Anyone for Nasho? - Page 3

Psycho Chicken · 08-08-2006, 02:22 PM

Wow, you offically have no clue. You're telling me all the aussie soldiers were forced into fighting? Get real mate! NOT ONE aussie digger was conscripted during either of the world wars.

If the officers saw no time on the battlefield, how come there are officers with VCs and other such awards? I guess they rigged it or something.

As for having no business in WW1, you obviously have no grasp of the social and political attitudes back then.

Go back to playing with toy soldiers and let the people who actually know something talk.

Simmo · 08-08-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Wow, you offically have no clue. You're telling me all the aussie soldiers were forced into fighting? Get real mate! NOT ONE aussie digger was conscripted during either of the world wars.

If the officers saw no time on the battlefield, how come there are officers with VCs and other such awards? I guess they rigged it or something.

As for having no business in WW1, you obviously have no grasp of the social and political attitudes back then.

Go back to playing with toy soldiers and let the people who actually know something talk.

haha youre younger than me mate. i'm sure you've got a full grasp of the situation too. i refuse to comment on this because i was of the opinion that conscipts were taken for at least WW2, but i'm not well read enough to know the truth yet.

MITCHAY · 08-08-2006, 02:30 PM

Conscription will get them to the war, it won't however enable them to serve if they don't want to. What's the point of having people who have no interest in being in the army, fighting our wars?

gozza · 08-08-2006, 02:35 PM

The only time id be happy about a consriptive solution would be if an Invading Army landed on our shores.

Psycho Chicken · 08-08-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simmo

haha youre younger than me mate. i'm sure you've got a full grasp of the situation too. i refuse to comment on this because i was of the opinion that conscipts were taken for at least WW2, but i'm not well read enough to know the truth yet.

3 months militia service was about as close to conscription as it got in WW2. However, they weren't allowed to serve overseas. Many did volenteer to do so however. Both the first and second AIF were 100% volenteers.

Bucknaked · 08-08-2006, 02:43 PM

I'm not going to comment anymore. At the end of the day, I put more value on human life and life of my child, than I do on any political decision or legislation. If the patriotic don't like it, then I really don't care. I have my high moral ground and I'm sticking to it.

charles_wif_xf · 08-08-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Wow, you offically have no clue. You're telling me all the aussie soldiers were forced into fighting? Get real mate! NOT ONE aussie digger was conscripted during either of the world wars.

If the officers saw no time on the battlefield, how come there are officers with VCs and other such awards? I guess they rigged it or something.

As for having no business in WW1, you obviously have no grasp of the social and political attitudes back then.

Go back to playing with toy soldiers and let the people who actually know something talk.

I correct my claim about WW1, conscription was attempted but never passed during the run of WW1. I do apolgize for that. But WW2 did have conscription.

Read my post properly: the vast majority of officers, not all.

World War 2 was a different kettle of fish to anything we face today. State sanctioned terrorism isn't a justifiable reason to restart national service.

KOUPE76 · 08-08-2006, 02:59 PM

Agree totally with you Bucky, hence why I have no kids lol, at the end of the day we cannot compare WW1+2 to current, the good ol US of A will determine that factor coz we will be fighting their ridiculous battles.

Yeah,Yeah, I know some will come back and say without the yanks we are nothing bla,bla,bla but we are heading towards those lines and WW3.

Mick

XA Coupsta · 08-08-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

I'm not going to comment anymore. At the end of the day, I put more value on human life and life of my child, than I do on any political decision or legislation. If the patriotic don't like it, then I really don't care. I have my high moral ground and I'm sticking to it.

As I mentioned in my post I often sway from a Yes and No.

Bucknaked it was your posting around the importance you place on the life of your child, etc that really made me think - coz I'm a Dad too. And I then started to think "yeh I agree with you". And I possibly still do (for the moment....lol)

All I would perhaps query (and this is a question to both me and you) is - how have you and I been able to live and prosper in this great country and have a family (of which we both cherish dearly)??

It was through the sacrifice of others - serving their country in times of War so that you and I can do just that.......

Yet here we are saying we wouldnt offer that same sacrifice that was done for us and our family.

Just some food for thought maybe. And that is why I am finding I am often changing my mind on this topic. Not saying Yes is right or No is right or challenging your posts and opinions - I'm just saying it is a very deep topic worth much thought.

merlin · 08-08-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

Totally against it. I refuse to let me child be forced to join because of government policy and be sent to war against his will. This concerns me as a parent. If it's his choice to join the services, then i respect that and I support his decision. My father was in the RAAF, and I grew up as a RAAF brat. But I am not going to sit on my hands while my child is made to go away to war. I'm not having my family so the government has more soliders at it's disposal. Law or no law, my childs life is not there to be used in war times for a sacrifice. I will defend the life of my child, before I ever defend this country.

Agree 100% - if they want to volunteer then fine, but government shouldn't force the situation.

An interesting quote:

Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.
George S. Patton, (attributed)
US general (1885 - 1945)

turboute · 08-08-2006, 03:54 PM

I would have joined the Air force if I could, but due to complete deafness in my right ear it was never going to happen.

Also About joining the reserves, my brother just has, never realised how low they can get home loans after a being in service for a couple of years 4 years they get 3% loans and 8 years it goes down to 2% - Kinda wish I was eligable to join (just the reserves)

As for National service - I think everyone should hve to spend 3-6months doing basic training/ fitness etc. This would be mainly to improve society, If not done then people should loose status in society (loose citizenship like in StarShipTroopers????). Will also give alot of people career options that they never considered like navy trades/ officers even grunts. Either way I think it could help get rid of some dole bludgers...

Lumpen Proletariat · 08-08-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Mate, look at what the diggers did in WW1 and WW2. Not one of those was forced into being there.

No, they weren't forced to join but they joined under the delusion of fighting for king and country or wished to go on an adventure.

The horrors those men saw, both in the Dardenelles and later on the western front (Somme, Poziers, Mustard Gas etc) turned almost all of them into staunch anti-war people.

I have read memoirs of a soldier who landed at Gallipoli and later transferred and served with the Camel Corp in Palestine, no greater anglophyllic sycophant would you meet, however even he stopped his sons from signing up in WWII. A similar example is A.B Facey's 'A Fortunate Life'.

One of the greatest things about our country is freedom of choice, bought about by nearly 150 years of quasi-socialisim, sure, it is slowly being erroded but some fundamental's remain, including the choice whether I join the armed services or not.

We are not under attack, we have only been under attack at two populated areas, Sydney and Darwin.Bitter fighting occured in Papua New Guinea yes, at a time when the American's were resigned to give up all of the continent north of Brisbane and the British Government wished to keep Australian troops in North Africa.

How many young Australian's have died to serve the whims of duelling cousins? Inept British Commanders? or right wing American Hawks? For what purpose? For what ends?

I have the upmost respect for any man or woman who willfully chooses to go an serve in any armed force. To make the moral decision to train and attain the skills to kill and be in a position to be killed requires more courage than I would ever posses.

However, I do reserve the right, as a citizen of a democracy (of sorts) to excercise self determination of my future.

Brendan

Kommandant · 08-08-2006, 04:22 PM

I dont agree with national service being mandatory, simply because I dont think it would do much in the way of helping the youth of today attain respect or dicipline.

I know a lot of you guys are parents, so please don't get offended by what I say as this is just my personal view. I have formed these views while being a Security Officer and watching the public and being around them at their worst.

I see a lot of what the public does, be it in bars/pubs/hotels or just out on the street, I see fathers and mothers outside getting drunk every night, I see their kids running amok on the street with their friends, smoking and drinking, destroying public property and bashing people simply because they are bored.

The standards of parenting have gone down a lot these days, sure I have seen some great parents and my own parents had no hesitation in belting me when I done something wrong, however these days with the laws you cannot discipline your own child to the extend you could, say 10-20 years ago. I'm only 20 years of age, but my parents believe in smacking their child when they've done something wrong, and when I start my family I will also believe in physical punishment.

Now saying this doesn't mean I don't think other forms of punishment don't work, sure they do and I have much respect for parents who choose not to do it to their own children, however a lot of parents simply don't care what their child does.

I also don't mean you should belt your child to within an inch of his life, I mean a few smacks across the backside or legs depending on what they've done wrong is perfectly fine.

Also another big issue, especially for small towns and cities with kids under 18, there is limited to no outdoor entertainment for them, kids are bored and they have little to no imagination, its not like before when you could go outside and make your own fun with your friends, these days Computers and Xbox's run out kids lives, I see my mates and my mates younger brothers come home from school, get on the PC or xbox and spend the rest of their day sitting at them, their parents don't seem to mind.

The parents say 'oh well its better then them being outside damaging things and getting into trouble' and I agree with that, but instead of them being on their computers and entertainment systems, family values should be reinstated into the home, doing things with the family etc.

But then again people work more hours to support their family, therefore leaving less time for these activities.

When you analyse all this, you come to realise that the world is changing, peoples attitudes and hobbies change, people work more and have less time for their kids so they are happy to have them sitting infront of a TV or computer screen all day rotting away their imagination and their mind.

I guess it just really comes down to how much society has changed for the worse, which then can all be placed upon todays living standards and parents having to work so hard to give their children more then what they had growing up.

Well, anyway thats just my opinion

Gimmers55 · 08-08-2006, 06:16 PM

As a serving member, my view is, no to national service. I think the Defence chiefs also hold this view. As for conscription in WWII, if my memory serves me correctly (historically, not from actually being there), conscription was introduced then. The proviso was that those who were conscripted didn't have to fight overseas. New Guinea, however, was not considered overseas (!) so conscripts did actually fight and stopped the Japanese move south. They were often referred to as 'chockoes' by the regulars (that is, Chocolate soldiers) because they would melt under fire. They didn't and we can be proud of their achievements.

gozza · 08-08-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Agree 100% - if they want to volunteer then fine, but government shouldn't force the situation.

An interesting quote:

Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.
George S. Patton, (attributed)
US general (1885 - 1945)

was patton the crazy bastard that had 2 6 shooters? and would go out of cover and fire at helicopters with them ?

Casper · 08-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gozza

was patton the crazy bastard that had 2 6 shooters? and would go out of cover and fire at helicopters with them ?

He was once known to fire at a german plane with a semiauto pistol, yes.

Helicopters were in pretty short supply in Nazi held Africa

:

(although invented and flying they had yet to be refined to an operational status buy the Focke-Wulf company )

Lumpen Proletariat · 08-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

He was once known to fire at a german plane with a semiauto pistol, yes.

Helicopters were in pretty short supply in Nazi held Africa

:

(although invented and flying they had yet to be refined to an operational status buy the Focke-Wulf company )

I wouldn't have thought that Patton would be in 'Nazi' Africa?

The Yanks were in North Africa, but were engaged in fighting with the Vichy French colonies in North West Africa where as 'Commonwealth Forces' were fighting Rommel and the Afrika Corp more towards North and North East Africa (Tobruk and into Egypt?)

Lumpy

Casper · 08-08-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpen Proletariat

I wouldn't have thought that Patton would be in 'Nazi' Africa?

The Yanks were in North Africa, but were engaged in fighting with the Vichy French colonies in North West Africa where as 'Commonwealth Forces' were fighting Rommel and the Afrika Corp more towards North and North East Africa (Tobruk and into Egypt?)

Lumpy

I was keeping it simple.. and given that the US forces were trying to take back parts of Africa that were held by forces that were, at best, puppets to the German "nazi" regime... it's still nazi held Africa.

YuGoStaR · 08-08-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

And you young sir need your bum kicked till your nose bleeds....you have no ffnn idea about the real world.

IT does not owe you a living you owe it service because you have been given the right to participate.

If you don't want to participate...then I suggest you go live under a bridge or in Lebanon!!!!!!!!!!!

I owe nothing, and you know it, so stop trying to persuade me on a matter you have no right to. The beautiful thing about this country is that I am allowed to think what I want, or would you like to take that away 'oh great one', because us youngsters don't deserve to think with our own brain?

Lumpen Proletariat · 08-08-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

I was keeping it simple.. and given that the US forces were trying to take back parts of Africa that were held by forces that were, at best, puppets to the German "nazi" regime... it's still nazi held Africa.

Ah yep, I get ya now.

I believe the american's first got a shock when landing in Libya attempting to 'Liberate' the colonies. They thought they'd be welcomed. Dont think the Vichy wanted a bar of that...

Lumpy

Casper · 08-08-2006, 08:57 PM

no, operation torch wasnt EXACTLY what they yanks expected. Got to remember most were never 'blooded' till then either.. unlike the guys shooting at them

MO · 08-08-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YuGoStaR

I owe nothing, and you know it, so stop trying to persuade me on a matter you have no right to. The beautiful thing about this country is that I am allowed to think what I want, or would you like to take that away 'oh great one', because us youngsters don't deserve to think with our own brain?

1st...I never said you owe...I did say the world does not owe you a living.

Yes you are allowed to think and say what you believe.

I would never attempt to take that away from you I would however try to guide you to a better understanding of 'how the real world works'.

Capiche!

MO · 08-08-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

As I said earlier, I admire the people of Australia's defence force, but MO, if YOU really had an idea about the real world, you'd desert quicker than you could say howdy doody, if nasho's were reintroduced. I've been to too many places and spoken with people from many walks of life all around the world to know nasho's are a VERY bad idea in the current political/economic climate.

Just for info I served from 1966 to 1972....so if anyone has a real idea of the real world....I think I qualify..think about it.

As for deserting no way there was a job to be done.

Smoked · 09-08-2006, 12:00 AM

Food for thought, 2 years Service = Free uni degree?

Panda · 09-08-2006, 12:09 AM

I think everyone's getting confused between National Service and Conscription.

As I see it, conscription refers to being forced to serve in the Armed Forces and being sent to war. National Service is being trained by and serving in the Armed Forces. A 'serve for the Dole' if you like, not going to war.

Panda

charles_wif_xf · 09-08-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panda

I think everyone's getting confused between National Service and Conscription.

As I see it, conscription refers to being forced to serve in the Armed Forces and being sent to war. National Service is being trained by and serving in the Armed Forces. A 'serve for the Dole' if you like, not going to war.

Panda

National service and conscription are one and the same, Panda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

Just for info I served from 1966 to 1972....so if anyone has a real idea of the real world....I think I qualify..think about it.

As for deserting no way there was a job to be done.

I was reffering to today's situation MO when saying you or anyone for that matter, would desert. But even then, do you believe that Australia was under threat during your tour of duty? (this isn't meant to rile you up, I just want opinions from people that were there).

Funtime25 · 09-08-2006, 12:39 AM

At last a sensible polly.............it would teach kids, respect, morals............and discipline............whats the problem with that?..............most eorupean countries have compolsory national service and they dont have any probs.
Those opting out are nothing but scared of some discipline and morals.

Panda · 09-08-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

National service and conscription are one and the same, Panda.

I disagree with that statement, and so does Wikipedia

Conscription Link
Quote"Conscription is a general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority, but it is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require (very often, male only) citizens to serve in their armed forces. It is known by various names—for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as "the draft". Many nations do not maintain conscription forces, instead relying on a volunteer or professional military most of the time, although many of these countries still reserve the possibility of conscription for wartime and "crises" of supply."

National Service link
Quote"National Service in the 20th century referred primarily to conscription for military service. During that time, more than 100 million young people spent their emerging adulthood years in military service. In the 21st century, ever-increasing numbers of young people are enrolling in a service without guns, generally referred to as National Youth Service. In this civilian form of national service, which is now (May 2006) found in over 30 countries, young men and young women serve usually for a period of one year in a variety of public and social services, and in conservation and environmental programs."

Panda

Lumpen Proletariat · 09-08-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funtime25

Those opting out are nothing but scared of some discipline and morals.

I take offence to that. Merely because I hold a different view on compulsory military service I have no morals?

I'd also like to know where the line between being disciplined stop and being conditioned to blindy follow orders of another human no matter how foolish or reprehensible (The Nek, The Somme, Mai Lai etc) begins.

I'm quite capable of reviewing a situation and taking a course of action that I believe to be proper without have somebody with a giggle stick demean me for 3 years.

Brendan

merlin · 09-08-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funtime25

At last a sensible polly.............it would teach kids, respect, morals............and discipline............whats the problem with that?..............
.

As opposed to parents actually doing their job?