See, that's just the thing. People wouldn't really ever want war, if political leaders didn't manipulate them into thinking that they do. Look at Iraq for example. People were definately decieved into agreeing with that, and your Governemnt didn't hesitate to use 9/11 as a pretext for it.

Also, I don't remember ever hearing of a country holding a referendum to see whether people think a war should take place or not.

Except a whole new set of problems emerge when you have a very large, very powerful government; which is what the government in a single world state would be.

Except, they weren't decieved... and yes... people do often want war if not deceived.  There are tons of cases you can point to throught history.  Including Civil Wars by the way.

Though, yeah the US more or less did have a referendum when it came to deciding if the war should take place.  Not a legal one, but all polling showed the Iraq was was extremely favorable at the time.

Are you saying they weren't led to beleive false things about the reasoning for the war? Or that the Government proffited of 9/11 and the state people were after that event?

And polls are unreliable at measuring public opinion.

Being forced to sever in the military or go to jail or be killed if you resist is slavery.  If a slave refuses to do what they are told they are also beaten/imprisoned and eventually killed.  However, slavery isn't as bad if the government isn't doing it.  Because government slavery means that the very institituion that was created to protect people is the one causing the most problem.  A government that enslaves it's people is a government not worth having.

@pizzahut451:

And btw, how many women did you hear (or see on TV) going to war in Middle ages or any kind of warfare before fire weapons were introdced in th west???  War was always something men particapated in, only very few woman. You can try to spin that as much as you want, but thats a fact. And thats the way it should stay.

That's how it should stay? What kind of misogynist are you? And it's good of you that you mentioned the ""west" part. The reason why women were never warriors in the West was because the society was patriarchal, and women were raised and conditioned to behave in a certain way (non-violent, hating physical activities etc.). Men were also conditioned to behave a certain way and have certain ideeas about how women should act (and they appearently still are, just look at yourself). As I said though, in other societies (mainly in Africa) women did act as warriors, engaging in physical combat. And I remember reading about a tribe in Africa where women warriors would beat the crap out of the male European colonists, up 'till they started using firearms against them. Women could definately be dangerous opponents, if they actually spent time improving their physical condition, and trying to liberate themselves from western gender roles.

LOL, dont use that liberal hippie bullshit on me, its just getting old by now. I knew you were gonna try spinning stuff. The scientific fact remains: Men HAVE bigger physical strenght than women, ther body is NATURALLY better build for war, why the FUCK do you keep denying these facts is beyond me. Thaths not to say that women cant become better warriors than men with a proper training. But pick up an averige man and women on the street and give them equal 6 months combat training and see who gets better results. Men will always edge out and win BECAUSE NATURE SAYS SO ! And even in the stone age(before any kind of civilization even existed), the men were always the ones who went hunting for food (but there are exceptions of course) and the women stayed home with children or whatever. And that has nothing to do with wester civilization at all, but with nature. Oh and you used Africa as your example??? LMFAO XD XD XD !!!! In Africa, they even send children to the war

http://connectafrica.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/african-child-soldiers-on-the-increase

http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/chilsold.htm

So, going by your logic, children are build for war too, huh? Because they are fighting in african warfare as well. Why not send newbown babies as well, huh? Because God  ( Ups,sorry, i forgot that offends  you) Richard Dawkins forbid that some type of humans have any advantige or privilages over others by NATURE. We MUST all be the same, no matter what nature says, right?

And if that land on which people live in gets invaded or attacked than my freedom and life depends on defending that land and its people. Cam you understand that? Of course, you dont, you've never experienced war yourself.

No one should be forced to serve. It's no ones duty. The same way the police force or the fire department are voluntary (meaning you have professional who work there, and it's actually their job to do that), the military should be voluntary, just like any other job. A voluntary draft is slavery (like someone else mentioned), and that has no place in a modern civilised state.

Also the conflicts that went on in your home country were due to nationalism, intolerance and other irrational reasons.Pointelss wars and conflicts as usual.

 We just have diffrent opinnions on this subject than. Because i think its a man's duty to defned his people and his land when they are in danger. You think you shouldnt do anything if someone is terrorizing your people and your land as long as it doesnt terrorize you. Fine. Agree to disagree.

As for your other parapgraph, you are VERY VERY wrong, But thats a whole other subject, i wont go into that in here.

Oh, you're starting to realize,huh? How about living here for a while and than say something like that. Germans are annoyed by immigrants ( Turks, Iraqis and Kurds, to be more accurate, actually) because of whole other reasons, not their views on military.

What I meant by that was that I noticed lots of Western people are annyed by immigrants who move to their country, yet refuse to integrate, and keep considering themselves part of the ir country of origin. You are one of those people, because you immigrated to, and now live in Germany, yet you still consider yourself to be Serbian.

Maybe because I AM Serbian??? I should abbandon my heritage and orgin just because i moved into another country? Are you kidding me? Seriously now? its because of people like you immigrants usually hate western people and become too proud and start discriminating and insulting western people. You are the cause of your own problem with immigrants.

@Farmageddon:

Sure, but their effects on reality are the same in this case.

Only because peopel make it to be like that.

Only beacause people are like that. The reason is not important, the fact is that you can't assume the world is something it isn't and project the consequecences of a decision (having no army in this cases) on that imaginary world.

Sure, by all means, be the change. Just be aware of the consequences of the change you bring about. We should do whatever we can to change what we feel is wrong, but we should base our change in reality and sustentability, not utopia and blind hope.

I'm not comfortable with such compromises. They're what's holding back progress.

Because things are not that simple, that's the point. You can't just forget about reality and think about your "Plan" on a vacuum or it'll never work, it'd be even worse than doing nothing.

It couldn't really work with people maintaining their individuality and questioning orders in there, and it needs to work. Look, I hate the way some armies are used, but the armies themselves are, unfortunatedly, still necessary.

It would probably be better if it didn't work, actually.

It would do better for the other side for whom it works to walk all over you. People prey on weakness. I know you don't like the idea of that, but it's how it is. If you want to change it, you have to first aknowlodge the problem. Just supposing it isn't there because "it doesn't need to be there" won't work at all.

Oh, and soldiers are alot more human than you seem to percieve them, lot's of them get pretty fucked up in the head because of it all.

You reap what you sow.

It's not always that simple, the world isn't a perfect Karma zero sum for each individual.

The italics is very important, and it's true and that's my point. The real bad "guy" isn't the army, but whoever uses it that way.

Nope, the army is just as guilty. Unless they magically lost their free will they're just as guilty as those who command them.

You're missing the point. The institution of the army, the fact that it existis, ins't the fact to hate, but the way it's sometimes used. And they kinda do loose their free will :P

Soldiers don't always know precisely what's going on, but we're having this argument up there already.

My country never will be invaded. And if it were to be invaded, half the population would leave and the other half would embrace the new rulers, most likely. The government would be the first to join the latter group.

As for women, what do you suppose their duty should be? Cooking for the army? Come on. Everyone in a country has the same duties; that's the very basis of equality. I think that if women expect equal rights to men, they should take equal actions, so if (atheist God forbid) there were a draft, it should be for both genders.