Call The 20th Century With Conscription Universally Forbidden?

A query to those more knowledgeable than me: without conscription, does Israel lose the 1967/1973 wars? I know they had a large and rapidly-mobilized reserve, but I don't know how much of a role it played.
 
Gridley,
A substantial part of the US defeat in Vietnam was down to conscripted soldiers comming back in body bags which will have more of an impact on the home front than volunteer soldiers comming back in this fashion. The war was lost on the PR front as shown by LBJ stating that once I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war!
 
TBH, I don't think it'd be plausible for the 20th century..............but possibly for sometime after, say, 2020 perhaps?
 
It wouldn't be universal, what about getting rid of 4(1)a (which also doesn't require states to recognise conscientious objectors!) in the ECHR? Conscription was given a specific exemption from the anti-slavery provision in article 4. The ECHR has a few clearly stated exemptions for things that in retrospect seem odd e.g. the death penalty (later removed by a protocol). It would be no use when a government claims there is a war or national emergency, as the ECHR allows governments to ignore it if there is some kind of war or national emergency, even if that national emergency or war isn't really a national emergency or war. Also, what if the UDHR was binding? There have been arguments advanced that conscription is against articles 4, 20.2 and 23.1, and they look correct on the face of it.
 
Gridley,
A substantial part of the US defeat in Vietnam was down to conscripted soldiers comming back in body bags which will have more of an impact on the home front than volunteer soldiers comming back in this fashion. The war was lost on the PR front as shown by LBJ stating that once I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war!

SlickWilly, you have less clue what you're talking about then the guy you're named after, which is quite impressive. Please go do some research.

US conscripts coming back alive were spat on and called baby killers. You really think that the people doing that objected to them coming back dead?
 
Gridley,
There was a massive negative PR impact caused by conscripted boys comming home in body bags and there's no doubt on that one!
 
It wouldn't be universal, what about getting rid of 4(1)a (which also doesn't require states to recognise conscientious objectors!) in the ECHR? Conscription was given a specific exemption from the anti-slavery provision in article 4. The ECHR has a few clearly stated exemptions for things that in retrospect seem odd e.g. the death penalty (later removed by a protocol). It would be no use when a government claims there is a war or national emergency, as the ECHR allows governments to ignore it if there is some kind of war or national emergency, even if that national emergency or war isn't really a national emergency or war. Also, what if the UDHR was binding? There have been arguments advanced that conscription is against articles 4, 20.2 and 23.1, and they look correct on the face of it.

Wouldn't help. The bad guys aren't going to follow the UDHR, even if it is "binding", and economic embargoes presuppose the bad guys can't simply obtain the trade anyway through force or threat of force.
 
Gridley,
IMO my namesake was excellent on the Vietnam war and did the right thing during it and during his presidency stated that the war was wrong and vistited Vietnam on one of his last visits!
Actually editor of the Irish Voice, Niall O'Dowd, who knows Hill and Bill very well claims that in intellectual terms my namesake probably had the greatest intellect of any American president!
 
Top