Let’s stop forcing boys to be soldiers

[Bob12345]

5 hours ago, blinkers said:

On a personal level I don't agree with conscription, however not all the recruits are used as servants, so lets not use that as a reason.

My stepson was selected for conscription, he  didn't want to go and asked us to help him. ( The help being 30,000 baht paid on the day of the ballot). but we felt that it might give him a broader outlook on life to have the experience. So he did his 2 years and it was the making of him, he was a good lad anyhow, but the experience rounded him off, he had many wonderful experiences like being one of the crew on the kings boat, seeing a bit more of his country and he made many new friends, now 10 years after the event they still keep in touch.

When asked did we do the right thing by him, he said it was an experience he is glad to have had, So, not all doom and gloom, just thought I would supply a positive side as you all seem hell bent on focusing on the negative.

While I agree with you that the army can bring good things to some, the question is if therefore all people should be forced to join.

In my view it is not the job of the government to give their citizens experience, teach them basic survival skills, and have them make good friends. This is something the parents should facilitate, and in case they cannot do that they can always let their kid volunteer.

 

Instead of sending your kid for 2 years to army camp, you could have also send him to survival camp, take him on a trip to other countries, or join him up for a sports club where he could make friends just as easily. And now I am only focusing on the good of military training. 

 

The government has their hands on kids for years already through formal education, why add another 2 years of military training? If these skills are really that important, teach them during regular school hours.

[twig]

On 8/29/2018 at 4:28 AM, marko kok prong said:

I believe Thailand beat the Burmese once,payed off the French,and surrendered to Japan after 4 bombs where dropped on Bangkok,hardly a glorious military history,i wonder why they bother with an army at all,imagine them up against the Vietnamese,white flags would go up about 5 times a day as they have to eat.

Against the Vietnamese it would just be a matter of chance: how many "soldiers" would actually show up, and how late they are for whatever their unit is doing.

 

Why army at all? ALWAYS follow the money. The same reason the US pilfer their population for obscene amounts of money, even in absence credible threats, and despite the majority of "The Founding Fathers" being against having a standing army, much less "entangling alliances" such as NATO, and hundreds of bases worldwide...

 

The reason is called the Military-Industrial Complex, which provides and justifies a myriad of pretexts and ways to loot the population as career members of the armed gangs, and as a providers of all kinds of goods and services to it 100% at the expense of the producing population...

 

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."

- George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 9

 

 

[KMartinHandyman]

Without an army who would enforce the next coup and the one after that?

[DILLIGAD]

Without an army who would enforce the next coup and the one after that?

The scouts, maybe?

 

Dib,dib!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zzaa09]

5 hours ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Without an army who would enforce the next coup and the one after that?

Not to worry. 

There are plenty of standing para-military organisations, designed decades ago, to protect the interest of the influential ones.

[Esso49]

On 8/29/2018 at 11:28 AM, marko kok prong said:

I believe Thailand beat the Burmese once,payed off the French,and surrendered to Japan after 4 bombs where dropped on Bangkok,hardly a glorious military history,i wonder why they bother with an army at all,imagine them up against the Vietnamese,white flags would go up about 5 times a day as they have to eat.

Almost correct except that I read somewhere that they did not surrender to Japan after 4 bombs were dropped.  They actually surrendered after the Japanese made a surprise parachute drop into Don Mueng and blasted the powers to be at the time with US dollars and bills of credit.   They knew full well the Thai politicians would surrender and hand over anything for money.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Esso49

[zzaa09]

16 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

Almost correct except that I read somewhere that they did not surrender to Japan after 4 bombs were dropped.  They actually surrendered after the Japanese made a surprise parachute drop into Don Mueng and blasted the powers to be at the time with US dollars and bills of credit.   They knew full well the Thai politicians would surrender and hand over anything for money.

These ideals of surrendering, and the subsequent "invasion", to the Japanese was more than likely part of the show to keep most confused.

It's been well documented that Field Marshal Phibun extended an open invitation to the Japanese with the understanding of a cooperation theme. He was quite the admirer of contemporary Japanese/German regimes and held friendly/allied relations with Tokyo long before their SE Asian assaults. 

 

The occupation was planned and given a firm blessing from BKK.