Military service

Military service

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Army is a derivative of the Latin word armare, which means to arm. Usually, this term means the totality of all the armed forces of the state, i.e. and land, and sea, and air, as well as other formations.

For most ordinary people, the army appears before the eyes of a bunch of hungry and poorly dressed characters, among whom hazing flourishes. Russia is just beginning to come to the conclusion that a strong state is impossible without a strong army.

Television began to show military-patriotic films, the budget allocates money for the education of the younger generation. People really have a bad idea of ​​what is really going on in this huge mechanism. Let's try to consider the main myths about the military service.

The army is the main cause of bullying. Most of all, the conscripts are not afraid of physical activity, but it is hazing. Our liberals argue that the army itself is to blame for the prosperity of this phenomenon. It is as if good and kind people come to serve, and the military machine, suppressing their personality, makes them outright villains. And this seems to be the logic, because exactly where the suppression of freedom is legalized, where they are forced to carry out other people's orders, there is a ground for bullying and humiliation. But only the trouble is - eyewitnesses say that earlier, even during the Soviet Union, such a phenomenon practically did not exist. Yes, there were grandfathers who were authorities for young people. But they also helped newcomers, even shared rations and things with them. The reasons for bullying are not to be found in the army itself. A military unit is not an island isolated from real life. Let's ask ourselves the following questions: Is the criminal environment in the army more unfavorable than in society as a whole? Could the sadism of the "grandfathers" be a consequence of civil trials? If suddenly someone discovers that cruelty flourishes only in the army, and in society everything is safe and love flourishes, then let him answer then why hazing did not flourish in the army before, when much more attention was paid to the moral education of people? In those days, the army did not maim the boys, but made them real men. To get to serve was an honor, which, by the way, was mentioned in the films. Today the country has been seized by immorality, immorality and criminality. Teenagers are not used to showing themselves and getting above dullness. Having come to serve, after a year and a half, they themselves begin to drive newcomers. Victims of bullying, who have not received proper male education, eventually become ferocious grandfathers themselves. The one who was internally himself was ready to humiliate himself will inevitably humiliate others as soon as the opportunity presents itself. So a healthy army is impossible in a sick society. And the roots of bullying are to be found in society itself.

Military service is wasted time. This argument is especially readily heard from those who are not going to serve. Allegedly, the army is the erased years. But how many young guys who have left the army have used this time profitably? Maybe it would be better for someone to go through the school of courage, and not to run around the discos all this time, abundantly using alcohol and drugs. Yes, and approaching from a civic standpoint, how can 2 years spent on fulfilling their duty to the Motherland be thrown out of life? By the way, the army can also provide a profession that can be used in the future. A truly purposeful person who would find himself in a civil society will be able to realize himself in the army. In addition, the army provides an opportunity to make a military career.

The army is an institution of violence against individuals and freedom. Much has been said about freedom. Freedom has become a symbol of modern civilized society. But what does this word mean? Ideally, everyone is considered to have personal freedom and should not do anything at the direction of the state or other people. People should fulfill only their own wishes, but this is an unattainable ideal. Although the overall picture is logical - the less we owe society, the family, the state, the more free we are. Robinson Crusoe was absolutely free. But, being smart, he understood that he could not cope with adversity alone, not defend himself from enemies. And for this you need to share your freedom, to understand your rights and obligations to society. You can become free together with society. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the army also restricts the rights of the soldier. The military must comply with the charter, order and protect his state. But this has the highest meaning, since one's own freedom is sacrificed for the benefit of the family, the state and oneself. And the state must be protected, as the state protects you by giving you freedom. Those who believe that the army deprives them of their individuality are themselves usually weak infaltile personalities. They are afraid not of violence against a person, but of precisely what strengthens it - discipline, order. Many people laugh that the army is the lot of stupid people, and they themselves watch stupid reality shows, limiting themselves to a meager vocabulary. Namely, the army released a huge number of outstanding personalities - Pushkin, Nakhimov, Gagarin, Lermontov. Many prominent contemporary figures, scientists, musicians and even informals served, and nothing terrible happened to them. The one who was originally a person, he remained with it. The character does not change, but a guy can grow up with a rod. Just as a marriage can be unsuccessful, so an army service can work out, or it can not.

In the army, the new soldier will immediately be beaten and robbed. Rumors are even intimidated by rape, allegedly widespread in this environment. In fact, the scale of the bullying itself is clearly exaggerated. Basically, they say that yes, they say, it was like that, but there were no beatings and rapes. The whole hazing consisted in the fact that the senior citizens did not wear outfits and had some indulgences in the service. The army reflects everyday life. They also do not like whiners and traitors, and they beat them as well as everywhere else. A young man who has managed to become in the good sense of the word an authority among his peers will become one in the army. And no one will just beat and humiliate him. You can also become beaten just on the street, the army in this case is no worse.

By separating old-timers from young soldiers, the problem of bullying can be solved. In the notorious Sychev case, the accused soldier has just served a year. In such cases, not hazing is manifested, but ordinary violence, which we can find everywhere in our society, starting with kindergarten and school. Military psychologists conducted experiments to divide the composition into "old" and "young". It turned out that something akin to bullying began to happen in each of the divisions. So the violence occurs not among the elders over the younger, but among those who are ready to humiliate those who are ready to humiliate themselves.

The situation can be saved by complaining to your superiors. One of the famous Internet figures, Goblin, suggests that this is how to deal with hazing - complaints to the relevant authorities. However, it is obvious that this is not enough. Problems are usually not resolved by increasing punishment and fear of exposure. In the former army, there was practically no hazing due to complaints from soldiers to the Hague Tribunal or the Mothers' Committee. We must look for the reasons deeper. Hazing flourishes in units with weak discipline and the authority of officers. But it is quite possible to destroy the army with complaints. So any soldier can complain about his boss, bring the military prosecutor's office against him. And it doesn't matter - what was the reason, who is right in general. Today the soldier complains about the outfit, and tomorrow about getting up early and exercising. If in society the army will be treated as a place where guys are being killed, and the military will scribble slander and complaints at each other, then it will not be an army, but it is not clear what.

The army must be professional. The very phrase “professional army” sounds reliable and solid. It seems to be something modern, computerized and highly efficient. In fact, such an army is just a group of mercenaries who serve not at the behest of the heart and not out of a sense of duty, love for the Motherland, but for money. The experience of the advanced countries that pay money to the army is not so unambiguous. According to the criterion of cost-effectiveness, such troops do not justify the investment. A professional army is hardly capable of a liberation war. Russia and the Soviet Union won their freedom in wars precisely at the expense of the people's militia, driven by a sense of duty. Duty is a sense of responsibility to oneself, one's relatives and to the country. What would happen to the country if our grandfathers thought about paying for their exploits? Let's look at the vaunted American army mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combat power of the army is leveled by the unwillingness of the soldiers to give all their best and die for their country. The behavior of the military disgraces the honor of the flag, but they do only what they pay for. Who benefits from a professional army? Such troops are typical for liberal countries participating in world globalization. A professional army is unlikely to be able to defend its country, but it can easily suppress an uprising, overthrow the president of its own or neighboring country. Its purpose is not to protect the state, but to attack, in order to snatch your piece of the pie. In fact, every man should be the defender of the Fatherland, have the simplest skills of service, combat discipline, know the charter, army equipment. There is no doubt that a part of the army must be professional - this applies to officers, command, and highly qualified specialists. After all, without them the army is just a herd. A combat-ready army is led by professionals and a patriotic population, ready to join the ranks in case of trouble, and not a bunch of mercenaries with contracts, agreements and lawyers. Interestingly, the commercialized army is as susceptible to bullying as the others.

An army is required only in a state with a totalitarian regime. Our ancestors fought in 1812 - against the French, in 1941 - against the Nazis, much earlier - in the 13th century against the Tatar-Mongols, not for some regime and not for money, for the Motherland, for their relatives, children, for their future ... Regarding the interests of the regime, it is usually the professional army that is on the maintenance, which protects the state "de jure", and "de facto" is an additional police force. When the state cannot attract a person to serve him for an idea, then such paid structures are created. The country needs a normal army. But this idea is unpopular in the minds of citizens, more and more young people prefer to evade service, pretending to be morons, mutilating themselves, buying a "white" ticket. Actually a civic position, according to which one wants to have the goods, but not pay for them, is also characteristic of women who do not want to give birth. It would be appropriate to recall Napoleon: "A people who do not want to feed their army will soon be forced to feed someone else's." We are not a dwarf state surrounded by friends, with an army suitable only for parades. Our huge state with the richest mineral deposits will always be a tasty morsel for neighbors and competitors. The main goal of the army is not to protect the power of the tyrant, but to preserve the independence of the state, which guarantees the freedom and rights of citizens.

The problems of the army can be solved by human rights activists, mothers, and abroad. It should have been three dots, since the list could go on. The army appears to be an inexhaustible source of problems. On this, journalists, human rights activists, officials make their careers. To solve problems, money is allocated, commissions are created, round tables are held, but only the number of vices does not decrease, nor does hazing disappear. The human rights activists themselves, in expensive clothes and cars, seem to be trying not to solve the problem of this particular Russian guy, but to appear in the frame. There are no real revelations and progress from their activities. The purpose of all the fuss around the army is to weaken its combat capabilities. Funny serials like "Soldiers" are being filmed, various committees sponsored, by the way, by Western funds, are constantly running around the army. As a result, the soldier does not have any thoughts about the charter, service, duty. Therefore, the proposed methods only exacerbate the problem. It is already reaching the point that it is proposed to remove the army itself to solve the problems of bullying. But who heals the head by cutting it off? In fact, the roots of the problem lie in society itself. If it wants to cure the army, then it must start with itself! Why be surprised if the heroes of the "Brigade" became the idols of the youth, and serials about the zone, bandits, criminals are constantly broadcast on television. Young people do not mind serving, but not in today's army, not with people like themselves. It's scary not to fight, but to be left alone with the scumbags. Nobody will help the army, except ourselves, with deeds and words, and not with chatter and calling for outside "assistants".

Watch the video: Part 2: Israel Defense Forces. Conflict Zone (August 2022).