PDA

View Full Version : Regarding Srichaphan's Military Duty? Is it a must in your country??


rhz
Nov 14th, 2002, 07:00 AM
I think it sucks that you must join the military for a period of time, thankfully not in Indonesia where i came from. You choose to join the military, it's not a requirement.
What about in your country?? and if the answer is yes, for how long??
I know Israel has this regulation for its citizen aswell, as Anna Smashnova was on duty few years ago!

Grice
Nov 14th, 2002, 07:47 AM
yes... in Singapore... 2.5 years...

adlysha babalu
Nov 14th, 2002, 08:12 AM
do u guys mean national service?? my country is introduceing it in 2004

Gowza
Nov 14th, 2002, 08:23 AM
not down in Oz but i have a question for people in countries that do it and that is, is there a certain age you have to do it at?

Beat
Nov 14th, 2002, 10:02 AM
unfortunately it is a duty in switzerland. you don't do it in one piece, but 4 months the first time, then 3 weeks every 2 years or something. but you know what? roger federer doesn't have to do it, because it would obviously destroy his career. don't know about the other swiss players, i can't imagine marc rosset has ever been in the army. :)

Colin B
Nov 14th, 2002, 10:27 AM
Great Britain abolished National Service during either late 50's early 60's. The forces here actually turn people away!

BTW, didn't I read somewhere that Goran is currently doing his voluntarily?

Doris Loeffel
Nov 14th, 2002, 10:43 AM
Hi Beat
I've always wondered what agreement Roger has with the military dep. of Switzerland. As most other sport have to do the service as well. But they usually are in season sports. So they can either take a summer or winter service to join. As tennis is almost all year round now that wouldn't work. Same with the other players.

King Aaron
Nov 14th, 2002, 01:26 PM
yeah!!!!!! adlysha!! hate it!!! hate it!!!! :mad:

Aloysius
Nov 14th, 2002, 01:48 PM
Why does Switzerland have compulsory military service? :confused:

I had a friend from Singapore who came to Australia (for school) to avoid doing military service back there. During school holidays, he would go to California in the US instead of going back to Singapore. The irony was that he ended up doing cadets while we were at school in Australia. In cadets, we learned how to march, parade, handle weapons, shoot guns and took part in war games. It wasn't a requirement. He CHOSE to do it!

Beat
Nov 14th, 2002, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Aloysius
Why does Switzerland have compulsory military service? :confused:

THAT is a very good question. ;)

saphir1
Nov 14th, 2002, 03:15 PM
HI there!

In Germany, it's also required that you go to army for 9 months when you turn 18. If you are still in school, you'll have to go there right after your final exams. But fortunately, you can also choose between army and social service.

I think they should not ask Paradorn to join the army. He is really a honor for the country.

Have a great day,
saphir1

Xian
Nov 14th, 2002, 03:48 PM
In Austria you can choose between civil service and the army. You have to be 18 and army lasts 8 months. I finished it this May :angel:

selesrules
Nov 14th, 2002, 03:51 PM
OMG I just read the article. This is awful :eek: Talk about destroying his life :(

griffin
Nov 14th, 2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Aloysius
Why does Switzerland have compulsory military service? :confused:


Being "neutral" means they don't take sides in other people's shit, not that they won't defend themselves.

We don't have compulsory service in the US. I'm not sure I'd be opposed to it, so long as you had the option of doing community service rather than joining the military. Then again, I'm in my 30's now so that's easy for me to say.

I have to wonder, though, if having an all-volunteer army makes it easier (politically speaking) for our government to take military action. If you or someone you loved were at risk of being sent to a war/battle they didn't sign up for, I think you'd be less likely to sit quietly by as those decisions were made.

wongqks
Nov 14th, 2002, 04:30 PM
Well I am sure and hope that Paradon will get an exception for it, serving two years mean that he will never gonna achieve the potential he can

niratti
Nov 14th, 2002, 05:29 PM
I won't say it's going to destroy his life and it's Thai law.

Anyway, i'm pretty there will be solutions for this.

Ted of Teds Tennis
Nov 14th, 2002, 05:31 PM
IMO, having an 'option' to do social service instead of military service is no better if the service is still mandatory. I'm opposed to any form of mandatory service. (I even think that the Belgian and Australian laws making voting mandatory are horrible!)

[S@nti]
Nov 14th, 2002, 05:42 PM
No, now in Spain u choose to join the military.

Come-on-kim
Nov 14th, 2002, 05:47 PM
No!!! they changed the law some years ago in Belgium!

Master Lu
Nov 14th, 2002, 06:23 PM
In Croatia it's still mandatory, though there's been talk about dropping it. You're supposed to do it after your high school graduation, but you can get extensoins if you go to college. I'm in college right now so I'm on my 'extension', but truth be told I have absolutely no intention of doing it. No way I'm going to give away a year of my life, especially at this time.

As for Goran, lol, he's a strange soul. Well anyway, I'm not sure what happened with him, but I suspect he is doing the mandatory service on a voluteraly basis - meaning they wouldn't make him do it, but he's doing it to prove a point of his own.

Mercury Rising
Nov 14th, 2002, 07:52 PM
Well, I wouldn't go, even if I had to. I'm against violence and against all those military sh*t. i don't wanna learn how to use weapons, made for killing people, and I can't agree with any law that makes people do this.

jirobkk
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:03 AM
Paradorn's career in jeopardy over military draft
By SUTIN WANNABOVORN, Associated Press Writer
November 13, 2002

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The rising career of Thai tennis star Paradorn Srichaphan could be put on hold if he's required to serve in his country's armed forces next year.

Paradorn, who reached a career-high rank of 16 on the ATP tour last month, will report for boot camp April 7, as required by law, his father and coach, Chanachai Srichaphan, told The Associated Press.

``The law is law, which everyone has to be abide by. There is no exception,'' Chanachai said.

The 23-year-old player might not have to serve. The country's lottery system allows some candidates to avoid the draft. All Thai men age 20 to 23 are required to report to a military camp to fill a limited number of draft openings. Usually, there are more men than jobs.

The vacancies are filled when the men pick a rolled piece of colored paper from a covered bowl. A red paper means he has to serve, while a black ballot frees him from his responsibility. The odds of getting the black slip vary from camp to camp.

Chanachai hinted that he would welcome an exception being made in the case of Paradorn because of the honor he has brought for his country.

``I cannot say what kindness the elders could help him with, but only hope and pray that he deserves to get something in return for the good deeds he has been doing for the country,'' Chanachai said.

Staying out of circuit for two years probably would end Paradorn's career, his father said. ``As you are aware, the ATP ranking is updated every week,'' Chanachai said.

Chanachai and Paradorn are scheduled to have an audience with King Bhumibol Adulyadej later Thursday, but it's not known whether he will bring up the draft issue before the monarch.

Paradorn has become a sensation in Thailand, going from obscurity to the top player in Asia. He started 2002 ranked No. 126 and finished the season at No. 18. Over the last six months, he beat top-ranked Lleyton Hewitt and No. 2 Andre Agassi.

The Thai government rewarded him with a diplomatic passport, and the national Thai Airways gave him 3 million free air miles. Residents of his hometown, Khon Kaen, presented him with a gold racket on Monday.

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Ted of Teds Tennis
IMO, having an 'option' to do social service instead of military service is no better if the service is still mandatory. I'm opposed to any form of mandatory service. (I even think that the Belgian and Australian laws making voting mandatory are horrible!)

Mandatory voting is a good thing. If you don't want to vote for a particular party, you can just hand in a donkey vote (an improperly filled in ballot paper). Mandatory voting just forces people to get off their arses and go to the polling booth. Without mandatory voting, only about 25% of people would bother to vote! Do you really think this would mean that the government represents the views of the community?

LeonHart
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:22 AM
In Taiwan its mandatory, i don't knoe what age it is to be drafted or whatever (i live in the united states) but my dad was drafted when he was a kid. Also, my parents won't allow me to go back to Taiwan cuz of the draft law, :(

fammmmedspin
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:43 AM
Many countries have ended conscription since the end of the cold war because they no longer need so many people and those they do need need to be better trained for the types of operations they are now performing. Some small states see a need for large armed forces relative to their size though because of the international situation they find themselves in. If you need large forces and are a small state in population terms, conscription is the only way to get them - it also means you have lots of trained people to call back as reservists if you need them - the balkan states, Israel and Singapore are examples. Thailand is big but has a smaller population than many of its neighbours and has neighbours with bigger armies so they conscript their people.
Germany is the last West European power with conscription I think - partly for historical reasons. Switzerland has an enormous army relative to its size when mobilized - designed to make invasion very costly - and the Swiss have decided to keep the tradition going. Obviously if you have conscription you shouldn't favour tennis players by excluding them. If you let people avoid the draft the people conscripted see it as unfair, the conscript army ends up with less able people or those without political connections (eg Bush and Clinton) and probably doesn't do very well (eg US in Vietnam)

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Beat
unfortunately it is a duty in switzerland. you don't do it in one piece, but 4 months the first time, then 3 weeks every 2 years or something. but you know what? roger federer doesn't have to do it, because it would obviously destroy his career. don't know about the other swiss players, i can't imagine marc rosset has ever been in the army. :)

yeah I heard about that. Patty Schnyder's bro was telling me about it, coz he's done it... well, he's done the 4 months and then I think another lotf of three weeks. It seems weird that it's madatory in Switzerland of all places!

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Ted of Teds Tennis
IMO, having an 'option' to do social service instead of military service is no better if the service is still mandatory. I'm opposed to any form of mandatory service. (I even think that the Belgian and Australian laws making voting mandatory are horrible!)

here here... but I didn't know it was mandatory to vote in Belgium! hehe cool that we have something in common then (Oz and Belgium I mean).

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Come-on-kim
No!!! they changed the law some years ago in Belgium!

oh, so now it's not mandatory to vote in Belgium? pff! When the hell are they gonna change that law in Australia... we had big problems this week coz one of the polticians in the oppositions hadn't enrolled to vote (he forgot to do it in time or so), so he had to "retire" from his campaign, as he's not allowed in politics if he's not voting! :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


Mandatory voting is a good thing. If you don't want to vote for a particular party, you can just hand in a donkey vote (an improperly filled in ballot paper). Mandatory voting just forces people to get off their arses and go to the polling booth. Without mandatory voting, only about 25% of people would bother to vote! Do you really think this would mean that the government represents the views of the community?

Mandatory voting is NOT a good thing... we are supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, and it's not democratic FORCING people to vote when they don't want to.

I hate all politicians, and I don't particularly want to vote, but given the choice I probably would go anyway, but the point is, I WANT that CHOICE to go or not. Forcing people to vote does not necessarily show the views of the community either... coz people who go to vote will as you say either donkey vote, or just vote for the first person on the list. As for me, I usually just vote for whoever my father is voting for, coz I really don't give a crap. All politicians are as bad as each other, and they always lie in their campaings to get elected anyway!

So if you want to go and vote, good, but why should it be vorced on people who don't want to? I have better things to do with my time than stand in line for a hour waiting to vote for a bunch of liars that I don't want in parliament anyway!

Crazy Canuck
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:18 AM
I'm totally against it in my own country, and am quite thankful that I don't see us ever having it in Canada.

Although I think that it serves a purpose in smaller countries who have more problems with national security - it isn't something that we need to worry about here.

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


Mandatory voting is NOT a good thing... we are supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, and it's not democratic FORCING people to vote when they don't want to.

I hate all politicians, and I don't particularly want to vote, but given the choice I probably would go anyway, but the point is, I WANT that CHOICE to go or not. Forcing people to vote does not necessarily show the views of the community either... coz people who go to vote will as you say either donkey vote, or just vote for the first person on the list. As for me, I usually just vote for whoever my father is voting for, coz I really don't give a crap. All politicians are as bad as each other, and they always lie in their campaings to get elected anyway!

So if you want to go and vote, good, but why should it be vorced on people who don't want to? I have better things to do with my time than stand in line for a hour waiting to vote for a bunch of liars that I don't want in parliament anyway!

Like we're not forced to do things that we don't want to anyway! We are forced to pay taxes. We are forced to obey laws. Why not force us to also take responsibility for who is representing us as our government?!

Crazy Canuck
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:26 AM
I'm kind of keen on this mandatory voting idea.

On one thing that i fear that this would bring more morons to the polls who have no idea who the "liberals" or "alliance" are, and would just pick whichever candidate had the prettiest name.

But it's pitiful when less than 30% of voters show up, and then EVERYONE bitches about the government.

If you don't use your right to vote, then you don't have the right bitch :)

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


Like we're not forced to do things that we don't want to anyway! We are forced to pay taxes. We are forced to obey laws. Why not force us to also take responsibility for who is representing us as our government?!

Why? Because we're like th only democratic country that has FORCED voting! Sure we obey laws, but mostly the laws are something any normal person would stick to anyway. I mean most people wouldn't go out and rape someone, or kill someone just because the law for that got taken away... most people are brought up with morals! Of course, we have to pay taxes... you have to keep the country running somehow, but why the hell should you have to vote for someone you don't even like. And if you are going there just to put in a donkey vote, then what the hell is the point? Making people go just to put in a donkey vote is still NOT representing truly the views of the community. The only way you can truly represent the views of the community is to ask politicians and the voters their views on every topic, and put it in a computer so they can work out which person is best for the to vote for as they are the closest representative of that person views. That's not gonna happen, so why force people to vote for politicians they don't want or like anyway? Just because people turn up to vote doesn't make the voting process any more accurate!

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:37 AM
oh and btw, if we TRULY took responsibility for who is running the country then we should get rid of ALL politicians we have now! That would be most responsible!

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


Why? Because we're like th only democratic country that has FORCED voting!

If every other country was blowing eachother up (oops...that's actually happening in quite a few countries) does that mean that we should join in the fun and drop some bombs of our own? I didn't think so. Just because every other country refuses to do it, doesn't mean that it's wrong

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan
oh and btw, if we TRULY took responsibility for who is running the country then we should get rid of ALL politicians we have now! That would be most responsible!
Not all, but certainly most of them. Unfortunately it seems to be the popular ones who do the most damage

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


If every other country was blowing eachother up (oops...that's actually happening in quite a few countries) does that mean that we should join in the fun and drop some bombs of our own? I didn't think so. Just because every other country refuses to do it, doesn't mean that it's wrong

No, and I think Howard's an idiot for jumping on the Bush bandwagon.

But let me ask you this: just how many politicians will be pushing for gay rights/ gay marriages to be accepted? Coz there was a list about that in the Herald-Sun yesterday!

None I hear you say? Then why the feck should I go and vote for someone who's NOT going to represent me anyway? Why should I be forced to go in and put in a donkey vote because there's no one there that I want to vote for? If I don't want to vote for anyone, then why should I HAVE to?

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284

Not all, but certainly most of them. Unfortunately it seems to be the popular ones who do the most damage

Well none of the politicians represent me anyway, so why do I need to go vote for some moron who I dislike intensely anyway?

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca
I'm kind of keen on this mandatory voting idea.

On one thing that i fear that this would bring more morons to the polls who have no idea who the "liberals" or "alliance" are, and would just pick whichever candidate had the prettiest name.

But it's pitiful when less than 30% of voters show up, and then EVERYONE bitches about the government.

If you don't use your right to vote, then you don't have the right bitch :)

That's my point Becca. People who don't want to vote usually just vote for whoever's name they like, or who is first on the list... it's not really giving you any better representation of how people actually feel about certain politicians!

But I agree, if you don't vote, then don't bitch about the govt... hmm but then if you didn't vote, maybe you didn't vote because you didn't like any of the politicians, so then you should be able to bitch! ;)

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


Well none of the politicians represent me anyway, so why do I need to go vote for some moron who I dislike intensely anyway?
Two words: DONKEY VOTE!!
That's what I'd be doing if the Greens didn't exist

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


But let me ask you this: just how many politicians will be pushing for gay rights/ gay marriages to be accepted? Coz there was a list about that in the Herald-Sun yesterday!


I don't know of any, but I expect there to be an independant candidate who will push for them soon

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284

Two words: DONKEY VOTE!!
That's what I'd be doing if the Greens didn't exist

Yet again, I ask... why should I be FORCED to donkey vote? WHY? What good is it to force me to go to the polling booth just to put in a donkey vote? I simply do not see any good reason for it! Why should I get fined just because there is no one who represents me and hence no one I want to vote for if I don't show up? That's pure bullshit!

Does it do me or the country any good that I be forced to either vote for someone I don't want to or put in a donkey vote? NO! It's a watse of my time and money, and the govts time and money, coz someone has to count the votes, and be paid for that, and my donkey vote is just a wasted vote that someone has to spend time putting aside! It might not take long for one donkey vote to be put aside, but if many people do donkey votes, think about how much time and money it's wasting us(as a country)!

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


I don't know of any, but I expect there to be an independant candidate who will push for them soon

oh yeah, well when you hear of one, let me know which division they are in... so I can move to a town in it so I can vote for them! Coz no one in my area is about to start pushing for gay marriages to be accepted! Hell, I don't even give a stuff about IVF, etc, I'd just like someone to stand up for gay marriages so that a couple can be recognised and if something happens to one of the couple, the other has the same rights as a hetero couple!

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


Yet again, I ask... why should I be FORCED to donkey vote? WHY? What good is it to force me to go to the polling booth just to put in a donkey vote? I simply do not see any good reason for it! Why should I get fined just because there is no one who represents me and hence no one I want to vote for if I don't show up? That's pure bullshit!

Does it do me or the country any good that I be forced to either vote for someone I don't want to or put in a donkey vote? NO! It's a watse of my time and money, and the govts time and money, coz someone has to count the votes, and be paid for that, and my donkey vote is just a wasted vote that someone has to spend time putting aside! It might not take long for one donkey vote to be put aside, but if many people do donkey votes, think about how much time and money it's wasting us(as a country)!

...but without this system, how many people would care enough to vote?

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


...but without this system, how many people would care enough to vote?

I don't know, and I don't really think it matters that much! Other countries get on OK without the whole population voting, so why can't we? So what if only 50% of people vote...that would be up to them. But if other people find there are no candidates for them to vote for, I don't see how forcing them to go is really helping at all! I mean it's not like there's even any way we can oppose voting... like some countries that have madatory service give you another option... what option do I have? Vote or be fined... yeah, nice option... democracy is about giving people freedom of choice... where is my freedom of choice to vote?

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


oh yeah, well when you hear of one, let me know which division they are in... so I can move to a town in it so I can vote for them! Coz no one in my area is about to start pushing for gay marriages to be accepted! Hell, I don't even give a stuff about IVF, etc, I'd just like someone to stand up for gay marriages so that a couple can be recognised and if something happens to one of the couple, the other has the same rights as a hetero couple!

Personally I don't even think this is the role of the government. It should be an issue for the courts (if a case goes before the court, they can set a precendent which is binding on future cases) . The government should focus on issues which affect ALL people eg. hospitals, education, economic managment, environmental issues etc...by the way, I don't give a fuck about IVF either. Personally I believe that it's a distraction from the real political issues

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


I don't know, and I don't really think it matters that much! Other countries get on OK without the whole population voting, so why can't we? So what if only 50% of people vote...that would be up to them. But if other people find there are no candidates for them to vote for...

...but that's the problem! Everyone has opinions, but not everyone will get off their arses and vote People will continue to bitch about the government even if they didn't vote...and you said other countries "get on OK". Yes, just "OK". How many people in these countries are happy with the political situation?

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


Personally I don't even think this is the role of the government. It should be an issue for the courts (if a case goes before the court, they can set a precendent which is binding on future cases) . The government should focus on issues which affect ALL people eg. hospitals, education, economic managment, environmental issues etc...by the way, I don't give a fuck about IVF either. Personally I believe that it's a distraction from the real political issues

yeah, but the govt is involved with the courts anyway. And it always will be... just like with stem cell research. I don't always agree with the govt involvement in all that... the court can set the rules for that as well, but the govt will always stick its nose in.

Anyway, the govt is the one who comes up with all these new anti-discrimination bills, not the courts...which is probably why they are brining in the gay marriage and IVF stuff too. :rolleyes:

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


yeah, but the govt is involved with the courts anyway. And it always will be... just like with stem cell research. I don't always agree with the govt involvement in all that... the court can set the rules for that as well, but the govt will always stick its nose in.

Anyway, the govt is the one who comes up with all these new anti-discrimination bills, not the courts...which is probably why they are brining in the gay marriage and IVF stuff too. :rolleyes:

My point was that I don't believe the government should "stick their noses in". It defeats the whole idea of a seperation of powers, which is why courts were given the power to make laws in the first place!...and of course courts don't come up with anti-descrimination "bills". Only parliament can make "bills", but if you look at previous court cases, there are quite a lot of anti-descrimination precedents.

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


...but that's the problem! Everyone has opinions, but not everyone will get off their arses and vote People will continue to bitch about the government even if they didn't vote...and you said other countries "get on OK". Yes, just "OK". How many people in these countries are happy with the political situation?

people are gonna bitch either way...every day in the paper in the 50/50 and letters section there are always people complaining about something the govt has done... I would assume these people all voted... they still bitch... so it's not like forcing everyone to vote stops people bitching or something! Hell, I voted and I can't even stand who I voted for, and I always bitch about him! I just don't like the donkey vote thing. Most people i know are not happy with the political situation in Australia... they all voted though... so it doesn't matter either way - voting or non voting, people are still gonna bitch as much as they like!

And why should people get off their asses and vote if they don't want to? The only way you'd make me HAPPY about having to vote was if I could vote for myself, and that's not ever going to happen, coz I wouldn't want to be a politician even if you paid me 10 mill a year to do it!

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284


My point was that I don't believe the government should "stick their noses in". It defeats the whole idea of a seperation of powers, which is why courts were given the power to make laws in the first place!...and of course courts don't come up with anti-descrimination "bills". Only parliament can make "bills", but if you look at previous court cases, there are quite a lot of anti-descrimination precedents.

what did I just say... I don't agree with govt involvement in the courts... I was AGREEING with ou on that! :p *sheesh*

Anyway, I have to go to work now... so I can pay my taxes that the govt will use to force me to vote, and waste on campaigns to make them look good! ;)

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


people are gonna bitch either way...every day in the paper in the 50/50 and letters section there are always people complaining about something the govt has done... I would assume these people all voted... they still bitch...

...but voting doesn't mean that the party they voted for was elected. The party I vote for have never been in power.

2284
Nov 15th, 2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan


what did I just say... I don't agree with govt involvement in the courts... I was AGREEING with ou on that! :p *sheesh*

Anyway, I have to go to work now... so I can pay my taxes that the govt will use to force me to vote, and waste on campaigns to make them look good! ;)

Actually, all election campaigns have to be 100% funded through donations.

THE NET
Nov 15th, 2002, 11:51 AM
Beleive me, Paradorn doesn't need to serve the military duty. He will play tennis in ATP tour the next 7 years for sure.

;)

Williams Rulez
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:13 PM
I'm so jealous... in my country the mandotary military service will take up 2.5 years of my precious life and then there'll be reservice. That is probably a major part of the reason why I might just leave this country for good one day... :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by untitled2284


...but voting doesn't mean that the party they voted for was elected. The party I vote for have never been in power.

lol yes, hence the fact they still bitch coz the party they voted for didn't get in! ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by untitled2284


Actually, all election campaigns have to be 100% funded through donations.

twas a joke deary! ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Williams Rulez
I'm so jealous... in my country the mandotary military service will take up 2.5 years of my precious life and then there'll be reservice. That is probably a major part of the reason why I might just leave this country for good one day... :rolleyes:

euh! That sucks! Is that flag Singapore? When I was at the airport there recently, I saw these guys walking around in "army" type uniforms with guns! That was actually kind of scary!

Aloysius
Nov 15th, 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by griffin


Being "neutral" means they don't take sides in other people's shit, not that they won't defend themselves.




Yes, and I know soooo many countries that want to blow Switzerland into smithereens.

Seriously, why is there compulsory military service in Switzerland?

Mercury Rising
Nov 15th, 2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by inkyfan


oh, so now it's not mandatory to vote in Belgium? pff! When the hell are they gonna change that law in Australia... we had big problems this week coz one of the polticians in the oppositions hadn't enrolled to vote (he forgot to do it in time or so), so he had to "retire" from his campaign, as he's not allowed in politics if he's not voting! :rolleyes:
Come-on Kim was talking about the army, it's still mandatory to vote here in Belgium and I have nothing against that.

i-girl
Nov 15th, 2002, 04:26 PM
in Israel you go to the army for 2 years when you're 18. I can't say I really wanted to go- accepting authority is really not something I'm good at. but it turned out to be a very good period in my life. our amy is very reasonable in it's attitude towards it's soliders- it knows most of them don't want to be there, and it's not too strict and actually quite considerate. it was a very interesting experience. the army is the one place where you're judged only by your abilities. I ended up doing fascinating, challenging things, and have matured and gotten to know myself and my abilities better. I'm glad I did it, and I'm glad it's now over. I'm not sure, though, why countries who are not in an active state of war would force everyone into the army:confused: ...

The Crow
Nov 15th, 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Noodles
Well, I wouldn't go, even if I had to. I'm against violence and against all those military sh*t. i don't wanna learn how to use weapons, made for killing people, and I can't agree with any law that makes people do this.

I totally agree.

About the voting thing: out of principle I would say voting should be not mandatory. On the other hand, if it would not be mandatory extreme parties would get more votes, I think (not totally sure though), and everything that's extreme is not good.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 05:30 PM
does conscription apply equally to men and women in some of the countries mentioned?

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 05:32 PM
i thought switzerland barely has an army, that's why they make everyone do this service, so that there's not a total sense of not needing to do duty.

personally i would be happy to do some compulsory national duty, though i'd be better at the social side of things than military.

sadly, although we can say that some countries (e.g. Canada) don't really need to do it, we can never know the future :( history has shown that.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 05:33 PM
why are the smilies and some flags not working? :confused: and :mad:

Hurley
Nov 15th, 2002, 06:38 PM
Paradorn has been exempted from military service. :D

BANGKOK, Thailand (November 15, 2002 10:21 AM EST) - Thai tennis star Paradorn Srichaphan has been exempted from compulsory military training.

Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Palangoon Krahan said Friday that Paradorn will not have to serve because of a rule that allows nine types of professions to be spared from the draft, including physical education teacher.

He said the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration applied for an exemption on Paradorn's behalf, certifying that he teaches physical education at a local school.

"So tennis fans need not worry," he said.

Paradorn's father and coach, Chanachai Srichaphan, had expressed concern in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday that military conscription would destroy Paradorn's career on the ATP tour.

All Thai men aged 20 to 23 are required to report to a military camp to fill a limited number of draft openings. The 23-year-old Paradorn was scheduled to report on April 7.

Paradorn has become a sensation in Thailand, going from obscurity to the top player in Asia. He started 2002 ranked No. 126 and finished the season at No. 18. Over the last six months, he beat top-ranked Lleyton Hewitt and No. 2 Andre Agassi.

The Thai government rewarded him with a diplomatic passport, and the national Thai Airways gave him 3 million free air miles. Residents of his hometown, Khon Kaen, presented him with a gold racket on Monday.

THE NET
Nov 16th, 2002, 08:27 AM
Did I say true?

;)

BasicTennis
Nov 16th, 2002, 08:46 AM
smart decision.

Williams Rulez
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by inkyfan
euh! That sucks! Is that flag Singapore? When I was at the airport there recently, I saw these guys walking around in "army" type uniforms with guns! That was actually kind of scary! Yeah, right on... sigh, it sucks... :sad:

LOL, they are having extra security now a days in light of the various events recently.... :( Its like a police state... :rolleyes: