Ask Lemmy

For a post that sparks good answers that I'm happy to see, I'm sad to see the post itself have so many down votes.

So you equally oppose the brutal conscription efforts of Ukraine's invader and occupier, Russia? Since you didn't mention it?

It is highly unpopular here to criticize Ukraine, and people kinda have good reasons for it, with all the far-right/trolls/tankies praising Russia and undermining Ukraine support.

Still, and though I support Ukrainians in a war made by Russia, conscription (it's always forced btw) is something I can't get over with, it goes against liberty, equality, solidarity, everything i believe in. Fuck armies, anywhere, anywhen, anyhow. It does not mean that they should be unfunded/unsupported/fought against, just that we have to remember that they are bad to the core, and that even when necessary, they should not get any glory, any power or any reward.

"Despise the infamous glory of laurel-bearing heroes, all assassins and pirates who terrorized the whole world". - La Paysanne, Gaston Couté

Anyway, i hope for peace in Ukraine, that they will get their previous frontiers, and that violences will soon come to an end, so that forced soldiers on both sides and Ukrainian civilians can escape this hell.

I'm pro national service - whether that takes the form of mail delivery, community work, fire service, environmental remediation (!!) there's a shitton of work to be done, give kids free education and get them enrolled for services and benefits and skim off the best for leadership. Or, military or federal security service. There's a ton of different ways for people to serve their country and we should accommodate all who are willing to step up.

I think in a war for survival you do what has to be done.

I am pro defensive conscription in the case of foreign invasion. I believe that thus far, Zelensky's administration has had to tread a fine line between preserving democratic ideals and surrendering the country to a foreign invader, but they've done the best they possibly could given the circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that in an invasion, everyone is on the front line, whether they want to be or not. Defensive conscription enables the best organized defense against the foreign invader, and provides a structure and resources for ordinary citizens to fight back. Uncoordinated underground efforts against invading forces rarely succeed, but properly trained citizens, with the full support of the country's military and defensive resources, do.

In a defensive war against an equal or more powerful enemy, everyone is needed to do the part the military organisation needs them to. For many it's their civilian job, for the rest it's whatever's needed, including the front lines (after training, well-equipped and well-led). War's ugly.

I'd be highly sceptical of any beatings occurring. Common sense suggests that an unwilling soldier you got to the front that way would likely bring more harm to the morale of their fellow troopmates, than benefit through their own efforts.

Being forced to die for a country I didn't choose to be born in isn't right and should never be the norm.

Ultimately, any country that is not willing to conscript their population when necessary to do so for defense, will soon cease to be a country. It is an evil, but a necessary evil. Place the blame where it belongs, on the aggressors.

at least its more equal than having people "volunteer" for service, even if the rich can still avoid it but its not like laws hold meaning to them anyway.

Very much against conscription. If the country is worth dying for, people will volunteer. Otherwise, it is cruel and unfair to force people to suffer for a country they didn't choose to be born in.

To clarify for the commenters who seem to think anti conscription = pro Russia, no, Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship, and conscription is unethical in all countries. Democratic countries should model the moral behaviour.

I think that conscription is fine where there's a military need for it.

I wouldn't say "it's the right decision" across the board, though.

Kind of like asking "What are your feelings on amphibious assaults? Good or bad?"

I mean, they're a tool. There's a time and place for them.

I don't think that conscription has some sort of intrinsic social benefits, which some people seem to. Nor do I think that it is morally-objectionable, which some others seem to.

Yes, that's why we have conscription. So in the event of an invasion we can compel citizens to serve 2-3 years of military service.

We could also do it the American way and make sure half the population is poor and that you need money for healthcare and university education. It's a bit like how you could get Roman citizenship if you served. I like conscription better.

I don’t think the vast majority of people are pro conscription. Some see it as necessary, but I wouldn't call that pro. That said, if other countries provided professional soldiers instead of just money, maybe conscription wouldn't be needed.