Are we headed to war? Iraq embassy being evacuated

[edward37]

Why U.S. Just Ordered Non-Emergency Employees to Leave Iraq Embassy

Sure seems like a preamble.

Why does every single president get us into wars? The timing is very suspicious imo

no shit dick tracy

 

[toobfreak]

No...you don't think/care about them. You just want your neocon victory over Iran.

Well, ButtWhistle, you are quickly showing that your claim of a 125 IQ was a lie as well. You don't know what I care about, you think I want Americans to die? You really are an ass. But if we are to go to war with Iran, I want it to be for a good necessary cause and for us to accomplish our goal quickly.

Funny how we defeated Germany and Japan in just a few short years with crude weapons but now people think every war must run decades with no end in sight. You either commit to fighting a war to win, or you resign yourself to an endless police action. Trump ain't no cop.

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

Save your breath, Edge, you're wasting it on a fool who not only can't ever admit when he's wrong, he actually thinks that only the 0.4% of people who actively serve in the military (even if only to clean toilets and shine shoes on weekends across town in a nice, clean facility 5,000 miles from a combat zone) are the only people in America free and entitled to have or express an opinion. He doesn't care that service is a CHOICE and that many people either don't want to or can't serve that way or that there is any other way to serve their country he's willing to recognize---- because HE didn't do it, and now is so deranged that he stalks those whom are unwilling to share in his twisted views.

That helps him overcome his bitterness that he HAD to against his own wishes for whatever reasons that he now resents and projects on others to fill an apparently otherwise empty and pathetic life.

 

[McRocket]

Well, ButtWhistle, you are quickly showing that your claim of a 125 IQ was a lie as well. You don't know what I care about, you think I want Americans to die? You really are an ass. But if we are to go to war with Iran, I want it to be for a good necessary cause and for us to accomplish our goal quickly.

Funny how we defeated Germany and Japan in just a few short years with crude weapons but now people think every war must run decades with no end in sight. You either commit to fighting a war to win, or you resign yourself to an endless police action. Trump ain't no cop.

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

Save your breath, Edge, you're wasting it on a fool who not only can't ever admit when he's wrong, he actually thinks that only the 0.4% of people who actively serve in the military (even if only to clean toilets and shine shoes on weekends across town in a nice, clean facility 5,000 miles from a combat zone) are the only people in America free and entitled to have or express an opinion. He doesn't care that service is a CHOICE and that many people either don't want to or can't serve that way or that there is any other way to serve their country he's willing to recognize---- because HE didn't do it.

That helps him overcome his bitterness that he HAD to against his own wishes for whatever reasons that he now resents and projects on others.

LOL...man...you have REALLY thin skin I see.

Of course you are spewing nonsense. But I am quite sure that won't stop you.

Notice how you avoid my simple questions to you that puts your position in a bad light...but you then do some childish answering other people's questions with a 'oh, don't talk to him...he is a bad man. He hurt my feelings'.

So not only is your skin thin...but you don;t have the guts to answer questions that you are afraid will make you look bad.

Quite the useless troll, you are.


Have a wonderful day.

 

[McRocket]

No...you don't think/care about them. You just want your neocon victory over Iran.

Well, ButtWhistle, you are quickly showing that your claim of a 125 IQ was a lie as well. You don't know what I care about, you think I want Americans to die? You really are an ass. But if we are to go to war with Iran, I want it to be for a good necessary cause and for us to accomplish our goal quickly.

Funny how we defeated Germany and Japan in just a few short years with crude weapons but now people think every war must run decades with no end in sight. You either commit to fighting a war to win, or you resign yourself to an endless police action. Trump ain't no cop.

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

 

[U2Edge]

Well, ButtWhistle, you are quickly showing that your claim of a 125 IQ was a lie as well. You don't know what I care about, you think I want Americans to die? You really are an ass. But if we are to go to war with Iran, I want it to be for a good necessary cause and for us to accomplish our goal quickly.

Funny how we defeated Germany and Japan in just a few short years with crude weapons but now people think every war must run decades with no end in sight. You either commit to fighting a war to win, or you resign yourself to an endless police action. Trump ain't no cop.

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

I looked at totals for ACTIVE + RESERVE - COMBINED. There are 2,212,350 total combined. The Reserves are 865,050 of that number. Even though Reserves in peace time only serve one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer that still must do the following:
01. Boot Camp initial training which can take months depending on the recruit and whether they have to cycle through again.
02. After Boot Camp training in their military occupation which could also take months.
03. Training in both 01. and 02. requires active duty trainers and other staffing. Even if most of the 4,277,000 reaching 18 every year entered the reserves instead of active duty, it would take an enormous amount of active duty personal to be able to handle all these new recruits each year. Currently, they only handle 268,000 people per year, but your expecting them to now cycle through 4,277,000 people EVERY SINGLE YEAR
04. Even if 93% of this 4,277,000 annual figure goes into the reserves, your still paying all of them at least 5 months of the year for training.
05. All of the reserve forces will have to be fully equipped whether their combat units or support units, just like their equivalent in the active force component.
06. Think of the size of the number trainers, teachers, and other staffing in order to cycle through 4,277,000 people through boot camp and then their military occupation specialty. You would probably have to dedicate 500,000 active duty personal for just this task alone.
07. The size of the ACTIVE component would have to increase significantly to train all the 4,277,000 people who would be going through at least 5 months of total training each year before the even begin their normal reserve duty.

You might have a savings of about 67% for these reserve personal over time after the first year, but not more than that given the cost to properly equip the units their in and the limited training they still do every year. Reserve units still have to be based somewhere, and their equipment maintained. So given all that, you would still be looking at a military budget of $3.5 Trillion per year AT LEAST for an active force of 1,347,000 with a reserve component of 33,600,000. 85% of that $3.5 Trillion would be spending for this massive reserve component you would have created, going from 865,000 reservist to 33,600,000 reservist. The United States spends at least $100 Billion dollars a year on its current reserve component, about 16% of the total military budget. Now your expanding that reserve component by a factor of 35, 35 times what it currently is. So yes, your talking at least $3 Trillion dollars for this expanded reserve component due to universal military service for people reaching the age of 18.

BOTTOM LINE: Having a reserve force of 33,600,000 that receives about 4,000,000 new recruits each year might be cheaper than what I first wrote given current force structure, but it will still involve massive cost that would dwarf the current defense budget. A National Guard or Reserve unit is still one that is equipped to the same standard as an equivalent active duty unit and must be able to fulfill the same function as any active duty unit if called to service. You do get a savings from only having to pay them one weekend a month, two weeks training in the summer, AFTER the first year of enlistment. But your still equipping these forces on the same scale you would the active force. That makes it very expensive.


The Founding Fathers: The militia at that time were simply equipped with rifles that they already owned for personal use on the farm. Any payment for service they received came from the individual town they lived in. There were no standards in terms of training. The Federal government had no involvement in equipping or training the militia. It was a different time, and relatively easy to equip and train what was a militia force at the time. Even the training and equipping of regular active military units at the time was very simple and easy when compared to a fighting force in the 21st century. What's more, when this large militia force was called on during the war of 1812, over 90% of them did not mobilize to serve the country when told to. The manning and equipping of a militia force back then was so different that it has no relevant comparison to today. It then totally failed when the country called it up for the War of 1812.

Switzerland: They say they have compulsory system of military service, but their numbers in terms of active duty and reserves suggest otherwise. In addition, how well equipped the total force is, is questionable. Someone who was just trained to use a rifle when they were 19, and only has to do 5 (3 week) refresher courses over the next 10 years just does not cut it at all when it comes to 21st century warfare. I don't know if that would qualify you to be a sheriff in a rural town. Sounds more like the security guy at the local Mall. Switzerland is a neutral country that depends on its terrain(very mountainous in half the country) and its strict non-interference in world politics for its defense. It also benefits from being surrounded by NATO countries, who in defending their own territory, would naturally be defending Switzerland, without intending too. Any conflicts Switzerland has overseas or internationally it seeks to deal with diplomatically, even its citizens are held hostage, its property or money is seized by others, etc. This is a military force that does not deploy or fight beyond its borders. It is dependent on other countries to do the fighting if its security, economy, or resource needs, is in someway threatened by an international crises outside its borders. So this is not a good example at all.

Update on Switzerland: You have about 95,000 citizens turning age 19 every year. Reservist must serve for 10 years, from age 19-20 to age 30. Based on that, Switzerland should have a total reserve force of just under 1 million people.

Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Switzerland may claim they have compulsory service, but based on the number of people turning 19 every year, and the length of service required in the reserves(10 years), the number of eligible people actually serving is only about 17%. Only about 15,000 to 16,000 people of the 95,000 people that turn 19 every year appear to be going into active or reserve service. Perhaps Switzerland has a very broad exemptions category.

 

[McRocket]

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

I looked at totals for ACTIVE + RESERVE - COMBINED. There are 2,212,350 total combined. The Reserves are 865,050 of that number. Even though Reserves in peace time only serve one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer that still must do the following:
01. Boot Camp initial training which can take months depending on the recruit and whether they have to cycle through again.
02. After Boot Camp training in their military occupation which could also take months.
03. Training in both 01. and 02. requires active duty trainers and other staffing. Even if most of the 4,277,000 reaching 18 every year entered the reserves instead of active duty, it would take an enormous amount of active duty personal to be able to handle all these new recruits each year. Currently, they only handle 268,000 people per year, but your expecting them to now cycle through 4,277,000 people EVERY SINGLE YEAR
04. Even if 93% of this 4,277,000 annual figure goes into the reserves, your still paying all of them at least 5 months of the year for training.
05. All of the reserve forces will have to be fully equipped whether their combat units or support units, just like their equivalent in the active force component.
06. Think of the size of the number trainers, teachers, and other staffing in order to cycle through 4,277,000 people through boot camp and then their military occupation specialty. You would probably have to dedicate 500,000 active duty personal for just this task alone.
07. The size of the ACTIVE component would have to increase significantly to train all the 4,277,000 people who would be going through at least 5 months of total training each year before the even begin their normal reserve duty.

You might have a savings of about 67% for these reserve personal over time after the first year, but not more than that given the cost to properly equip the units their in and the limited training they still do every year. Reserve units still have to be based somewhere, and their equipment maintained. So given all that, you would still be looking at a military budget of $3.5 Trillion per year AT LEAST for an active force of 1,347,000 with a reserve component of 33,600,000. 85% of that $3.5 Trillion would be spending for this massive reserve component you would have created, going from 865,000 reservist to 33,600,000 reservist. The United States spends at least $100 Billion dollars a year on its current reserve component, about 16% of the total military budget. Now your expanding that reserve component by a factor of 35, 35 times what it currently is. So yes, your talking at least $3 Trillion dollars for this expanded reserve component due to universal military service for people reaching the age of 18.

BOTTOM LINE: Having a reserve force of 33,600,000 that receives about 4,000,000 new recruits each year might be cheaper than what I first wrote given current force structure, but it will still involve massive cost that would dwarf the current defense budget. A National Guard or Reserve unit is still one that is equipped to the same standard as an equivalent active duty unit and must be able to fulfill the same function as any active duty unit if called to service. You do get a savings from only having to pay them one weekend a month, two weeks training in the summer, AFTER the first year of enlistment. But your still equipping these forces on the same scale you would the active force. That makes it very expensive.


The Founding Fathers: The militia at that time were simply equipped with rifles that they already owned for personal use on the farm. Any payment for service they received came from the individual town they lived in. There were no standards in terms of training. The Federal government had no involvement in equipping or training the militia. It was a different time, and relatively easy to equip and train what was a militia force at the time. Even the training and equipping of regular active military units at the time was very simple and easy when compared to a fighting force in the 21st century. What's more, when this large militia force was called on during the war of 1812, over 90% of them did not mobilize to serve the country when told to. The manning and equipping of a militia force back then was so different that it has no relevant comparison to today. It then totally failed when the country called it up for the War of 1812.

Switzerland: They say they have compulsory system of military service, but their numbers in terms of active duty and reserves suggest otherwise. In addition, how well equipped the total force is, is questionable. Someone who was just trained to use a rifle when they were 19, and only has to do 5 (3 week) refresher courses over the next 10 years just does not cut it at all when it comes to 21st century warfare. I don't know if that would qualify you to be a sheriff in a rural town. Sounds more like the security guy at the local Mall. Switzerland is a neutral country that depends on its terrain(very mountainous in half the country) and its strict non-interference in world politics for its defense. It also benefits from being surrounded by NATO countries, who in defending their own territory, would naturally be defending Switzerland, without intending too. Any conflicts Switzerland has overseas or internationally it seeks to deal with diplomatically, even its citizens are held hostage, its property or money is seized by others, etc. This is a military force that does not deploy or fight beyond its borders. It is dependent on other countries to do the fighting if its security, economy, or resource needs, is in someway threatened by an international crises outside its borders. So this is not a good example at all.

Update on Switzerland: You have about 95,000 citizens turning age 19 every year. Reservist must serve for 10 years, from age 19-20 to age 30. Based on that, Switzerland should have a total reserve force of just under 1 million people.

Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Switzerland may claim they have compulsory service, but based on the number of people turning 19 every year, and the length of service required in the reserves(10 years), the number of eligible people actually serving is only about 17%. Only about 15,000 to 16,000 people of the 95,000 people that turn 19 every year appear to be going into active or reserve service. Perhaps Switzerland has a very broad exemptions category.

Do you seriously expect me to read all of that? I do have a life and things to do. But you seem sincere and are not being a jerk in any way so...

I scanned what you typed and I will sum up this way:

- You are making too many assumptions, IMO.

- I was in the reserves - it does not take that many people to train a VERY large number of recruits. It actually takes hardly any. And those that train on individual tasks/equipment/skills can train several units - one after another - so a HUGE number of recruits can be trained by a tiny number of ‘teachers’. Especially if the training facilities are concentrated in just a few areas.

The fact that Switzerland has a 7:1 reserve:full time ratio and it works SO well and has for generations defeats the notion that to have compulsory military service is too expensive.
Israel does a similar thing and they are world renowned for having an exemplary armed forces.

I am not going to argue about this - America should drastically reduce their full time personnel and instigate ‘compulsory’ RESERVE military service for all eligible adults (who are not ‘conscientious objectors’).

It would drastically reduce the military budget and not reduce it’s effectiveness all that much.

If you don’t agree - fine.

But there is NOTHING - that I can imagine - that you can possibly say to change my mind on this. Plus, I sense your mind is closed as well.
So further discussion is pointless - at least at this time.

I applaud you for keeping it civil - but I am done on this.

Good day.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump's bloodlust is making him build an empire of war all over the world!

 

[U2Edge]

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

I looked at totals for ACTIVE + RESERVE - COMBINED. There are 2,212,350 total combined. The Reserves are 865,050 of that number. Even though Reserves in peace time only serve one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer that still must do the following:
01. Boot Camp initial training which can take months depending on the recruit and whether they have to cycle through again.
02. After Boot Camp training in their military occupation which could also take months.
03. Training in both 01. and 02. requires active duty trainers and other staffing. Even if most of the 4,277,000 reaching 18 every year entered the reserves instead of active duty, it would take an enormous amount of active duty personal to be able to handle all these new recruits each year. Currently, they only handle 268,000 people per year, but your expecting them to now cycle through 4,277,000 people EVERY SINGLE YEAR
04. Even if 93% of this 4,277,000 annual figure goes into the reserves, your still paying all of them at least 5 months of the year for training.
05. All of the reserve forces will have to be fully equipped whether their combat units or support units, just like their equivalent in the active force component.
06. Think of the size of the number trainers, teachers, and other staffing in order to cycle through 4,277,000 people through boot camp and then their military occupation specialty. You would probably have to dedicate 500,000 active duty personal for just this task alone.
07. The size of the ACTIVE component would have to increase significantly to train all the 4,277,000 people who would be going through at least 5 months of total training each year before the even begin their normal reserve duty.

You might have a savings of about 67% for these reserve personal over time after the first year, but not more than that given the cost to properly equip the units their in and the limited training they still do every year. Reserve units still have to be based somewhere, and their equipment maintained. So given all that, you would still be looking at a military budget of $3.5 Trillion per year AT LEAST for an active force of 1,347,000 with a reserve component of 33,600,000. 85% of that $3.5 Trillion would be spending for this massive reserve component you would have created, going from 865,000 reservist to 33,600,000 reservist. The United States spends at least $100 Billion dollars a year on its current reserve component, about 16% of the total military budget. Now your expanding that reserve component by a factor of 35, 35 times what it currently is. So yes, your talking at least $3 Trillion dollars for this expanded reserve component due to universal military service for people reaching the age of 18.

BOTTOM LINE: Having a reserve force of 33,600,000 that receives about 4,000,000 new recruits each year might be cheaper than what I first wrote given current force structure, but it will still involve massive cost that would dwarf the current defense budget. A National Guard or Reserve unit is still one that is equipped to the same standard as an equivalent active duty unit and must be able to fulfill the same function as any active duty unit if called to service. You do get a savings from only having to pay them one weekend a month, two weeks training in the summer, AFTER the first year of enlistment. But your still equipping these forces on the same scale you would the active force. That makes it very expensive.


The Founding Fathers: The militia at that time were simply equipped with rifles that they already owned for personal use on the farm. Any payment for service they received came from the individual town they lived in. There were no standards in terms of training. The Federal government had no involvement in equipping or training the militia. It was a different time, and relatively easy to equip and train what was a militia force at the time. Even the training and equipping of regular active military units at the time was very simple and easy when compared to a fighting force in the 21st century. What's more, when this large militia force was called on during the war of 1812, over 90% of them did not mobilize to serve the country when told to. The manning and equipping of a militia force back then was so different that it has no relevant comparison to today. It then totally failed when the country called it up for the War of 1812.

Switzerland: They say they have compulsory system of military service, but their numbers in terms of active duty and reserves suggest otherwise. In addition, how well equipped the total force is, is questionable. Someone who was just trained to use a rifle when they were 19, and only has to do 5 (3 week) refresher courses over the next 10 years just does not cut it at all when it comes to 21st century warfare. I don't know if that would qualify you to be a sheriff in a rural town. Sounds more like the security guy at the local Mall. Switzerland is a neutral country that depends on its terrain(very mountainous in half the country) and its strict non-interference in world politics for its defense. It also benefits from being surrounded by NATO countries, who in defending their own territory, would naturally be defending Switzerland, without intending too. Any conflicts Switzerland has overseas or internationally it seeks to deal with diplomatically, even its citizens are held hostage, its property or money is seized by others, etc. This is a military force that does not deploy or fight beyond its borders. It is dependent on other countries to do the fighting if its security, economy, or resource needs, is in someway threatened by an international crises outside its borders. So this is not a good example at all.

Update on Switzerland: You have about 95,000 citizens turning age 19 every year. Reservist must serve for 10 years, from age 19-20 to age 30. Based on that, Switzerland should have a total reserve force of just under 1 million people.

Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Switzerland may claim they have compulsory service, but based on the number of people turning 19 every year, and the length of service required in the reserves(10 years), the number of eligible people actually serving is only about 17%. Only about 15,000 to 16,000 people of the 95,000 people that turn 19 every year appear to be going into active or reserve service. Perhaps Switzerland has a very broad exemptions category.

Do you seriously expect me to read all of that? I do have a life and things to do. But you seem sincere and are not being a jerk in any way so...

I scanned what you typed and I will sum up this way:

- You are making too many assumptions, IMO.

- I was in the reserves - it does not take that many people to train a VERY large number of recruits. It actually takes hardly any. And those that train on individual tasks/equipment/skills can train several units - one after another - so a HUGE number of recruits can be trained by a tiny number of ‘teachers’. Especially if the training facilities are concentrated in just a few areas.

The fact that Switzerland has a 7:1 reserve:full time ratio and it works SO well and has for generations defeats the notion that to have compulsory military service is too expensive.
Israel does a similar thing and they are world renowned for having an exemplary armed forces.

I am not going to argue about this - America should drastically reduce their full time personnel and instigate ‘compulsory’ RESERVE military service for all eligible adults (who are not ‘conscientious objectors’).

It would drastically reduce the military budget and not reduce it’s effectiveness all that much.

If you don’t agree - fine.

But there is NOTHING - that I can imagine - that you can possibly say to change my mind on this. Plus, I sense your mind is closed as well.
So further discussion is pointless - at least at this time.

I applaud you for keeping it civil - but I am done on this.

Good day.

You still don't understand. When you go from training 268,000 people a year to training 4,277,000 people a year, it requires a massive expansion of trainers, equipment and facilities. If you have four cycles of bootcamp during the year, you would have over 1 million in each cycle. Your talking about trainers and staffing for facilities that would have to be 15 TIMES the size of what they currently are now.

Again, 4,277,000 new recruits each year going through at least 5 months of combined boot camp and MOS training. You would have to have training facilities all over the country. It would be more akin to building the force that fought in World War II.

Plus that is just the training aspect. Equipping all these new reserve combat and support units would be a massive task would by itself cost trillions of dollars. We spend at least $100 Billion dollars a year on the current reserve force! You want to expand that Reserve force by a factor of 35. That makes it an extra $3.5 Trillion per year.

As I explained before, Switzerland, does not actually have compulsory reserve service. It they did, their reserve force would number 950,000 not 144,000. Its a fact that 95,000 people in Switzerland reach the age of 19 every year. Reserve service is 10 years in length. Do the math and you'll see what I mean. Then there is what the Swiss are actually armed with, which is a big factor when it comes to cost.

I have not looked at Israel's system yet, but if its anything like the Swiss system, then it is only compulsory in name. Most people are getting exemptions from service if it really is compulsory.

The cost of training 4,277,000 people a year as opposed to 268,000 is enormous. Again, your going from 865,000 total reservist in the force, to 33,500,000. Even if the United States currently only spent $50 Billion on its reserve force each year, the scale of what you contemplate would still triple the current defense budget. Your increasing the size of the reserve force from 865,000 to 33 million. Do the math.

My mind is not closed to anything. I just can't find any realistic way to actually put in place what you want. The numbers are enormous. But for some reason your not looking at the numbers or whether this can be done realistically. Compulsory service is a nice idea in theory
but you have to explain how it would work for a 21st century fighting force in a country of 329,000,000 people, where 4,277,000 people are turning 18 every year.

Switzerland is not actually doing what you want to do. The size of their reserve force does not come close to covering the size it should be if service was really compulsory.

 

[U2Edge]

Israel has the following ACTIVE/RESERVE breakdown:

Israel population: 8,174,527
number of population turning 18 each year: 130,000
number of Jews and Druze turning 18 each year: 98,000
Christians and Muslims are exempt from conscription
Israel Defense Force:
ACTIVE: 176,500
RESERVE: 465,000


compared with Switzerland:

Switzerland population: 8,179,294
number of population turning 19 each year: 95,000
Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Israel has a much younger population which is why have more people reaching military age each year despite the size of the population of each country being the same.

Israel states that they require 3 years of service on active duty once you reach 18, but this is clearly not the case given that ACTIVE component is only 176,500 in size. IF everyone who turned 18 was automatically serving for 3 years, the active duty component would at a minimum have 294,000 troops and that's just conscripts. It appears that roughly 67% of Israeli Jews are able to avoid conscription as well as any service in the reserves. So that makes it far from compulsory in the real sense.

Once service is completed in the Active component, you then go into the reserves and receive annual training until age 40. Females who were conscripted no longer have reserve obligation once they become pregnant or get married. This would make sense for the reserve force being 465,000 as it would be 627,000 if there were no exemptions for female pregnancy or marriage.

So once again, in a nation that is supposed to have compulsory military service for people of Jewish faith, only about 33% are actually serving in the armed forces. Its really only 25% of the population when you consider Christians and Muslims too.

 

[toobfreak]

You typed the following:

'If we go to war against Iran under Trump, I bet it goes a lot differently than our attack on Saddam Hussein under the Bushes.

THIS president has a set of balls the size of maracas. Trump is no police action president.'

AND

'Yeah, what could the mightiest military on the planet with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars unleashed possibly do against a backward 12th century nation the size of Alaska run by ayatollahs?'

That is neocon talk. The talk of someone who does not have to put his own butt on the line.

If you truly cared about those troopers and their families - you would want Trump to avoid war AT ALL COSTS. And you would want him to honor his 'America First' promise.

But no...you sound like a guy who wants war....like it's 'some, damn football game'.

If you had put your neck on the line...okay. But you haven't. You say you have physical limitations? I call bullshit. I say you don't have the guts or the honor.
And you can always do volunteer service. But no...you cannot be bothered.

So you should hope for peace and keep your neocon drooling to yourself.

Maybe you are not calling for it as much as some.

But guys like you who refuse to stick their necks out for their country should shut the fuck up and hope for peace.

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

I looked at totals for ACTIVE + RESERVE - COMBINED. There are 2,212,350 total combined. The Reserves are 865,050 of that number. Even though Reserves in peace time only serve one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer that still must do the following:
01. Boot Camp initial training which can take months depending on the recruit and whether they have to cycle through again.
02. After Boot Camp training in their military occupation which could also take months.
03. Training in both 01. and 02. requires active duty trainers and other staffing. Even if most of the 4,277,000 reaching 18 every year entered the reserves instead of active duty, it would take an enormous amount of active duty personal to be able to handle all these new recruits each year. Currently, they only handle 268,000 people per year, but your expecting them to now cycle through 4,277,000 people EVERY SINGLE YEAR
04. Even if 93% of this 4,277,000 annual figure goes into the reserves, your still paying all of them at least 5 months of the year for training.
05. All of the reserve forces will have to be fully equipped whether their combat units or support units, just like their equivalent in the active force component.
06. Think of the size of the number trainers, teachers, and other staffing in order to cycle through 4,277,000 people through boot camp and then their military occupation specialty. You would probably have to dedicate 500,000 active duty personal for just this task alone.
07. The size of the ACTIVE component would have to increase significantly to train all the 4,277,000 people who would be going through at least 5 months of total training each year before the even begin their normal reserve duty.

You might have a savings of about 67% for these reserve personal over time after the first year, but not more than that given the cost to properly equip the units their in and the limited training they still do every year. Reserve units still have to be based somewhere, and their equipment maintained. So given all that, you would still be looking at a military budget of $3.5 Trillion per year AT LEAST for an active force of 1,347,000 with a reserve component of 33,600,000. 85% of that $3.5 Trillion would be spending for this massive reserve component you would have created, going from 865,000 reservist to 33,600,000 reservist. The United States spends at least $100 Billion dollars a year on its current reserve component, about 16% of the total military budget. Now your expanding that reserve component by a factor of 35, 35 times what it currently is. So yes, your talking at least $3 Trillion dollars for this expanded reserve component due to universal military service for people reaching the age of 18.

BOTTOM LINE: Having a reserve force of 33,600,000 that receives about 4,000,000 new recruits each year might be cheaper than what I first wrote given current force structure, but it will still involve massive cost that would dwarf the current defense budget. A National Guard or Reserve unit is still one that is equipped to the same standard as an equivalent active duty unit and must be able to fulfill the same function as any active duty unit if called to service. You do get a savings from only having to pay them one weekend a month, two weeks training in the summer, AFTER the first year of enlistment. But your still equipping these forces on the same scale you would the active force. That makes it very expensive.


The Founding Fathers: The militia at that time were simply equipped with rifles that they already owned for personal use on the farm. Any payment for service they received came from the individual town they lived in. There were no standards in terms of training. The Federal government had no involvement in equipping or training the militia. It was a different time, and relatively easy to equip and train what was a militia force at the time. Even the training and equipping of regular active military units at the time was very simple and easy when compared to a fighting force in the 21st century. What's more, when this large militia force was called on during the war of 1812, over 90% of them did not mobilize to serve the country when told to. The manning and equipping of a militia force back then was so different that it has no relevant comparison to today. It then totally failed when the country called it up for the War of 1812.

Switzerland: They say they have compulsory system of military service, but their numbers in terms of active duty and reserves suggest otherwise. In addition, how well equipped the total force is, is questionable. Someone who was just trained to use a rifle when they were 19, and only has to do 5 (3 week) refresher courses over the next 10 years just does not cut it at all when it comes to 21st century warfare. I don't know if that would qualify you to be a sheriff in a rural town. Sounds more like the security guy at the local Mall. Switzerland is a neutral country that depends on its terrain(very mountainous in half the country) and its strict non-interference in world politics for its defense. It also benefits from being surrounded by NATO countries, who in defending their own territory, would naturally be defending Switzerland, without intending too. Any conflicts Switzerland has overseas or internationally it seeks to deal with diplomatically, even its citizens are held hostage, its property or money is seized by others, etc. This is a military force that does not deploy or fight beyond its borders. It is dependent on other countries to do the fighting if its security, economy, or resource needs, is in someway threatened by an international crises outside its borders. So this is not a good example at all.

Update on Switzerland: You have about 95,000 citizens turning age 19 every year. Reservist must serve for 10 years, from age 19-20 to age 30. Based on that, Switzerland should have a total reserve force of just under 1 million people.

Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Switzerland may claim they have compulsory service, but based on the number of people turning 19 every year, and the length of service required in the reserves(10 years), the number of eligible people actually serving is only about 17%. Only about 15,000 to 16,000 people of the 95,000 people that turn 19 every year appear to be going into active or reserve service. Perhaps Switzerland has a very broad exemptions category.

Edge, you can't seriously expect a loon like McButtRatchet to process all of that! The guy only has a high school education and goes around bragging and boasting of his "military career" and sacrifices as if he were Audie Murphy or fought in Guadalcanal, only to finally admit he took a weekend a month hike across town in peace time to fart around in a uniform on nice grassy lawns doing a few exercises in total safety praying he didn't actually get called to service so he'd collect some military benefits off the hardworking taxpayers someday. The guy is a fraud, an idiot, a termite and a leech.

 

[McRocket]

As George Carlin aptly noted: Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. Especially an idiot who takes the one thing they can say they have to attack another person with, even to the point of stalking them by PM and pathetically admitting taking pleasure in making fun of their handicaps only to have it revealed in the end that the one thing they said they had, they never really had at all in the first place. That too was a lie.

You, sir, seem mentally disturbed.

But anyway...well, you keep avoiding answering my questions.

I will try again.

You typed:

'First you thought you could get me on IQ and now you think you can get me on service to the country and it turns out you were nothing more than a "weekend warrior" that never even left town.'

Are we headed to war? Iraq embassy being evacuated

So my question to you was:

So you are saying that all ‘weekend warriors’ whom never saw combat did not serve their country?
True or False, please?

Now let's see if you can get it together enough to answer my question...I am guessing 'no'.


BTW - I don't think I ever answered the OP question.

My answer is - 'no'.

 

[McRocket]

Every American has a right and a responsibility to be concerned about when the armed forces of the United States are used overseas to protect American interest. Most Americans cannot serve in the United States military. You would have to have a standing military of over 15 million for that to be even remotely possible. But every American can and should vote on these issues and voice their opinions. Its their responsibility to do so as citizens of this country.

Nearly all Americans supported military operations to track down and kill Osama Bin Ladin. But 85% to 90% of Americans were not serving or have ever served in the military. Every citizen, regardless of whether they have served in the military, has a right and a responsibility to judge whether they support military action in any particular situation.

Right to judge? Sure.

Be gung ho like toobfreak is when he did not even serve/volunteer to help.

Not in my book.


And you can join the reserves you know - that is not part of a 'standing army'? That's what I did.

As far as I am concerned - it should be like Switzerland...everyone who can has to join the reserves after serving in the 'standing army' for a relatively short period.


Anyway, I am not talking to you about this...I am talking to toobfreak.

Good day.

Being in the National Guard or Reserves is essentially being in the ACTIVE military. Whenever a Division or Brigade deploys overseas, there are usually components of that Unit or that support that unit that are found in the Reserves or National Guard and must be called up and deployed. The United States National Guard has almost as many Combat Brigades as the United States ACTIVE Army. Every single combat brigade in the United States National Guard were deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, several were deployed multiple times. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves is only one weekend a month, two weeks a year, during peacetime. When the country goes to war, Guard and Reserve units can be deployed ANYWHERE at ANYTIME indefinitely.

Now a note about numbers:

The United States currently has a total active+reserve strength all services of 2,212,350 people.

In order to maintain that total active+reserve strength, the military must recruit a total of 268,767 people every year, given the number of people who's enlistments end and leave the military every year.

Guess how many people in the United States turn 18 every year on average: 4,277,000

01. Number of people reaching military age(18) each year: 4,277,000
02. Number of people the military needs to recruit each year to maintain current strength: 268,767
03. Just 6.3% of the people turning 18 this year would be enough to meet all the military's recruiting needs for the year.
04. There would be no room for the other 93.7% of people turning 18 unless you expand total active+reserve strength which is already 2,212,350
05. In order for there to be spots in the military for all 4,277,000 people turning 18 this year in the United States, you would have to expand TOTAL ACTIVE+RESERVE STRENGTH to 35,060,000

BOTTOM LINE: If you want everyone in the United States to have served in the military, you need to increase the total ACTIVE+RESERVE military from 2,212,350 to 35,060,000. That way, there would be entry level positions open every year for all 4,277,000 people reaching eligible military age each year, which is 18.

That's the reality of living in a country of 329,000,000 people where 4,277,000 are reaching the age of 18 each year. If you want the United States to have universal military service, you need a minimum total active+reserve military strength of 35,060,000.

Essentially, you need a military force(active+reserve) that is 16 times the size of the current military force. The size of the defense budget would have to expand from the current $604 Billion to $9.7 TRILLION!

Ummm...you do realize that reservists get paid a tiny fraction of regular military personnel? Plus, housing/food/etc. costs a TON more money to the government for active vs. reserve duty personnel.
Reservists do one weekend a month, and the two week exercise is once per year. They only pay you for that time (with LOTS of exceptions for different circumstances).

I am saying have the military go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted (and had)...a very small, peace time, armed forces (FAR smaller then it is now) with a huge, well trained/well equipped 'militia'.

I do believe that people can opt out if they don't want to serve (I don't want people serving who don't want to be there). But you have to publicly state that you are opting out...it will not be secret.

Not only would it not cost what you say...I guarantee you it would save America hundreds of billions per year.

Right now, the Swiss (who have compulsory military service with a highly capable and well-respected military) spend just over $600 per citizen, per year on their military budget. America - as of 2019 - will spend about $2,169 per citizen, per year on her military budget.

Compulsory, RESERVE military service would actually reduce the military budget...providing you reduce the size of the present, regular, U.S. armed forces significantly.

I looked at totals for ACTIVE + RESERVE - COMBINED. There are 2,212,350 total combined. The Reserves are 865,050 of that number. Even though Reserves in peace time only serve one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer that still must do the following:
01. Boot Camp initial training which can take months depending on the recruit and whether they have to cycle through again.
02. After Boot Camp training in their military occupation which could also take months.
03. Training in both 01. and 02. requires active duty trainers and other staffing. Even if most of the 4,277,000 reaching 18 every year entered the reserves instead of active duty, it would take an enormous amount of active duty personal to be able to handle all these new recruits each year. Currently, they only handle 268,000 people per year, but your expecting them to now cycle through 4,277,000 people EVERY SINGLE YEAR
04. Even if 93% of this 4,277,000 annual figure goes into the reserves, your still paying all of them at least 5 months of the year for training.
05. All of the reserve forces will have to be fully equipped whether their combat units or support units, just like their equivalent in the active force component.
06. Think of the size of the number trainers, teachers, and other staffing in order to cycle through 4,277,000 people through boot camp and then their military occupation specialty. You would probably have to dedicate 500,000 active duty personal for just this task alone.
07. The size of the ACTIVE component would have to increase significantly to train all the 4,277,000 people who would be going through at least 5 months of total training each year before the even begin their normal reserve duty.

You might have a savings of about 67% for these reserve personal over time after the first year, but not more than that given the cost to properly equip the units their in and the limited training they still do every year. Reserve units still have to be based somewhere, and their equipment maintained. So given all that, you would still be looking at a military budget of $3.5 Trillion per year AT LEAST for an active force of 1,347,000 with a reserve component of 33,600,000. 85% of that $3.5 Trillion would be spending for this massive reserve component you would have created, going from 865,000 reservist to 33,600,000 reservist. The United States spends at least $100 Billion dollars a year on its current reserve component, about 16% of the total military budget. Now your expanding that reserve component by a factor of 35, 35 times what it currently is. So yes, your talking at least $3 Trillion dollars for this expanded reserve component due to universal military service for people reaching the age of 18.

BOTTOM LINE: Having a reserve force of 33,600,000 that receives about 4,000,000 new recruits each year might be cheaper than what I first wrote given current force structure, but it will still involve massive cost that would dwarf the current defense budget. A National Guard or Reserve unit is still one that is equipped to the same standard as an equivalent active duty unit and must be able to fulfill the same function as any active duty unit if called to service. You do get a savings from only having to pay them one weekend a month, two weeks training in the summer, AFTER the first year of enlistment. But your still equipping these forces on the same scale you would the active force. That makes it very expensive.


The Founding Fathers: The militia at that time were simply equipped with rifles that they already owned for personal use on the farm. Any payment for service they received came from the individual town they lived in. There were no standards in terms of training. The Federal government had no involvement in equipping or training the militia. It was a different time, and relatively easy to equip and train what was a militia force at the time. Even the training and equipping of regular active military units at the time was very simple and easy when compared to a fighting force in the 21st century. What's more, when this large militia force was called on during the war of 1812, over 90% of them did not mobilize to serve the country when told to. The manning and equipping of a militia force back then was so different that it has no relevant comparison to today. It then totally failed when the country called it up for the War of 1812.

Switzerland: They say they have compulsory system of military service, but their numbers in terms of active duty and reserves suggest otherwise. In addition, how well equipped the total force is, is questionable. Someone who was just trained to use a rifle when they were 19, and only has to do 5 (3 week) refresher courses over the next 10 years just does not cut it at all when it comes to 21st century warfare. I don't know if that would qualify you to be a sheriff in a rural town. Sounds more like the security guy at the local Mall. Switzerland is a neutral country that depends on its terrain(very mountainous in half the country) and its strict non-interference in world politics for its defense. It also benefits from being surrounded by NATO countries, who in defending their own territory, would naturally be defending Switzerland, without intending too. Any conflicts Switzerland has overseas or internationally it seeks to deal with diplomatically, even its citizens are held hostage, its property or money is seized by others, etc. This is a military force that does not deploy or fight beyond its borders. It is dependent on other countries to do the fighting if its security, economy, or resource needs, is in someway threatened by an international crises outside its borders. So this is not a good example at all.

Update on Switzerland: You have about 95,000 citizens turning age 19 every year. Reservist must serve for 10 years, from age 19-20 to age 30. Based on that, Switzerland should have a total reserve force of just under 1 million people.

Switzerland's armed forces:
ACTIVE: 20,950
RESERVE: 144,270

Switzerland may claim they have compulsory service, but based on the number of people turning 19 every year, and the length of service required in the reserves(10 years), the number of eligible people actually serving is only about 17%. Only about 15,000 to 16,000 people of the 95,000 people that turn 19 every year appear to be going into active or reserve service. Perhaps Switzerland has a very broad exemptions category.

Edge, you can't seriously expect a loon like McButtRatchet to process all of that! The guy only has a high school education and goes around bragging and boasting of his "military career" and sacrifices as if he were Audie Murphy or fought in Guadalcanal, only to finally admit he took a weekend a month hike across town in peace time to fart around in a uniform on nice grassy lawns doing a few exercises in total safety praying he didn't actually get called to service so he'd collect some military benefits off the hardworking taxpayers someday. The guy is a fraud, an idiot, a termite and a leech.

1) I have a BS in Business from a midwestern university.
I could not have said I have a high school education because I don't...I never graduated...I quit at 17 to work. Much later - at 22 - I got my GED so I could get into said midwestern university to get my BS in Business.
Jeez - you cannot even get your insults right.

2) And where exactly did I 'boast' about my 'military career'?

I said I was in the reserves (not now) and I never saw combat. That's it. No other details. And you consider that boasting? I am proud of it...but there is nothing there to boast about - especially considering all the brave people who have served (and died/been wounded) in combat.

You just are pissed that I got on your case for you calling for war when you had never served. That is what this is about.

Like I said...you ARE a thin-skinned little troll, aren't you now?


Anyway...back to the thread...thank goodness Trump is not a warmonger and finally seems to have taken the legs out from under Bolton's Iran War plan.
I am NOT a fan of Trump - but when he does something right...credit to him.
Of course, on the negative:
a) Trump hired that wacko Bolton in the first place.
b) Trump should have seen what Bolton was doing long before it got as far as it did.

 

[caddo kid]

Trump's bloodlust is making him build an empire of war all over the world!

Trump said he would 'drain the swamp' but Trump is the same ole shitty smelling swamp he said he would drain.

What a fucking liar.

 

[toobfreak]

As George Carlin aptly noted: Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. Especially an idiot who takes the one thing they can say they have to attack another person with, even to the point of stalking them by PM and pathetically admitting taking pleasure in making fun of their handicaps only to have it revealed in the end that the one thing they said they had, they never really had at all in the first place. That too was a lie.

You, sir, seem mentally disturbed.

Then I must be in good company with Donald Trump!

As to the rest of your crap, I don't bother even reading it. I'll court no favor with an asshole like you who makes military service an issue for expressing opinions and free speech then admits you've not had about as little as anyone can possible have yourself and still call it "military service," then stalks people making fun of their physical limitations. FUCK YOU. Shall I post for these people here the sick trash you PM'ed me before I reported you and cut you off?

You have ZERO cred here dude. You are dirt.

 

[McRocket]

As George Carlin aptly noted: Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. Especially an idiot who takes the one thing they can say they have to attack another person with, even to the point of stalking them by PM and pathetically admitting taking pleasure in making fun of their handicaps only to have it revealed in the end that the one thing they said they had, they never really had at all in the first place. That too was a lie.

You, sir, seem mentally disturbed.

Then I must be in good company with Donald Trump!

As to the rest of your crap, I don't bother even reading it. I'll court no favor with an asshole like you who makes military service an issue for expressing opinions and free speech then admits you've not had about as little as anyone can possible have yourself and still call it "military service," then stalks people making fun of their physical limitations. FUCK YOU. Shall I post for these people here the sick trash you PM'ed me before I reported you and cut you off?

You have ZERO cred here dude. You are dirt.

You are flat out nuts.

You said something about 'not being physically right for the military' or something.
Where EXACTLY did I make fun of that (whatever it is)? I have never and would never make fun of someone's physical disability (if that is what you have - you did not say).

You are one crazy troll.

BTW - can you not carry on this obsession with me in PM or in the 'Taunting Area'?


I will try again with my question.

You typed:

'First you thought you could get me on IQ and now you think you can get me on service to the country and it turns out you were nothing more than a "weekend warrior" that never even left town.'

Are we headed to war? Iraq embassy being evacuated

So my question to you was:

So you are saying that all ‘weekend warriors’ whom never saw combat did not serve their country?
True or False, please?

 

[caddo kid]

As George Carlin aptly noted: Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. Especially an idiot who takes the one thing they can say they have to attack another person with, even to the point of stalking them by PM and pathetically admitting taking pleasure in making fun of their handicaps only to have it revealed in the end that the one thing they said they had, they never really had at all in the first place. That too was a lie.

You, sir, seem mentally disturbed.

Then I must be in good company with Donald Trump!

As to the rest of your crap, I don't bother even reading it. I'll court no favor with an asshole like you who makes military service an issue for expressing opinions and free speech then admits you've not had about as little as anyone can possible have yourself and still call it "military service," then stalks people making fun of their physical limitations. FUCK YOU. Shall I post for these people here the sick trash you PM'ed me before I reported you and cut you off?

You have ZERO cred here dude. You are dirt.

You are flat out nuts.

You said something about 'not being physically right for the military' or something.
Where EXACTLY did I make fun of that (whatever it is)? I have never and would never make fun of someone's physical disability (if that is what you have - you did not say).

You are one crazy troll.

BTW - can you not carry on this obsession with me in PM or in the 'Taunting Area'?


I will try again with my question.

You typed:

'First you thought you could get me on IQ and now you think you can get me on service to the country and it turns out you were nothing more than a "weekend warrior" that never even left town.'

Are we headed to war? Iraq embassy being evacuated

So my question to you was:

So you are saying that all ‘weekend warriors’ whom never saw combat did not serve their country?
True or False, please?

Yes, he is a complete asshole troll, and there are many more here @ USMB.

The thread I started about the Mueller report was an opportunity for members to learn YET the biggest majority of responses are from USMB troll shit.

They are all over this place; 99% are Trumpers & 99% are fucking nutz.

 

[McRocket]

As George Carlin aptly noted: Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. Especially an idiot who takes the one thing they can say they have to attack another person with, even to the point of stalking them by PM and pathetically admitting taking pleasure in making fun of their handicaps only to have it revealed in the end that the one thing they said they had, they never really had at all in the first place. That too was a lie.

You, sir, seem mentally disturbed.

Then I must be in good company with Donald Trump!

As to the rest of your crap, I don't bother even reading it. I'll court no favor with an asshole like you who makes military service an issue for expressing opinions and free speech then admits you've not had about as little as anyone can possible have yourself and still call it "military service," then stalks people making fun of their physical limitations. FUCK YOU. Shall I post for these people here the sick trash you PM'ed me before I reported you and cut you off?

You have ZERO cred here dude. You are dirt.

You are flat out nuts.

You said something about 'not being physically right for the military' or something.
Where EXACTLY did I make fun of that (whatever it is)? I have never and would never make fun of someone's physical disability (if that is what you have - you did not say).

You are one crazy troll.

BTW - can you not carry on this obsession with me in PM or in the 'Taunting Area'?


I will try again with my question.

You typed:

'First you thought you could get me on IQ and now you think you can get me on service to the country and it turns out you were nothing more than a "weekend warrior" that never even left town.'

Are we headed to war? Iraq embassy being evacuated

So my question to you was:

So you are saying that all ‘weekend warriors’ whom never saw combat did not serve their country?
True or False, please?

Yes, he is a complete asshole troll, and there are many more here @ USMB.

The thread I started about the Mueller report was an opportunity for members to learn YET the biggest majority of responses are from USMB troll shit.

They are all over this place; 99% are Trumpers & 99% are fucking nutz.

Yup, that is one thing I have learned here.

When you start a thread that is anti-Trump - most Trumpbots probably will not even read it...they will just jump all over it LIKE MAD. Kind of like throwing meat into a pirana tank.

The blind devotion of these Trumpbots is truly creepy.

And Trump's rally's are like mini-Nuremburg rally's without the swastika's.


BTW - I think most Republicans are NOT 'Trumpbots'. I think most Reps held their noses when they voted for Trump.

 

[U2Edge]

How about we LEARN TO RESPECT each other instead of trying to personally trash one another. Stick to the issues. Talk about the issues, not about the person.

Everyone here has a right to their opinions on the ISSUES and topics being discussed. Insulting someone else personally does not improve whatever position your advocating for.


As for the topic. Is the United States headed for war? NO, not at all. There was nothing unusual about the military moves made by the United States. There were Iranian officials who even said that initially. The Aircraft Carrier group is on its standard rotation in the Middle East. Flying 5 B-52's to the region and sending a Patriot Missile battery is not alarming at all. Its a precaution.

Some of the evacuations of non-emergency personal from the embassy in Baghdad and consulates in other places in Iraq was the only thing that was unusual. But its should be noted that other countries diplomatic staff in Iraq have done the same.

01. There is concern about Shia-militias in Iraq that are supported by Iran. But the last time there was any significant fighting between Iraqi Shia Militia's and U.S. forces was back in 2008, 11 years ago. When United States forces redeployed to Iraq in 2014 after leaving in 2011, there was concern about fight and conflict with Shia militia's in Iraq. But for the past 5 years its been peaceful between them. But the United States is tightening sanctions on Iran, so there is always a concern. It is a possible way Iran could retaliate against the United States, but its unwise.

02. Probably a larger issue was the mounting of large missiles on Iranian surface vessels. The Missiles are large, have to be put together, before mounted on the craft. I don't think it means an attack is imminent. Its muscle flexing, showing their teeth. A few years ago the Iranians regularly practiced coming very close to U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. It was concerning, but again just more sabre rattling.

03. If an attack does come, it is unlikely to come directly from Iran. Iran for the past 30 years has always worked through their proxy's. Hezbolah in Lebanon/Syria, Humas in the West Bank and Gaza, more recently with Shia militia's in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen.


The more important issue I think is that Europe is starting to cut trade with Iran as the waivers Trump gave European companies to trade with Iran start to expire. Iran in return is starting to not cooperate with the 2015 nuclear treaty. This means their cutting back on inspections, starting back operations at their nuclear reactors, and starting to enrich more Uranium towards weapons grade levels for a nuclear weapon. But this is a slow moving process and I think the Iranians sense that they can get the nuclear deal back if BIDEN defeats TRUMP in November 2020 which only 17 months away now.

 

[Toro]

Why U.S. Just Ordered Non-Emergency Employees to Leave Iraq Embassy

Sure seems like a preamble.

Why does every single president get us into wars? The timing is very suspicious imo

Why do you liberals always blame America for the anti-Americanism in the world?