Finns are stupid

[Sirotnikov]

"We can't defend all the lands if we have less soldiers". Well, we aren't supposed to do that, we're supposed to fight the enemy where it counts. So basically these are the arguments. None of them makes sense.

well there's a lot going on at your borders:

- drugs traffic
- contraband traffic
- illegals
- russian spies and special ops

defending borders isn't as easy as it seems.


though I have no doubt that the army is just using that as pretext, and little of the soldiers are REALLY defending the borders.

I do think that with Russia as your neighbour, all your citizens should have basic army training though

[Pekka]

DUde, I did say that the border can be defended during peace time for the very purposes you just posted. That's obvious and should be done and is done, and it isn't done by conscripts but professionals.

There will be no real debate about it, because the dominating arguments are what I just posted. "It's good for you", "it's the only way", "it's traditional" etc... It should be a question between national security and the role of the citizen in this society. Not these "it's a good camp for young men!". WHat's that, jugend talk.

And the "threat" is supposed to be Russia. Or potential to develop to a threat. Well, ok, so why don't we treat the army professionally and get them equipped better and give them some money to do it? If the war would happen, there still would be a draft including all able men. So that still won't change.

But there would be more pros, there would be strategies that could be used with those pro troops etc. There are pro troops but why not more?

Daddies and mommies send their boys to army to be in a camp. What the ****? I mean seriously, they have to be 18 or older, what camp do they have to be sent to? And the civil service then or jail point shows me, that the state only wants free work force, that's it. It's good to do stuff when you don't pay people to do it, and then just throw them in jail if they disagree with it.

I'm all for better defense. Sure. But I'm not for free forced work force of all able men. I mean then what you get? High taxes, you get high taxes after that as well. So the trade off is... there's only offs.

BEsides, it's not a question of security, if we were worried about it, we'd use all the resources on professionalism and train the rest of the folks with menial things in two weeks. If you're going to cook food, you don't need to be in the army for a year to learn that ****. You can squeeze in the basic training in few weeks, you just learn to shoot. Dig a hole. Take cover. Put on a gasmask. Throw explosives. You don't need a long time so people learn that stuff.

So if security is the quesiton, sure, let's still train everyone, but make it only few weeks. The marching lessons don't matter, because there's no marching in a war. The way to behave in an office and how to do things according to the protocol doesn't matter either. Just learn that basic soldier stuff, like shooting.

Then, you could even have these guys come for another few weeks every few years or so until they reach 30 or something. Much better. Then of course full training for people who volunteer for it. This saves so much money and is more effective and more respecting of the citizens rights, and then these people get to study and work and not miss a year in between.

[Sirotnikov]

But there would be more pros, there would be strategies that could be used with those pro troops etc. There are pro troops but why not more?

i support the same for the israeli army.
as it is, it's a bunch of poor soldiers for the most part.

(while i do think that we have enough style and brains to beat the crap out of a good proportion of the worlds leading armies, assuming we cancel the size differences).

I'm all for better defense. Sure. But I'm not for free forced work force of all able men. I mean then what you get? High taxes, you get high taxes after that as well. So the trade off is... there's only offs.

well that is one point where i do support the draft.

a free workforce is good for the country.

i think that even if army service is cancelled, all eligible people should undergo 1 year of community service - be it a fire-patrolman or a medic assistant or a life-guard in a pool or a park ranger.

I think the state needs free-workers and i think that many people would be better off as persons to undergo such a thing.

[Pekka]

I disagree. I don't think it's such a good idea to force people to do community service for a year if they don't want to.

You could encourage it, you could give certain benefits for people who do it etc... but it should be based on volunteering. A state can go a long way to support this kind of action.

I don't agree with a state that can use the members as free labour force if it sees it fit. I think that's weird. It becomes weird when you say,well... I have other things to do... and the answer is, OK, then you'll go to jail. Right.

[Pekka]

Siro, but at least that would be honest. Even if that was the system, I'd disagree with it, but it still would be more honest. As in, we're going to make you work for free, period.

No excuses about security. And give benefits for people who do it. The daily "salary" was 3 euros. You know where that leads with most people? They actually have to use their own savings to get by that time of service. I know I lost money and so did most others who thought they should be able to get a cup of coffee.

I mean jeesh, not even free coffee. IT's almost like a business where you force peopel to go and spend their money really. And talk about negative value, since you pay taxes, you are paying for the army. So on top of that you also get to work there for free? And to get the figures more realistic, you have to calculate year worth of lost salaries in the real world.

[ZEE]

This thread reminds me of Lauri...

Goddammit, Lauri, come back to ' Poly!