Comments on: Bringing back National Service

By: Global Community

Global Community — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:52:58 +0000

Please note the following amendments to my last paragraph:

“Chopping this up and then categorizing it into essential and non-essential skills for our youth might be the best way forward” should have read:

“Chopping this up and categorizing the elements according to essential/non-essential skills required to conduct them, may be a way forward to deciding which aspects could be useful for adolescents to be informed of.”

Apologies.

By: Jules

Jules — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:47:59 +0000

Hi Sam,

Better to provoke a strong reaction – positive or negative – than no reaction at all.

Personally, I think you’re being too ideological. It’s not about saying ‘hey, I’m a libertarian, so resilience is groovy cos it fits with my beliefs’. Resilience is about how communities survive with serious external or internal threats, and sometimes, you just need a bit of top down coordination to cope with such threats – as with for example the UK’s resilience in the face of Nazi expansionism.

Australia is going to have an extremely difficult time coping with climate change, in terms of shortage of food, water and electricity. You as an individual may cope with those challenges in a libertarian fashion, but i really don’t understand how Australia as a state could cope with those challenges on a state level in a libertarian way. But maybe im missing something – enlighten me.

Finally, the idea that ‘resilience’ could ‘jump the shark’ is as bizarre as saying ‘did courage jump the shark’ or ‘did patience jump the shark’. Resilience is a virtue, one we always need. If you’re referring to the ‘resilience movement’ – if there is such a thing, then I’m no part of it, Im just a humble blogger.

All the best

Jules

By: David Steven

David Steven — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:44:43 +0000

A response to Sam here.

By: Sam Roggeveen

Sam Roggeveen — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:41:11 +0000

Sorry Jules, but I didn't like this post at all: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/03/Did-'resilience'-just-jump-the-shark.aspx

By: Guy

Guy — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:46:19 +0000

In terms of manpower the Armed Forces seem generally correct unless of course if we want to start up some hare-brained foreign policy. The comments about internal defence and resilience were (my mistake) related to the idea of NS than the Armed Forces themselves.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:23:33 +0000

Guy – ‘Armed Forces are actually about the right size but are being used incorrectly. Instead a focus on internal defence and community resilience’ WTF?! We’re not bloody Italy.

By: Guy

Guy — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:20:38 +0000

Working again from personal experience that is why you use people from the host country. A mix of local and British trainers/workers. Not only does it increase the cultural experience but it makes sure you aren’t accidentally pricing the locals out completely.

In many areas too the work being done could never be paid for and therefore you’re providing a service and employment that otherwise would not exist. Its hardly perfect and it would need checking on a case-by-case basis but as a general rule it should work.

By: David Steven

David Steven — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:56:15 +0000

“Personally I’d advise foreign national service in small groups in VERY poor areas for all this.”

The last thing developing countries need – us to export our surplus labour to them!