# Who Here Supports a Draft?



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb its misery.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food _etc_ are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's _'something that happens to other families.'_

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

Who Here Supports a Draft? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb it's misery.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food etc are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's 'something that happens to other families.'

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Who Here Supports a Draft?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.



Oh I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one. I'm listening.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

LOL, ya some disaster.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.



I can't wait to here an explanation for this one. Go ahead. You have my attention.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, ya some disaster.




You really think it's been a success? By the way, nice Bertrand Russell quote. It fits perfectly with this thread and the popular notion the all volunteer army has been a rousing success.

Either way, how about answering the draft question first.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Who Here Supports a Draft?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.

As for you, your just wanting a draft to scare up protests for the war. You do not give a good rat's ass about our troops or our Government.

So tell me, have you served? And if so are you STILL serving? If not why wait for a draft, do the right thing and join up to "help out" and learn first hand all about war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

I support raising the Army by about 600 k troops and the Marine Corps by about 30k. PERMANENTLY , not just for this little war. We foolishly gutted the military in the 90's.

I suspect those numbers can be sustained over time by an all volunteer force, we did it in the 70's and the 80's and can do it again.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.
> 
> As for you, your just wanting a draft to scare up protests for the war. You do not give a good rat's ass about our troops or our Government.
> 
> So tell me, have you served? And if so are you STILL serving? If not why wait for a draft, do the right thing and join up to "help out" and learn first hand all about war.



I won't lie to you. I'm a young healthy 19 year old who _has not_ and _will not_ serve unless forced to. The  only way I'm going to fight for the current rabble in Washington is if they issue a draft, at least then I'll feel a sense of duty.

Plus I'm in Canada studying on scholarship. I'm orignally from the Detroit area - dearborn.

Fight for the all volunteer army? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't purposefully fight for them in a million years. Why not? I thought about signing up once while visiting my cousin in Taylor, Michigan.  I did research and the more I found out about the experiment that is the all volunteer army, the more it turned me off.

Secondly, are you part of the _"if you haven't served, shut the hell up,"_ crowd? Like I told someone else tonight, that line of reasoning is in lockstep with the values of the SS or the clowns running the show in North Korea.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I support raising the Army by about 600 k troops and the Marine Corps by about 30k. PERMANENTLY , not just for this little war. *We foolishly gutted the military in the 90's.*
> I suspect those numbers can be sustained over time by an all volunteer force, we did it in the 70's and the 80's and can do it again.



The were not needed because the Soviet Army divisons they were intended to guard against had collapsed and folded. Its interesting to note, by the way, the decision to gut the troops was a _direct result _of the direction the all volunteer army purposefully took for the future. 

This is what you get when you to privatize the army. Like any corporation, there's going to be downsizing.

And that's what happened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.

Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.

The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.
> 
> Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.
> 
> *The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". *It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.




I agree with you there, it's now fully operating at a miserable level.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The were not needed because the Soviet Army divisons they were intended to guard against had collapsed and folded. Its interesting to note, by the way, the decision to gut the troops was a _direct result _of the new direction the all volunteer army purposefully took.



You are aware that the "all Volunteer" Army has been around since 1973? LONG before the Soviet Union Collapsed? We had over 2 million troops in all services at one point , all volunteers.

As for the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union removing a need for the forces we had? I beg to differ, even in the 90's we knew we did not have the troops we needed as the force was drawn down.

With the Soviets we had a stable world of sorts, neither side could risk an all out war but had to be prepared for one. With the collapse of the Soviets chaos became the norm in a lot of places in the world. I suggest , and I point to the past 20 years as evidence, that instead of drawing down we should have maintained our military because it was actually needed more AFTER the Soviets Collapsed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

Ohh and the decision to gut the military had absolutely nothing to do with the Army and it's direction. It had to do with politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs.

I suggest you do a tad bit of research. Before the Soviet collapse our national Military plan was to be able to fight 2 and a half wars at the SAME TIME. And until very recently that was STILL the National plan. Except we no longer had the Divisions or man power to do so. SO finally someone changed the plan.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> _You are aware that the "all Volunteer" Army has been around since 1973? LONG before the Soviet Union Collapsed? We had over 2 million troops in all services at one point , all volunteers._As for the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union removing a need for the forces we had? I beg to differ, even in the 90's we knew we did not have the troops we needed as the force was drawn down.
> 
> With the Soviets we had a stable world of sorts, neither side could risk an all out war but had to be prepared for one. With the collapse of the Soviets chaos became the norm in a lot of places in the world. I suggest , and I point to the past 20 years as evidence, that instead of drawing down we should have maintained our military because it was actually needed more AFTER the Soviets Collapsed.



I'm perfecty aware of that. But as the years passed, the AVA took on more of a modern business model. Hence, the downsizing.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh and the decision to gut the military had absolutely nothing to do with the Army and it's direction. _It had to do with politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs._
> I suggest you do a tad bit of research. Before the Soviet collapse our national Military plan was to be able to fight 2 and a half wars at the SAME TIME. And until very recently that was STILL the National plan. Except we no longer had the Divisions or man power to do so. SO finally someone changed the plan.



It absolutely did.

Got evidence to back the claim that "politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs" was the reason? Because that sounds more like political rhetoric than empirical evidence to me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Got evidence to back this claim up?



LOL just history, read a little.

Google the term " peace dividend" for starters. And then Google the mission statement of the US Military for the last 20 years.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL just history, read a little.
> 
> Google the term " peace dividend" for starters. And then Google the mission statement of the US Military for the last 20 years.




You honestly think the mission statement of the US military is evidence?

Are you being serious?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You honestly think the mission statement of the US military is evidence?
> 
> Are you being serious?



Are you being stupid? How exactly does one determine what the plans of the military are if they are not going to go by the STATED PLANS of , well, that military?

And which of us actually spent 16 years in said military, with access to plans and preperations and contingency plans and training all those years? I guess we spent all those years in those field exercises just to waste time and waste tax payers money?

Ohh did I mention my father spent 22 years in the Army? I wonder which of us would know what the military was all about?


----------



## weaverd33 (Apr 4, 2008)

I believe the draw down in the 90's was 100% political.  It would have been almost political suicide to champion a huge military that could fight on two fronts when there was no "perceived" threat to us.  The American public did not want to pay for something they did not think they needed.

On the draft issue, I don't think that would work.  It would do more harm than good.  I personally would like to see military service required of all Americans.  At least a 2 year stint.  There opinions are from a former Navy Submariner.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I won't lie to you. I'm a young healthy 19 year old who _has not_ and _will not_ serve unless forced to. The  only way I'm going to fight for the current rabble in Washington is if they issue a draft, at least then I'll feel a sense of duty.
> 
> Plus I'm in Canada studying on scholarship. I'm orignally from the Detroit area - dearborn.
> 
> ...



I am totally against a draft. It would bring in people like you who have NO business in MY Army.  

Stay in Canada....they like folks like you.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

Shepherd,

A draft would be a terrible idea, especially in society today.  If the world was on the brink of another Super-power vs. Super-power world war and the crap really hit the fan and man power was needed, the draft would be an option. But not now.  

The all volunteer Army has done a great job of maintaining it's troop levels until recently, despite jacked-up political policy and money-saving agendas in the 90s.  People that don't want to be in the military don't need to be there.  

As far as evidence goes...if you wanted to get a job, would you take the business' mission statement as evidence of what they do?  More than likely yes.  The military mission statement is a primary source of evidence on this topic.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> I am totally against a draft. It would bring in people like you who have NO business in MY Army.
> 
> Stay in Canada....they like folks like you.



If he's an American, it's his army, too.


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 4, 2008)

I do, 18 months military, or if conscientious objector, 18 months peace corps, only one exception marriage. Kills two birds with one stone, make yoots think of service to their country and reinforces marriage vows.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I do, 18 months military, or if conscientious objector, 18 months peace corps, only one exception marriage. Kills two birds with one stone, make yoots think of service to their country and reinforces marriage vows.



I don't know how we'd ever be able to legalize forcing people to serve....with our Constitution and all.  I agree with it, and I think everyone should have to serve for a time...but it would be hard to navigate around the legality of it.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> If he's an American, it's his army, too.



nope.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

Prove it.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Prove it.



UH OH!!!! He used the "P" word! 

Run fer da heels!!!!!


----------



## dread (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Prove it.




TGS already said he was Canadian.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

dread said:


> TGS already said he was Canadian.



I could be wrong, but I think he's from Detroit (area)...I think he's in school in Canada or something....just some info.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Prove it.



Anyone that does not agree with it's mission, thinks it is terrible at its job, and wants to swell its ranks with people who don't want to be there has no business claiming my army as their own. Sergeant Major is absolutely correct, it is not his army.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Apr 4, 2008)

Trying to fix or change the US Military while the Commander in Chief and the rest of the clowns in DC see the military as a tool their personal use is like setting a broken leg on a patient who is not breathing...

Pointless...

-Joe


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I won't lie to you. I'm a young healthy 19 year old who _has not_ and _will not_ serve unless forced to. The  only way I'm going to fight for the current rabble in Washington is if they issue a draft, at least then I'll feel a sense of duty.
> 
> Plus I'm in Canada studying on scholarship. I'm orignally from the Detroit area - dearborn.
> 
> ...



Don't worry, you're not needed. Nor are you wanted.

There are plenty of good and smart men and women out there who are eager to serve, who love their country regardless of their personal vendettas, and who would serve regardless of who is in the white house.

That's the difference between a patriot and a squab.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

onthefence said:


> Anyone that does not agree with it's mission, thinks it is terrible at its job, and wants to swell its ranks with people who don't want to be there has no business claiming my army as their own. Sergeant Major is absolutely correct, it is not his army.



Wrong. The army serves at the whim of the people. At least in my country. Not sure where you live. Saudi Arabia?


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Prove it.



I dont want to, I'm not going to, and you cant make me.

I've heard that crap from punk ass kids like him for over thirty years. Folks like him are not worth my time or effort except as entertainment....the sort of entertainment that becomes boring very quickly.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

Okay. I don't agree with him either, I just took issue with someone stating the military only belonged to the military.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Wrong. The army serves at the whim of the people. At least in my country. Not sure where you live. Saudi Arabia?



No. The army serves at the pleasure of its commanders. It protects the people. It does not serve at the whim of the people. This statement is asisnine.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Wrong. The army serves at the whim of the people. At least in my country. Not sure where you live. Saudi Arabia?



Were it that simple eh. Gee, I served for 30 years and not once did I get "elected" to the service. 

Fortunately, the military does not serve at "the whim of the people". It does serve at the whim of Congress (funding) and the President (Commander in Chief). In fact, I do not recall anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the military shall serve at the whim of the people.... Maybe in your country they do; are you from France?


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Okay. I don't agree with him either, I just took issue with someone stating the military only belonged to the military.



I have read this thread over and over and I did not see that statement anywhere.


----------



## The_Hammer (Apr 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> Were it that simple eh. Gee, I served for 30 years and not once did I get "elected" to the service.
> 
> Fortunately, the military does not serve at "the whim of the people". It does serve at the whim of Congress (funding) and the President (Commander in Chief). In fact, I do not recall anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the military shall serve at the whim of the people.... Maybe in your country they do; are you from France?



I think he means the people since congress is _the collective representative_ of the people.

But all aside, a draft would be retarded. If you're worried about your troop levels than sure. But the only thing a draft would solve is increasing troop levels. You then have to deal with morale, discipline, your NCO and CO corps. How can you expect to control an army that doesn't want to be an army? That's why volunteer armies work. Because people choose to join.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> Were it that simple eh. Gee, I served for 30 years and not once did I get "elected" to the service.
> 
> Fortunately, the military does not serve at "the whim of the people". It does serve at the whim of Congress (funding) and the President (Commander in Chief). In fact, I do not recall anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the military shall serve at the whim of the people.... Maybe in your country they do; are you from France?



And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 4, 2008)

I find the modern attitude towards the draft troubling and a part of modernity that may eventually lead to a not good place. How is it, as an American citizen, one does not think in any sense that they too owe a little something to the place they live? It seems the only thing many want today is more money, the military is hard and the government sucks and taxes are bad but good lordie I sure do love the dollar bill! Anyone ever think it is the government taxes structure safety order military that provide the environment for the greed some cherish more than anything else. And I know Iraq is screwed up and nationalism not the best trait but....

And the idea that contractors will handle things is another scary idea.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

The_Hammer said:


> I think he means the people since congress is _the collective representative_ of the people.
> 
> But all aside, a draft would be retarded. If you're worried about your troop levels than sure. But the only thing a draft would solve is increasing troop levels. You then have to deal with morale, discipline, your NCO and CO corps. How can you expect to control an army that doesn't want to be an army? That's why volunteer armies work. Because people choose to join.



Ironically, people tend to forget that the military is made up of individuals....every single one of whom made a conscious decision to join the military VOLUNTARILY. 

I am willing to bet that no more than two of those individuals even considered this particular poster's whims when enlisting.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!



Whim? Good thing we dont operate the government (never mind the military) on a whim. We hold elections and put people in office for certain periods of time. I suppose you really do wish we could vote today and change our minds tomorrow, but that is not the way it works.


----------



## CSM (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!



By the way, it is my "whim" that all Democrats leave office tomorrow at 8:00 am EDT and be replaced by right wing Christian extremists. What do you think the odds are of that happening?


----------



## The_Hammer (Apr 4, 2008)

Too true. As much as people love to say "Ah join the army and you'll just be another number" the truth is quite the opposite. The government isn't retarded, they know that getting a bunch of people in the army who don't want to be there is a bad idea. It's been a volunteer army since this nation got started. Drafts are only necessary when the country it self is on the verge of collapse or imminent danger.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.



IMHO I think that mentally as a group, we've gotten a lot weaker. In addition, society has allowed a pervasive attitude of either A) Someone else is gonna solve your problems or B) Feel bad about your problems but don't fix them. Lots of things went on back in the day that I don't think mentally most folks could survive.

Also WW2 was almost the last "good" war fought, at least on the allies side. So the mental attitude of the majority of soldiers was different then.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> By the way, it is my "whim" that all Democrats leave office tomorrow at 8:00 am EDT and be replaced by right wing Christian extremists. What do you think the odds are of that happening?



No, it's the collective whim and I hope you aren't really this stupid.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> And the congress and the president serve at the whim of the people. doh!



Overly simplistic. If you believe this then you are the stupid one.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

onthefence said:


> Overly simplistic. If you believe this then you are the stupid one.



Though this is the idea behind Congress and the President...I don't remember them serving the people or "at the whim" of the people in my lifetime.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

Really? Elections and impeachment have no meaning for you?

The government is for the people and of the people. The people are the most important part of our country. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to be. 

Oh, on re-read, maybe you're actually agreeing with me.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Really? Elections and impeachment have no meaning for you?
> 
> The government is for the people and of the people. The people are the most important part of our country. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to be.
> 
> Oh, on re-read, maybe you're actually agreeing with me.




Yeah, I agree that the premise of Congress and the President is to serve the people based on what the people want.  For the people and by the people.   Unfotunately, this is not true to it's fullest extent.  If it were really true, we all would have voted on the war, or weather or not to raise, lower taxes, etc...


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

Not a perfect system but imagine if we had to vote on everything. Nothing would ever get done.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

true true, but then again, that's my problem with our presidential election system even....the fact that our president can be elected by a 51% majority vote blows my mind.  Is there any better way to keep the country divided (sarcasm).   It's a bit extreme, but if it was up to me, I'd say the president would have to win with a 60% or more majority vote.  I feel that if large issues were voted on, it would be ok.  I wouldn't go on and vote for everytime the pres or cong. make a decision, but at least the big ones.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

Yuh, but that would mean Bush might be in office forever. What if it never approached a 60% vote? The old president would never leave.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Yuh, but that would mean Bush might be in office forever. What if it never approached a 60% vote? The old president would never leave.



yeah, that would be a problem.

There would have to be something worked out where there was a position created (not VP or President) but a non-partisan position created to hold the office until a president was being elected (I'm just thinking this up).  Someone who could not make big decisions on anything, but keep the country "operating" until a president could be elected.  Just think if 2/3 of the population wanted a president, we'd all do alot less arguing...LOL


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.
> 
> Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.
> 
> The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.



Based on articles like these (though they might be dated), it seems to me that the military is (or was) having a difficult time finding people willing to join.  It is my opinion that prospective soldiers do not want to risk being sent to a war that they do not support.  

I thought about joining the military but declined for the very reason.  I dont want to risk my death because someone else decided for me whether or not a particular war is in Americas best interest. 

Still, I do what I can for the sake of the soldiers.  I give care packages and letters and such. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/recruiting_5-12.html

_Amid recruiting shortfalls and accusations of unethical behavior by some recruiters, the U.S. Army is spending millions on new programs designed to convince more young Americans to join the ranks._

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/03/MNGM2B50V61.DTL

_For the first time in nearly a decade, the Marine Corps missed its monthly recruiting goal in January in what military officials said was the latest troubling indicator of the Iraq war's impact on the armed services. _

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/

_The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday._


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060718/ai_n16540950

_To reach its goals, the Army has deployed a thousand new recruiters and is offering enlistment bonuses for new recruits and those who persuade them to join up. But it also has lowered its recruiting standards -- so far only modestly -- by increasing the number of waivers for those who score low on an aptitude test, who have misdemeanor convictions or have medical problems. _


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 4, 2008)

Im undecided about the draft.  On one hand, I support it because I think that politicians would be much more thoughtful about whether or to vote for war if their sons or daughters might be called to go to such a war.  

I have an idea.  Imagine if there were a law that said something like:  If a politician supports our going to war, then if he or she has a son or daughter able to serve, the son or daughter will be sent to the front lines of that war.  Just imagine what the results would be.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2008)

I Support We Draft Those That..support The War..as Long As They Are Under 65 And Fit


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 4, 2008)

eots said:


> I Support We Draft Those That..support The War..as Long As They Are Under 65 And Fit



LOL.  People will quickly change their minds.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Based on articles like these (though they might be dated), it seems to me that the military is (or was) having a difficult time finding people willing to join.  It is my opinion that prospective soldiers do not want to risk being sent to a war that they do not support.
> 
> I thought about joining the military but declined for the very reason.  I dont want to risk my death because someone else decided for me whether or not a particular war is in Americas best interest.
> 
> ...



You know, quoting a bunch of vague comments by anti-military groups doesn't exactly make your point.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

eots said:


> I Support We Draft Those That..support The War..as Long As They Are Under 65 And Fit



IS this your grand conspiracy to get rid of all the republicans and people who voted for Bush?


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 4, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You know, quoting a bunch of vague comments by anti-military groups doesn't exactly make your point.



Rumsfeld was anti-military!?! Wow.  Well, I guess that he was in the way that he practically brushed away soldiers concerns about armor.


----------



## dread (Apr 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Rumsfeld was anti-military!?! Wow.  Well, I guess that he was in the way that he practically brushed away soldiers concerns about armor.



I take anything CNN says with a grain of salt; and PBS blatantly lies, so I don't give any credence to anything they print.


----------



## doeton (Apr 4, 2008)

agreeing - Draft Bad and unnecessary.

and wanting a draft to stop a war???

it's that putting da cart before da horse.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 4, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I take anything CNN says with a grain of salt; and PBS blatantly lies, so I don't give any credence to anything they print.



Okay.  What news sources do you give credence too?  Please name a source in addition to FOX.


----------



## doeton (Apr 4, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I take anything CNN says with a grain of salt; and PBS blatantly lies, so I don't give any credence to anything they print.



 yeah without fox my world view crumbles and i start to get depressed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Really? Elections and impeachment have no meaning for you?
> 
> The government is for the people and of the people. The people are the most important part of our country. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to be.
> 
> Oh, on re-read, maybe you're actually agreeing with me.



Name a State that allows you to Impeach a Federal Congressman, Senator or President.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 4, 2008)

What has that got to do with my point?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> LOL.  People will quickly change their minds.



No they would not.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 4, 2008)

doeton said:


> yeah without fox my world view crumbles and i start to get depressed.



Wall Street Journal.
Washington Post.
Local news, for heaven sakes.
Talk radio.
For a wide variety I check out Drudge every now and then. He pulls from all spectrums.

Sadly, where I live Fox news is not on basic cable. I have not sunk into depression, though.


----------



## dread (Apr 4, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sadly, where I live Fox news is not on basic cable. I have not sunk into depression, though.





Funny that you should say that...When I was living in the Seattle area a couple of years ago the cable company ONLY offered CNN but no Fox News. Whereas if one lived in the Kirkland, Bellvue, Redmond area ( Microsoft headquarters) one could get both. 


I like having a choice. Both news channels come at things with different angles. I just tune out both their bias.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 4, 2008)

Ravir said:


> What has that got to do with my point?



At the federal level we do NOT have an individual right or ability to impeach ANY official. We elect them for x amount of time and they serve that time. You claimed we could impeach them when we can not. Only Congress can Impeach.

Further are you aware that only Congress can seat members? This means, and has happened, that an elected Congressman or Senator can be denied the right to be seated in his Body of Congress and thus has no vote.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Who Here Supports a Draft?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you being stupid? How exactly does one determine what the plans of the military are if they are not going to go by the STATED PLANS of , well, that military?
> 
> And which of us actually spent 16 years in said military, with access to plans and preperations and contingency plans and training all those years? I guess we spent all those years in those field exercises just to waste time and waste tax payers money?
> 
> Ohh did I mention my father spent 22 years in the Army? I wonder which of us would know what the military was all about?



Apparently the army hasn't taught you reading comprehension. Measuring the success of the army mission statement, and determining their stated mission is two very different things. And suffice to say, a mission statement found on an army website does not qualify as evidence that _"politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs," is the reason for the cuts. _

Back up your claim with hard empirical evidence citing internal documents, or have your argument thrown out with this week's latest political garbage.

On another note. I do not care, nor is it relevant whether or not you, or your kin have served. It is not pertinent to the discussion and does not substantiate the claims you have made. Like I said, the all volunteer army has been a dismal failure.

Do you think you would ever have seen Eisenhower riding around Europe with private security watching his back? It's an insult to all Americans. Current Washington politicians  protect themselves with security companies like Blackwater rather than members of US armed forces.

But that's what happens when the military takes on a "modern" Enron style business model.

The decision to cut the army divisions had nothing to do with "social services" or "pet projects." Americans and many high ranking officers just aren't willing to spend more than the highly accepted 1 per cent of GDP the military has historically been allotted.

And you're wrong about it being "your army". This line of reasoning is akin to a rowdy pre-teen declaring the house he lives in belongs to him/her - even though it's his parents who pay the mortgage, put food on the table and slap the clothes on his/her back.

It is not your army. The army is taxpayer property, period. 

Make sure you always remember that the next time you make a ridiculous statement of ownership to an entity you do not solely foot the bill for.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Apparently the army hasn't taught you reading comprehension. Measuring the success of the army mission statement, and determining their stated mission is two very different things. And suffice to say, a mission statement found on an army website does not qualify as evidence that _"politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs," is the reason. _
> 
> Back up your claim with hard empirical evidence, or have your argument thrown out with this week's garbage.
> 
> ...



That's why our all volunteer "failure" is the strongest and most effective fighting force on the planet.........


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> That's why our all volunteer "failure" is the *strongest and most effective fighting force on the planet*.........



I wholeheartedly disagree. Why? Because beating up on a severely weakened country in 2003 (_Iraq)_ is not an example of this power, nor a true test of it's effectiveness. In 2003, the US military proved what every credible military analyst already knew - that it could destroy a handicapped nation carrying the battle flags of an already mortally wounded conventional force.

One of the reasons why the Iraq invasion was possible was prescisely because Iraq was weak from the sanctions and conditions from the first Gulf War imposed by the Western powers _(mainly Washington)_.  Iraq in 2003 could be invaded because it was weak, and had virtually no deterrent capability.

It's been five years and the US military is bogged down in an engagement with an enemy whose sole weapon is glorified pipe bombs. This is just the reality.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

As every military person knows, combat is the best training soldiers can get.  That's why the British and Israeli armies were considered the best throughout the 1980s and into 1990s.  They had combat experience from Ireland and Lebanon.  Now that the US military has the most combat experienced troops, we are the best in the world.

And, as every military person knows, counterinsurgency warfare is the toughest type of war to fight.  The main problem is patience, which dumbass civilians seems to lack.  People tend to think of this type of warfare in the terms of a hour long tv show where everything is taken care at the end of the hour.  Reality is different, but then again, a military person would know that.  Obviously, Goodshithead knows squat about the military and less about counterinsurgency warfare and should therefore shut his fucking piehole.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree. Why? Because beating up on a severely weakened country in 2003 (_Iraq)_ is not an example of this power, nor a true test of it's effectiveness. In 2003, the US military proved what every credible military analyst already knew - that it could destroy a handicapped nation carrying the battle flags of an already mortally wounded conventional force.
> 
> One of the reasons why the Iraq invasion was possible was prescisely because Iraq was weak from the sanctions and conditions from the first Gulf War imposed by the Western powers _(mainly Washington)_.  Iraq in 2003 could be invaded because it was weak, and had virtually no deterrent capability.
> 
> It's been five years and the US military is bogged down in an engagement with an enemy whose sole weapon is glorified pipe bombs. This is just the reality.




Last I checked, the military soldiers didn't all sit down in a cafeteria and take a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted to invade Iraq.  You'er obviously confused and mixing the "workings" of the U.S. military, and the shitty decisions of the U.S. politician.  

You're arguing about the reasons for war, this has nothing to do with the American military and how they function.  They're given a mission, and they do their job.  

As far as a weak Iraq, we also kicked their asses in 91 when they had a strong military....Took 1 week to push them out of Kuwait.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Last I checked, the military soldiers didn't all sit down in a cafeteria and take a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted to invade Iraq.  You'er obviously confused and mixing the "workings" of the U.S. military, and the shitty decisions of the U.S. politician.
> 
> You're arguing about the reasons for war, this has nothing to do with the American military and how they function.  They're given a mission, and they do their job.
> 
> *As far as a weak Iraq, we also kicked their asses in 91 when they had a strong military....*Took 1 week to push them out of Kuwait.



No I am not arguing the reasons for for war. I'm arguing why the all volunteer military has been a disaster.

Wrong as usual. Iraq's forces were severely depressed from the Iran-Iraq war. And again, no credible military analyst for one second thought the US would ever lose against Iraq in 91 either.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 5, 2008)

> And, as every military person knows, counterinsurgency warfare is the toughest type of war to fight. The main problem is patience, which dumbass civilians seems to lack. People tend to think of this type of warfare in the terms of a hour long tv show where everything is taken care at the end of the hour. Reality is different, but then again, a military person would know that. Obviously, Goodshithead knows squat about the military and less about counterinsurgency warfare and should therefore shut his fucking piehole.



This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq.  Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis.  If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you?  No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated.  No fucking roses and parades, Dick.  Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.

Better we just let them fight it out themself.  We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.

The world is not safer and a hell of a lot of good American miltary and Iraqi civilians have died for a war that never needed fighting.

If the real objective was to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we just assasinate him?  For the trillion dollars we have spent so far, I think we could have accomplished this much.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 5, 2008)

PS:  I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this.  NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.



Conjecture



> By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb its misery.



When aren't "some Army officials" requesting more troops, war or no?  Be specific as to your claim and support it with some fact.



> Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?



?



> For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food _etc_ are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.
> 
> These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.



Hiring contract civilians is a smoke and mirror job to give the appearance of carrying out military downsizing.  It started in the late 80s under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and is in no way a result of current events.



> If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.



Link to these "interbal armed forces assessments" please.  



> I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's _'something that happens to other families.'_
> 
> I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.
> 
> ...




Plain and simple ... the draft forces people to be in the military and it should be avoided at all costs.  It's hard enough training people who WANT to be there, and I damned sure don't need some psycho-numbnuts who hates the world because he was drafted carrying a loaded weapon behind me.  

Then there's the "one size fits all" part of your little theory.  There are people who just don't belong in the military just as I know damned-well I don't belong on a car lot selling cars.  I can see it now ... "C'Mere and buy this f-ing car." 

And in case you've missed it, as evidenced by this message board and others like it if nothing else, some people don't support the war.  Some, like you, are on their second thread after joining this board bashing the capabilities of the US military without any real clue what they're talking about.

Why would I want someone like YOU in my company destroying the morale of my Marines and half-assing everything you do when it only takes the time of you questioning an order to get most of those Marines DEAD?

Feel free to explain.


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

Since when has FORCING someone to do something they dont want to do EVER been a good thing?


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Apparently the army hasn't taught you reading comprehension. Measuring the success of the army mission statement, and determining their stated mission is two very different things. And suffice to say, a mission statement found on an army website does not qualify as evidence that _"politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs," is the reason for the cuts. _
> 
> Back up your claim with hard empirical evidence citing internal documents, or have your argument thrown out with this week's latest political garbage.
> 
> ...





Funny how you are too dumb to realize that RGS was NOT in the Army. Had YOU been in the military you MAY have understood that. Although I doubt it seeing as you know NOTHING about the military.


And that brings me to another thing. You talk bullshit about the military and yet YOU have never experienced it. So how can YOU know the eternal workings that surround it? You DEMAND empirical evidence from others yet have provided NONE thus far. 

You are a liar and a fuckin hack who just spews hate about military people and gets all butt hurt when others call you on it.


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree. Why? Because beating up on a severely weakened country in 2003 (_Iraq)_ is not an example of this power, nor a true test of it's effectiveness. In 2003, the US military proved what every credible military analyst already knew - that it could destroy a handicapped nation carrying the battle flags of an already mortally wounded conventional force.
> 
> One of the reasons why the Iraq invasion was possible was prescisely because Iraq was weak from the sanctions and conditions from the first Gulf War imposed by the Western powers _(mainly Washington)_.  Iraq in 2003 could be invaded because it was weak, and had virtually no deterrent capability.
> 
> It's been five years and the US military is bogged down in an engagement with an enemy whose sole weapon is glorified pipe bombs. This is just the reality.







Where is your empirical evidence for this?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> PS:  I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this.  NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.



SO you are all for having the military NOT be under civilian rule? Be sure to let your liberal buddies know that is how you think, I am sure they will love you when the Military just does what ever the hell it wants.


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq.  Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis.  If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you?  No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated.  No fucking roses and parades, Dick.  Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.
> 
> Better we just let them fight it out themself.  We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.
> 
> ...





Sounds like you agree with Good Shepard...

This must mean that you personally are a failure and that the Marines in  general are failures.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 5, 2008)

I would not say that it has been a disaster, but I think that it is common knowledge that as this Iraq war has waged on, the military, for a brief time, had failed to meet its quota.  It had to cut corners and become more lenient so that it could let prospective recruits in who otherwise not qualify.  It other words, it had to dumb down its requirements just a little bit.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

dread said:


> You talk bullshit about the military and yet YOU have never experienced it. So how can YOU know the eternal workings that surround it? You DEMAND empirical evidence from others yet have provided NONE thus far.
> 
> You are a liar and a fuckin hack who just spews hate about military people and gets all butt hurt when others call you on it.



I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board. 

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq.  Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis.  If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you?  No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated.  No fucking roses and parades, Dick.  Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.



Last information I saw showed that a majority of insurgents are foreigners.  And there is a difference between standing up for freedom and fighting because you want to be able to torture people at your pleasure.  Anyone who equates the Iraqi insurgents to freedom fighters is an idiot.



rayboyusmc said:


> Better we just let them fight it out themself.  We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.



We already have.  Sunnis and Shias are working together in the government.  Is it perfect? No, but it's always improving.



rayboyusmc said:


> The world is not safer and a hell of a lot of good American miltary and Iraqi civilians have died for a war that never needed fighting.



So freedom isn't worth fighting for, what kind of Marine are you????



rayboyusmc said:


> If the real objective was to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we just assasinate him?  For the trillion dollars we have spent so far, I think we could have accomplished this much.



Why didn't we just get rid of him in 1991 and save ourselves the problems?  Because dumbass liberals such as yourself seem to thrive on keeping pissant dictators in power.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.
> 
> Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.
> 
> ...



You preach on here like you know everything and yet you talk out of your ass, because you don't know jackshit.  Then, when you get called on it, you run and hide or start talking shit about other people's writing and tell them to shut up.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.
> 
> Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.
> 
> ...



Why don't you post some evidence you're always whining about wanting from us to support your views??????????


Probably because none exists!


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> PS:  I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this.  NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.




Last time I checked, it was the dumbass civilians that got the military into every war, conflict or police action.  Clinton deployed the military to more places then any other US president and no one calls him on the carpet for getting us involved in places like Kosovo (where we still are) or Somalia.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Last information I saw showed that a majority of insurgents are foreigners.  And there is a difference between standing up for freedom and fighting because you want to be able to torture people at your pleasure.  Anyone who equates the Iraqi insurgents to freedom fighters is an idiot.
> 
> We already have.  Sunnis and Shias are working together in the government.  Is it perfect? No, but it's always improving.
> 
> ...



I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more. 

Here's a hint and a correction to just one of your claims. Most insurgents _are not_ foreigners.

According to a 2005 report _(the last time a credible study by an authoritative body on the issue was conducted)_ from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), they make up only about* 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.*

Like I said, get your facts straights. Its embarrassing to know people like you who base their conclusions of off myths still exist.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more.
> 
> Here's a hint and a correction to just one of your claims. Most insurgents _are not_ foreigners.
> 
> According to a 2005 report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), they make up only about* 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.*



Okay, and the rest are just Saddam supporters mad because they don't get to kill and maim any more.

Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

And you just ignored the rest of the post about how the government is working together and improving.  Must be because it doesn't fit into the "reality" you have created for yourself and therefore must be ignored.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Last time I checked, it was the dumbass civilians that got the military into every war, conflict or police action.  Clinton deployed the military to more places then any other US president and no one calls him on the carpet for getting us involved in places like Kosovo (where we still are) or Somalia.



More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.

Just because one is too lazy to get his ass to a library and do some research does not mean papers researching Clinton's executive decisions regarding military deployment exist.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I would not say that it has been a disaster, but I think that it is common knowledge that as this Iraq war has waged on, the military, for a brief time, had failed to meet its quota.  It had to cut corners and become more lenient so that it could let prospective recruits in who otherwise not qualify.  It other words, it had to dumb down its requirements just a little bit.



Yes and no.  The requirements have not changed in 30 years.  The number of There has always been a preferred line to meet, as well as a lower, acceptable one that may or may not require one or more waivers.  How the numbers fluctuate between those lines is dependent on more factors that just a war.  The outside economy is one.  How military service in general is perceived is another.  

When I joined in 1980 at the end of the Carter Administration and post-Vietnam War period, we were not at war, but the military was so hard up for bodies you could join if you could spell your name correctly.  The post-Vietnam War era perception of the military, and Carter's overall neglect of it made it less than a desireable place to be.  

I recall if you were a LCpl (E-3) or Cpl (E-4), you could reenlist for the next higher rank in the Marine Corps.  

From about late 83-85 to around 93-94, it was a completely reversed.  We had plenty of new gear, weapons, and were WAY over on manpower.  Beginning in the mid 90s, it cycled back the other way.  Our OpTempo was increased while our manpower was decreased and we were again using duct tape and bailing wire to keep things working.

As far as war goes, who wants to fight a so-called war politics won't allow you to win?  That's not fighting a war.  It's being a target.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Okay, and the rest are just *Saddam supporters mad because they don't get to kill and maim any more.
> *
> Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm
> ...



You made a claim that "most insurgents are foreign". In fact, that claim is not true, even the link you provided does not reinforce your original claim. In a twist of irony it actually strengthens my claim, while destroying yours. There's that reading comprehension problem creeping up again. 

The argument that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters is a myth and you made the mistake of repeating it. It is a mistake of your own making, not anyone else's.

As for me ignoring parts of your post. The reason for that is simple. The rest of your post had nothing - I repeat nothing - to do with the validity of your original claim.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more.
> 
> Like I said, get your facts straights. Its embarrassing to know people like you who base their conclusions of off myths still exist.



The EXACT same conclusion can be reached regarding your intial post and premise of this thread.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

Also, please don't post the same thread twice in two different places.  If you wish to have a thread title corrected, changed, moved or deleted, PM one of the staff and under normal circumstances we will be more than happy to help you out.

Thanks


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The EXACT same conclusion can be reached regarding your initial post and premise of this thread.



If that's what you think, then explain yourself. Because what I offered in my first post _(which is opinion)_ is vastly different than someone trying to pass off as fact, a claim based off of a myth.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> If that's what you think, then explain yourself. Because what I offered in my first post _(which is opinion)_ is vastly different than someone trying to pass off as fact, a claim based off of a myth.



See post #83, previous page.

And THIS is a perfect example why not to post the same topic twice in different places.  I responded to your initial comment in one thread, then came back to the same thread topic and responded again, only it was in a different thread.  

We need to try and keep the confusion down to a dull roar here.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> As far as war goes, who wants to fight a so-called war politics won't allow you to win?  That's not fighting a war.  It's being a target.



Thanks for the information but first of all, I would ask what constitutes winning the war?   The democrats consider that we have done enough.  We defeated Sadam.  We practically imposed a new system of government.  We trained Iraqi soldiers and police.  In that sense, we won or at least did our share.  Now it is time for use to remove a large portion of our military from Iraq and force the Iraqi citizens to take care of their own nation.  The republican perspective is that it is not time to pull out.  We should remain there indefinitely  perhaps 100 years according to McCain.

Secondly, as I said before, I dont want some commanding officer telling me where I should go and what I should do when it involves risking my life.  After all is said and done, was our going to war really worth it?  Was it worth so many deaths and so much destruction?  I doubt it.   Saddam was not a significant threat to America.  Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but there are more powerful evil dictators that warrant more attention than Saddam ever did.  

It just was not worth it from the start and that is one big reason why I shy away from being a soldier.  WWII  You bet ya.  I would have gone in there with guns blazing. The Iraq war  errrr.  No thanks.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 5, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Thanks for the information but first of all, I would ask what constitutes winning the war?   The democrats consider that we have done enough.  We defeated Sadam.  We practically imposed a new system of government.  We trained Iraqi soldiers and police.  In that sense, we won or at least did our share.  Now it is time for use to remove a large portion of our military from Iraq and force the Iraqi citizens to take care of their own nation.  The republican perspective is that it is not time to pull out.  We should remain there indefinitely  perhaps 100 years according to McCain.



You and I are pretty much in agreement, with the usual few minor changes.

While I agree in principle we should be able to pull back, I'd say the answer lies with this question:  Do you think if we pull back now, the Iraqi government could and would stand on its own?

While the left is trying to sell each other and the rest on pulling out "now," do you actually think that if a Democrat is elected President that it will actually happen?  

Do you really think a Democrat is going to pull us out, taking the chance that the Iraqi government collapses?  The song and dance isn't going to matter.  The left will take the blame based on "everything was fine til you screwed it up."  And you can bet your last dollar THAT is how it will be sold, and THAT is how it will be perceived.



> Secondly, as I said before, I dont want some commanding officer telling me where I should go and what I should do when it involves risking my life.  After all is said and done, was our going to war really worth it?  Was it worth so many deaths and so much destruction?  I doubt it.   Saddam was not a significant threat to America.  Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but there are more powerful evil dictators that warrant more attention than Saddam ever did.
> 
> It just was not worth it from the start and that is one big reason why I shy away from being a soldier.  WWII  You bet ya.  I would have gone in there with guns blazing. The Iraq war  errrr.  No thanks.



You need to read my comments on the draft.  I don't support it, and I used a generalization of the sentiments you are stating.  Quite simply, for whatever reason(s), and I have no reason to disrespect your beliefs, if you don't want to be there, I don't want you there.  

Since you tossed it in the ring, what I will say is that is my opinion based on current circumstances.  If this nation was in a war for its survival, I would expect everyone that enjoys its freedoms should be toting a rifle.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> When aren't "some Army officials" requesting more troops, war or no?  Be specific as to your claim and support it with some fact.
> 
> Hiring contract civilians is a smoke and mirror job to give the appearance of carrying out military downsizing.  It started in the late 80s under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and is in no way a result of current events.
> 
> ...



Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA _(all volunteer army)_ has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.

I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.

Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater".  The reasons are obvious for the jump. It pays more, soldiers have vast legal protections, they serve less time and  have better equipment than your regular joe.

The US military, along with some ambitious Washington politicians, thought outsourcing the war in Iraq to mercenaries was/is an integral part of the AVA. They argued it was part of a "cost cutting" measure designed to lead a more efficient US military. In fact, it turned out to be anything but an honest attempt to save money. Instead it turned into a grotesque swindle of soldiers and taxpayers. Remember, the executive administration smeared those who argued that the Iraq war could cost hundreds of billions of dollars or more, some were even forced to resign or had their credibility attacked. Washington claimed the Iraq war would " pay for itself."

Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term. 

Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?

Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty.  Thousands of  IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers.  Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty.  Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.

And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for a surge at all?

That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's inherent design flaws have been exposed in Iraq.

*Even if we went into Iraq knowing there was going to be a draft*. I do not think the fraud, the waste, the overcharging etc would have occurred in Iraq in the same proportions that is going on right now had we conscripted citizens into battle.

The AVA has been a dismal failure. And the Iraq war is evidence of that.

That is my opinion.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.
> 
> Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.
> 
> ...




with all due respect...you can't make a baseless opinionated thread supported with nothing, and expect a serious discussion.  

You also can't say that the military is doing a bad job, when it's not the military making the deicisions.  We have the most effective military force on the planet. (if you don't agree, where's your proof--opinions and speculation are not proof)  The fact is, even though you don't agree with the war, the troops do a good job of doing what they're ordered to do. The military does a great job, simple as that...the politicians (much like in Vietnam) have done a shitty job of getting things done...it's a political war, hence, the politicians make the decisions.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Certainly. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA _(all volunteer army)_ has been a disaster for America. I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management complete with outright fraud, waste, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at criminal rates.
> 
> Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater".  The reasons are obvious. It pays more, soldiers have more "legal flexibility", they serve less time and  have better equipment than your regular joe.
> 
> ...



So it's the military doing this??? Let me fill you in on something, the military does what the government (president/congress, etc...) says they do.  The military hates mercenaries like black-water. Sure they're helpful, but they get paid out of the ass for nothing more than "doing business" for greed, while the AMerican soldier's salary gets shit on.  And I'm not sure that the payments payed to black-water are coming out of the military treasury....


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> So it's the military doing this??? Let me fill you in on something, the military does what the government (president/congress, etc...) says they do.  The military hates mercenaries like black-water. Sure they're helpful, but they get paid out of the ass for nothing more than "doing business" for greed, while the AMerican soldier's salary gets shit on.  *And I'm not sure that the payments payed to black-water are coming out of the military treasury*....



I _*never ever*_ claimed it was coming from the military treasury. The point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket - which it does.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I _never ever_ claimed it was coming from the military treasury. Though the point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket.



So because the money comes from tax-payers pocket, that means the military doesn't do a good job.  THose two things aren't even closely related.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> So because the money comes from tax-payers pocket, that means the military doesn't do a good job.  THose two things aren't even closely related.



You have some serious reading comprehension problems.


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 5, 2008)

This is getting too long for easy review.

Knowing many WWII vets, few think it was a 'good war' actually maybe none. The only good thing is it ended in capitulation by three countries that attempted to create an imperialist world. All GIs were glad it was over.

I have read that no insurgency type war has ever been won but is Iraq an insurgency or an occupation of a country torn by civil unrest and sectarian difference. We went in and made a mess plain and simple. You cannot create the necessary infrastructure out of dust.

And to ask the question I asked above, how is it that Americans today have no sense of duty and would rather contract out our duty as citizens etc. And a volunteer military could work but I agree it could eventually become another failed business venture - could, because it is not close yet.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA _(all volunteer army)_ has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.
> 
> I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.
> 
> ...



Your opinion is completely incorrect. It is hardly based on facts, or you would be providing those facts rather than " your opinion".


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.
> 
> Just because one is too lazy to get his ass to a library and do some research does not mean papers researching Clinton's executive decisions regarding military deployment exist.



Goodshithead,
  The only one spewing garbage here is you.  And Clinton did deploy the military more then any other president.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion is completely incorrect. It is hardly based on facts, or you would be providing those facts rather than " your opinion".


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.
> 
> Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.
> 
> ...




Where is your empirical evidence for this?


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.




Where is your empirical evidence of this?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> *Goodshithead,*
> The only one spewing garbage here is you.  And Clinton did deploy the military more then any other president.



As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.


----------



## dread (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.





You post here so you dont get that option.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.



What are you, 5?  Are you going to run to your room and pout now?  Maybe you should stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until I leave the thread.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong as usual. *Blackwater and such companies exist because people like you agreed cutting the army* to the bone was a good idea, they exist because there are no troops to assign those jobs to. They do NOT exist because someone claimed it would be cheaper to hire civilians.
> 
> Let us see, what is it we are missing? Ohh ya, proof your claims are even remotely true. provide us some links to sources and documents that support the above claims.
> 
> ...



There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.

I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager  observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.

Cheney's bill proposed the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions. He imposed the biggest budget cuts on the Army. His reasoning for the cuts was obvious. The mission of defending Western Europe was brought into question by the Bush 1 administration policy. Political changes in Eastern Europe and the withdrawal of some Soviet forces forced Cheney to look into budget cuts. There was simply too much fat.

Under the plan, the number of Army and Air Force personnel would be reduced in 1991 to its lowest level in 40 years. Two active Army divisions, the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, Tex., and the Ninth Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash would be gone. The Pentagon budget for the fiscal year 1991 cut around 38,000 people from the armed services. 

Read the 1991 Pentagon budget for yourself, if you do not believe me. It is in the public record for all to see

On a side note. Please, if you're not going to be serious. If you're not going to bother to have an open mind. If you're only avenue of debate is to personally insult me, I offer a suggestion.  Place me on your ignore list and save yourself the trouble. 

It was not _"people like me" _who agreed to cut the Army. In fact, it was a budget proposal authored by the defense secretary at the time - Dick Cheney - and passed by a bi-partisan committee of Senators from both sides of the isle.

Try doing your homework GYsgt and maybe you would have _at least known_ the author of the 1991 Pentagon budget proposal's name. Your obvious ignorance of a complex topic is exceeded only by your silly needless arrogance.


----------



## Annie (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.
> 
> I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager  observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.
> 
> ...


Gee, do you think something happened to change his mind? D'oh!


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 6, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Gee, do you think something happened to change his mind? D'oh!



I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.

Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology.  His laziness trumps all. 

Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.
> 
> Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology.  His laziness trumps all.
> 
> Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.



Again, d'oh. You are missing much here.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 6, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Again, d'oh. You are missing much here.



Why are you speaking in code?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Why are you speaking in code?



5 divisions. I suggest YOU get to a library. We cut a LOT more than 5 Divisions. We went from 28 Divisions to what? 10? So umm who cut past the 5 Divisions?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA _(all volunteer army)_ has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.
> 
> I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.
> 
> ...



As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity.  That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.

You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise.  It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.



> Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term.
> 
> Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?
> 
> Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty.  Thousands of  IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers.  Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty.  Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.



I believe I have already dispelled this little misconception on your part as well.  One cannot enlist without having the 8 year total commitment -- however many years of active duty plus the remainder of the 8 years in the IRR explained to  them, and they are REQUIRED to initial that they understand it in the DD Form 1966 documents of enlistment.

Perhaps YOU are in the habit of signing stuff  -- especially stuff that obligates your services -- but a thinking individual would read everything he signs and if it concurs with understanding, then I would think that individual would be sure of that understanding.  

You basically are making the same argument made by reservists during the First Gulf War when called to active duty -- "we signed up for the school, not to go fight a war."  GMAFB.



> And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for a surge at all?



Again, please provide evidence that anyone other than some military officer is asking for more bodies.  Most military officers I've encountered want more bodies.  It's the nature of the beast.  Attempting to quote one or two that are and misrepresenting it as "the military" is BS.  

A document from the JCS to the CinC requesting more units and an outlined strategy to support that request will do just fine.



> That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's inherent design flaws have been exposed in Iraq.



You're talking in circles and explaining nothing.  Your opinions on both the "disaster" of the all-volunteer force and failure in Iraq are baseless and using one to support the other hardly validates either in any way.



> *Even if we went into Iraq knowing there was going to be a draft*. I do not think the fraud, the waste, the overcharging etc would have occurred in Iraq in the same proportions that is going on right now had we conscripted citizens into battle.
> 
> The AVA has been a dismal failure. And the Iraq war is evidence of that.
> 
> That is my opinion.



Basically, you have absolutely no basis for your opinion but conjecture built upon conjecture.  There are no facts here, only assumptions.  Your ignorance of the US military is not only obvious, but appalling in that you hold such an opinion with very little knowledge beyond the fact the the US military does indeed exist.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 6, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 5 divisions. I suggest YOU get to a library. We cut a LOT more than 5 Divisions. We went from 28 Divisions to what? 10? So umm who cut past the 5 Divisions?




A bi-partisan committee of Senators/Congressmen from both sides of the isle who felt outsourcing Army divisions was to be the future direction of the AVA.

You made a claim, that it was _"people like me,"_ who cut the army. Even though I had nothing to do with any bill that was written, or any Pentagon Budget that was proposed.

Your claim is not only stupid, baseless and off-handed political rhetoric, but a veiled personal attack as well.

Like I said before, your approach to the discussion remains a tactic of the desperate. And that's exactly what you are.

Get up and go to a library.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.
> 
> Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology.  His laziness trumps all.
> 
> Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.



sometimes real world experience trumps scholarly sources. when you get out into the real world and "grow up" you will learn this.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity.  That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.
> 
> You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise.  It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.
> 
> ...



Give it up Gunny. You can't debate those you have to educate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> A bi-partisan committee of Senators/Congressmen from both sides of the isle who felt outsourcing Army divisions was to be the future direction of the AVA.
> 
> You made a claim, that it was _"people like me,"_ who cut the army. Even though I had nothing to do with any bill that was written, or any Pentagon Budget that was proposed.
> 
> ...



Wrong again, provide us this "Bi-Partsan" committee, the year, the make up and such. 

Your claim was 5 Divisions. That is absolutely untrue.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I _*never ever*_ claimed it was coming from the military treasury. *The point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket - which it does*.




SO why is this even relevant to the argument??  Soldiers *volunteer *for service, end of story.  

You have a serious debating problem...you fail to bring up any facts about why you think the military is doing a bad job (mainly because the facts that you bring up have nothing to do with the fact that the Miltary is doing a bad job.)  Most of your own arguments point towards politicians and decisions made by higher powes...NOT THE MILITARY...  Contracted Mercenaries have screwed up several operations that the military was working on in Iraq...

Ex:http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/26/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Contractor-Deaths.php

Caused a lot of problems for the U.S. military in this area after siginificant head-way.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.
> 
> I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager  observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.
> 
> ...




Once again, did the military all have a seat at a luncheon and vote for this bill.  Your personal research is fine, but has nothing to do with the military....  The decisions (according to your own words) are coming from the politicians.....(bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats...not a b-partisan committee of Generals, soldiers, etc....


----------



## Gunny (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.
> 
> I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager  observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.
> 
> ...



You are presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact.  You don't tell someone to go look up the support for your argument.  YOU provide it.  Otherwise, what you post is unsupported and it is up to the reader to accept it or not.

As far as military downsizing goes, perhaps a little homework is in order for you.  The downsizing was to make the services comply with their manpower strength as authorized by Congress.  Every branch of service was WAY over strength from the buildup during the Reagan years. 

And please, young 'un, don't presume to call retired military veterans ignorant on a topic, complex or not, when you can't even substantiate the accusation made in your intitial post.  

Ignoring my responses that completely dismantle your arguments doesn't make them invisible to anyone.  Just a thought.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again, provide us this "Bi-Partsan" committee, the year, the make up and such.
> 
> Your claim was 5 Divisions. That is absolutely untrue.



My claim the 1991 Pentagon budget cut five divisions is untrue? What are you saying, the budget proposed a cut of 10?

Even if your correct, the increased 1991 troops cuts from five to ten would solidify my argument and critically weaken yours.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> My claim the 1991 Pentagon budget cut five divisions is untrue? What are you saying, the budget proposed a cut of 10?
> 
> Even if *your* correct, the increased 1991 troops cuts from five to ten would solidify my argument and critically weaken yours.




First off, it's *you're*--contraction of you are.

Second off, are you still arguing the same thing that you began arguing at the beginng of the thread?  If you are correct, and the Pentagon did decrease troop levels by 10 or 15 divisions, what would this have to do with the military doing a poor job?  

Did they all vote to be down-sized?
Or was it the politicians that wanted to down-size the military? (in which case it still would not be the military making the decisions, but the politicians.  The military doing poorly (which they're most certainly not) has nothing to do with the things you're mentioning.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> You are presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact.  You don't tell someone to go look up the support for your argument.  YOU provide it.  Otherwise, what you post is unsupported and it is up to the reader to accept it or not.
> 
> As far as military downsizing goes, perhaps a little homework is in order for you.  The downsizing was to make the services comply with their manpower strength as authorized by Congress.  Every branch of service was WAY over strength from the buildup during the Reagan years.
> And please, young 'un, don't presume to call retired military veterans ignorant on a topic, complex or not, when you can't even substantiate the accusation made in your intitial post.
> ...



I don't understand what you want short of writing an essay on the matter complete with a bibliography and footnotes. Let's recap the progression of the thread. I started a thread with my opinion on the draft. I stated I formed my conclusions based from personal research and shared it with others. 

You made a conscious decision to participate in it.

You're next step involved a challenge to write a paper for you and post it on this message board. Never mind that such an exercise would simply take too much time and too much effort; you did not like what I had to say, period.  Of course, posting on this message board is after all a recreational exercise. But it's hard to get that message across to a lunatic internet personality masquerading as gatekeeper of knowledge.

In short, I'm not going to do your homework for you. 

Google the 1991 budget and find out yourself. I'm not going to enable your laziness unless I feel it's necessary to provide the group with a link.

You don't like what I am saying? You can always surf to a new thread.

To sit there and tell me my opinion or claims are inaccurate because GunnyL is only accepting essays authored by me is ridiculous and bizarre. Why don't you provide links and write me an essay that says something different? There's always that option you know.

But I know that you won't and I don't think intelligence is the issue with you. We'll call it laziness. 

You want me to do homework for you. As if you feel this bizarre request will make you feel better about yourself because, God help us, you read a thread that got many responses you did not like.

Face it, there's a new sheriff in town.


P.S. When I come across a written response by you 'that completely dismantles my arguments,' I'll let you know.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> *As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity*.  That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.
> 
> *You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise*.  It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.
> 
> ...



Acquaint yourself with the strawman fallacy GunnyL, because the above bolded sentences litter your entire response. You _are _cheating GunnyL. That's what you are doing when you employ this fallacy. It's a weapon the incapabale employ to hoodwink the proper rules of debate.


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when *a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.* This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

   1. Person A has position X.
   2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   3. Person B attacks position Y.
   4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I don't understand what you want short of writing an essay on the matter complete with a bibliography and footnotes. Let's recap the progression of the thread. I started a thread with my opinion on the draft. I stated I formed my conclusions based from personal research and shared it with others.
> 
> You made a conscious decision to participate in it.
> 
> ...





What is it, do you think, about your research that leads you to believe that our military is doing a bad job?  You have obviously done alot of research, but you are applying to the wrong hypothesis to your research; that the military is doing a poor job.  

News flash, the military does not control how much money gets put into their budget first off.  
If the budget is lowered or raised during any time, that's Congress making the decisions.

If a decision is made to send soldiers to an unjustified war, then thats the President and Congress making the decisions, not the military or it's soldiers.

The military is given a job to do, they do it, end of story.  I have yet to see the GIs not clear out a town when they're asked to do so.  You start finding documents about soldiers not completing their mission, then could say say that they didn't do a good job on that particular mission.

Just some advice, there's a reason your rep points are low....I have yet to give you any because I feel you need a full education before you can fully be accountable for the things that you say.  Just a little heads up.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Just some advice, *there's a reason your rep points are low....*I have yet to give you any because I feel you need a full education before you can fully be accountable for the things that you say.  Just a little heads up.



A tattered reputation never outweighed the validity of the writing and findings of Galileo. His books were not only banned but considered deviant and false.

Who's laughing now?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> A tattered reputation never outweighed the validity of the writing and findings of Galileo. His books were not only banned but considered deviant and false.
> 
> Who's laughing now?



I wasn't laughing, so if you're laughing, you've been the only one.  So it is you who was laughing, and you who is still laughing.  Which in turn explains these psychotic comments.  

Newsflash, Galileo lived in a different time.  Different situation.  Socrates was also punished for his teachings.  But people study his works now.  I like using the Socratic Method on you.   Though I do consider myself intelligent...I get my kicks by making it known that you are not.  

That's what Socrates was all about.  He never claimed he knew anything, but got his kicks convincing other people that they didn't know anything either.   

And you my friend are not Galileo...sorry, but no dice.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

This is why I can officially start my own religion and you....
well...you suck off goats.... 

(Inside Joke)  Please Ask


----------



## Annie (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> This is why I can officially start my own religion and you....
> well...you suck off goats....
> 
> (Inside Joke)  Please Ask


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I wasn't laughing, so if you're laughing, you've been the only one.  So it is you who was laughing, and you who is still laughing.  Which in turn explains these psychotic comments.
> 
> Newsflash, Galileo lived in a different time.  Different situation.  Socrates was also punished for his teachings.  But people study his works now.  I like using the Socratic Method on you.   Though I do consider myself intelligent...I get my kicks by making it known that you are not.
> 
> ...



I was laughing. I was laughing my ass off.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> This is why I can officially start my own religion and you....
> well...you suck off goats....
> 
> (Inside Joke)  Please Ask



I kinda feel bad for the goats.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> A tattered reputation never outweighed the validity of the writing and findings of Galileo. His books were not only banned but considered deviant and false.
> 
> Who's laughing now?



Ohh so now your Galileo? How do you ever get that head through doorways?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

onthefence said:


> I kinda feel bad for the goats.



That makes two of us.  We'll have to call the Houston SPCA on this kid.  He probably goes to a prestigious university and thinks he's smart just because he goes there.  That's the kind of vibe I'm getting.  

RGS--If I had a head as big as him, I'd have a house with no ceiling and no doors.  It would be like walking on the moon.  Take a small jump (over the wall) to the next room.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 8, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You really think it's been a success?


Yes.  An unqualified success.
There's no need for a draft.
In 1991, we has a much larger miliraty over a significantly lower population base.  The only reason the military isnt that large now is because Congress hasn't authorized it.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

Well one of two things happened in this thread....TGS got his @SS whooped on this thread.  Or he's too busy getting his @ss whooped on the global warming thread.


----------



## trobinett (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well one of two things happened in this thread....TGS got his @SS whooped on this thread.  Or he's too busy getting his @ss whooped on the global warming thread.



The ONE thing that I've noticed across the board Brian, you really like to pump your own ass, get over yourself.............


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

trobinett said:


> The ONE thing that I've noticed across the board Brian, you really like to pump your own ass, get over yourself.............



Is that such a bad thing?  You have to in order to deal with some of the lunatics on these threads.  You know that as well as anyone else.  I'll try and tone it down a notch, but I only do it to certain posters who make outlandish arguments and act like I'm the crazy one.  I respect everyone else...including you... 

My apologies if I've annoyed you by it...


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I don't know how we'd ever be able to legalize forcing people to serve....with our Constitution and all.  I agree with it, and I think everyone should have to serve for a time...but it would be hard to navigate around the legality of it.



Navigate around the legality of the Patriot Act, and homeland security act! The past eight years has proven you can't hide behind the Constitution when it comes to the legality of homeland security.  

If they feel a need for the draft they will incorporate it once again. In which I will respectfully go beings i'm a single man, under the age of 30, and physically able to do so.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

PpleLOSINGpower said:


> Navigate around the legality of the Patriot Act, and homeland security act! The past eight years has proven you can't hide behind the Constitution when it comes to the legality of homeland security.
> 
> If they feel a need for the draft they will incorporate it once again. In which I will respectfully go beings i'm a single man, under the age of 30, and physically able to do so.



Well I know that...but what I'm saying is that it would be difficult to force people to join the military in peace-time, unless preparing for war.  I know what you mean about the Patriot Act.  I would support people being made to serve a certain amount of years after high school, but this might not go over well with others.  I'm postive that if the shit hit the fan, the draft would be in effect ASAP.  But I was questioning the legality of people being forced during peace time.  I'm also in that age range...


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well I know that...but what I'm saying is that it would be difficult to force people to join the military in peace-time, unless preparing for war.  I know what you mean about the Patriot Act.  I would support people being made to serve a certain amount of years after high school, but this might not go over well with others.  I'm postive that if the shit hit the fan, the draft would be in effect ASAP.  But I was questioning the legality of people being forced during peace time.  I'm also in that age range...



Ok, in peace-time that would be unheard of and unlogical. I'm with you on all previous post that one just threw me off a bit. 
thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 11, 2008)

PpleLOSINGpower said:


> Navigate around the legality of the Patriot Act, and homeland security act! The past eight years has proven you can't hide behind the Constitution when it comes to the legality of homeland security.
> 
> If they feel a need for the draft they will incorporate it once again. In which I will respectfully go beings i'm a single man, under the age of 30, and physically able to do so.



Selective servce only goes to 26, but I agree with what you are saying here. If the need ever arises, the draft will be reinstituted. It's a little hinky though, that the draft was fine all the way up until the baby boomer generation.  Makes you wonder what changed.


----------



## Annie (Apr 11, 2008)

onthefence said:


> Selective servce only goes to 26, but I agree with what you are saying here. If the need ever arises, the draft will be reinstituted. It's a little hinky though, that the draft was fine all the way up until the baby boomer generation.  Makes you wonder what changed.



Actually, it never was popular or enacted much:

http://www.teachervision.fen.com/us-history/resource/5669.html


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 12, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Actually, it never was popular or enacted much:
> 
> http://www.teachervision.fen.com/us-history/resource/5669.html



You're completely right, through the military conflicts of the twentieth century there was 2,810,296 in WWI, 10,110,104 in WWII, 1,529, 539 in the Korean conflict, and 1,857,304 men in Vietnam that were selected for services through the Selective Service System.

so um.........not enacted that much? 

http://www.selectiveservice.us/military-draft/8-induction.shtml


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2008)

PpleLOSINGpower said:


> Ok, in peace-time that would be unheard of and unlogical. I'm with you on all previous post that one just threw me off a bit.
> thanks for clearing it up.



Sure thing...


----------



## thewaiting28 (Apr 14, 2008)

I would support the draft in a legitimate conflict where significant force is needed.

Forcing people into the Military is a last resort measure that has no place in the confines of a war based on the grounds of pre-emptive action, unless a country's government or it's people were in serious danger.


----------



## Rogue 9 (Apr 15, 2008)

United States Constitution said:
			
		

> Section 1.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> 
> Section 2.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


In a word, no.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Acquaint yourself with the strawman fallacy GunnyL, because the above bolded sentences litter your entire response. You _are _cheating GunnyL. That's what you are doing when you employ this fallacy. It's a weapon the incapabale employ to hoodwink the proper rules of debate.
> 
> 
> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when *a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.* This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
> ...



I need no strawman argument to get over on you.  You don't know what you're talking about and I do.  Pretty-damned simple, really.

You're just talking in circles now, trying to deflect your way out of an argument you obviously lost from the beginning, due mostly to your ignorance to the topic you're attempting to discuss.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  An unqualified success.
> There's no need for a draft.
> In 1991, we has a much larger miliraty over a significantly lower population base.  The only reason the military isnt that large now is because Congress hasn't authorized it.



Correction ... the only reason the military isn't that large now is because Congress CUT it ....


----------



## jillian (Apr 15, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Correction ... the only reason the military isn't that large now is because Congress CUT it ....



That's not true. It's because the military can't recruit enough people to fight Bush's war.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> That's not true. It's because the military can't recruit enough people to fight Bush's war.



It is very true and your partisan blather makes it no less so.  We were actually supposed to start manpower cuts prior to the First Gulf War, but they were held in abeyance until its conclusion.

All four sevices went so far as to buy people out at 15 years to make the cuts.  If your MOS was obsolete and not compatible for retraining in another, you were bought out.  The hangers-on over 20 were forced to retire.

Bush had NOTHING to do with it.  Congress approved the drawdown during Reagan's last term.  Don't presume to tell me you know more about something I lived through and affected my life with nothing more to support it than some bullshit Bush bash.


----------



## CSM (Apr 15, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It is very true and your partisan blather makes it no less so.  We were actually supposed to start manpower cuts prior to the First Gulf War, but they were held in abeyance until its conclusion.
> 
> All four sevices went so far as to buy people out at 15 years to make the cuts.  If your MOS was obsolete and not compatible for retraining in another, you were bought out.  The hangers-on over 20 were forced to retire.
> 
> Bush had NOTHING to do with it.  Congress approved the drawdown during Reagan's last term.  Don't presume to tell me you know more about something I lived through and affected my life with nothing more to support it than some bullshit Bush bash.



Actually, cuts are still occuring. For example:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0208/022708cdpm2.htm

Cuts ahve been going on for some time but it doesn't make big news for some reason.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2008)

CSM said:


> Actually, cuts are still occuring. For example:
> 
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0208/022708cdpm2.htm
> 
> Cuts ahve been going on for some time but it doesn't make big news for some reason.



It's a shell game.  They hire civilians to do non-critical jobs in place of the military personnel cut; which, in the longrun costs them MORE money, and puts a ridiculous strain on the military personnel.

Civilians don't do overtime.  Guess who sucks it up?  Civilians are not covered by the continuing resolution.  Guess who sucks it up when they're sent home?
Civilians don't deploy .... etc

The services also add more reserves to try an meet mission requirements should an actual war arise.

I certainly don't get the way the military manpower is being handled with a two-front war going on.  Congress must be busy investigating steroids.


----------



## CSM (Apr 15, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It's a shell game.  They hire civilians to do non-critical jobs in place of the military personnel cut; which, in the longrun costs them MORE money, and puts a ridiculous strain on the military personnel.
> 
> Civilians don't do overtime.  Guess who sucks it up?  Civilians are not covered by the continuing resolution.  Guess who sucks it up when they're sent home?
> Civilians don't deploy .... etc
> ...



You are correct. The Air Force in particular is having a tough time figuring out what it really wants. That, coupled with some Congressmen's penchant for pork makes for some interesting choices in how military money is spent.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 16, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It is very true and your partisan blather makes it no less so.  We were actually supposed to start manpower cuts prior to the First Gulf War, but they were held in abeyance until its conclusion.


Correct.
If Congress were to authorize a force level comparable to 1991, we'd have that force level w/o a draft.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 16, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.
> If Congress were to authorize a force level comparable to 1991, we'd have that force level w/o a draft.



IMHO, we are not capable of conducting a sustained, 2-front war at that strength level.  We rely too much on firepower and technology at the expense of manpower.

Our military strength is not suited to the type of low-level conflict it is engaged in.  

Equally to blame, again IMO, is the fact that the US has paid only lip service to addressing its current worldwide deployments/bases.  Some of those forces could be realigned to relieve the stress-level on the current optempo; which, is stretched pretty thin.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 18, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I need no strawman argument to get over on you.  You don't know what you're talking about and I do.  Pretty-damned simple, really.
> 
> You're just talking in circles now, trying to deflect your way out of an argument you obviously lost from the beginning, due mostly to your ignorance to the topic you're attempting to discuss.



If you didn't need it, then why did you employ it?

The Army is going to have be maintained and expanded one way or another. And it could probably be done cheaper and more efficient with a draft as opposed to the current model: if the same stresses of maintainance and buildup were applied.

Listen, this is not my opinion. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagment due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.
_( Another way of saying the current more 'private' model is terribly ineffective and actually a liability to the war effort)_

Again, one hand we have GunnyL - an internet posters opinion, and on the other we have the conclusions of the GAO.

Plus, it is a real lesson in responsibility for the actions we as a nation make.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> If you didn't need it, then why did you employ it?
> 
> The Army is going to have be maintained and expanded one way or another. And it could probably be done cheaper and more efficient with a draft as opposed to the current model: if the same stresses of maintainance and buildup were applied.
> 
> ...



I didn't.  Yo can't argue the topic so you attempt to deflect by questioning the method by which I posted; which, is irrelevant.

You don't know shit, and you have repeatedly proven it, and had your ass pwned at every turn in this thread.  I'd think you'd be tired of the beating.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 18, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I didn't.  Yo can't argue the topic so you attempt to deflect by questioning the method by which I posted; which, is irrelevant.
> 
> You don't know shit, and you have repeatedly proven it, and had your ass pwned at every turn in this thread.  I'd think you'd be tired of the beating.



Yes, you did. And I wish I could respond to _"You can't argue the topic so you attempt to deflect by questioning the method"_, as I have no clue what the hell you mean by _'questioning the method.'_ Perhaps, you could be more specific and explain yourself properly.

Another thing. What is it with posters thinking there is anything to "win" or "lose" via this message board? Are you trying to show me how big your penis is?

By the way, I noticed you completely avoided the topic with the usual I have nothing of substance to contribute so I'll just lazily type the _"You don't know shit,"_ or the _"had your ass pwned,"_ responses.

The GAO has loads to say about the Military and the way it is being run. The report is in the public record.

The GAO has far more authority than you or I on the subject. 

I suggest you zip your pants up.  Take a break from showing the board how big your doodle is, and begin reading authoritative studies authored by people with prestigious credentials.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 19, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> If you didn't need it, then why did you employ it?
> 
> The Army is going to have be maintained and expanded one way or another. And it could probably be done cheaper and more efficient with a draft as opposed to the current model: if the same stresses of maintainance and buildup were applied.
> 
> ...



CHEAPER???!! LOL.  ARE YOU KIDDING?  Would it be cheaper to (In a month) add several million people to the state of Rhode Island and expect it to just deal?  It would not be cheaper.  I'm not going to get into the specifics because this seems more like common sense to me.  Imagine all of the resources that you would have to get together to manage that large influx of conscripted soldiers, not to mention the mass supplies that the military would have to come up with, given budget cuts.  I'm not quite so sure that it would be cheaper.


----------



## Annie (Apr 19, 2008)

I like Jule's take:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-modest-proposal-for-the-draft/



> ...
> 
> The idea is further detached from reality by the fact that, under Bush or McCain administrations, a draft doesnt have a prayer. Under an Obama or Clinton administration, presumably it becomes unnecessary as they rapidly pull us out of Iraq and theoretically eliminate the need for a larger military.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Apr 20, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Yes, you did. And I wish I could respond to _"You can't argue the topic so you attempt to deflect by questioning the method"_, as I have no clue what the hell you mean by _'questioning the method.'_ Perhaps, you could be more specific and explain yourself properly.
> 
> Another thing. What is it with posters thinking there is anything to "win" or "lose" via this message board? Are you trying to show me how big your penis is?
> 
> ...



The GAO is a bunch of uptight, bureaucratic asshats that get paid to find problems.  It is about as unbiased as you are.

I suggest you go down to the nearest Armed Forces Career Center and enlist in the Marine Corps.  After you have about 8 years in, you just _might_ have a clue as to what's going on.  Until then I suggest you apply the maxim "it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether or not you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove you are."

On the "Desperate for a Win" front:  I am not the one deflecting all over the place and grasping at straws.  That would be you.  

But DO ramble on.  In this case there is nothing I can say or do that could possibly make you look any more ignorant, petty and pigheaded than you are doing for yourself.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 20, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The GAO is a bunch of uptight, bureaucratic asshats that get paid to find problems.  It is about as unbiased as you are.
> 
> I suggest you go down to the nearest Armed Forces Career Center and enlist in the Marine Corps.  After you have about 8 years in, you just _might_ have a clue as to what's going on.  Until then I suggest you apply the maxim "it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether or not you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove you are."
> 
> ...



You know what the bad shepard's straw-man said?...."If I only had a brain."


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> *The GAO is a bunch of uptight, bureaucratic asshats* that get paid to find problems.



This is getting to be a bizarre pattern with you. 

You cannot respond directly, or with substance.  That much is now apparently clear. 

Your only recourse remains to offer insults and innuendo directed at whoever the unlucky target is _(in this case the GAO)_ of your cheap verbal attacks.

What's really ironic is that you admit the GAO gets paid to find problems. The weird thing is, you say it as if thats a bad thing. 

Well yea, that's their job Einstein. Thats why they exist.

They are an accounting office - a non-partisan one.

Offer some substance or shut your mouth.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 24, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> This is getting to be a bizarre pattern with you.
> 
> You cannot respond directly, or with substance.  That much is now apparently clear.
> 
> ...



You brought no substance to this discussion....the "substance" you brought was a bag full of dog turds that had nothing to do with your accusation that the military was doing a bad job.  You made a claim, and then backed it up with information about a completely different subject that had nothing to do with military decisions or them doing their job.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 24, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You brought no substance to this discussion....the "substance" you brought was a bag full of dog turds that had nothing to do with your accusation that the military was doing a bad job.  You made a claim, and then backed it up with information about a completely different subject that had nothing to do with military decisions or them doing their job.



I wish I could respond.

However, I don't know what the hell this garbage post has to do with the original thread topic.

If you're going to make an accusation you better damn well reference out the specific points of contention.

Because right now all I see if an intentional move to make broad references. It's almost as if you don't even believe what you're saying, since you're so damn lazy to actually spell it out with specific references to these "alleged" you actually used the word "dog turd."

You are one bizarre internet personality.


----------



## BrianH (May 25, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I wish I could respond.
> 
> However, I don't know what the hell this garbage post has to do with the original thread topic.
> 
> ...



Dude, you can call me a personality all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.  My posts have been pretty cut and dry.  You have made a claim, (among many) and posted bogus evidence that doesn't back up your claim.  You have taken articles and "evidence" and applied a conclusion that doesn't match or even relate.  An analogy to your debate:

TGS says : (In essence)--"When you strike a match, you get water"

And for the record, I have much more personality than you will ever have....


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 25, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Dude, you can call me a personality all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that *you don't know what you're talking about*.  My posts have been pretty cut and dry.  *You have made a claim, (among many) and posted bogus evidence* that doesn't back up your claim.  *You have taken articles and "evidence" and applied a conclusion that doesn't match or even relate*.  An analogy to your debate:
> 
> TGS says : (In essence)--"When you strike a match, you get water"
> 
> And for the record, I have much more personality than you will ever have....




Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out _specific_ points of contention.

Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?

Point out the article. Show us how you "think" it doesn't match the conclusions. 

You somehow made the assumption my opinion is rooted solely for opinion's sake. 

Well, it is not. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.

Typing " you don't know what you're talking about," or " posted bogus evidence" does nothing to substantiate any of your claims.

What it does, is show an unforgivable propensity to make dull accusations without offering any specifics.

You are, what you have always proven to be: a lazy poster who thinks typing " I owned you" or "you don't know what you're talking about," somehow discredits anything the GAO has concluded in its reports. 

Start doing your homework or do not. Embarrassing yourself is not an option you can continue to afford to make.

Find an authoritative report discrediting the methods and conclusions of the non-partisan GAO report. Can you find one? Have you even attempted?

Be _specific_ or get lost.

It's really as simple as that.


----------



## Gunny (May 31, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out _specific_ points of contention.
> 
> Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should find something that corroborates the GAO's findings instead of relying on one fat, corrupt bureaucratic tick's fingerpointing at another?

No, you aren't going to do THAT.  You aren't going to listen to anyone that has worked IN the system and knows how it operates and knows how the GAO operates.  

The GAO HAS TO find problems.  There would be no need for the GAO if they didn't.  They aren't getting paid to tell you everything's hunky-dory.

But you don't want to be bothered by the truth because it doesn't gel with your hatred for the US military.  

Your misuse of the little information you do reference coupled with your continually presenting your opinions as fact are documented throughout these military threads.  As is your obvious ignorance on the subject.

Now, if you're going to cry foul every time someone shoots your lame arguments down as if that person is being nasty to poor little old you, I suggest you get that smarmy, nasty attitude out of YOUR posts to others, junior.


----------



## BrianH (May 31, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Perhaps you should find something that corroborates the GAO's findings instead of relying on one fat, corrupt bureaucratic tick's fingerpointing at another?
> 
> No, you aren't going to do THAT.  You aren't going to listen to anyone that has worked IN the system and knows how it operates and knows how the GAO operates.
> 
> ...



That's exactly right Gunny, I couldn't have put it better myself.  I know that no one knows the military better than members or former members thereof, however, what TGS doesn't realize, is that it doesn't take a military member to recognize the dumbass conclusion that TGS draws from his "information" and "evidence."  I'll never claim to know as much as present of former military personnel, but I do know that the BS that TGS has thrown out here has nothing to do with decisions made by the military.  Most if not all of these things, the military has no control of....such as : Funding, Taxes, Foreign Policy, etc....  I'm almost considering putting TGS on ignore, but it's like a tranwreck and I can't help but respond to him...  

What a doofus.... (not you Gunny; TGS)....

Oh Gunny....how hot is it there in SA???


----------



## BrianH (May 31, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out _specific_ points of contention.
> 
> Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?
> 
> ...



You can accuse me of being lazy all you want...but the fact remains...others and I, in this thread any many others, are stomping your ass when it comes to your retarded conclusions based on one set of biased "evidence."  If you don't believe me, check out the poll I posted about you in the FLAME ZONE....The pole 70% of voters say you're a dumbass.  The other 30% only voted no because they don't believe you post good "evidence" in the first place.  I'd say your batting (conservatively) 90%-95% of the dumbass scale.  

Let me tell you how it works.  When you come blasting onto a thread (or start one) and make a claime and post evidence about it, it is YOUR job to PROVE it.  It is not everyone else's job to prove it for you.  Your conclusions can be picked apart without going out and doing hardcore research.  Your conclusions are so shallowly researched that it makes it easy to discredit.  You've taking a GAO report and got a negative conclusion of the Military....BIG SUPRISE.  That's like going to Jasper, TX and getting "America's Opinion" of blacks and racism....  
You're taking a obviously biased organization's word for it.  Gunny made this point very clear in his last post.  You can bitch and moan all you want about me "not posting evidence of my claim", but others realize that your arguments are so feeble, there's no need to do research.  Come back when you've finished your college goverment class--it'll teach you how the three branches and the military work...


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 1, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You can accuse me of being lazy all you want...but the fact remains...others and I, in this thread any many others, are stomping your ass when it comes to your retarded conclusions based on one set of biased "evidence."  If you don't believe me, check out the poll I posted about you in the FLAME ZONE....The pole 70% of voters say you're a dumbass.  The other 30% only voted no because they don't believe you post good "evidence" in the first place.  I'd say your batting (conservatively) 90%-95% of the dumbass scale.
> 
> Let me tell you how it works.  When you come blasting onto a thread (or start one) and make a claime and post evidence about it, it is YOUR job to PROVE it.  It is not everyone else's job to prove it for you.  Your conclusions can be picked apart without going out and doing hardcore research.  Your conclusions are so shallowly researched that it makes it easy to discredit.  You've taking a GAO report and got a negative conclusion of the Military....BIG SUPRISE.  That's like going to Jasper, TX and getting "America's Opinion" of blacks and racism....
> You're taking a obviously biased organization's word for it.  Gunny made this point very clear in his last post.  You can bitch and moan all you want about me "not posting evidence of my claim", but others realize that your arguments are so feeble, there's no need to do research.  Come back when you've finished your college goverment class--it'll teach you how the three branches and the military work...




Will you ever stick to the actual issue?

Can you?

Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Will you ever stick to the actual issue?
> 
> Can you?
> 
> Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?



The only bore here is you and your ignorant claims.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Will you ever stick to the actual issue?
> 
> Can you?
> 
> Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?



Because your "topic of interest" is not interesting when you plague it with a faulty conclusion.  I've already addressed the actual issue and you've chosen to ignore it.  

I've addressed the fact that your claim that "A draft would be cheaper and more efficient" is bogus because all you are doing is replacing people who want to be in the military (volunteers) with people who don't want to be there (conscripted)....they both need the same equipment, arsenal, supplies, support, etc....  It would not be any cheaper or run more efficiently.  Not only would you spend time drawing, notifying, and transporting millions of conscripts...you'd have to put more resources into tracking down AWOLs and draft dodgers that have fled to Canada and Mexico.

I won't mention the specifics about the other threads, but I've also already addressed the fact you apply the wrong conlcusions to your evidence, and therefore do not deserve a dignified response.  Until you can learn to get your shit together and actually post a conclusion that actually reflects the information, I will continue to call you out on your stupidity.


----------



## jillian (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Will you ever stick to the actual issue?
> 
> Can you?
> 
> Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?



We keep telling you, baby, you only get to post *your* post. After that, people do with it what they will. And, apparently, they have.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 1, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Because your "topic of interest" is not interesting when you plague it with a faulty conclusion.  *I've already addressed the actual issue *and you've chosen to ignore it.



You certainly have not.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You certainly have not.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/54341-15-billion-unaccounted-for-in-iraq-4.html#post694318


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 4, 2008)

Germanys political situation is quite  close to the one of the US, while noone (save some "Terrorist" nutheads who are in no way able to bring down a nation) wishes to invade them, their forces are mainly used for interventionist purposes as well as some catastrophe relief.

Beeing German, it is the German system I can talk about most.
Every Male in Germany has to serve (unless he is Jewish, has 2 brothers who served etc.). He can either serve in the army or in a "civil service" which can be anything from working in a libary to working in a hospital. This choice can be made quite freely.

Currently, only the ones with a relativly decent fitness (second highest grade, I have no idea how this translates into the US recruit graduation) who do not wish to do civil service are drafted into the army.
There they serve 9 months, unless they specifically apply for it, they will not be send into other countries. It is possible for a conscript to prolong his stay for an additional 15 months (with 3 times increased pay per month), this can be done at enrollment or during the 9 months, the latter beeing prefered since it gives the army time to evaluate the conscript. It is quite frequent for a basic conscript to become interested in pursuing an officer or NCO carreer. 

Basically, the German army uses conscription as a screening process with the goal of recruiting the top 10-20 percent of each recruitment run into actual positions. They are especially interested in recruit with a fairly good education.

Based on many factors they more or less succeed with that. 
Active Draft avoidance (like running away to Russia) is rare, few people wish to become a fugitive just to dodge 9 months of boredom. Showing up Drunk/Stoned/Crazy at the pre enrollment evaluation is quite frequent(and fairly unsuccesfull). 


For several reasons I doubt that this approach would work in the USA.
Germany has a draft tradition that goes back to the middle ages, America does not. While instating a draft because of manpower shortages could be possible politically ("We need more soldiers!") getting one for gaining better  ones is likely unfeasable. Also, Draft avoidance in Germany is low because draftess will not end up in Irak/Afghanistan, also, they can exclude the possibility of ending up there by going into the civil service. 
Last but not least, the Germans are very serious about not starting/aiding "aggressive wars". In fact, there is a law suit against Rumsfeld (charged with conducting an aggressive war, charged in Germany because the US fails to persecute him) in Germany which, as a matter of fact, made him cancel any visits to Germany. Since beeing a part of an agressive war is the last thing a draftee wants to be, this does help do reduce dodging.


A direct Draft, which means give random male people a Gun and send them to Irak/Vietnam whereever is not going to be succesfull in the case of the USA. It does work for repressive systems like Imperial japan, the 3. Reich and the Soviet Union, provided they maintain propaganda control, it would not work for a democracy at least not if they are not directly threatened. 


Other notable military entities with draft systems are Russia, Israel and South Korea, however my knowledge here is a bit limited.


----------



## Reality (Aug 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> I am totally against a draft. It would bring in people like you who have NO business in MY Army.
> 
> Stay in Canada....they like folks like you.



YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did. 

Your fucking military....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 4, 2008)

Reality said:


> YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.
> 
> Your fucking military....



Glad you want no part of MY Military. As well.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 5, 2008)

Reality said:


> YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.
> 
> Your fucking military....



Who the fuck are you, pissant?


----------



## Bootneck (Aug 6, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Who the fuck are you, pissant?



I think he's a politically paranoid scitzo.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 6, 2008)

Id imagine that "my" military was in reference to their service IN the military.


what a silly strawman to tangent the topic of the thread..


----------



## BrianH (Aug 6, 2008)

Bootneck said:


> I think he's a politically paranoid scitzo.









Hmmm...........


----------



## Ravi (Aug 6, 2008)

Damn, Sheptard got banned? He was a hoot.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 6, 2008)

No need for a draft, unless we are planning to go to war with China. A profession army is 10 times better than a conscripted one.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 6, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Damn, Sheptard got banned? He was a hoot.



Sure enough....I never looked at it before.  The Good Shemptard.  LOL.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 6, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> No need for a draft, unless we are planning to go to war with China. A profession army is 10 times better than a conscripted one.



I agree.

We were able to have a much larger all volunteer army in the past. (17+ Army divisions compared to 10 now.) There is no reason to institute a draft to get a larger army unless we are going to do what we ought to do and put 36 million men under arms and take out the Islamo-fascists once and for all. I see NO will to do that. That being the case, I definitely think we should expand our capacity so that we can meet our present needs, but that need is not so great as to require a draft.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 6, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I agree.
> 
> We were able to have a much larger all volunteer army in the past. (17+ Army divisions compared to 10 now.) There is no reason to institute a draft to get a larger army unless we are going to do what we ought to do and put 36 million men under arms and take out the Islamo-fascists once and for all. I see NO will to do that. That being the case, I definitely think we should expand our capacity so that we can meet our present needs, but that need is not so great as to require a draft.



Exactly....

The argument brought forth by the original poster, was that a drafted army would be cheaper and more efficient.  He based his theory on BS that didn't even remotely relate to the military.  He would rather replace an army of professionals who volunteered and wanted to be there, with millions of people who don't want to be there.  I'm all for a large military...it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.  Many nations go the majority of their existence without catastrophic warfare that threaten their survival...however, the few times it did arise....a large or small military made the difference.  History shows this.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 6, 2008)

Bootneck said:


> I think he's a politically paranoid scitzo.



Or a close facsimilie thereof.

Welcome aboard, Marine.


----------



## CSM (Aug 7, 2008)

Reality said:


> YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.
> 
> Your fucking military....



Talk about a waste of space! Not only am I glad you are not in MY military (yes MINE....ALL MINE) but you are wasting MY air by even breathing it and keeping those two working brain cells of yours alive.


----------



## CSM (Aug 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Id imagine that "my" military was in reference to their service IN the military.
> 
> 
> what a silly strawman to tangent the topic of the thread..



You are correct.


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2008)

I think the all volunteer military is a grand system.

The ONLY time we should have a draft is in time of extreme national emergency.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 7, 2008)

editec said:


> I think the all volunteer military is a grand system.
> 
> The ONLY time we should have a draft is in time of extreme national emergency.



We probably wouldn't need one then.


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2008)

Ravi said:


> We probably wouldn't need one then.


 
Probably not.

And we don't ned one now, either.

Let us consider the adage:

*"When all you got in your tool chest is a hammer, eventually every problem looks like a nail"*


----------



## Gunny (Aug 7, 2008)

editec said:


> I think the all volunteer military is a grand system.
> 
> The ONLY time we should have a draft is in time of extreme national emergency.



A draft would probably never work in this country now.  The common bond that once held this nation together is tenuous at best.  Add to that a subculture that believes they as individuals are more important than the Nation itself, and it would probably lead to nothing but chaos.


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 9, 2008)

I do not agree with Drafted Armies sucking in General.
The Red Army, the Wehrmacht and even the Imperial Japanese army (imho the worlds most overrated military but thats another topic) where fairly powerfull military entities. However, Draft is likely not the way to go for the US, since relative liberalism, interventionism and a Draft army would not work well together.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 9, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> I do not agree with Drafted Armies sucking in General.
> The Red Army, the Wehrmacht and even the Imperial Japanese army (imho the worlds most overrated military but thats another topic) where fairly powerfull military entities. However, Draft is likely not the way to go for the US, since relative liberalism, interventionism and a Draft army would not work well together.



The crap would have to hit our symbolic fan before I would consider a draft...


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 9, 2008)

There will never be another draft. The people will never consent to it


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 9, 2008)

So wait this guy thinks a conscripted army is more efficient? What planet does he live on?


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 9, 2008)

In case of a major conflict with a major sized enemy, the people WILL support a draft

I am not in favor of a draft unless there is absolute need. Our volunteer military is more than sufficient in this time.

However... I would be in favor of.. .instead of handing out free college grants etc... that any person receiving college funds or similar entitlements be required to give government service in return, for repayment of the favor... if those looking for the grant or handout are not in favor of such service, they do not have to take it. They could then work for themselves to pay for their college


----------



## jillian (Aug 9, 2008)

I've always thought public service in exchange for college money is a fair deal. But I also don't have a problem with giving college funds to needy people.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 9, 2008)

jillian said:


> I've always thought public service in exchange for college money is a fair deal. But I also don't have a problem with giving college funds to needy people.



Well... by definition, anyone can be 'needy' depending on the situation at hand...

I am not in favor of entitlements with nothing in return. Hell, I may actually support more of a 'workfare' system if it would come up...

The government should never be giving something out for nothing. Personal responsibility should take care of any able bodied and able minded person's needs. If it does not, that is on the individual, not the government. Charities that are voluntarily donated to should be the source of aid to individuals.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 9, 2008)

jillian said:


> I've always thought public service in exchange for college money is a fair deal. But I also don't have a problem with giving college funds to needy people.



I agree. The Military is one way for many who could not afford to otherwise, to go to college.


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 10, 2008)

I have the opinion (based on examples like the Wehrmacht, the German Army of World War 1, the red Army, the Imperial Japanese Army the North Vietnamese Army, Napoleons Army and a bunch of others) that a Drafted army can, depending on the circumstances, be a very effective fighting force. 
However, these circumstance would be things like:

1. Beeing in a major war against a fairly conventional opponent not that far from home.
2. Having sufficient political/public opinion support to continue this war for a long time.
3. Beeing a fairly repressive system helps, there seem to be ample synergys between repressive systems and drafting.

However, the US is fighting interventionistic anti insurgency wars against nonconventional opponents, these wars are fought far away from the US borders. Both the domestic and the foreign politcal support for this wars leave a lot to be desired.
Last but not least, while the US became more repressive in the years following 9/11, it is by no means as repressive as most of the states that were succesfull with "offensive" drafting.

Bottomline: Drafting can be a great option for a number of countries, but the US is not among them. Neither right now nor in the foreseeable future. I kinda doubt that Canada or Mexiko will become opponents in a conventional war soon.

P.S. Germany also has an "enlist as a future officer and go to College while receiving an NCO salary" system, however, due to German colleges beeing much less expensive (at most 500 bucks per semester) the incentive of joining the army on this grounds is much lower.


----------



## editec (Aug 10, 2008)

I'd have never made it through college without the GI bill.

This is the current system for educational bennies



> *How many months of assistance can I receive? *​
> [FONT=Arial,Arial]*Generally, you may receive up to 36 months of entitlement under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. *[/FONT]
> *How much will I receive? *​
> 
> ...


 
I'm not exacly sure, because the system is so different that what I got, but these actually look slightly better than Viet Nam era vets got. I think I got about $300 a month while I was in school full time and _that was it._​ 
Compared to WWII and Korean Era vets, (full tuition to _any_ school, plus housing and transportation aid, plus books and materials aid, paid in full) they're not nearly as good, of course.​ 
The GI bill is one of the best investments in the future that America can make, in my opinion.​ 
I DO think there should be a civilian equivalent for those willing to perform other valuable civil services, like fighting fires, working in government hospitals and so forth.​ 
My proposal would be to give those people the same benefits the WWII vets got -- one year's bennies for one year's service.​


----------



## BrianH (Aug 10, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> There will never be another draft. The people will never consent to it



What proof do you have that there will never be another draft?  NONE.  You say it as if it's fact.  

I garauntee you if we faced a World War on a large scale...there would most certainly be a draft.  If our existence as a nation was threatened, people would consent to a draft.  Then again, if that were the case, you may have an even large volunteer army.  People will not consent to a draft for Iraq and or Iran.  The circumstances of war most certainly will dictate whether or not people will support a draft.  Never say Never


----------



## BrianH (Aug 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> So wait this guy thinks a conscripted army is more efficient? What planet does he live on?



Who knows...the guy that started the thread is a nut-job.  He claimed that a conscripted army would becheapter and more efficient.  He posted a bunch of links that in no way backed up his opinion.  It did it also with another thread about our military doing a bad job.  He said they were doing a bad job, but then posted links that, in no way, suggested this.


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 10, 2008)

@ Charles Main


About precisly whom are you talking if I may ask?
If you are talking about the issue about conscript vs. volunteer armies in general, than I will stand to my point that conscript armys can become very formidable militarys. Just ask the "volunteer" French WWII army about its experience with the Wehrmacht. Or about its experience with the Drafted Prussian army in 1871, where, for nearly the first time, France actually got beaten by Germany. 

If you are talking about drafting in the US at the current time, I would agree that the US militarys performance is very unlikely to increase should a draft be initiated.

I joined the discussion because the general line became "Drafting in the US would suck" (I agree) "so drafting sucks everywhere else" (I disagree).


----------



## BrianH (Aug 10, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> @ Charles Main
> 
> 
> About precisly whom are you talking if I may ask?
> ...



I was talking about the guy who started this thread...not you.  I'm not sure who Charles Main was talking about.  

As far as the topic at hand.  THere is not doubt that a conscripted army can be a formidable fighiting force in a time of NEED.  However, it is no where as efficient or cheaper than an all volunteer force.  You are basically taking soldiers who actually want to be there, and replacing them with people who don't want to be there.  Germany may be the exception....lol

I would favor a system in which everyone serves in the military for 2 years after high school + a volunteer force.


----------



## captainkeeves (Aug 10, 2008)

The draft huh? My opinion is that if the United States of America needs to resort to a draft then the young men (my peers) of this country are not doing their job. Everybody complains saying that we are not winning the war, yet the idea of them or their son having to serve scares the living hell out of them. The U.S. did not become the U.S. by being a bunch of cowards. Even if your against it don't you feel you have a duty to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are already over there doing violence in your behalf because you are to afraid to? I am eighteen years old and am doing Marine Corp ROTC in college and then taking a commission so don't play the "what are you doing about it" card, because if my country called on me now, I would not hesitate.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 15, 2008)

The people would be marching in the streets before the ink dries. That would really be a mess.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 15, 2008)

Inferno said:


> The people would be marching in the streets before the ink dries. That would really be a mess.



Republicans don't march in the streets.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 16, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Republicans don't march in the streets.



No they send other out to die in the war on terror.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2008)

Inferno said:


> No they send other out to die in the war on terror.



Kennedy and LBJ were democrats.


----------



## editec (Aug 16, 2008)

Gunny said:


> IMHO, we are not capable of conducting a sustained, 2-front war at that strength level. We rely too much on firepower and technology at the expense of manpower.
> 
> Our military strength is not suited to the type of low-level conflict it is engaged in.
> 
> Equally to blame, again IMO, is the fact that the US has paid only lip service to addressing its current worldwide deployments/bases. Some of those forces could be realigned to relieve the stress-level on the current optempo; which, is stretched pretty thin.


 
_SPOT on!_

What our current leadership apparently thinks it can do is reduce the boots on the ground and replace them with advanced techological fixes.

Now if you think about what might be driving that, and if you're somewhat cynical about it, you might at least consider the fact that buying technology makes a very few people VERY WEALTHY, whereas, putting men in uniform spreads the money around in a much more democratic way.

Again, and I know some of you must think I am obsessed about this, *this nation's leadership seems to be making choices consistently that benefit the technocratic elite and the industries which serve it, to the detreiment of the American Empire AND the Amercan people, generally.*

It's almost as though the masters of our universe have decided that most Americans and most American industries are basically redundant.

We see this in the military, in the intelligence community, in the academioc community, and ESPECIALLY in our trade policies.

Since I pay attention to goverment grants _every day,_ I see this same trend playing out in that arena of grants going to fund research, and grants going to fund applications in research in pretty much the same way. 

If you study how our government rewards and encourages high technology, military industries and the edcuational organizations which serve them, too, you see a very consistent trend to fund and encourage science and technology, and to basically starve most other academic diciplines, and the social services that _they_ provide. 

Now the _dollar per manhour_ investments of hi-tech and sciences are very expensive. 

The_ dollar per manhour _investments in non-tecnologies are relatively cheap by comparison. 

If one were so inclined one might even even harken back to IKE's farewell address warning us about how the the military industrial complex could pervert our goverment to put us on a *continuous war footing, *and one might realize how _very prescient_ that man really was.

I cannot believe that this trend to rely on (and reward so handsomely) a very few limited corporations and fields of academia is entirely an organic process, one that just happened by accident, or because that is in our best interests as a society and nation.

We see, time after time, that this propensity does not make us more powerful as a nation, a wealthier nation, or a even a safer nation. And it surely is hurting the society which is funding it, too.

This obsessional reliance on high tech to solve our every need rewards fewer and fewer Americans overall, but those which are feeding at that trough are getting mighty fat compared to the rest of us.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 19, 2008)

editec said:


> _SPOT on!_
> 
> What our current leadership apparently thinks it can do is reduce the boots on the ground and replace them with advanced techological fixes.
> 
> ...



I'm ALWAYS cynical.  However, the idea that we can replace boots on the ground is not just a mindset held by the powers that be of the moment.  It's an American mindset.  

We as a society have been sold on technology, and for a variety of reasons.  Technological resarch will tell you that it is more efficient and keeps casualties down.  The bunch with the holier-than-thou set of morals for our military delude themselves into thinking it will create a surgical ability to kill only enemy combatants and are outraged when so much as one noncombatant eyelash gets bent.

Of course the military sells it as goo because they want new stuff; although, I would argue the Marines would still be using claymores and battleaxes if they thought they could get away with it.  My last flight off a deck I was in a 46 YOU probably flew in.

Another "technological advance" that comes to mind was removing guns from fighters during the Vietnam era.  So convinced were the chairpolishers their technological advances were insurmountable, they removed the warriors basic weapon to engage in one-on-one combat with the enemy.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a case of trying to kill ants with a 25 pound sledge.  The insurgents have little to no technology and our technology can't cope with it.  

IMO, you put so many men in the bush that the insurgents can't move without getting dead.  Protect the locals from the insurgents.  If they see they are protected, THEN they will become allies.  If we turn out backs for a minute and they get killed, they aren't going to trust us.

I'll take a company of Marines on the ground over satellite imagery and launching a missile into a tent EVERY time.  They live on the ground and in the shadows and if we can't beat them on the ground and in the shadows, we aren't going to beat them.

Make life so damned miserable for them, and sticking their heads up sure death, and they'll go away.  So long as they think they can win, they won't.

As far as our government being in cahoots with arms manufcturers and others who profit from war, that's been proven as far back as Lincoln and his first Secretary of War who was selling inferior crap to himself (the US Army).


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 20, 2008)

Fairly spot on, given Iraks size and population, some 40K insurgents could be expected, common military doctrine (I mean, if the WW2 Germans, the Russians/soviets and I think Nato too agree on something its likely not unfounded) says that you need 10 soldiers to control/kill one Guerillia fighter.
Having cool High tech Gitmos and Spy Satellites stuff may reduce that number to 9, maybe even 8, while beeing in a different-religion-country with a foreign culture/largely unknown language will bump it back to 10. 
The initial troop numbers send (like what, 200k?) in by Rumsfeld were completely crazy.
Quite a number of US-Generals who expressed this opinion got fired iirc.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft.  I remember the draft in Vietnam.  People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it.  The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone.  No exception, no buy outs.  Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 20, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft.  I remember the draft in Vietnam.  People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it.  The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone.  No exception, no buy outs.  Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.




Nice try at blaming the "current admin" for practicing an art form perfected by the privileged in this country as far back as the American Revolution.  They just used to be honest about it.  During the US Civil War, you could purchase a deferrment for cash.  At the time if its demise, one just had to play a more intricate game to avoid it, but the end result was the same.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2008)

Anyone remember Clinton? He lied to a Col to get a deferment , and instead of reporting for duty skipped the Country to England. Now lets compare that to a man that volunteered to become a fighter pilot and flew one of the most dangerous aircraft in the Air Force inventory as an Interceptor, that flew more hours then required as well.


----------



## editec (Aug 20, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Nice try at blaming the "current admin" for practicing an art form perfected by the privileged in this country as far back as the American Revolution. They just used to be honest about it. During the US Civil War, you could purchase a deferrment for cash. At the time if its demise, one just had to play a more intricate game to avoid it, but the end result was the same.


 
He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.

He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)

I went to school with fairly well off kids...especially during my primary school years. 

Of those more affluent kids I went to school with as a boy, not one of them got drafted...not even when the lottery was put into effect,

Not_ one_ of them was drafted, gunny.

Not _one._

Who did get drafted? Just the middle class and poorer kids, naturally.

Strollingbones has a point, in my opinion.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

I am only saying people will always buy or bargain out of the draft.  The only fair thing would simply be....at 19 or 20 everyone serves for a term of duty.  People who are disabled may serve at home or in some way.  I thinnk Jim Webb said the majority stay in for the first enlistment period with only abou 25% staying in the military as a career.  Instead of building a larger military, by a draft,  wouldnt it be better to retain the men who have served?   

I am not trying to fight with anyone.  I am first of all a female.  My father is buried at main post cem. after 30 yrs of service.  Do not treat me like a fool.  I am not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2008)

editec said:


> He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.
> 
> He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)
> 
> ...



His words from HIS post.



> Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 20, 2008)

Try to form a coherent thought, RGS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Try to form a coherent thought, RGS.



Try to engage that limp pasta between your ears once in a while.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 20, 2008)

editec said:


> He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.
> 
> He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)
> 
> ...



Not to ruffle your feathers Editec...but...

Originally posted by Strollingbones:

"I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft. I remember the draft in Vietnam. People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it. The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone. No exception, no buy outs. Look at the members of the *current admin *who avoid the draft and how they avoided it. "


----------



## Gunny (Aug 20, 2008)

editec said:


> He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.
> 
> He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)
> 
> ...



I beg to differ.  This is a quote of the last sentence of the post I responded to:



> Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.



As far as the rest of your post, you're preaching to the choir.  I said the same thing, different words.  

The only difference being that i responded to his last sentence by pointing out that the privileged dodging conscription by one means or another is a time-honored tradition in this country, not just something that the "current administration" pulled off.  The preceeding administration managed to pull off the same thing.  

IMO, strollingbones ruins his own opinion by tossing in some partisan crap at the end; which, was the only thing i disagreed with.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 20, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> I am only saying people will always buy or bargain out of the draft.  The only fair thing would simply be....at 19 or 20 everyone serves for a term of duty.  People who are disabled may serve at home or in some way.  I thinnk Jim Webb said the majority stay in for the first enlistment period with only abou 25% staying in the military as a career.  Instead of building a larger military, by a draft,  wouldnt it be better to retain the men who have served?
> 
> I am not trying to fight with anyone.  I am first of all a female.  My father is buried at main post cem. after 30 yrs of service.  Do not treat me like a fool.  I am not.



Trust me, if I was treating you like a fool, you'd know it.  See my response to editec preceeding this one.  I took exception to one thing you said, and responded to that.  

I do not agree with your idea of compulsory service.  It would no more work in this nation than the draft.  The career force of the military, btw, is around 10%, not 25%.  

The military is powered by youth.  You retain only a large enough career force to train the young and maintain some consistency.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

yes i said the current administration but it goes way back.  the rich rarely serve.  i will be honest if i could buy my son's safety, I would.  What parent would not?  I was, however raised to believe one thing....when a man put joined the armed services, there was no color, religion, politics...there was an american solider.  But anyone who grew up in the late 60's and early 70's saw how the draft didnt work.  I said only 25% of ingoing servicemen make it a career perhaps I was not clear on that.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I beg to differ.  This is a quote of the last sentence of the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> Large breasts:  now that i have your attention....i am not a man....stop calling me he.  partisan crap...and where did that come from?  i am very disappointed in the current admin but what american wishes their president does poorly.  I dont care about their party as much as much as what they will do to unite this country and to restore people's faith in valid elections...is that the type of partisan crap you refer to?  1/2 this country does have faith in the election process.  that needs to be addressed and somehow corrected.
> ...



I will get the hang of this quote button if it kills me.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 20, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> yes i said the current administration but it goes way back.  the rich rarely serve.  i will be honest if i could buy my son's safety, I would.  What parent would not?  I was, however raised to believe one thing....when a man put joined the armed services, there was no color, religion, politics...there was an american solider.  But anyone who grew up in the late 60's and early 70's saw how the draft didnt work.  I said only 25% of ingoing servicemen make it a career perhaps I was not clear on that.




Lucky me.  I grew up in the 60s and 70s in a military family.

However, My opinion is not based on the 60s and 70s draft.  It is based on the 20 years I spent in the service.  Simply put, I do not want some yahoo who doesn't want to be there and is pissed at the world because he is behind ME with a loaded weapon.

People that don't want to be there destroy unit moral and cohesion.  People's lives depend on both.  So, from my point of view as the guy on the ground that has to make even the dumbest of plans work, you can keep your draft and/or compulsory service.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 20, 2008)

Anyone proposing a draft in hopes that it will deter future military action is an idiot.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 20, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> I will get the hang of this quote button if it kills me.



I caught your comment on your gender and have since referred to you as a "she."

If you want to quote a post, just click on the quote button in the box of the post you wish to quote.  Then type your response in the blank area following the quote.  If you type inside the quotation marks, you'll jack it all up.


----------



## editec (Aug 21, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I beg to differ. This is a quote of the last sentence of the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ah, yeah, so noted.

I basically agree with him that this administration is an administration rife with chickenhawks, (unlike MOST Republican administrations, I migght add), noting that the elite of this nation has long avoided real military service was a good point.


----------



## trobinett (Aug 23, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Anyone proposing a draft in hopes that it will deter future military action is an idiot.



I agree, end of fucking story................


----------



## steeliniraq (Aug 25, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Lucky me.  I grew up in the 60s and 70s in a military family.
> 
> However, My opinion is not based on the 60s and 70s draft.  It is based on the 20 years I spent in the service.  Simply put, I do not want some yahoo who doesn't want to be there and is pissed at the world because he is behind ME with a loaded weapon.
> 
> People that don't want to be there destroy unit moral and cohesion.  People's lives depend on both.  So, from my point of view as the guy on the ground that has to make even the dumbest of plans work, you can keep your draft and/or compulsory service.



Hey Gunny long time!  What many Americans just don't get IMO is how much each person in a unit is relied on.  One bad move, one wrong turn, one smartass could get every single person killed.  It's actually a bit funny to hear civilians talk about the draft.  On one hand every soldier hates deploying year after year and would love for the other 99.5% to help out but then again every true soldier understand what a draft would bring.  In WW2 the draft brought people in but it was a much different time back then.  The people of this country actually felt a responsibility to go out and fight.  They did things for the greater good of America.  In todays world that just isn't the case.  Everyone thinks and feels they are special and their opinions and feeling actually mean something.  Vietnam gave us a glimpse into what a draft would do to our military today.  The draft nearly killed our military back then.  It was a disease that rot the military from the inside out.  People that have never served just don't understand that the volunteer attitude that is brought with the all volunteer force is just as important as the numbers the draft will bring.  So to answer the question asked by the original poster, my answer is hell no to a draft.  I have deployed to Iraq 5 times now and if needed I will go back a few more times.  War is a business and if you don't have the best, motivated people fighting you will lose.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2008)

steeliniraq said:


> Hey Gunny long time! What many Americans just don't get IMO is how much each person in a unit is relied on. One bad move, one wrong turn, one smartass could get every single person killed. It's actually a bit funny to hear civilians talk about the draft. On one hand every soldier hates deploying year after year and would love for the other 99.5% to help out but then again every true soldier understand what a draft would bring. In WW2 the draft brought people in but it was a much different time back then. The people of this country actually felt a responsibility to go out and fight. They did things for the greater good of America. In todays world that just isn't the case. Everyone thinks and feels they are special and their opinions and feeling actually mean something. Vietnam gave us a glimpse into what a draft would do to our military today. The draft nearly killed our military back then. It was a disease that rot the military from the inside out. People that have never served just don't understand that the volunteer attitude that is brought with the all volunteer force is just as important as the numbers the draft will bring. So to answer the question asked by the original poster, my answer is hell no to a draft. I have deployed to Iraq 5 times now and if needed I will go back a few more times. War is a business and if you don't have the best, motivated people fighting you will lose.


 

Civilians who were drafted into the fray did just fine during WWII.

If America were really at risk, civilians would do just fine again, assuming that the Professionals leading them were pompous popinjays.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 25, 2008)

editec said:


> Civilians who were drafted into the fray did just fine during WWII.
> 
> If America were really at risk, civilians would do just fine again, assuming that the Professionals leading them were pompous popinjays.



I disagree.  The common bonds that made us Americans during WWII no longer exist.  The Nation came first then.  People understood then that without the Nation, everything that was because of the Nation didn't exist.

People now don't seem to be able to do that math.  They're so blind they believe that they'll have their freedoms whether this Nation exists or not.  Rather than actually go out and fight, they'll wait until they are indignantly proclaiming their rights to the person aiming a weapon in on them to settle that issue once and for all.


----------

