Suit up...WITH GUNS

"America is going a little nuts..." As an American, I can ensure you that is a huge understatement.

and Finland somewhere off-screen cleaning his rifle/sharpening his knife and thinking "finally"

@Tsuhna finlands thinking my time has come

@Girldownunder actually more like "now I won't have to do *all* of the fighting for him if Russia decides he needs Sweden't clay"

@Tsuhna yes. Because clay is really something we have that would interest Russia. Honestly, the only thing we have that Russia would be even remotely interested in is our connection to the rest of The North.

@ryttyr Baltic bases. They have always wanted to increase their presence in the Baltic sea. They don't like being bottled up in the end of it.

@Kissamies exactly.

It's like the whole world decided that we were progressing far too fast as a civilisation. We slammed the breaks and shifted in to reverse...

@v0ider Why? globalization is awesome, and muslims are people just like anyone else, and while many come from a considerably more conservative society, those who come here are often much more moderate in their views and typically aren't fundamentalists, and exposure to a different culture, as long as said culture isn't too hateful, can do a lot of good in showing new ways of thinking to help combat bigotry, sexism, and other horrid things.

@meamsosmart "As long as said culture isn't too hateful" Muslims throw gays off roofs and stone infidels. Keep on being a Muslim apologist and see where it gets you when they invade your country and your head is the first on the chopping block.

@v0ider Now you're being unfair. Most muslims aren't like that, they're people just like you or I. Sure there are some groups of mulim extremists in the world that act like that but, even though it might not feel like it (because they get so much news coverage and conversation discussion time), they are a minority amongst the muslim people.

@v0ider Uh, that's pretty much every religion ever. Hell, there are still Christian extremist groups like The Lord's Resistance Army that used Child soldiers and regularly executed anyone that didn't convert to christianity, you have the Spanish Inquisition during the Renaissance that would capture Jewish peasants and force them through torture to either confess to crimes they didn't commit (one famous case being the Jewish were constantly blamed for the bubonic plague and poisoning wells) and forcing them to convert, a lot of the time they would still kill the ones that converted and of course Eastern Lightning who slaughter people in China regularly and is behind numerous massacres and terrorist attacks in China.

Then you have Buddhist extremists that have been attacking muslim immigrants, Hindu extremists have been around for ages, Japan saw a lot of Shinto extremist groups during the Mahayana branch of Buddhism's presence and there are even Sikh extremists. Probably every religion has their own terrorist group and extremists either in the past or in the modern age. The only religion probably without extremists is Jainism because their entire philosophy is built around not killing a single thing, even a killing a bug was seen as equal to killing a person.

Hell, you don't even need a religion to be an extremist, we've seen plenty of extremist groups without a religious creed all you need is some form of a philosophy.

By your logic we might as well decree all humans should be blamed for extremism. Not all muslims are extremists or want to chop off someone's head just because they're different just like not all Christians want to kill anyone who is non-white or gay and I can keep on piling up examples.

@v0ider that's probably what everyone said when white people went around brutally murdering anyone they wanted in the pursuit of gold, land, or because of "manifest destiny"

@Baconcheesewheel "Some of your ancestors may have been bad people so you shouldn't have an opinion" <---your argument, basically.

@Artacus no, what's I'm saying is that if you lump all muslims into the group of bad or terrorists because of the actions of a few. If you are doing that then you might as well ban all cristions or white people. You can't Jude an entire race of people or an entire religion by the actions of some.

@v0ider

It's only the Salafis that are a problem. Please don't lump all Muslims in with that bunch.

@Leonick That's actually a pretty apt way of describing it in my opinion. I have no doubt that it's also happened before in the past when there were breakthroughs in technology, social structure, science etc. We like holding on to our traditions, values and ways of doing things, even when they are outdated. This often causes a massive backlash at first because we like predictability and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of thinking. Moving forward and changing isn't predictable, and we assume the worst. And that sucks, because the only thing that we know to be true is that things change. It's one of the few constants in the world from my view.

You know things are heating up when Sister Sweden isn't showing off her boobs

@Lord_Skata I think it actually is because the mandatory military service does include both males and female for the first time, than before when it was only males.

We passed "A little nuts" at the election primaries. We full tilt CRAY CRAY right now.

@Buck50 Dear USA. Please stop being scary. Love, Sweden.

@Rogers Only if you promise to love us for who we are

@Carolus_Rex Belive me when I say we like the people of the USA even if we don't always like your leaders.

@Rogers Dear Sweden. Please be patient, we're trying. Yours in fellowship, America.

..Well, half of it anyway. At least. Probably more.

@VinnyHavoc You will fix this. It's nothing compared to problems you have solved before.

@Rogers

Most of our problem solving involves mass upheavals and violence. One resulted in a particularly vicious war, even. America is fantastic at beating people up, after all, it's basically the primary thing we're good at. Small chance, of course, but this might just tear the US apart.

Then we'll have all the sensible states, in the northeast and west coast mainly, join Canada. United States of Canada is born. The rest split off and become Jesusland, and implement biblical law as interpreted by fundamentalist evangelical christians. No-homo!

Texas might run off and do its own thing though. Maaaaaybe take Arizona with it, probably conquer New Mexico between them. They're similarly bonkers. Democratic Peoples Republic of Texas. The Bush family can provide the first Dear Leader.

....I like satire. And gallows humor.

@VinnyHavoc no, it would be called The U.S of eh

@Baconcheesewheel Hah!

@VinnyHavoc All empires fall eventualy. EU will fall before the USA though. The north will make the new Hansa Federation and build a wall against those poor latin speaking people down south and we will make them pay for it! The reborn Soviet Union will take the eastern parts. Sweden will probably do fine though by doing what we always have done: Sell weapons to everyone who want them, legaly or otherwise.

@VinnyHavoc well, Donald Trump is old, no? And he hasn't had a healthy life, has he? So maybe we're lucky and he suffers a stroke or whatever and must resign before he can do much harm...

@BillBones If he dies in office, Pence gets it. Which is, arguably, worse, he's got a lot of the same unpleasant implications as Trump does, but adds to it a theocratic bend for fundamentalist evangelical christianity (a form of extremism in many, including Pence) ... and unlike Trump, he is a politician and knows his way around the office.

@BillBones
I should point out that Trump exercises every day.
His texting thumbs are in the best shape of his life and his imagination has never been healthier.

@Rogers trust me a lot of us want it to stop too.

@Buck50 who the hell.... still uses CRAY CRAY..... ;-;............................................................. this scares me ;-;

Donald Trump did warn everyone about what was going on in Sweden.

@xidi you sir have deserved my like. if I could you would have several

@xidi
The Finnish military know how to enforce no-go zones - those are called 'motti'. Bag em, cut off the logistics and then wait.

I think Sweden should be drawn in-uniform from now on, until the international situation stabilizes.

@Kiburu lmao, I see what you are doing here

@Grahor a life living in freedom to do what you want in exchange for 1 year of military service.

There are not only rights in a society, but duties also

@Smithi

*a life living in freedom to do what you want in exchange for 1 year of military service.*

Good, then you'll have no trouble to make people volunteer for that 1 year of military service without any need for conscription.

@Grahor if paying taxes was voluntary a lot of people wouldn't do that either.

Most people think we should have to though

@Grahor many people do t want to die. It's a general thing people have, and it's only one year right? Nothing will happen during this one year......

@Baconcheesewheel They said the same in 1914

@Grahor you're so far disjoint with the real world it's amusing.

Point 1: the younger population are in general more fit, making them more suitable for the physically demanding conscription. There's also health benefits and educational points during conscription that are better utilized on the younger population rather than the old.

Point 2: the conscription is training, during a war you'll require everyone with training. Going 40+ you're limited to 40-65, beyond that and they're mostly old and useless. picking the young ones, and suddenly you have 20-65 as the total age range. Significantly larger portion of the population with basic training.

Point 3: younger people are less settled down, making it significantly easier to remove them from society for a year. Both because they're not economically supporting families, and because you won't require thousands of temporary 1 year positions requiring higher specialised skills.

Point 4: the "bloody point" of conscription is to have soldiers with basic training available should Sweden be attacked. You won't have time to train soldiers for a year when you're under attack. Your logic is equivalent to complaining about having any military at all, since you're not currently being invaded. Everyone with more than half a brain see the benefits...

@spoki0

Anyone but those who are going to be torn from their lives and had to waste a year turning into good little soldiers as opposed to actually living. As I've said, it's very easy to see the benefits where it's not YOU who are going to sacrifice that year.

Besides, training is not so much physical as mental, emotional - discipline, unity of thought and action, surrendering of decision-making, etc. The consequences for the mentality of young people formed by that training is noticeable.

And all of that, in my opinion, is not needed. Are you seriously expect anyone to invade Sweden? In short to medium timespan? Who exactly? It's not a response to actual threat, it's an emotional appeal to the country in order to show its citizens that some "serious" steps are being done, no matter its inefficiency.

@Grahor Damn, reading your comment never made me facepalm this hard. It is riddled with personal opinions.

Torn from their lives? They're not sent away forever to a death camp, and a year is a very short period of time in a human life. Also, There are other countries that does mandatory conscription (such as So. Korea) and they seem to be fine with it. Then there is the ad hominem with "... easy to see the benefits where it's not YOU ..." benefits are benefits, and you have not mention any objective downside.

"surrendering of decision-making" "The consequences for the mentality" can you specify? I could not see where you are going with this. Going through military training is not the same as being a soldier. Its about teaching the idea of what to do in case of emergency.

Who might invade Sweden? The whole point of having a military is to prepare in case of attack by anyone, from within and outside by whoever, and such the answer to your question is Whoever.

@Grahor The majority (even in Sweden) support conscription and I doubt that most of those who would be conscripted are opposed either.
That's of course based on my own experiences as a Finn, we do have conscription and not everybody likes it but the vast majority are okay with fulfilling that kind of duty.
It's a sort of repayment for what we owe our ancestors who defended and built what we have. It wasn't free and it won't be free for future generations either. We owe it to our past, present and our future.

If you're some idealist peace hippie who believes humanity can co-exist peacefully, fine.
We don't build armies to fight, but so that we don't have to. It's a detriment. If the cost of attacking you is too high then they're more unlikely to attack in the first place and use diplomatic means instead.

Not sure what kind of army training you've experienced if you believe that's what it's like. This isn't the 19th century.
There's a lot of physical training, but the vast majority in conscript training is practical. How to use your weapon, marksmanship, camouflage, surviving in the extreme conditions of our climate etc.
Unity? Emotional training? Discipline?
Bullshit, initiative and quick thinking are encouraged. Today's battlefield is fast paced and mobile. Not some kind of musketeer formations marching in rows to the drumbeat.

@Grahor Counterpoint using your same awful fallacy: It's easy to see the benefits of 40-60 doing the conscript when it's not you who are going to sacrifice that year! Assuming you ignore the points I made, to which you had no valid comeback... Conscription isn't gonna take every 20 year old kid every year. If anything, for all practical purposes, only the volunteers will be selected due to capacity limitations.

The training you speak of seems like something you saw from a movie or using fanatics as reference. That's not how the military work at all. Discipline is a good thing, as is unity. You really don't want unstable people who only think about themselves anywhere...

Step back 5 years, how likely was it that Russia would invade and annex Crimea? Not very likely. Are you able to reliably predict the geopolitical future years ahead? No, you're just rambling on... Are you really so naive as to believe no military is needed? Did you not have any lessons in history over the years?

@spoki0

As for replies: there were a lot of people writing to me following my posts, so I wasn't able and even willing to answer everyone. It's just takes too much time. I can't reply to everyone or even to majority.

I've used age bracket 40-60 as the bracket which includes most people who decide the policy in modern democratic states. It's not the draft in itself that I'm objecting to; it's that the people who make decisions (40-60) are deciding that someone else have to sacrifice, not themselves, but someone else.

My next line of objection was: conscription is not a reasonable response in this situation. Yes, I do think that strong military is important; I don't think conscription is the way to achieve the strong military Sweden needs. You've said yourself: Sweden doesn't even have resources to make it a universal conscription; why make it conscription at all if what Sweden really needs is a selection of capable people? It's a demonstrative response, I don't know how to call it in English: It's a response where instead of doing what really needs to be done politicians make a demonstrative, popular, hurrah-patriotic gesture which is not actually really useful in this situation. It is important to have a good strong military; but is the conscription really the answer here?

As for how good or bad the conscription and army is, I obviously don't have any idea about Swedish army; obviously, the army of my youth can't compare (as you could guess I've evaded my own conscription and never felt bad about it; not everyone of my friends were as lucky, although many were; not everyone of those unlucky ever recovered completely). However! While obviously not as bad, some Swedish people are still consider army experience negatively; may be they have their actual reasons?

@Grahor Are you suggesting nobody in the age bracket 40-60 who make the policy have children that would be affected by the policy, or are they all as heartless as to willingly sacrifice their kids in your views? I've pointed out logical reasons as to why 20 year olds are better suited than 40 year olds, who make the policy don't affect that.

The point of conscription isn't a professional army, it's basic training such that in a crisis, a few weeks of refreshing would bring them back to acceptable levels, rather than a year of initial training. For everything that isn't a crisis, the fulltime soldiers will do the job. It's not sustainable to have the equivalent of all that will be conscripted over a few years as fulltime soldiers, hence conscription is the best way to strenghten the military.

Going by the 20.000 fulltime and 4.000 conscripts mentioned elsewhere, after 5 years, you'd have 20.000 fulltime soldiers and 20.000 civillians with basic training in the event of a crisis. If they were to work fulltime, you'd likely have around 22.000 fulltime soldiers due to how their salaries are more expensive than that of the conscripts. Surely you'd agree that 20.000+20.000 is better than 22.000+0?

Since the conscription for all practical purposes are vulunteer based due to the capacity limitation, half your complaints are irrelevant. Heck, if you just lied on a check "can you swim 200m" here in Norway (likely very comparable to Sweden), you wouldn't be conscripted. Along with things such as being a pacifist or doing higher education, you're pretty safe if you didn't want to conscript.

However, many do want to join. Since it builds character through the training mentioned previously, it's a nice point on a CV. You get living expenses covered for a year, and earn bit of money as welll, thus many use it as a break in their education that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

@Grahor

"torn from their lives", really? First of all, only 13 000 out of 90 000+ boys and gals born 2000 will be called for a "medical exam", and out of those only 4 000 will be picked, and those who want to do it will be prioritized. Sure, some of those who get picked might be unwilling to serve, but I have already spoken to a few guys born 2000 (who don't want to serve, it seems to me like more than the needed 4% of us actually want to do this) who are going to either fake a depression or say that they have no patriotic feelings towards Sweden to make their already small chances even slimmer.

There are a lot of abilities (teamwork, being able to take /and maybe even giving) orders, etc.) which could help you in your civil life (writing those things on a resume won't hurt your chances) that you'd get better at while "sacrificing" a year in the military. I have no idea what you're referring to when you mentioned consequences. My dad served, most of my friends' dad served, most of their fathers served, and few of all of those were mentally scarred for life by it.

"Are you seriously expect anyone to invade Sweden?" Only if we join NATO but that's a discussion for another day. But the military does more than fighting our enemies. Forest fires, floodings, storms and whatever else nature might throw at us, you can always count on the military to help defend us from mother nature. (do I even have to mention that this usage will turn more common because of global warming, well, I have now)

I never thought that I'd be arguing for mandatory military service, but alas, I am here now.

@Ludicologuy00

*shrug* I'm a bit of a contrarian. Everyone just loooves conscription. Someone should be against it. Who if not me?

If having no patriotic feelings frees you from conscription, well, fair enough for me.

I still think that current situation demands measures other than conscription. Not much help agains hybrid warfare.

"America is going a little nuts" is an understatement.

@t0rziieey1
As an american, most days I want to scream or cry. It is so messed up here. There is so much anger and hate. You can get verbally attacked for saying or doing the wrong thing even if you didn't mean anything offensive about it. I put my niece's hair into bantu knots because she has super thick hair and wanted to curl it and she got a bunch of dirty looks and comments because she is not black. I get treated like an idiot when I suggest that tolerance and compassion might be better than violence.

@LittleD Wow that's really fucked up, America is far worse than I taught. Sounds like living hell.

@t0rziieey1
I know there are places that have it way worse. But it feels like everything is spinning out of control on so many fronts. I think a lot of people don't notice some of the issues because they are so self centered that they don't notice some of the stuff going on around them.

@t0rziieey1 Its really not too different from Europe.