Sweden's government has a message for you Swedes:
The security environment in Europe and in Sweden's vicinity has deteriorated and the all-volunteer recruitment hasn't provided the Armed Forces with enough trained personnel. The re-activating of the conscription is needed for military readiness. Trained personnel are fundamental for building military capability. In 2016 the Armed Forces lacked 1,000 active squad leaders, soldiers and sailors as well as 7,000 reservists.
Recruitment to the Armed Forces will be both voluntary and conscription. Individual motivation, interest and will should to be considered as much as possible. The Armed Forces is planning for 4,000 recruits annually in basic military training in 2018 and 2019. The modern conscription is gender neutral and will include both women and men.
What's that about the security environment? Oh, it's about Russia:
Sweden is reinstating the military draft — for men and women — because of dwindling volunteers and growing concerns over a more assertive Russia in the Baltic and Ukraine. [...] Marinette Nyh Radebo told the BBC the "security change in our neighborhood" prompted the move by Sweden, which is not a NATO member. "The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea (in 2014), the conflict in Ukraine and the increased military activity in our neighborhood are some of the reasons," she said.
[...] Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist said he was inspired to make the draft gender-neutral by neighboring Norway, which in 2013 introduced a law applying military conscription to both sexes. That made Norway the first NATO member to draft both men and women, joining a tiny group of countries around the world, including Israel. Turkey and Germany are the only major NATO countries that still use a draft. Conscription also exists in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece and Norway, according to Deutsche Welle. France ended the draft in 2001. Italy and the Netherlands put the draft on hold.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:54PM (19 children)
Swedes will believe everything they're told and obey any orders from superiors. Sweden is the perfect example of the end result of "tolerance."
They would rather be brutalized and commit suicide than be labeled "racist." The exercise of total control over a society was a smashing success.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:15PM (17 children)
> Sweden is the perfect example of the end result of "tolerance."
Yeah. Sweden really is the future that liberals want. [buzzfeed.com]
Fucking horrid.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:44PM (16 children)
I wasn't talking about the tranny, I was talking about the no-go zones and the fires and rapes perpetrated by Islamic savages and other lesser-developed peoples. But then again rallying your people behind a big scary foreign bogeyman is an ages-old tactic to distract your people from domestic problems and divert their anger away from their moron chickenshit bureaucrats.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:51PM (4 children)
Who cares what you were talking about?
You are a damn fool whose only value is to be mocked for your idiocy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:55PM (1 child)
Yeah, shock culture is so 2000s
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:53PM
I post for my own amusement, not any of yours. And unfortunately I am very easily amused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)
You are a damn fool whose only value is to be mocked for your idiocy.
Ethanol-fueled has value? When did that happen?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 04 2017, @10:59PM
Well it's true for some value of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:04PM (7 children)
Strong warm-blooded Americans know that rapes, shootings and murders should be kept between us good Christians. We don't need to import dark-skinned people to fill our prisons or create scary neighborhoods. We can do it with our own people, with no need to go find crazies from other religions than our good "turn the other cheek, then drone his family" Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:17PM (5 children)
Are you trying to suggest that, because a given culture already has a number of rapists in it, importing more is reasonable?
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:27PM (4 children)
I was more going for pot vs kettle, but your idea does make a whole lot of sense from a market demand standpoint... Our rapists are pretty darn expensive, we should import cheaper ones to save a buck while maintaining the same fear levels.
(man, I shouldn't be working on a Saturday)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)
Do yu get paid for commenting on SN? How does one get into such employment?
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:13PM
Not quite: https://xkcd.com/303/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday March 05 2017, @10:52AM (1 child)
Coming from someone who has a healthy fear of ANYONE religious (well, maybe not most of the Buddhists, dunno why), I kinda gotta agree with the AC's concept to a certain extent.
I've always believed that we're a certain amount like a piece of soft clay. It rolls around, bumps up against other clay, whatever. All the while, it picks up dust and chunks of other clay, and that just becomes a part of it. Each zealot picks up some of us, while leaving too much of themselves behind. That's probably a flawed metaphor still, but it's 4:30 am here and I'm pretty drunk so it's the best I have to work with.
To try to relate that back to the original concept, we're dealing with a group of people who are fleeing some pretty terrible things in their home country. They're not fleeing the religion of their home country, but the death and destruction that's happening there. Their religion is, to put it mildly, shit. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is shit too, and I'd like to see it gone, but the point of saying this is that the immigrants are not necessarily nonbelivers. No small amount of them are largely still devout believers, and that gives me no small degree of "the creeps". But as I suggested in another response to you, integration is hella important. You had a valid counterpoint in the military draft argument. But we're "doing good things" by taking in these refugees, but how do you get from A to B on the integration path? I feel like there's a whole lot of focus on the general idea, but no one really cares about the fine details of the second part. It's somehow become a black-and-white all-or-nothing package deal, and as it stands, someone loses either way.
Depending on what you read, there's some pretty terrible things going on to the citizens of countries in Europe due to the policies there. Are those lies, or is there a real problem? I don't honestly know, though a coworker of mine who regularly visits Europe with her native Czech husband won't go to anywhere there anymore except for his country, and they're the reason she cites, with little elaboration. I'm the kind of person who's inclined to believe the worst in people. I do genuinely want to look at it all like good things are happening and everything is going to be okay though, and yet the personal anecdote leaves me worried. Can you suggest something profound that would change my mind?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday March 05 2017, @10:22PM
Not an easy one...
The problems are many, but let's go over the obvious ones:
- Western Europe already has problems of high low-skilled unemployment. It's structural, based on cost differentials with the East, Africa, and Asia. Manufacturers closing shop to build elsewhere or because they can't compete make the news... Mining and old industrial areas show visible decay...
- Western Europe already has problems of discrimination over previous generations of "visible minorities", usually Arabs from North Africa and Blacks from Central Africa. When mass immigration happened (end of the colonial area), a lot of minorities got parked in giant under-maintained zones which are not the best address to put on a resume.
- Western Europe already has problems of shitty politicians who blame Brussels, Eastern Europeans and immigrants for their own incapacity to deal with issues, paving the way for the Extreme Right to take hold among the worried masses.
- Western Europe is mostly a Christian area, where other religious groups have been (usually) tolerated as long as they worship discreetly and don't point out the inherent discrimination of some laws and holidays.
- Western European cops are not US cops. The density of law enforcement, and punishment scales, are much lower. The people who degrade, intimidate, harass have more elbow room and can be more visible. When some of those, of European descent, decide to take their boredom out on visible minorities, it causes those to gang up even more than normal (because it is normal that rejected unemployed discriminated reservation-bound minorities form groups).
So, for the last 30 years at least, there have been structural issues at play in Europe (as in the US), with unpleasant areas, but enough subsidies to keep people quiet and misbehavior to cheaper-than-prevention levels.
And then comes the Bush Depression, which slashed public services.
And then comes the flow of millions of "don't look like me, don't pray like me, don't speak the language, don't know the customs" people, coming from countries labelled as Full Of Dangerous Murderous Monsters.
And those who come now are not the rich well-educated cream of the crop, who were able to run away from the conflicts years ago. They need a whole range of jobs to get on their feet, but mostly low-end ones where their handicaps can be offset by their desire to recover.
To top it off, a small handful of people associated with them by origin or religion only, are trying to burn the place down just because some asshole told them it was the right thing to do, and stupid media made their predecessors famous.
So we have countries which are not in a good state to receive a big influx, welcoming people who will not have an easy time, surrounded by people who need someone to blame for their own shitty conditions, provided with excuses by media who amplify the 1 or 3 ppm who do cause issues.
Throw in media who also highlights the lack of infrastructure causing some to land in the street and/or cause visible trouble, and you end up with a much bleaker picture than the realities on the ground. There are problems, but they tend to be concentrated and most people will not casually encounter them, or be able to side-step them the way bums and shitty neighborhoods have always been ignored.
A wall of text and we're nowhere near solutions, which will fill many giant reports, most of which will swiftly be pushed aside by politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:23PM
I pointed that out but was told that many of the American blacks became Muslims in prison after all.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:06PM (2 children)
Sweden is the country that spent 3 months looking for a non existent Russian submarine...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:31AM
Sweden is a hot mess of Muslims, immigrants, terrorists, Muslim terrorists, immigrant terrorists, Muslim immigrants and Muslim immigrant terrorists. But it's not half as bad as Iceland. Need more vetting! [grapevine.is]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:10PM
Just because they couldn't find it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Just because they thought it was Russian doesn't mean it was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:49PM
This is your brain, this is your brain on ethanol.
EF will be like the ol' men of the south, sitting on their porches daydreaming of big crosses and tall trees. Except EF will be dreaming of dank memes and flamewars.
Truly, what a time to be alive!?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:23PM (8 children)
Lots of border to deal with, not a huge population - they would be pretty pissed if Russia started rolling tanks in and claiming eminent domain the way China did in Tibet. In Sweden, they could claim huge areas of land displacing almost no people - and if global warming continues, some of those currently frosty fjords are going to become prime real-estate, much more desirable than Siberian muskeg when it thaws.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:35PM (7 children)
Dear american,
It's pretty easy to check google maps and see if there is any common border between Sweden and Russia. I will spare you the trouble and tell you there's none. I'm pretty sure the Russians have to pass through Finland first and everybody will find out then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:05PM (3 children)
And that's what swedes are relying, that Finns take care of Russia, but not helping at all, because they are "impartial".
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:42AM (2 children)
And that's what swedes are relying, that Finns take care of Russia, but not helping at all, because they are "impartial".
In some sense you are not wrong. Sweden has always treated Finland as the ugly little stepchild, the buffer or meatshield to cover the northern flank vs the reds. A large part is probably the historical roots - Sweden lost Finland to the Russians, I'm sure Sweden was a cruel master but probably not worse then Russia. But to say that Sweden never helped Finland is just flat out wrong. Finland fought three wars during WWII, (1) Russia invaded - Sweden did send some help and offered sanctuary. (2) Finland joins the Germans and Italians to open up another front vs Russia and then (3) at the end of the war you rise up and kill the Germans. So which part is it that you feel that Sweden failed you at? I guess we could have done more during the first one, should we have joined you and Nazi-Germany during the second one or helped you kill the Germans during the third one? Which one is it just so we know what the problem is - or is this just the little brother complex kicking in and you feel like having a bit of a cry about the whole thing?
Did you realistically think it would have even been possible for Sweden to rise up and the defeat the Germans or the Russians? Would the situation have been better if Sweden had fallen to the Germans, or Russians, to? Is this a desire for shared misery? In that regard this is the same issue you sometime hear from Norway and Denmark that we somehow abandoned them when the Nazi war-machine conquered them both - Sweden standing up for any of the three countries wouldn't really have changed that at all. In some way you should be happy that we didn't cause you got to use as a neutral spot to hide in when shit got really bad or is this just part of the we want you to share the pain and the death and that would somehow make things better?
So while I don't dispute that Sweden used and abused Finland for ages it did as a matter of fact offer help during WWII. Sure Finland had to take the big punch in the face and die for the cause but it did get help, a lot more help then was officially announced at the time - after all we did have to make friendly with Adolf and Stalin so we wouldn't be next on the menu. In a more modern setting since both are non-NATO members there is a lot of cooperation and joint training. There is probably going to be more of it. There are also various declaration in regard that both have stated that they won't try to "surprise"-join NATO without letting the other one know.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)
I think like many Swedes, you have a far too rosy view on Sweden in WW2.
There were far too many Nazi-supporters in Sweden, and in difference to in Germany, they generally got away with it. Sweden long after WW2 continued practices that in most part of the world are closely associated with Nazi ideology, and I would claim it in fact WAS Nazi ideology (forced or "voluntary" sterializations, ongoing into the 60s/70s).
As a German in Sweden, the frequency with which "we are just following orders" (mostly in the "we are just following the law" variant) is used by officials in Sweden even today AND this answer is actually accepted without criticism (!) is sometimes just horrifying.
So you may be right that Sweden maybe could not have done more when it comes to actions. However when it comes to attitudes I have a feeling there is a lot of blame to be given out, and rather than face that Sweden collectively decided to pretend it was never that close to Germany or Nazi ideology and associate itself with the UK and US instead.
A bit more on-topic: I think you should have said that about 8000 Swedes joined the war in Finland voluntarily (see also "Finlands sak är vår"). They should not be forgotten, and it is maybe the best proof that whatever one might believe Sweden SHOULD have done, staying "officially" out of the war for many certainly was a decision take with heavy heart.
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Sunday March 05 2017, @02:11AM
I think like many Swedes, you have a far too rosy view on Sweden in WW2.
I would disagree. I don't think my view is rose-tainted. I believe it was a time of pragmatic choices. They where not nice at all, it was a bit of a giant shit-sandwich and you just had to take a bite and like it. Nazi-Germany quickly takes Denmark and Norway so Sweden is now more or less cut-off to the west. In the east is the arch-enemy Russia and to the south there are more of Nazi-Germany. Sweden is basically surrounded by enemies. So to stand up and "do the right thing" is not really an option.
There is no doubt that there was a fair amount of Nazi-sympathizers in Sweden on all levels of society, from the bottom to the top, at the time. Possibly more so then in other similar countries. But it did gradually changed with the course of the war, while some of it was certainly ideological some of it was clearly just trying to back a winner for as Nazi-Germany was starting to lose so did the support and there was a shift towards the Allies. They in turn was naturally not super pleased with what Sweden had done but since the war was ending and the cold war was beginning and geography being what it is they found each other as new "best secret buddies". This whole process reappears again during the end of the cold war when parts of society pretends that they where not Soviet or communist sympathizers -- which unlike the Nazis is rarely if ever talked about even tho it was just as bad and numerous. I'm not sure why Sweden is apparently supposed to feel collectively bad for parts of society being pro-Nazi but at the same time having had other parts of society being pro-Soviet is fine. I don't feel genetic guilt, just as I don't think Germans today should in anyway feel bad or remorse about Nazi-Germany.
The eugenics program was neither Nazi or Swedish in origin, it was an international thing at the time. Everybody did it. Sweden was just really good at it and admittedly kept at it for way longer then most others after it having gone out of fashion even as you note as far into the 1970's. A politic of appeasement is in some regard something that has historically worked out quite well for Sweden so I'm not surprised that it's still carried out - on some level we want to be friends with everybody but it just doesn't seem to work very well at the moment -- I blame that on stupid politicians that can't seem to get their head of of their arse.
I would say that following rules, laws or orders to the letter - sometimes in absurdum - is almost a cultural trait and it existed long before last century and today. It's also one of those weird little things that have in the larger perspective worked out great but as noted sometimes fail spectacularly when it becomes clear that some people are just "following the X" and doesn't appear to think at all. Overall it's great for society that people want to follow rules and law and not just when it's convenient to do so, but at times it fails or go to extremes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:17PM (2 children)
Dear AC,
Please look again. There is no physical land border between Russia and Sweden. There is in some regard a sea based border, or common access area in the Baltic sea. The Russian baltic fleet has two main bases -- one is in Kronshtadt, fairly close to St Petersburg, that come out into the Baltic sea via the Gulf of Finland. Then you have the other one in Baltiysk in Kaliningrad which is situated right on the Baltic sea, wedged in between the Baltic trio (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Poland. Finland could be a bit of a pain in the arse to go thru but the Baltic trio isn't even a speed bump on the road as far as the Russian army is concerned. Sweden is clearly not the masters of the Baltic sea and hasn't been for quite some time.
* back to the rest of the story *
The conscription was suspended in 2010. Re-instated again in 2017. That little seven year period is just a gap in the history of things since Sweden had conscription in the "modern" form since the early 1900's, 1901 if I'm not remembering wrong as I type this. Before that Sweden had another draft system that has more or less in various form existed for hundreds of years, going back all the way to when Sweden was a military-superpower for it's age and geographical location. This little seven year gap was clearly another failed political experiment. There wasn't even large public support for removing the draft in the first place but they did it anyway. Sweden had about a decade earlier started to dismantle the previous defence doctrine and change from a large homeland defence to a mobile and agile rapid response force - so that we could join our friends in the USA and NATO to go and bring "peace to the world". Trying to do it on the cheap just made things worse. Turns out this was a really shitty idea when you have the third largest country in Europe by land mass (excluding Russian - since it Russia, and Turkey since it's not geographically in Europe for the most part, and culturally it's even more distant) to defend but only a population of about 10 million. You pretty much need conscription to keep the system going.
So conscription is "back". But it's not the old system. When I was young they tested EVERYONE in each cohort. Everyone being male that is, females had to apply to be tested. Everyone that was physically or mentally unfit became exempt, people that for religious or moral grounds couldn't or wouldn't usually got placed someplace else in a non-military capacity. I, like everyone of my age, got a letter in the mail telling me to be at a location on a date and time for testing - basic testing took two days, some deployments would later require more testing if selected for that. If I had refused I could have been sent to jail.
Initially in the current system they will annually test about 20k people, about 13k male - 7k females. So it's not even going to be an even 50/50 gender distribution. The new total is about 1/5 of how many they tested in the previous system, and from the tested they will only select a portion compared to the previous when more or less everyone that wasn't exempt got trained in one way or another. They are only initially wanting to fill a few thousand spots and they could more or less take the volunteers that they get from testing. Getting drafted against your will is going to be very unlikely. I'll wait for the first sob-articles in the papers coming after the summer or early autumn where someone is going to cry their heart out about being forced. Plus they already removed the parts in the law that said that if you refused you could go to jail for a year. Making this whole thing some kind of 'draft-light'.
Why aren't they bringing back the old homeland invasion defence? It cost to much and they are still trying to do this on the cheap. There is no need for eternal vigilance as if Sweden was Israel, there is only one enemy and it's Russia - they just don't want to admit that even tho it's the worst kept secret ever and everyone knows it. The only other contender for an enemy would from a historical standpoint be Denmark, but that is so unlikely it's not even on the map even tho about 1/5 or so of current Sweden was once Denmark. Sweden is currently spending about 1% of GNP on defence, a number that even tho they are increasing the number in actual money will most likely fall below 1% as a value of GNP. When Sweden had a fairly large force for homeland defence Sweden spent around 3% of its GNP on defence. The second problem is that most of the bases have been demilitarized and are no longer operational. They have been sold off and are now turned into houses, shopping malls and offices. The third problem is that the swedish armed forces have a very skewed ratio of officers to soldiers, extremely heavy of the officer side compared to other similar nations. But they still don't have enough officers to actually train soldiers. Those are gone, Sweden didn't need them when it was going to be part of the world police powerranger squad. Cause then Sweden would only use all those all volunteers elite troopers so all the normal grunt trainers went away, got axed or got military office jobs.
So while the reinstatement of the draft might be necessary it is currently more window dressing for the masses then an actual change or return to the previous homeland invasion defence force Sweden once had, one where Sweden might actually have been able to hold out for a week or two or long enough for America to come and save us from the evil reds.
(Score: 1) by rochrist on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
No physical land border? What do you call Finland and Northern Norway then?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday March 05 2017, @10:31PM
No physical land border? What do you call Finland and Northern Norway then?
Yes. Finland and Norway are not Sweden, they have not been part of Sweden for about 200 years and 100 years respectively. So the land border with Russia is between Finland and Norway and Russia and not with Sweden. If you can just skip countries then sure Sweden has a land border with more or less every country in Europe, Asia and Africa. It's just usually not how these things are counted.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:36PM (4 children)
Actually Germany suspended the draft in 2011. [wikipedia.org]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:07PM (3 children)
Egalitarian drafts distribute the risk of dying at war to all levels of society. That means the richest and most politically powerful have just as much to lose as the poorest and most vulnerable. So when the political decision is made to go to war, its not just the easily ignored mothers of the lower class who will protest. Those lawmakers will have to face angry mothers at their gala balls and dinner parties too. Its easy to keep protestors outside the gates because they don't belong, but when they are members of your country-club they have every right to be there as you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:40PM (1 child)
Wealthy can dodge mandatory drafts all day.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:10PM
Draft them at night, then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:27AM
In my country, draft was only egalitarian by name. It was always possible to dodge a draft by being politically/family connected, or having enough money to burn. One could also dodge a draft with being in college for a long enough period.
The distribution of risk of dying at war to all levels of society evenly by draft works only if You have never had a war on Your own soil. Then risk of death is usually evenly enough distributed (discounting spatial organization, as whole countries are rarely one huge front line), as bombs usually hit people irrespective of their education. Still doesn't work quite the same with wealth and connections -- but these people are usually more protected anyhow, in both times of war and peace.
On the other hand, with a war on foreign soil, distributing the risk of death to all levels of society just doesn't make sense from a purely economic point of view You give the same probability to die to a prominent PhD in theoretical physics as a high-school dropout who only plays video games all day. Given the choice of sending one of them to die, the self interest of the society is to pick the less useful -- or, rather, societies which pick the less useful to die off first in dire times are more likely to thrive.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by shortscreen on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:36PM
They're going to draft women to repel the coming Russian invasion? That's an interesting fantasy. I suppose the next bill to be considered involves mobilising house pets to repel the coming whale invasion.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:37PM (1 child)
What else can you expect from a society that is founded around a violently imposed monopoly?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:11PM
a society that is founded around a violently imposed monopoly
Compared and contrast.
compiling...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:02PM (4 children)
Does the conscription only apply to Swedish born people or also to "immigrants"? If not - how come they get a free pass. And if so - who on earth thinks this is a good idea? Expect to see a lot of Swedish hardware sold cheaply to the middle east on the black market...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:07PM (3 children)
I've read lots of dumb thing here, but you take today's cake...
"Hey, let's not conscript our citizens, because Achmed will jump on the opportunity to sell his gun or tank to terrorists in Syria"
WTF?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:26PM (2 children)
Now that's actually a pretty good reason to bring in immigrants. "You can join our country, but you're going to fight for us too if needed."
Gets them integrated into the culture, keeps 'em busy, and makes them provide a (potentially) valuable service.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:40PM (1 child)
Sounds like a good idea in theory, except that so many of those refugees spent years trying to escape a war zone and seeing their relatives killed or forced to join one side or the other...
The military already has trouble dealing with PTSD after sending people to war...
The foreign legion is a concept that works well, but they are volunteers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @06:56PM
The solution to this would be to put the refugees into national service, but in cases of pre-existing PTSD, put them into non-combatant roles. Frankly, I think native swedes in the military would be more comfortable not having their ass depend on an opportunist with no ties to the homeland in the first place anyway.
What really needs to happen is for military service to return to the honorable status it held prior to the Hippie generation, beyond mere lip service. Tax write-offs for any company providing niceties to former or active military personnel, partial or full exemption from taxation of military personnel, just to start. In an age where more and more military tasks are being carried out by robots controlled by personnel safely located in a bunker somewhere, they should have people clamoring for the honor, rather than needing to force people into it.
That all said, mandatory public service, military or otherwise, does have its perks in forging national identity. While I'd say the US has more need for this than Sweden, it probably wouldn't hurt to offset the threat to national identity posed by the massive influx of foreigners. Whether you oppose the influx or not, it's pretty hard to deny that it WILL impact culture in some potentially problematic ways. Taking measures to offset any damage incurred is only sensible.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
I'm french. Back in the days, when draft still existed in France (one year), it was total and utter BS.
Basically, most of the draftees were used as unpaid workers (basically slaves) doing all the chores (cleaning the trucks every day even when they had not been used,etc.), even going so far as doing things that were really dangerous (handling very heavy loads with no protection or training whatsoever).
And don't expect those poor slaves to be of any use in a conflict anyway, because military training was minimal for most: a few weeks (then what's the point of spending a year? Oops I forgot, slaves were needed to keep the machine running)
Most people HATED the military after that. That's a clever way to build a relationship with your potential future soldiers! /s
And don't get me started on the obnoxious behaviour of many pros who abused their authority over the draftees, or homophobia, and the like...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:02PM
The Swedish draft is not perfect, but way better than that...
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday March 05 2017, @09:52AM
There was a military incursion in 2013, where several Russian aircraft made some weird manoeuvres that were later interpretated
as a simulated nuclear bombing run on Stockholm:
Russia carried out practice nuclear strike against Sweden [thelocal.se]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @06:38PM
Perhaps they'd get more volunteers if they went back to sharing the booty from raids. It'd seem their ancestors from about a millenium ago had no issues whatsoever getting volunteers. Heck, rather than fear Russia, they founded it [wikipedia.org].
But no, better to share that booty out with the whole population sitting around at home on their IKEA couch in front of their IKEA coffee table watching the TV on their IKEA home entertainment stand.
Somewhere along the line (very early on), socialism went from being about empowering the working class to empowering the lazy class. It's one thing for the workers to control the means of production; it's another entirely for the bystanders to get a say in how the profits are divided.