for those individuals who hide behind some impractical philosophy and demand their right to not serve while refusing to help defend their way of life. Those people may and should find out what actual slavery is.

[The Rabbi]

I think one of the powers of Congress is to raise armies. That would seem to imply conscription.

[fury2neon]

Actually, states always had the right to conscript you. Up until the national conscript acts of both the US and Confederacy in 1862, the way conscription worked was that the central governments of the nations would call upon the states for X number of soldiers and the states would raise them, by conscription if that was their choice, and supply those troops to the central government.

I think I've mentioned that I don't like the draft, but I also have no use for those individuals who hide behind some impractical philosophy and demand their right to not serve while refusing to help defend their way of life. Those people may and should find out what actual slavery is.

I prefer Heilein's approach; those that volunteer to serve in the military can vote once their period of service has ended. I know this is not our method but it is something to work towards.

Helping to defend our way of life takes on many aspects. The military could not do what it does today without the scientist and engineers that I work for. The military would be going into combat with sticks and rocks without the support people behind them.

[fury2neon]

Actually, states always had the right to conscript you. Up until the national conscript acts of both the US and Confederacy in 1862, the way conscription worked was that the central governments of the nations would call upon the states for X number of soldiers and the states would raise them, by conscription if that was their choice, and supply those troops to the central government.

I think one of the powers of Congress is to raise armies. That would seem to imply conscription.

Just because the government does something and has given itself the legal ability to do something does not make it morally right.

If I had been called up in the draft between 18 and 35 I would have gladly served because it would have been my duty.

The government has the power to do many things that are morally reprehensible. And various people see those things as very different. I believe socialism is morally wrong and many believe that war in any form is wrong (I personally believe war can accomplishes something good when persecuted correctly; where as socialism slowly destroys society.)

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand this. First you write:

Conscription or universal service or whatever you want to call it for the military or service organizations is just another name for slavery to the state. It runs against everything the nation was originally build on.

implying that conscription is counter to the constitution or the founding ideals or whatever.

The you write:

Just because the government does something and has given itself the legal ability to do something does not make it morally right.

If I had been called up in the draft between 18 and 35 I would have gladly served because it would have been my duty.

The government has the power to do many things that are morally reprehensible. And various people see those things as very different. I believe socialism is morally wrong and many believe that war in any form is wrong (I personally believe war can accomplishes something good when persecuted correctly; where as socialism slowly destroys society.)

which implies that although the country did have the idea of conscription as an ideal, that ideal was wrong. And in the second post you invoke "morality" as a reason against conscription.

What morality is that? Pacifism? That is certainly one approach, although I dont agree with it.

I am an old fashioned Platonist who thinks the state has a duty to teach citizens and the citizens have certain duties to the state. Among those is the duty to fight the state's wars when they arise.

A draft is inherently inefficient economically and has all kinds of other problems. Which is why I think it is a desperate measure when everything else has failed.

[fury2neon]

I dont understand this. First you write:

implying that conscription is counter to the constitution or the founding ideals or whatever.

The you write:

which implies that although the country did have the idea of conscription as an ideal, that ideal was wrong. And in the second post you invoke "morality" as a reason against conscription.

What morality is that? Pacifism? That is certainly one approach, although I dont agree with it.

I am an old fashioned Platonist who thinks the state has a duty to teach citizens and the citizens have certain duties to the state. Among those is the duty to fight the state's wars when they arise.

A draft is inherently inefficient economically and has all kinds of other problems. Which is why I think it is a desperate measure when everything else has failed.

My philosophical point was that slavery is wrong. It is morally wrong and it was wrong according to our founding fathers. Slavery (actual trade in human beings) was left legal according to the constitution until that little bit of nastiness in the mid 1800's.

Conscription is a form of temporary slavery imposed of members of a society, (and no they don't have to be citizens see the Irish during the nastiness in the mid 1800's) that is still legal, or legal again thank you Jimmy Carter. That does not make is moral or right. It may be necessary and as I said if I were to be called up I would show up for my physical (and they would laugh me out the place...)

Since conscription is a form of temporary slavery I am opposed to it both on moral grounds and on the grounds that our constitution was set up based on individual liberty and slavery goes against that basis in all its forms.

I personally prefer Locke and Smith to Plato...

[fury2neon]

I still left off the moral part didn't I.

Conscription is immoral because it removes the ability to choose from the individual. The individuals basic ability to choose their own path is essential to the idea of personal liberty put forward by this nations founding father and the philosophers of the enlightenment. The individual if the smallest minority and should be protected from the tide mob rule.

[Marswolf]

God, this sounds like a time warp back to the drug-soaked 60s. Tie-dye is coming back. Maybe peace beads and draft marches are next.

Déjà vu all over again....

What I found during the unpleasantness of the Vietnam war was that most of the people opposing the draft on moral grounds either didn't want to go or had someone they knew who they didn't want to go. It was more a practical call than a philosophical one.

Personally, I volunteered for slavery. Kinda though it was my civic duty.

[fury2neon]

God, this sounds like a time warp back to the drug-soaked 60s. Tie-dye is coming back. Maybe peace beads and draft marches are next.

Déjà vu all over again....

What I found during the unpleasantness of the Vietnam war was that most of the people opposing the draft on moral grounds either didn't want to go or had someone they knew who they didn't want to go. It was more a practical call than a philosophical one.

Personally, I volunteered for slavery. Kinda though it was my civic duty.

If you volunteered then you were not drafted. And I agree with the civic duty but civic duty can be fulfilled in various ways.

I believe military service is a very honorable thing, I just think it is more honorable as a choice.

[towerclimber37]

*sigh*

this is a conversation that, if started anywhere else, is guaranteed to get ugly. I don't think it would here simply because of the caliber of people that are in the discussion.

that being said, I would support a draft, if it came around. why? because even though its a temporary form of slavery, I believe that we as a people have a moral obligation to protect both the ideals of the country that suckled us and the folks we call countrymen. If you don't like the ideals, then change them AFTER the fight, or get out and don't come back...we don't need ya.

when a culture progresses beyond the will to protect itself from other like entities it no longer deserves to be a culture and it will absorbed into other cultures.

Even the vatican keeps a standing army...albeit a small one, but its there.

Yes, I know its unsavory..but many things in life aren't savory and don't fit into the sterile, purile environment that many want to be in.

just my 2 cents..

probably ain't worth that on the open market.