DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The Voice

**Ifroham4** · 01-11-2008, 08:10 PM

I think most people as they get older may not want to be a full-on member of the military so their civil or social service may be in training new recruits. BTW, what is wrong with looking after our own in civil and social conscription projects? I just think that your ideas are unreasonable and will never be approved by the Joe Smith's out there where mine since they are more reasonable and still serve the nation will. We are both on the same train and just this is your sticking point? Surely there is more?

I think that we are on the same train, but I am a hard bastard.
The sheeple will go along with universal military service because a propaganda campaign and social conditioning will lead the overwhelming majority of them to support it.
Five years in the HJ will have the young men keen to begin their service.

As for those who do not support it, nobody is keen to get a white feather.

There would be two tiers of citizenship. Those who serve/served would be full citizens with all the rights and entitlements.
The BDM (or whatever we call it) will programme girls to reject any male who is not an active member of the military in some capacity.
No military service, no get laid.

Those who did not serve would pay a higher level of taxation and be a second-class citizen in every way.
As for people not wanting to serve as they get older, I suspect from that thought that you have not spent time in uniform.
As a soldier grows older his role changes, because he is promoted and becomes more senior.
The day will come when he is incapable of swinging from tree to tree and letting rip with a Tarzan call, but he can still perform to requirement in less physical roles.
Also, there is nothing like serving in the army to keep a person exceptionally fit for their age.
I served in the reserve for about 10 years.
My father-in-law served until he was forcibly retired at the age of 55.
There is no way I could do at my current age what I did in the mechanised infantry when I was aged in my 20s, but with the natural progression of things I would have moved on to less physical roles as I grew older.
An old man can still be fit for his age and still perform as infantry, if he has to. He might just not be able to do a 10km run in full field kit to pursue a fleeing enemy. Consequently, older men would not be front-line infantry. They can, however, operate things such as transport and communications, even artillery.
You may not be aware that by the end of World War Two almost the entire network of German antiaircraft artillery was crewed by women, because the men were busy dying on the eastern and western fronts.
Look to the Home Guard and the Volksturm as examples for how older men can still be useful.
For something more up to date, look at Switzerland.

01-11-2008, 08:10 PM	#5
Ifroham4 Join Date Apr 2007 Posts 5,196 Senior Member	I think most people as they get older may not want to be a full-on member of the military so their civil or social service may be in training new recruits. BTW, what is wrong with looking after our own in civil and social conscription projects? I just think that your ideas are unreasonable and will never be approved by the Joe Smith's out there where mine since they are more reasonable and still serve the nation will. We are both on the same train and just this is your sticking point? Surely there is more? I think that we are on the same train, but I am a hard bastard. The sheeple will go along with universal military service because a propaganda campaign and social conditioning will lead the overwhelming majority of them to support it. Five years in the HJ will have the young men keen to begin their service. As for those who do not support it, nobody is keen to get a white feather. There would be two tiers of citizenship. Those who serve/served would be full citizens with all the rights and entitlements. The BDM (or whatever we call it) will programme girls to reject any male who is not an active member of the military in some capacity. No military service, no get laid. Those who did not serve would pay a higher level of taxation and be a second-class citizen in every way. As for people not wanting to serve as they get older, I suspect from that thought that you have not spent time in uniform. As a soldier grows older his role changes, because he is promoted and becomes more senior. The day will come when he is incapable of swinging from tree to tree and letting rip with a Tarzan call, but he can still perform to requirement in less physical roles. Also, there is nothing like serving in the army to keep a person exceptionally fit for their age. I served in the reserve for about 10 years. My father-in-law served until he was forcibly retired at the age of 55. There is no way I could do at my current age what I did in the mechanised infantry when I was aged in my 20s, but with the natural progression of things I would have moved on to less physical roles as I grew older. An old man can still be fit for his age and still perform as infantry, if he has to. He might just not be able to do a 10km run in full field kit to pursue a fleeing enemy. Consequently, older men would not be front-line infantry. They can, however, operate things such as transport and communications, even artillery. You may not be aware that by the end of World War Two almost the entire network of German antiaircraft artillery was crewed by women, because the men were busy dying on the eastern and western fronts. Look to the Home Guard and the Volksturm as examples for how older men can still be useful. For something more up to date, look at Switzerland.
	Quote