In this age of political party bickering, biased media, TV commercials, debates from a seemingly endless supply of polls conducted by everyone from college professors to spotty thirteen-year-olds with their own blogs, every issue - moral, economic, national defense and judicial to name a few -a- are up for debate and everyone is an expert on each topic and has a passionate opinion on each topic. each subject. Each of these concepts or elements that make up our country, and the strong opinions many have about them, all lead to a fundamental desire that the author believes almost everyone possesses: progression toward a better state of mind, of bodies, countries and world. In this vein; that is, opinions and strong ideas about practices that can lead us to this progression, the memory of a statement once made to the writer are brought to the fore. “All our problems would be solved if every child had to serve.” This bold statement, delivered in slightly slurred words and laced with Canadian whiskey, was uttered by the writer's grandfather; a stern and conservative man who himself had served twenty-seven years in the armed forces and had participated in World War II, Korea and Vietnam before being forced into retirement by officers tired of his cantankerous attitude and drunk. This strong statement has always attracted the curiosity of the writer; Many politicians, military officers and former hippies have all given their input on the subject of conscription, i.e. compulsory military service, but the question remains which side is correct in their assertion; Is compulsory military service beneficial or harmful to our society? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay73 countries around the world currently practice some form of conscription; some impose conditions of compulsory military service while others require some form of civilian rather than military service. One of the first debates on the issue took place in Edwardian Britain at a time of great disconcertment; because all eyes were turned with suspicion towards the Germans. Other countries, such as France, Russia, and Japan, had already eagerly implemented compulsory military service in an effort to quickly build a force worthy of combating the dark cloud of impending doom that was the Germany in the early 1900s. The British people saw these countries continue to build up their respective forces and panic began to arise; whispers about the possibility of conscription turned into urgent cries; Some argue for the need to quickly build a military force by any means necessary, others argue that the government, in considering conscription, was about to implement policies that went against the fabric even about what Britain was and would be. As tensions rise and fears become grounded in reality, a bitter fight ensues. In his article “The Case for Conscription,” author and historian Tom Stearn recalls and recounts the bitter legislative battle that took place and the questions that arose regarding patriotism, defense, and defense. masculinity. Aside from the seemingly sensible argument that because Germany used a policy of compulsory military service and therefore hadof a significant army, it would greatly behoove Britain to increase the size of its forces to avoid becoming a target. Much of the propaganda also centered on the concepts of patriotism and masculinity. In his article, Stearn explores the work of George F Shee, an imperialist and author of “The Briton's First Duty: The Case for Conscription”. Written in 1901, when talk of compulsory service was just beginning to be heard again across Britain after a series of humiliating military defeats, the book is essentially a strong message based on emotion rather than the facts. Shee writes: "Mandatory service would also be a panacea, combating moral degeneration and physical deterioration and transforming hooligans into patriotic citizens" (Shee 4). Furthermore, Shee writes, “conscription would counteract an evil tendency toward meekness, indiscipline, and unmanliness” (Shee 4). As Stearn points out in his article, the efforts of Shee and many others were in vain as the people eventually rejected the idea of ​​compulsory service, mainly because, as Stearn writes, "compulsory training was not neither militarily necessary nor politically feasible” (Stearn 3). ). However, the propaganda had at least some impact in the minds of many people; after all, the dark cloud of doom still existed, and the idea of ​​a society of handsome male warriors standing guard, ready to defend Britain from all its enemies, was a comforting thought for many. That this thought was grounded in reality was insignificant; which is of course often the goal of good propaganda. More recently, in 2002, university professor Bruce Chapman wrote an article for the Brookings Institution Research Department titled "A Bad Idea whose Time Has Passed: The Case Against Universal Service." In the article, Chapman asserts that compulsory service "has never been a good idea and it's getting worse with time." It fails militarily, morally, financially and politically” (Chapman 2). Two of these ideas are particularly interesting: moral and financial. Chapman says compulsory service with mandatory conditions of service actually costs the government more money than it is worth. “The average length of service required in countries that impose conscription is just over a year and a half. By the time these new recruits are trained in a particular specialty, it will be time for their compulsory service to be completed” (Chapman 3). In this chapter, Chapman suggests that the thousands of dollars it costs the government to feed, house, clothe, and train the average recruit would ultimately be worthless if, after nine months of training, the recruit no longer had only nine months upon enlistment and would receive salary and educational benefits during those nine months. In addition to these harsh financial realities, Chapman highlights the moral implications of compulsory service. “Service is not service to the extent that it is obligatory” (Chapman 5). Chapman explores the idea that compulsory service to our country is not service by enslavement and will ultimately pit the haves against the have-nots, as was the case with conscription decades ago; the upper class will go to college or abroad to avoid service while the rest of the population will have to shoulder the patriotic burden. On the contrary, in his article “Service Should Be the Standard: America's Youth Need a 'Right' of Passage,” author William Raspberry offers a different perspective; the one who suggests that military service is not a rite of passage but a “right” ofpassage which must be acquired by our young people. His arguments are not based on military or war strategy, but on the progression of our young people towards responsible and productive adults; and that progression to adulthood is a right obtained through service. Raspberry says: “If young people have the responsibility to earn the right to become adults, then adults have the responsibility to provide them with the opportunities to make that happen. We need to stop trivializing growing up” (Raspberry 3). It seems that Raspberry is arguing that all of us, including our youth, have inherited certain freedoms that our particular country provides and that we must somehow earn or repay what we have inherited through patriotism and strong service. Although this sounds like a conservative argument, it is in substance the same as the more liberal notion that those who have should give to those who have not; the Robin Hood theory. Isn't our entire culture based on obtaining some sort of right? Generally speaking, you must work, pay into Social Security for several years and be close to death before you can enjoy the benefits it provides. Isn’t that a pension? Something that must be earned? Perhaps conservatives and liberals have more in common than they realize. When it comes to conscription, both views offer intriguing logic; Stearn's article addresses concerns about masculinity and anarchy as well as a general sense of dread among people who fear being vulnerable amid the enemies' growing military forces; Chapman's view asks the reader to evaluate the moral and financial ramifications of compulsory service and Raspberry argues that we must earn our place through service. Many ideas and considerations have been put forward by the above-mentioned authors, but none of them answered a very important question: do views on compulsory service change in wartime? Is it more acceptable to impose compulsory service if we are at war as we did more than four decades ago? So, is it understandable to place a young person in the line of fire? In the name of patriotism? I am not surprised to discover that none - not a single one - of the authors with such strong opinions served in the military themselves, so they cannot answer these questions because the answers to these questions are unimaginable to the ignorant. Let's assume for a moment that you have a young man of 18 years old. He has just finished high school; he was a stallion, an athlete, he was someone. In other words, it was someone at school. Now he's just another person; overwhelmed by life's choices and looking for a direction to progress. His grandfather told him that the army had made a man of him; maybe it will do the same for him. Moreover, he will further prove his masculinity by joining not the army but the Marine Corps. Everything is going well for the young man: he makes new friends, shoots a gun for the first time, meets several exotic dancers at the urging of his friends and even earns a little pocket money along the way. All is well indeed; that is, until the veil is removed and it is revealed. The young man who never fired a gun is now in hell; or as others call it Fallujah. After days of thunder and lightning; or mortars and gunfire, he does not hear. This is not an exaggeration; he does not hear, mouths move but no words are audible; although fewer mouths are moving at this point, as five of the seven.