[NOT]

...glorified advertising brochure, designed to sell the party to the electorate, not to describe what the party stands for, let alone what its leaders actually believe.

 
When has that ever NOT been true of any party platform?
 

Exactly my point.  So to compare the manifesto of one party (Italian Facists) with the actual beliefs of another is pretty meaningless.

Even comparing manifestos would be pretty meaningless - like trying to choose a car soley by comparing the adverts in the Sunday paper.  They are all trying to tell you what they think you want to hear, not what they are really like.

You're not comparing like with like.  A manifesto is a glorified advertising brochure, designed to sell the party to the electorate, not to describe what the party stands for, let alone what its leaders actually believe.

In a way, yes. In reference to computer programming, it doesn't take 3 years to train. Someone can learn it in a few week, and be writing programs for the military in no time. You learn a skill, and perform the skill for the military for a specified number of years.

For who's benefit?  If the training is small, it's not for the individuals benefit, and we've established above that it doesn't look like the military get much out of it.  You only need so many unskilled computer programmers in a team.

If 12 years of sport/PE education at school hasn't achieved that, what makes you think that 9 weeks in boot camp will?

The apathy of the PE Coaches vs. the Drill Sergeants makes me think that.

Yeh - Drill Sergeants can use techniques that school teachers can't because they contravene all ideas about the rights of an individual not to be humiliated etc.   But that isn't going to build a love of exercise.

I've no doubt that many will benefit, and that the vast majority will survive, but if you are going to compulsorly take up 3 years (or whatever) of peoples lives you need to demonstrate that almost all will benefit at least as much as they would have if they were allowed to do whatever else they were going to do with that time.

Well, how can I put this... why? This is compulsorily military service. Why do they even HAVE to get a benefit?

Because that was your justification for doing it.  If you are going to force people to give up three years of their life, then someone better be getting something out of it, other than drill sergents getting their fix for their power addiction.

You make a good point. It could be argued that this is more for the people themselves the Armed Forces, but I’m not going to open that mess.

If that's the case, then people need to be honest about it.

The requirement to graduate the Air Force Boot Camp, as told to me by a recent graduate:

Run a mile in 17 minutes in formation
30 push ups (No time limit)
30 sit-ups (no time limit)

If this is really what's expected, your armed forces must be far worse than their reputation.  You can walk a mile in 17 mins for crying out load.   If these really are the minimum, and I have to admit I'm sceptical, then the expected surely must be far higher, with a corresponding presure to achieve.  Otherwise the US military would get trounced the first time they encountered anyone skilled enough to hold a gun the right way around.

Anyways, they did a piece of cake obstacle course for a few days, the most combat they learned was to stab a tire with a bayonet, hit it with the butt of the gun, then move on. The did one night of what is basically a military version of spotlight for battle training (flash lights taped to the end of the gun, they didn‘t even bother with paintballs). Even someone with extremely limited Athletic ability can do the Air Force Boot camp, and learn a skill such as Computer Programming in the process.

So, what you are proposing is, essentially, another 3 years (or whatever) of compulsory schooling, except designed by the military instead of educators?  

Ouch, I am sorry to hear that. Do you think it has something to do with the alleged “hole in the Ozone Layer” you have over there? Keeps people from playing football and surfing and such?

I suspect its more to do with watching a lot of TV, eating fast food 'imported' from America, and driving everywhere instead of walking.

It wasn't meant to make them lose weight, just to get them into a health habit they hopefull gain.

If 12 years of sport/PE education at school hasn't achieved that, what makes you think that 9 weeks in boot camp will?

What do we do with them? Give them a list of requirements or each boot camp, and let them pick the Air force. That is what we do. Besides, tons of lazy, clumsy, out of shape kids survive boot camp. And then they leave, they come out better for it. My Best Friend in High School Opie in an example. He was skinny, lazy, and barely graduated high school. He is now doing clerical work in the marines. This skinny kid that could not run a mile without stopping survived one of the toughest boot camps the US has to offer, and went on to get 2nd in his class in post-basic training! The only time he was second in high school was when he was 2nd to last! My immature, out of shape, clumsy, goofy best friend is no longer a boy, he is a healthily, hard working man, who, for the first time in his life, has a goal. You are talking like you think people do not have the ability to pass boot camp, they do. Granted, there will be kids who can’t take in mentally or Physically, and that is truly unfortunate, but the vast majority of them can. Also, with the knowledge that they WILL be going through boot camp, we can start preparing them sooner.

I've no doubt that many will benefit, and that the vast majority will survive, but if you are going to compulsorly take up 3 years (or whatever) of peoples lives you need to demonstrate that almost all will benefit at least as much as they would have if they were allowed to do whatever else they were going to do with that time.

I had a reply to each of your comments, but after rereading what I had written, I realized I can sum it up in one sentence: The Military would be greatly changed to accommodate this new addition to the force. On top of that, from what you have said, it sounds very likely that the Military down under is very different from the one here in the US. We train our boys right out of boot camp. They are shipped off and trained in whatever field it make be. Medic, clerical, radar reading, etc. Even the grunts have post-bootcamp training.

I realise that, but you are going to have a heck of a lot of very inexperienced people/grunts to a very small proportion of experienced & highly trained professionals.  In fact, you'll presumably have even less of your professionals 'in the field' doing whatever it is they do, because more of them will be used up in training your conscripts, making the proportions even worse. Does a modern army really have a realistic need for that.

No one would be out of shape, because I have the feeling with the knowledge of mandatory boot camp in your future, you would try to stay in shape.

Never happened before in the days of 'national service'.  But I wasn't particularly talking about fitness, but about 'athletic ability' for lack of a better word.

Do you realize in America, the obesity problem has been labeled as an epidemic? That’s right. No joking. The media will refer to the over weight problem in America as the “obesity epideictic” with a straight face.

Australia, once a highly athletic nation, has virtually caught up in that regard  

Nine weeks of the worlds most hard core fat camp is just what most of these kids need.

You don't cure obesity in 9 weeks.  What you'll do is humiliate those kids, make them feel even worse about themselves, and make the matter worse.  If they loose serious weight in that period, the vast majorit will put it straight back on again - weight loss has to be desired and achieved over a long period to be effective.

Of course, some kids do ahve serous problems that make working out harder. And like I said, they will have other options.

WHere do you draw that line?  What are you going to do for the kids who simply can't run fast/do 100 pullups/climb rope ladders/hit a baseball/etc because they simply aren't athelicly built.  (I'm NOT talking about disabled kids here, or the obese, but kids who simply aren't talented in that area.)  What national service has done in  the past is waste 3 years of their lives giving them hell.

Ebia,
Question:  How do they handle the military in your neck of the woods (or prairie or sand); do you have an all volunteer army?  

In England or Australia?

Either way, yes - both are entirely professional + small volunteer armies (+ mercanaries in the British army, in the form of the Gurka regiments).

The UK hasn't used conscripts since Korea I think.  Australia since Vietnam.  Australia didn't even conscript people for the first world war.

If you join the army where you live, how long is the commitment?  Can your government ‘recall’ you after you’ve served?

Don't know to either question.

One other question – hasn’t your government now banned swords without a permit because young thugs took to them after the gun ban?

It's "always" been illegal to carry offensive weapons in the UK - a law that works well despite being necessarly vague.  Guns are pretty much completely banned outside shotguns and gun clubs.  Gun use amongst youths has never been common in the UK.

In Australia guns are similarly effective limited.  Knife laws vary from state to state, but concern carrying them, not use in the home.

There are so many wonderful quotes in the bible about what God does for us, I'd like to share some of mine. One is; "Therefore, I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than clothes? Look at the birds or the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?"

One of the hardest biblical instructions to put into practice, I think.

I am not sure how the kids are Down under… I think it would aid more then a few, even for those who do not realize it.

I didn't say few.  I've no idea how many except that it's neither all nor none.

Most go to College for some semester before dropping out. They have no goal for the future, no direction. My best friend also did not pass High School now he is 3rd in his class in the Military. He is one of the many examples. I know people who had no goals and where working in a factory until they joined the military, and it gave them a direction. Is it for everyone? No. But so what. A little physical fitness and discipline never hurt anyone.

Well, I'd say army discipline does hurt many - it is, by necessity, a system designed to get people to follow orders without question, and to be prepared to inflict violence on others.  Neither intrinsically good qualities for decent citizens.  On top of that it is intensely humiliating for those with little physical aptitude, just as school sport is.  Personally I think we should put the minimum number of people through military training that we can possibly manage with.

It is also a huge waste of time for those for whom it isn't right.  Should we force everyone to do first year medical school incase that's right for them.  And force everyone to spend a year painting or writing a novel in case that would improve them, etc, etc.

Normally, when this topic comes up, the idea of Military OR Peace Corp comes up.

What does Peace Corp entail.  (Serious question for those of us outside the US).

Some are in the Military as consensus objectors, medics and such. Here in America, the Air Force handles a lot of the space program, you can join the Air Force, as a non-combatant, in a Space program with little or no relation to War. The Navy does some deep sea exploration. The Coast Guard and National Guard are involved in rescue operations, from storms at sea, natural disasters, etc.

I'd have thought that those would only be able to take a very small number of unskilled conscripts.

No, please, lets here what you have to say. Taking into account, of course, exceptions will be made for the handicap and those otherwise unable, some being except, while others being giving jobs for suited to their ability.

1.  Conscript armies are nothing like as effective as professional ones.  Part of the reason the US, Britain, Australia, etc have walked over the opposition so easily in Iraq, the Falklands etc is that difference.  Modern warfare is a highly skilled business, not a question of brute force.  Israel is about the only country in the world that manages to have a modern, effective, conscript army.
2.  Why should all have to go through military service because some would benefit from it?
3.  What effective arrangements are going to be made for those with moral objection to warfare, and how will you prevent that being abused by others who just want to escape from the chance of being killed?

I have yet to see a definition of god in 3 pages of responses. Way to dodge the question. I will not respond until i see one.

You make statements, claims, and "proofs", and refuse to address the points raised about them.  You apparently have less than a seven minute memory of what you said yourself, but refuse to address it when caught on the point by two posters.  You attempt to dictate how others respond to your post.   Spot the Troll.

Different bits clearly require different approaches.

Since when does having to consider context amount to being irrelevent?  You can't understand Dante's Inferno without understanding the city and time he lived in, but that doesn't stop it being great literature.

Paul made a point that no longer applies to today's culture - it is therefore outdated.

The purpose Paul intended to fulfill by saying that in his letter may be outdated, but that doesn't mean there isn't something God wishes us to learn from it.  The bible isn't an instruction manual, its an opportunity to learn about God, and one of the ways it does that is by the inclusion of these letter.  The original purpose of which has long since vanished, but they still have value because we can learn from them.

Why?

Because if God knows everything and can do anything, he should easily be able to avoid them.

You assume he wants to.

It's not outdated - it has a context.  As does ANY text.

And is this the case when the author of said text is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent?

But he chooses to communicate through stuff that has a context, because the object isn't to inform us about facts and lay down rules, but to teach us how to grow closer to him.

God says that it is a disgrace for women to hold authority over men or to teach them - or even to speak in church.

No.  St Paul said it in a particular context to a particular readership with particular issues.  The human author isn't just God's dictation machine.  The message that God wants us to draw from it can only be understood by stepping back and considering it in context, and in the light of the rest of scripture.

You are demanding that we read the bible in the way muslims read the Koran - as a book dictated by God.  Although a small number of rather extream Christians try and do that, it's not how the bible is presented nor how it has traditionally been understood.

Allinall makes a good point when he talks about the game taking over, but it's no more true of D&D than Chess or Fishing.  If whatever you do for recreation takes over your life and prevents you doing what's important that's wrong.  D&D is no more likely to do that than any other hobby.

I played a lot of D&D (& similar games) when I was at high school and university and I've never met anyone (Christian or otherwise) who gained a remotest interest in the occult from it.

Haha dude - it's just a game!

It's not evil, just (in my opinion) kinda stupid.

Playing D&D is no more evil than reading Harry Potter or Nania.