pushing_wins
Hall of Fame
or has he served already?
how long can roger defer his compulsory military service?
- Thread starter pushing_wins
- Start date
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
You don't need to serve in the swiss military, if you're willing to pay up to 3% of your yearly income.
I'm sure that Federer was able to get a nice deal to avoid military service, he's way more useful to Switzerland as a tennis player.
Last edited:
prattle128
Semi-Pro
lol............
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
not long ago my country had compulsory MS too, but you could skip it easily, by being a professional sports player or being a university student (and a few other exception)... so my guess is that it was no big deal for him to dodge the CMS by filing some sort of request to swiss army services...
Bud
Bionic Poster
Your comment makes no sense.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Agree with this.
And if he pays 3 % of his yearly income to the Swiss Military id say HE is their biggest milk-cow
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Really??? :shock::shock:
No...that would make it around 45-50 million people...cant be right?
boris becker 1
Semi-Pro
10.2 % not 17
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Thats a shame seeing the standard of living there..
edmondsm
Legend
I have literally no idea what you mean.
But I do know that our country needs to get a clue and start slashing its military budget.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Thats basically what I meant, you had an idea after all!
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
no, not slashing, but streamlining. Im sure that every carrier and sub out there is not entirely necessary, and they are expensive to maintain (especially carriers. i would be intrigued to find out how much it costs to operate one, with ammunition, food, thousands of sailors, etc etc)
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
While i dislike some of the right wing foreign policy decisions made by the us, if it wasnt for the yanks, there is a fair chance that your country would be speaking russian at some stage during the past 50 years.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Not very likely, so the Americans are heroes?
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
Actually its quite likely. If it wasnt for NATO Ie the united states, the USSR would have swallowed up western europe. Im not saying they are hero's, i am saying that europe has lived under americas shield for the past 50 or so years.
I have as many gripes as the next european about the united states but its merely stating a fact
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
USA DEFINETELY needs Western Europe, and vice versa.
namelessone
Legend
And how exactly would have the soviets conquered all of western europe? They relied on their winter to beat the much better german army and only did so because the germans opened up too many fronts. The russians have the numbers but they lack the firepower and resources to keep western europe in their hands for too long,even without american intervention in Europe. And I am talking just about the context after WWII. The ****es,who had a much better army,couldn't take england and they had problems in scandinavia. And if they would have succesfully expanded eastwards you bet that trouble would have arrisen back in the west and I doubt the ****es would have kept the whole area at bay. Napoleon and other conquerors couldn't keep the west of europe for a long time because,as much as they bicker,these westerners get their crap together once the **** hits the fan.See how they all banded against Napoleon when he ruled Europe. The resistance in the countries controlled by ****es were backed up by the americans just like the americans were backed up by the french when they had their war against the british.
The West stays together in times of turmoil.
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
With all due respect i dont think any single european country has had an infantry that could compare to the germans in ww2. And the reason the germans couldnt take britain was due to it being an island and germany having an inferior navy. How can the ussr have sufficient numbers but not sufficient firepower!? Its the joint top military power since ww2.
I dont think the usa would have invested so heavily in europes defense if they didnt think the soviets capable of expanding throughout the continent
MAX PLY
Hall of Fame
Are you trying to ruin the knife business??
malakas
Banned
if by except for some countries,you mean every country apart from Scadinavia then you're right.
And patriotism flares when the economical situation is not good,when there is media manipulation when the sociopolitical conditions become fertile soil for it.Noone is immune to it.
Last edited:
malakas
Banned
I don't understand the point of your comment.
If it wasn't for europeans USA wouldn't be in the first place if I'm not mistaken..no?Besides Finland DID stop Russia by itself alone,with no substantial help from the yanks or from whoever else apart from their only good friends the Swedes and the Danes,in the Winter War.So before you make such statement better check some facts first.
ninman
Hall of Fame
Why would they want to stop at England, don't they like Wales, Scotland and Ireland too? I'm pretty sure the other three countries in the UK would be much easier targets. Do you have any idea how insulting it is for you to refer to Britain as England in the context of WW2, my grandfather fought for 6 long years in WW2 as a proud SCOTTISH soldier in the BRITISH army, you are basically saying that he did nothing, it was all England, well sorry but ENGLAND cannot fight a war because ENGLAND has no army, just like Scotland Wales and NI. Yes there are English divisions, but they are all in the BRITISH army.
No it's 10% but "underemployment" is 17%
Or German (last 80)
psYcon
Semi-Pro
that's the official figure but unofficial is higher.
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
Many would argue that the russians played a large part along with USA in defeating the germans. Britain and other countries played as large a part as possible too.
Plus, the USA hesitated to get involved until pearl harbour.
malakas
Banned
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
I don't understand the point of your comment.
Besides Finland DID stop Russia by itself alone,with no substantial help from the yanks or from whoever else apart from their only good friends the Swedes and the Danes,in the Winter War.So before you make such statement better check some facts first.
No you are not mistaken although thats not relevant to the point i made.
Finlands stance and victory was highly impressive but The cold war USSR was a different proposition to the Russian army that Finland faught against where Russia probably allocated a minute percentage of its military resources.
The biggest Army & Nuclear power would have breezed through europe imo.
malakas
Banned
yes perhaps,I believe it could have at least in part of europe.Definitely Finland.
But again,I don't understand the point of this discussion right now.Because if we make hypothetic scenarios like - if we the yanks wouldn't have helped you... - by the same way we could say that if it wasn't for the europeans these yanks wouldn't exist alltogether.That's why such discussions are completely useless.And the europeans I assure you,owe no gratitude to the yanks because in the world politics it all happens for the money and the power and the yanks didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart but for their own motives.
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
Im just saying that most of Europe benefitted from Nato which was mostly American firepower. Its a fact. And i am by no means a supporter of everything the US does.
malakas
Banned
oh yes.But this relationship was mutual since USA benefited the same if not more from such a relationship.
Anyway I critisize as much the americocentric comments that believe that the world owe them gratitude for breathing as much as I critisize the eurocentric ones who believe they're more educated or superior than the yanks.We're all the same and things change.Someday usa won't be the biggest superpower of the world and anyone who knows a little bit of history can see some patterns and repetitions.
You guys asked for change, and you got it.
Bhagi Katbamna
Legend
Man, some of the european posters are woefully ignorant of history. One of the reasons that Sweden and many other western EU countries were able to try their ill-advised socialist utopian schemes was that Uncle Sam was protecting them from the threat of the USSR and they didn't have to spend a lot of money on defence. In the US, we spend way more on social programs(i.e. welfare) than we do on the military.
Back on topic, I'm sure they have an exemption for Federer.
Back on topic, I'm sure they have an exemption for Federer.
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
btw, to give a clear answer to the topic:
federer is ineligible.
there are four possibilities for young swiss men:
1. do the regular military service (about 50% do that)
2. do civil service (about 10%). beginning with this year it is free to choose. before you had to be accepted and have some conversations about you not being able to do the military service for what reason there ever was. the only "problem": it's 50% longer, so ~400 days, not 260.
3. do civil protection/defense service (maximum 10%). you only get there if you have an injury, a sickness or something that makes you ineligible for military service but not civil protection service. it's less demanding and less days
4. completely ineligible (>30%)
you do not make any service, but pay at least an amount of about 250$/year or 3% of your income before taxes until the age of 30.
there is a special military service for sportives like skiers, footballers etc. and federer was supposed to go there. later when he became really good they suspended him from the service. was probably a good idea
(for myself, I did the normal military service and I would not recommend it at all. rather go for the civil service or better pay than wasting a year of your live)
federer is ineligible.
there are four possibilities for young swiss men:
1. do the regular military service (about 50% do that)
2. do civil service (about 10%). beginning with this year it is free to choose. before you had to be accepted and have some conversations about you not being able to do the military service for what reason there ever was. the only "problem": it's 50% longer, so ~400 days, not 260.
3. do civil protection/defense service (maximum 10%). you only get there if you have an injury, a sickness or something that makes you ineligible for military service but not civil protection service. it's less demanding and less days
4. completely ineligible (>30%)
you do not make any service, but pay at least an amount of about 250$/year or 3% of your income before taxes until the age of 30.
there is a special military service for sportives like skiers, footballers etc. and federer was supposed to go there. later when he became really good they suspended him from the service. was probably a good idea
(for myself, I did the normal military service and I would not recommend it at all. rather go for the civil service or better pay than wasting a year of your live)
Just keep out of Canada, our economy is doing great. If you do we'll cut off the oil lines to the US.
"Two-way trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled in value since the signing of the NAFTA in 1994. They are each other's largest trading partner, with $ 1.2 bn in trade now crossing the Canada-US border every single day.
***An important part of the bilateral trade is energy. Canada is the largest supplier of oil, natural gas and electricity to the United States.***** "
Source: US Newswire
Surprising isn't it. I bet most people in the world would have said Saudi Arabia.
Last edited:
pushing_wins
Hall of Fame
btw, to give a clear answer to the topic:
federer is ineligible.
there are four possibilities for young swiss men:
1. do the regular military service (about 50% do that)
2. do civil service (about 10%). beginning with this year it is free to choose. before you had to be accepted and have some conversations about you not being able to do the military service for what reason there ever was. the only "problem": it's 50% longer, so ~400 days, not 260.
3. do civil protection/defense service (maximum 10%). you only get there if you have an injury, a sickness or something that makes you ineligible for military service but not civil protection service. it's less demanding and less days
4. completely ineligible (>30%)
you do not make any service, but pay at least an amount of about 250$/year or 3% of your income before taxes until the age of 30.
there is a special military service for sportives like skiers, footballers etc. and federer was supposed to go there. later when he became really good they suspended him from the service. was probably a good idea
(for myself, I did the normal military service and I would not recommend it at all. rather go for the civil service or better pay than wasting a year of your live)
how do option 1 people feel about those who chose option 2?
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
Actually if you think about it, US kept the soviet threat alive and hyped up during the cold war era. US was equally responsible (may be more)for the arms race. Even now with Russia a shadow of the past, US pulled out on ABM treaty and is very keen on building missile defense.
We cannot simply remove US from the landscape and assume the other parts remain the same and specualte what would have happened.
Similar threads
