If I would run for the presidency...

[Bleipriester]

...these would by my promises:

- I would free billions from the military to heal the country, its infrastructure, education, health system and economy
- I would stop interfering in foreign affairs and restore America´s reputation
- I would form an alliance against terror that actually fights terror where people ask for help
- I would fight organized crime and ghettoization
- I would subsidize domestic industry
- I would fight the excessive financial service craze that has the potential to put the whole country down

Of course, there is a lot to do, so
- I would create a commission that would have to check out whats going wrong and try to fix it.

So, would you vote for me or not?

I think people already voted for you president Obama.

Obama did nothing of that.

 

[pismoe]

so , not that you agree but a draft in time of great need is more economically feasible rather than a large standing professional army .

Yes and no.

That was true when a standing force meant something – it no longer does. Military engagement is no longer a numbers game. Just because you have 10 times the standing force does not really mean that you have an advantage.

Military strength is very centered around your competence and technological prowess. Our technological advantage requires a military that is filled with far more than simple grunts. It demands much more advanced requirements.

The problem with drafting is that a draft means you have mostly people that do not want to be there, are completely untrained and ultimately unwilling and unprepared for what they are going to face in a real engagement. The effectiveness of a fighting force is MUCH higher when people are not forced to be there.

thanks FAQ , check out -alqaida- and recently 'Islamic state' goat herders . Well -al quaida- because USA has not been fighting 'Islamic state' . The goat herders with AK and EID were doing pretty good , USA wasn't able to defeat them . My concern is a standing professional army that will fire on anyone if given orders and if they are paid on Friday .

 

[pismoe]

and see the KURDS , he11 , they can't get the modern weapons , ammo , fancy jeeps , mine resistant vehicles , tanks , uniforms but its has been said that they are holding their own in battles with 'Islamic state' . Fact is that I think that the Kurds are Kurdish goat herders armed with old AK's . [no offense intended to Kurds]

 

[FA_Q2]

You say in the same breath that you would make service compulsory AND remove billions from the defense budget.

Based on the fact that is impossible I don't see how I could vote for you.

This is possible. Other armies can do it, so the US military can do it as well. Most expensive is the readiness to launch wars anywhere in the world. America doesn´t need that and other things are urgent.

No, not if you are going to pay them in any sort of reasonable manner. If you want to place 2.5-5% of the people in the military (what it would mean if service is mandatory) then you are talking about 3-5 million people at least.

That is a lot of people. Pay them 40K a year and you are looking at 300 billion a year in MANNING costs just including direct pay (and that is at the low end).

And we have not bothered to factor in infrastructure, training and equipment. Healthcare and disability costs (both short and long term) or any of the less direct benefits that are supplied.

IOW, the numbers flush out that such an idea is simply untenable.

so , not that you agree but a draft in time of great need is more economically feasible rather than a large standing professional army .

Yes and no.

That was true when a standing force meant something – it no longer does. Military engagement is no longer a numbers game. Just because you have 10 times the standing force does not really mean that you have an advantage.

Military strength is very centered around your competence and technological prowess. Our technological advantage requires a military that is filled with far more than simple grunts. It demands much more advanced requirements.

The problem with drafting is that a draft means you have mostly people that do not want to be there, are completely untrained and ultimately unwilling and unprepared for what they are going to face in a real engagement. The effectiveness of a fighting force is MUCH higher when people are not forced to be there.

Soldiers don´t earn 40K. They get all what they need plus their pay that is about 12K. The compulsory military service has more than one task. The army does not only protect the country but also educates the conscripts.
America is also a large country and that results in many bases at the borders and inside the country. The standing force guarantees the safety of the country and provides the young people with lots of opportunities regarding education and easy career entry after the service. Over time, it generates a large reserve that can be activated in no time in case of need. And last but not least the investment in the young people will pay off in various ways.

LOL.

You had best let my check know then because you do not seem to have any idea what military actually makes.

I guarantee you that it is not 12K. As a military member myself, I am well aware of what we make.

 

[FA_Q2]

so , not that you agree but a draft in time of great need is more economically feasible rather than a large standing professional army .

Yes and no.

That was true when a standing force meant something – it no longer does. Military engagement is no longer a numbers game. Just because you have 10 times the standing force does not really mean that you have an advantage.

Military strength is very centered around your competence and technological prowess. Our technological advantage requires a military that is filled with far more than simple grunts. It demands much more advanced requirements.

The problem with drafting is that a draft means you have mostly people that do not want to be there, are completely untrained and ultimately unwilling and unprepared for what they are going to face in a real engagement. The effectiveness of a fighting force is MUCH higher when people are not forced to be there.

thanks FAQ , check out -alqaida- and recently 'Islamic state' goat herders . Well -al quaida- because USA has not been fighting 'Islamic state' . The goat herders with AK and EID were doing pretty good , USA wasn't able to defeat them . My concern is a standing professional army that will fire on anyone if given orders and if they are paid on Friday .

Those goat herders have done VERY poorly.

Look at the American casualty rate and look at the goat herders casualty rate. I will not accept reversing those numbers.

USA soundly defeats them constantly. The problem is not a matter of 'victory' or 'defeat' but rather a matter of desperation and fighting an idea rather than an enemy. You do not stop generating more terrorists by killing them - that simply will not occur. There will always be people willing to fight (and die) for idiotic causes - particularly when they are destitute.

 

[pismoe]

USA isn't there except in very small numbers , what'd he do , just sent 450 or so , hope they don't fall into the wrong hands . Any way , guess that we just disagree !!

 

[FA_Q2]

USA isn't there except in very small numbers , what'd he do , just sent 450 or so , hope they don't fall into the wrong hands . Any way , guess that we just disagree !!

You can disagree but the reality is the numbers do not support your position. Very few Americans die over there (and the number one killer in Iraq for MANY years was rollovers - NOT combat) but they kill MANY MORE insurgents. That is simply a fact and it is so because we operate a skilled and technologically advanced all volunteer military.

 

[pismoe]

like I say , we disagree , anyway my objection is the PROFESSIONAL volunteer army FAQ , I think that I said that a few times in this thread. I don't approve of a USA army / military of 'kings men' that will fight anyone at their bosses , kings , prezidents orders simply for a paycheck . Just my opinion FAQ !!

 

[Bleipriester]

You say in the same breath that you would make service compulsory AND remove billions from the defense budget.

Based on the fact that is impossible I don't see how I could vote for you.

This is possible. Other armies can do it, so the US military can do it as well. Most expensive is the readiness to launch wars anywhere in the world. America doesn´t need that and other things are urgent.

No, not if you are going to pay them in any sort of reasonable manner. If you want to place 2.5-5% of the people in the military (what it would mean if service is mandatory) then you are talking about 3-5 million people at least.

That is a lot of people. Pay them 40K a year and you are looking at 300 billion a year in MANNING costs just including direct pay (and that is at the low end).

And we have not bothered to factor in infrastructure, training and equipment. Healthcare and disability costs (both short and long term) or any of the less direct benefits that are supplied.

IOW, the numbers flush out that such an idea is simply untenable.

so , not that you agree but a draft in time of great need is more economically feasible rather than a large standing professional army .

Yes and no.

That was true when a standing force meant something – it no longer does. Military engagement is no longer a numbers game. Just because you have 10 times the standing force does not really mean that you have an advantage.

Military strength is very centered around your competence and technological prowess. Our technological advantage requires a military that is filled with far more than simple grunts. It demands much more advanced requirements.

The problem with drafting is that a draft means you have mostly people that do not want to be there, are completely untrained and ultimately unwilling and unprepared for what they are going to face in a real engagement. The effectiveness of a fighting force is MUCH higher when people are not forced to be there.

Soldiers don´t earn 40K. They get all what they need plus their pay that is about 12K. The compulsory military service has more than one task. The army does not only protect the country but also educates the conscripts.
America is also a large country and that results in many bases at the borders and inside the country. The standing force guarantees the safety of the country and provides the young people with lots of opportunities regarding education and easy career entry after the service. Over time, it generates a large reserve that can be activated in no time in case of need. And last but not least the investment in the young people will pay off in various ways.

LOL.

You had best let my check know then because you do not seem to have any idea what military actually makes.

I guarantee you that it is not 12K. As a military member myself, I am well aware of what we make.

The pay differs by the E grade, starting with about 17K. However, if I am President, I decide on the pay. After the compulsory military service has been reintroduced there is no longer the need to attract people with pay. Except for the volunteer force.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There will always be people willing to fight (and die) for idiotic causes - particularly when they are destitute.

That is why we have a volunteer army

 

[FA_Q2]

You say in the same breath that you would make service compulsory AND remove billions from the defense budget.

Based on the fact that is impossible I don't see how I could vote for you.

This is possible. Other armies can do it, so the US military can do it as well. Most expensive is the readiness to launch wars anywhere in the world. America doesn´t need that and other things are urgent.

No, not if you are going to pay them in any sort of reasonable manner. If you want to place 2.5-5% of the people in the military (what it would mean if service is mandatory) then you are talking about 3-5 million people at least.

That is a lot of people. Pay them 40K a year and you are looking at 300 billion a year in MANNING costs just including direct pay (and that is at the low end).

And we have not bothered to factor in infrastructure, training and equipment. Healthcare and disability costs (both short and long term) or any of the less direct benefits that are supplied.

IOW, the numbers flush out that such an idea is simply untenable.

so , not that you agree but a draft in time of great need is more economically feasible rather than a large standing professional army .

Yes and no.

That was true when a standing force meant something – it no longer does. Military engagement is no longer a numbers game. Just because you have 10 times the standing force does not really mean that you have an advantage.

Military strength is very centered around your competence and technological prowess. Our technological advantage requires a military that is filled with far more than simple grunts. It demands much more advanced requirements.

The problem with drafting is that a draft means you have mostly people that do not want to be there, are completely untrained and ultimately unwilling and unprepared for what they are going to face in a real engagement. The effectiveness of a fighting force is MUCH higher when people are not forced to be there.

Soldiers don´t earn 40K. They get all what they need plus their pay that is about 12K. The compulsory military service has more than one task. The army does not only protect the country but also educates the conscripts.
America is also a large country and that results in many bases at the borders and inside the country. The standing force guarantees the safety of the country and provides the young people with lots of opportunities regarding education and easy career entry after the service. Over time, it generates a large reserve that can be activated in no time in case of need. And last but not least the investment in the young people will pay off in various ways.

LOL.

You had best let my check know then because you do not seem to have any idea what military actually makes.

I guarantee you that it is not 12K. As a military member myself, I am well aware of what we make.

The pay differs by the E grade, starting with about 17K. However, if I am President, I decide on the pay. After the compulsory military service has been reintroduced there is no longer the need to attract people with pay. Except for the volunteer force.

You are still incorrect. 18K is actually the LOWEST POSSIBLE pay grade but that takes into account ony HALF of what you earn in the military. Base pay is simply one aspect of your pay - there are several others. You only recive that base pay for a VERY short time as well. Currnetly, almost no one even starts off as an E-1. I havent seen a slick sleeve for several years.

You have no idea how pay in the military works. More importantly though, you have just stated what your actual intent is - to evicerate the pay AND force people to serve. Fuck no - if we are supposed to represent a nation of freedom then that is compeltly counter to everything that we are.

Do I think that people should serve? Yes. Do I think that a free country can require it? No - that is little more than enforced slavery with window dressing. Then you suggest we don't pay them properly for it. It is a terrible idea.

 

[pismoe]

and with immigration of all types we will eventually have a military full of foreigners that work military jobs as a way of gaining citizenship plus paychecks of course . They really will be the 'kings' men !! ----- just a comment !!

 

[FA_Q2]

There will always be people willing to fight (and die) for idiotic causes - particularly when they are destitute.

That is why we have a volunteer army

So you believe the protection of this nation is an idiotic cause? Really?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There will always be people willing to fight (and die) for idiotic causes - particularly when they are destitute.

That is why we have a volunteer army

So you believe the protection of this nation is an idiotic cause? Really?

Iraq was a protecting of us ? no Iraq was "bidness"....

 

[FA_Q2]

and with immigration of all types we will eventually have a military full of foreigners that work military jobs as a way of gaining citizenship plus paychecks of course . They really will be the 'kings' men !! ----- just a comment !!

And?

That is a wonderful way to gain citizenship. It proves that particular person is willing to sacrifice for the nation. Those foreigners that enter the military and become Americans are FAR better and more of a true American than most Americans that simply were lucky enough to be born here. I wish there were more of them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

when you are outspending the rest of the world in weapons and you have a 100 far flung bases all over the world ...you are not protecting...you are projecting world dominance by mass violence....


but but but ...they are volunteers...

 

[FA_Q2]

There will always be people willing to fight (and die) for idiotic causes - particularly when they are destitute.

That is why we have a volunteer army

So you believe the protection of this nation is an idiotic cause? Really?

Iraq was a protecting of us ? no Iraq was "bidness"....

How many people joined the military because of ‘Iraq?” Do you think that the nation never makes an error?
You are being asinine.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

War is a Racket....a two time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient says so....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

How many people joined the military because of ‘Iraq?” Do you think that the nation never makes an error?
You are being asinine.

Iraq was not an error ...it was "bidness"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

How many people joined the military because of ‘Iraq?” Do you think that the nation never makes an error?
You are being asinine.

why do you believe the Government when it says we must kill but not when it says Global warming is a danger...