Mandatory military service
-
I could not disagree with you guys more. There is no correlation between military success and conscription. In fact, 'Voluteer' forces have historical performed far worse than conscripted ones. A volunteer army quickly becomes nothing but a force of mercenaries who fight for pay not for loyalty or principle. Ours will become that over time. Consider that the guys who took Omaha beach and Tarawa were virtally all conscripts. They performed well enough. True, a conscripted army will not perform well if not given a just cause to fight for. Compare WWII to Vietnam. But an army of mercenaries well do whatever they are told by the highest bidder. Is that what we want? I strongly believe that we need to return to a fair draft (one in which rich and poor alike are equally likely to be called). Everyone has a duty to thier country and should be required by law to fulfill that obligation. Military sevice might be optional, but some service of some type should be a requirement. The children of our society need to be taught what the word 'duty' means. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
I strongly believe that we need to return to a fair draft How can there ever be such a thing? Stronger people make better soldiers, so should be only pick from that group? Should conscription be both male and females? If females are included, what if they are pregnant? (Or course not, but could this mean that a girl will just try to become pregnant if she is to be conscripted?) Should a male who is a parent be conscripted? Should academics be chosen? Yes, only fair. What about the kid who has come from a poor backgroung, worked hard to get a good job, get conscripted and goes to war and dies. Not particularly fair is it? Maybe his parents were relying on his income because of sacrifises they had made in their life. Ok, get a military pension (or whatever) but a fraction of the possibility. What about ... There is no fair way except for voluntary. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
I strongly believe that we need to return to a fair draft How can there ever be such a thing? Stronger people make better soldiers, so should be only pick from that group? Should conscription be both male and females? If females are included, what if they are pregnant? (Or course not, but could this mean that a girl will just try to become pregnant if she is to be conscripted?) Should a male who is a parent be conscripted? Should academics be chosen? Yes, only fair. What about the kid who has come from a poor backgroung, worked hard to get a good job, get conscripted and goes to war and dies. Not particularly fair is it? Maybe his parents were relying on his income because of sacrifises they had made in their life. Ok, get a military pension (or whatever) but a fraction of the possibility. What about ... There is no fair way except for voluntary. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
Sorry, your logic just does not hold. By extension, voluntary is not fair either, because economic circumstances dictates who 'volunteers'. Do you think the same percentage of volunteers come from all economic classes? Of course not. With 'volunteerism' you get an army of poor, disaffected, heavily armed and well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. With a "fair" draft you get people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. The society as a whole is much better off and healthier for it. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
I could not disagree with you guys more. There is no correlation between military success and conscription. In fact, 'Voluteer' forces have historical performed far worse than conscripted ones. A volunteer army quickly becomes nothing but a force of mercenaries who fight for pay not for loyalty or principle. Ours will become that over time. Consider that the guys who took Omaha beach and Tarawa were virtally all conscripts. They performed well enough. True, a conscripted army will not perform well if not given a just cause to fight for. Compare WWII to Vietnam. But an army of mercenaries well do whatever they are told by the highest bidder. Is that what we want? I strongly believe that we need to return to a fair draft (one in which rich and poor alike are equally likely to be called). Everyone has a duty to thier country and should be required by law to fulfill that obligation. Military sevice might be optional, but some service of some type should be a requirement. The children of our society need to be taught what the word 'duty' means. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Having said that, I plan to serve in my own way. I just finished a degree in Computer Science and am applying to defense contractors. I know am not fit to ever fly the Joint Strike Fighter (poor eyesight), but maybe Lockheed Martin will let me help build them. "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
-
Yeah, IMO military service doesn't make sense at all, even for small countries or countries that are always at war. Britain and the US have the best quality armed services in the world, simply because they are not conscription based. The quality of the Soviet armed forces through the cold war was so poor, it was only through sheer numbers that we were frightened of them (most of the army couldn't even read maps, they had special political officers that could read maps who directed traffic and told the army where to go on manoeuvres). Israel is probably the only country in the world with a conscription based armed forces that comes anywhere near the US or the UK's standards in terms of training, and that's probably only because of the constant experience and practice they get. As you say, what's the point in teaching everyone how to fight and kill if most of them are going to be crap at it and not want to do it? Spend time and resources training the people who do want to (or who are at least prepared to). Cheers, Peter Pearson
I agree that professional army is a much better way to go. Just wanted to point some things out here in regards to your comments about Russian army: Peter Pearson wrote: The quality of the Soviet armed forces through the cold war was so poor, it was only through sheer numbers that we were frightened of them (most of the army couldn't even read maps, they had special political officers that could read maps who directed traffic and told the army where to go on manoeuvres). 1. You were not afraid of Soviet army because of the number of people, but because of the number of nuclear weapons. 2. Who had ever told you that Russian soldiers could not read maps? I bet you anything that any Russian soldier knows more about maps than average American would ever know. Russia has or at least had one of the best education systems in the world and they teach things like reading of maps to everyone in high school - not just to a few in the army. 3. Political officers in Russian military are were/are not the officers that led people into combat or maneuvers (with the exception of some war situations) - they were meant to monitor soldiers moral and keep it up to "communistic" standards and other such nonsense... 4. While Russian army was/is overblown out of proportions and full with a lot of nonsense it always had and still has some of the best special force groups and other specialized units that by no standard any less trained, capable or feared by people who knows anything about it. 5. Russian weaponry was and is still equal or superior in a lot of cases to anything that is available in the world. I don't suppose it was/is produced/used by people who cannot even read maps... Just my 2 rubles... :)
-
Sorry, your logic just does not hold. By extension, voluntary is not fair either, because economic circumstances dictates who 'volunteers'. Do you think the same percentage of volunteers come from all economic classes? Of course not. With 'volunteerism' you get an army of poor, disaffected, heavily armed and well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. With a "fair" draft you get people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. The society as a whole is much better off and healthier for it. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: ...poor, disaffected, heavily armed and well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. Sounds like every army in the history of the world. Stan Shannon wrote: ...people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. Sounds like MTV's "Real World" program. Given the choice, I'll take the army!! :-D :-D :-D
Mike Mullikin "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
-
Came across this this morning: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: I love this country. Screwball represenative wants to instate a mandantory 6 months to 1 year military service for all people between the ages of 18 and 22. I think one of the best things we have going in our military now is that it's a volunteer army. Who wants a bunch of pissed off angsty teens being forced to get military training? Just what the world needs, a bunch of Linkin' Park fans who know how to shoot.
As a 6 year Marine Corps veteran (ie: obnoxous drunk), I disagree with conscription wholeheartedly. I've never understood what problem these politicians were trying to fix. Were going to spend xxx amount of dollars on a 1 year contract? Hell, I spent a year and a half in training, excluding the 6 and half months I spent in boot camp (I was injured). Ok, so these 'conscripts' only get a cursory indoctrination and they pick the rest up in the field and their sole MOS (job) is to be a grunt, and you end up with whole units of conscripts who can't really fight, have little or no training and no way to pick up that training. Having full conscript units is a different situation from the war time draft where you have the unique opportunity to learn on the fly at the hands of experienced leadership and enemy alike. And where does the leadership to staff these units comes from, or the extra chow halls, barracks, canteens and rifles? What job do give the women? What about pregnancies? Remember the free medical and dental, does the government pay for that still too? Ya see, 18-22 year olds have this annoying habit of 'falling in love' and occaisonally one gets pregnant. It happens and its expensive, let alone that one of your 'conscripts' is now unavailable for duty during most of her conscription. I would imagine that alot of these boys and girls probably won't wanna play ball, do we proscecute them under the UCMJ and throw 'em in the brig, or do we give them a Bad Conduct Discharge and throw them out on the street? I'd like to repeat a statement that I made before, having a full unit of conscripts is a completely different situation than a war time draft. Conscription would not work in this country. Plus, I think that conscription is trying to address an underlying problem. Well, a percieved underlying problem with "the youth today". Stop trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and quit being so damn self righteous with other people's lives. Hasn't anyone figured out that the government is the last resort for societal ills? Oh wait, the framers of the constitution did..... Ritch
-
A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Having said that, I plan to serve in my own way. I just finished a degree in Computer Science and am applying to defense contractors. I know am not fit to ever fly the Joint Strike Fighter (poor eyesight), but maybe Lockheed Martin will let me help build them. "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
Naresh Karamchetty wrote: A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Yes but you get a much higher percentage of your base population with military training to call upon in time of war. Naresh Karamchetty wrote: Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam. They don't fight to win, they fight to fight. They like exercising their skills and abilities. If the guys we sent into Afganistan had been conscripts, and had been told that they could not go home until Bin Laden's head was on a stake, Bin Laden's head would be on a stake right now and they would all be back home. Conscripts are more effective for the simple fact that they want to get the job done and get back home to their real life. Volunteers have no such motivation, they are living their real lives. Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
I strongly believe that we need to return to a fair draft How can there ever be such a thing? Stronger people make better soldiers, so should be only pick from that group? Should conscription be both male and females? If females are included, what if they are pregnant? (Or course not, but could this mean that a girl will just try to become pregnant if she is to be conscripted?) Should a male who is a parent be conscripted? Should academics be chosen? Yes, only fair. What about the kid who has come from a poor backgroung, worked hard to get a good job, get conscripted and goes to war and dies. Not particularly fair is it? Maybe his parents were relying on his income because of sacrifises they had made in their life. Ok, get a military pension (or whatever) but a fraction of the possibility. What about ... There is no fair way except for voluntary. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
Hmmm. Sounds like someone is a bit afraid of being shot at. I remind you of Winston Churchill's famous quote: "There is nothing as exhilerating as being shot at and missed". Military service has its own rewards. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Naresh Karamchetty wrote: A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Yes but you get a much higher percentage of your base population with military training to call upon in time of war. Naresh Karamchetty wrote: Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam. They don't fight to win, they fight to fight. They like exercising their skills and abilities. If the guys we sent into Afganistan had been conscripts, and had been told that they could not go home until Bin Laden's head was on a stake, Bin Laden's head would be on a stake right now and they would all be back home. Conscripts are more effective for the simple fact that they want to get the job done and get back home to their real life. Volunteers have no such motivation, they are living their real lives. Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan sez: "Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam" Well the limb would be cut out from under you. We lost in Vietnam because of political reasons, not military. Having been in country during the buildup phase ( 1965-1967 ) and also having served with some of the SF people I can assure you that had the politicians taken away the artifical constraints and had they not tried to micro-manage the conflict from Washington that the war would have been over by 1969. Partial conviction will always result in total failure. Blame Johnson for this one. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
As a 6 year Marine Corps veteran (ie: obnoxous drunk), I disagree with conscription wholeheartedly. I've never understood what problem these politicians were trying to fix. Were going to spend xxx amount of dollars on a 1 year contract? Hell, I spent a year and a half in training, excluding the 6 and half months I spent in boot camp (I was injured). Ok, so these 'conscripts' only get a cursory indoctrination and they pick the rest up in the field and their sole MOS (job) is to be a grunt, and you end up with whole units of conscripts who can't really fight, have little or no training and no way to pick up that training. Having full conscript units is a different situation from the war time draft where you have the unique opportunity to learn on the fly at the hands of experienced leadership and enemy alike. And where does the leadership to staff these units comes from, or the extra chow halls, barracks, canteens and rifles? What job do give the women? What about pregnancies? Remember the free medical and dental, does the government pay for that still too? Ya see, 18-22 year olds have this annoying habit of 'falling in love' and occaisonally one gets pregnant. It happens and its expensive, let alone that one of your 'conscripts' is now unavailable for duty during most of her conscription. I would imagine that alot of these boys and girls probably won't wanna play ball, do we proscecute them under the UCMJ and throw 'em in the brig, or do we give them a Bad Conduct Discharge and throw them out on the street? I'd like to repeat a statement that I made before, having a full unit of conscripts is a completely different situation than a war time draft. Conscription would not work in this country. Plus, I think that conscription is trying to address an underlying problem. Well, a percieved underlying problem with "the youth today". Stop trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and quit being so damn self righteous with other people's lives. Hasn't anyone figured out that the government is the last resort for societal ills? Oh wait, the framers of the constitution did..... Ritch
How did we ever win WWII ? Also there is a correlation between the end of the draft and the increase in the crime rate. Military service can do wonders for an 18 or 20 year old persons attitude. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Sorry, your logic just does not hold. By extension, voluntary is not fair either, because economic circumstances dictates who 'volunteers'. Do you think the same percentage of volunteers come from all economic classes? Of course not. With 'volunteerism' you get an army of poor, disaffected, heavily armed and well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. With a "fair" draft you get people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. The society as a whole is much better off and healthier for it. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
>>With a "fair" draft you get people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. The society as a whole is much better off and healthier for it. That's bullshit or college, I can't figure out which. >>because economic circumstances dictates who 'volunteers' Boo hoo, life is hard. Like you've said the military is the only option for many people (raises hand). By making it "fair" you end up taking away training and education opportunities from those people who need them. Remember, if a program is offered to one then it is offered to all. What happens when we can no longer support that program or it doesn't fit in the budget? It gets axed and your 'poor, disaffected' people loose out. >>ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. >>That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. How so? Define Long term? I'd define long term as the length this country has been around. The quickest way to social disaster is to involve the government in something. >>That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. I think an education system that staffs itself with left wing liberal minded people that continue to brainwash our children on important issues with their viewpoints is more a recipe for social disaster than anything else. I mean, you know the type of people whos only option in life is to become a teacher don't ya? >>well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. Those damn rich people, always taking from everybody. I'd rather have the country in the hands of rich elites than poor elites, at least rich elites can fund whatever they want. Did you know that the popular opinion for the war in Vietnam never wained? The only reason we got out of Vietnam was because the elite opinion changed....
-
How did we ever win WWII ? Also there is a correlation between the end of the draft and the increase in the crime rate. Military service can do wonders for an 18 or 20 year old persons attitude. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
>>How did we ever win WWII ? Huh? I think a textbook is a good place to start. I believe it had something to do with guns and people shooting at each other. Most of the military history guys I've talked to will tell you it was a bunch of factors, but if they were forced to single one out it would be our manufactoring capabilities. >>Also there is a correlation between the end of the draft and the increase in the crime rate. Neatarooney. Ever look at the crime rate of servicemen in Kinville, Okinawa (last stop before Vietnam)? A criminal is a criminal. >>Military service can do wonders for an 18 or 20 year old persons attitude. Comes back to that self righteous thing...
-
Stan sez: "Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam" Well the limb would be cut out from under you. We lost in Vietnam because of political reasons, not military. Having been in country during the buildup phase ( 1965-1967 ) and also having served with some of the SF people I can assure you that had the politicians taken away the artifical constraints and had they not tried to micro-manage the conflict from Washington that the war would have been over by 1969. Partial conviction will always result in total failure. Blame Johnson for this one. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Naresh Karamchetty wrote: A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Yes but you get a much higher percentage of your base population with military training to call upon in time of war. Naresh Karamchetty wrote: Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam. They don't fight to win, they fight to fight. They like exercising their skills and abilities. If the guys we sent into Afganistan had been conscripts, and had been told that they could not go home until Bin Laden's head was on a stake, Bin Laden's head would be on a stake right now and they would all be back home. Conscripts are more effective for the simple fact that they want to get the job done and get back home to their real life. Volunteers have no such motivation, they are living their real lives. Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. Historically incorect!!! Rome became an Empire when they introduced professoinal army (Julius Caesar led professional soldiers to his victories). I vote pro drink :beer:
-
Hmmm. Sounds like someone is a bit afraid of being shot at. I remind you of Winston Churchill's famous quote: "There is nothing as exhilerating as being shot at and missed". Military service has its own rewards. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Stan sez: "Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam" Well the limb would be cut out from under you. We lost in Vietnam because of political reasons, not military. Having been in country during the buildup phase ( 1965-1967 ) and also having served with some of the SF people I can assure you that had the politicians taken away the artifical constraints and had they not tried to micro-manage the conflict from Washington that the war would have been over by 1969. Partial conviction will always result in total failure. Blame Johnson for this one. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: Well the limb would be cut out from under you. We lost in Vietnam because of political reasons, not military. Having been in country during the buildup phase ( 1965-1967 ) and also having served with some of the SF people I can assure you that had the politicians taken away the artifical constraints and had they not tried to micro-manage the conflict from Washington that the war would have been over by 1969. Partial conviction will always result in total failure. Blame Johnson for this one. I agree with that. However, my point would be that "speical ops" was ultimately about politics. Special Ops gives the politicians more control over military decision making than a Patton or a McArthur would have tolerated. The military is not in control of our Spcial Forces, the CIA is, and via the CIA, our politicians. We will ulitmately lose the war against terrorism for exactly the same reason we lost Vietnam - the politicians are too power hungry to turn the conduct of the 'war' over to the military. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. Historically incorect!!! Rome became an Empire when they introduced professoinal army (Julius Caesar led professional soldiers to his victories). I vote pro drink :beer:
Well I suppose I should have said the Roman Republic to be historically accurate. As a geographical entity the Roman Empire did not begin with Julius Ceasar (although as a political entity it did). The expansion of Rome began centuries before Ceasar, by conscripts, and affectively ended within 100 years our so of the institution of a standing professional army by Ceasar's generation. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
Naresh Karamchetty wrote: A draft that requires 6 months to a year of service causes its own problems, namely high turnover. So you don't have many experienced soldiers, especially the mid-level NCO's who make up the back bone of any military. Yes but you get a much higher percentage of your base population with military training to call upon in time of war. Naresh Karamchetty wrote: Also, the special forces units who have been doing much of the fighting in Afghanistan recently must by nature be all volunteer. You have to really "want it" to get through special forces training. And no one with a mercenary mindset can ever survive the Navy SEALS "Hell Week". Nope. In fact, I will out on a limb and say that a voluntary force (especially "special forces" ) will never win any war. I think our reliance on 'spcecial ops' is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam. They don't fight to win, they fight to fight. They like exercising their skills and abilities. If the guys we sent into Afganistan had been conscripts, and had been told that they could not go home until Bin Laden's head was on a stake, Bin Laden's head would be on a stake right now and they would all be back home. Conscripts are more effective for the simple fact that they want to get the job done and get back home to their real life. Volunteers have no such motivation, they are living their real lives. Consider that Rome built its Empire on the backs of conscripts, and lost it on the backs of volunteers. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: They don't fight to win, they fight to fight BULLSHIT!! As a fomer member of an elite force that is dead wrong. We would care not to fight but when the need arose we were there to win! Period. Stan Shannon wrote: They like exercising their skills and abilities Yes, but don't you? Have you invested years learning to code to just sit there and not use your skills?
-
No shit I'm afraid at being shot at. I prefer to invent the better weapon to kill better. But, in the long run I would prefer that people just wouldn't kill each other. One can dream. Have fun, Paul Westcott.
Hmmm, I can't recall the consideration that I might be shot at being a factor when I joined the service. People killing each other is mother nature's way of culling out the herd. It's quite natural. When you get right down to it, just about every war ever fought was over survival issues - this guy/people is threatening that guy's/people's perceived likelihood of survival. Something has to give... "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Well I suppose I should have said the Roman Republic to be historically accurate. As a geographical entity the Roman Empire did not begin with Julius Ceasar (although as a political entity it did). The expansion of Rome began centuries before Ceasar, by conscripts, and affectively ended within 100 years our so of the institution of a standing professional army by Ceasar's generation. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: The expansion of Rome began centuries before Ceasar, by conscripts, and affectively ended within 100 years our so of the institution of a standing professional army by Ceasar's generation. Julius Ceasar was killed 44 BC, and the western part of Roman Empire ended on 476 AD, while the eastern part lasted until 1453. Therefore, professional soldiers didn't perform that bad. Without any desire to judge what is better for US (none of my buisness), I would like to say only that I served 1 year (mandatory draft) and I find it a wasted year of my life. It didn't make me a better patriot, or better person in any way. In my opinion, modern weapons are too complicated to be handled by non-professionals. I vote pro drink :beer:
