Mandatory military service
-
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:
-
:beer: Cheers :-D I vote pro drink :beer:
-
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:
-
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?
Oh, blow me, Mr. Elite. If you give me a force of conscripts fighting for a just cause I will defeat and destroy any similar number of volunteers, equally armed and equipped. Anytime. Anywhere. Special forces or not. A special forces soldier's only goal is to successfully accomplish whatever mission some politician has assigned to him. I honestly do not have a lot of respect for them. And yes, I am a veteran, and have served with them. The only mission a conscripted soldier gives a crap about is killing all the bad guys, and getting back home to momma. "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....
You missed my point entirely. All I am pointing out is that it is illogical to say that conscription is not fair and that 'volunteering' is. I do not believe that fairness has a damned thing to do with it. Life isn't fair, get used to it. f1shlips wrote: How so? Define Long term? . By long term I mean the next 50 or so years. f1shlips wrote: The quickest way to social disaster is to involve the government in something. I agree, but even the most militant anti-government extremist would say that managing the military is one of the governments primary responsibilities. How it is managed is certainly open to political interpretation. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
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
I can't agree with you more! I don't think this would ever get into law. You asked what happens if some boys and girls don't want to play ball. What happens if some parents don't want their kids to "play ball"? I'm also 21 right now and I say f**k that! if they want to take me out of my, now somewhat, established life because the government thinks it's got a problem. -Mark Lenz
-
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
No but there is a special feeling that one has when he suddenly realizes that someone is actually trying to kill HIM. It moves things from a geopolitical aspect to a personal level. And if I read history correctly ( which is doubtful ) most wars are fought over religion followed closely by those caused by tyrants and despots. Nature's way of culling the herd so to speak usually involves starvation and disease or some astrophysical incidence, not war which is a purely human artifact. If you did not consider being shot when you joined the service than I would almost bet that you were not in a combat arms MOS. As an old staff sgt. of mine used to say "If you aren't worried I don't want you. Superman served in the Air Force" 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 ? 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
A draft during times of war is much different than asking ever person between the ages of 18 and 22 to join the armed forces just because of their age. Also, no one seems to notice but the crime rate in general and youths has been dropping in the last couple decades. -Mark Lenz
-
Oh, blow me, Mr. Elite. If you give me a force of conscripts fighting for a just cause I will defeat and destroy any similar number of volunteers, equally armed and equipped. Anytime. Anywhere. Special forces or not. A special forces soldier's only goal is to successfully accomplish whatever mission some politician has assigned to him. I honestly do not have a lot of respect for them. And yes, I am a veteran, and have served with them. The only mission a conscripted soldier gives a crap about is killing all the bad guys, and getting back home to momma. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: Oh, blow me, Mr. Elite Nice come back. :| Stan Shannon wrote: A special forces soldier's only goal is to successfully accomplish whatever mission some politician has assigned to him. And where do the conscript's missions come from? Stan Shannon wrote: I honestly do not have a lot of respect for them And why is this? What don't you respect about them?
-
Oh, blow me, Mr. Elite. If you give me a force of conscripts fighting for a just cause I will defeat and destroy any similar number of volunteers, equally armed and equipped. Anytime. Anywhere. Special forces or not. A special forces soldier's only goal is to successfully accomplish whatever mission some politician has assigned to him. I honestly do not have a lot of respect for them. And yes, I am a veteran, and have served with them. The only mission a conscripted soldier gives a crap about is killing all the bad guys, and getting back home to momma. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
I'll train my volunteers for 3 years, you get 6 months! My guys will wanna survive to come home to mamma more than yours. My guys wanted to join they have the mentality to survive. Most of my guys did it so when they get home, they can go to college. Your guys don't have anything going for them, except I guess their mamma. -Mark Lenz
-
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:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: 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. Well, the expansion effectively ended after the conquest of Britain in 70 A.D. or so. Just could not get those volunteers out of their nice cozy little forts on the frontier. And the 'elite' Pretorian(sp?) guard became a tool to suppress political rivals. The same thing will happen here over time. A century from now the Green Berets will be snuffing the political rivals of who ever happens to be in power. It is inevitable. "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.
"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." Maybe in the US, but it is thanks to the British SF (SAS and SBS) that the Malayan conflict was won, Borneo, Oman and to a certain extent in the Falklands. These were all "our" Vietnams (fighting against communists guerrilla) we won all of them - the only one we didn't win was Yemen. Cheers, Peter Pearson
-
No but there is a special feeling that one has when he suddenly realizes that someone is actually trying to kill HIM. It moves things from a geopolitical aspect to a personal level. And if I read history correctly ( which is doubtful ) most wars are fought over religion followed closely by those caused by tyrants and despots. Nature's way of culling the herd so to speak usually involves starvation and disease or some astrophysical incidence, not war which is a purely human artifact. If you did not consider being shot when you joined the service than I would almost bet that you were not in a combat arms MOS. As an old staff sgt. of mine used to say "If you aren't worried I don't want you. Superman served in the Air Force" 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: No but there is a special feeling that one has when he suddenly realizes that someone is actually trying to kill HIM. It moves things from a geopolitical aspect to a personal level. And if I read history correctly ( which is doubtful ) most wars are fought over religion followed closely by those caused by tyrants and despots. Nature's way of culling the herd so to speak usually involves starvation and disease or some astrophysical incidence, not war which is a purely human artifact. Mankind has figured out a way to generally remove the threat of starvation and disease (remember, I said *generally*). Killing each other is all we have left. Richard Stringer wrote: If you did not consider being shot when you joined the service than I would almost bet that you were not in a combat arms MOS. As an old staff sgt. of mine used to say "If you aren't worried I don't want you. Superman served in the Air Force" I said it wasn't a consideration, I never said I wasn't worried about it. If you're worried about it, I don't want you anywhere near me in a combat situation. I served on destroyers in the Navy. Definitely a combat unit. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
>>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...
And who do you think flew those manufactured planes, and sailed those liberty ships, and fired them Garands. Sure our industrial capacity ( not capability - The germans had us beat there ) was , at root, the primary factor in defeating the axis but it was Joe Blow from Topeka doing the actual damage. "A criminal is a criminal" OK and the logic of that statement is .... BTW I went straight from Ft. Rucker Alabama to Nam. "Comes back to that self righteous thing... " Yea I tend to get that way. Unlike some who just get F&*ed over I get self righteous. I have a mental problem that prohibits me from ignoring facts or making them up. Best regards 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
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: 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. Well, the expansion effectively ended after the conquest of Britain in 70 A.D. or so. Just could not get those volunteers out of their nice cozy little forts on the frontier. And the 'elite' Pretorian(sp?) guard became a tool to suppress political rivals. The same thing will happen here over time. A century from now the Green Berets will be snuffing the political rivals of who ever happens to be in power. It is inevitable. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, the expansion effectively ended after the conquest of Britain in 70 A.D. or so. Just could not get those volunteers out of their nice cozy little forts on the frontier. Just compare the territories taken by "people" and by professionals: 1. People's army: Italy (most of it). 2. Professionals: Balkans, Spain, North Africa, France, Britain (most of it), Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Persia, Romania. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
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... :)
"1. You were not afraid of Soviet army because of the number of people, but because of the number of nuclear weapons." Point taken. "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." They most probably do (remembers time American Geography class were asked what the capital of Japan was: France.) While I'm at it, I'm going to get flamed for that one, so I'll tell the one about the history class. A B&W photo of Hitler and Churchill playing tennis was shown to a class. "What's wrong with it?" "It's not in colour" :) I admit it does sound a bit dodgy - what was probably meant that they can't read it in a combat situation - I don't know. 2 & 3: I DO know that 21 SAS were tasked (in the event of war) to lie up in East Germany and get rid of these people, so they must have been used for something - I think they were called "Regulators" and would point the directions at crossroads and things. 4: Yep - Alpha commando of the Speznas is supposed to be one of the best. 5: Again, good point. There's a reason the AK47 is in use all over the world, and not just because it's easy to produce. Russian fighter planes are also some of the best in the world. Cheers, Peter Pearson
-
And who do you think flew those manufactured planes, and sailed those liberty ships, and fired them Garands. Sure our industrial capacity ( not capability - The germans had us beat there ) was , at root, the primary factor in defeating the axis but it was Joe Blow from Topeka doing the actual damage. "A criminal is a criminal" OK and the logic of that statement is .... BTW I went straight from Ft. Rucker Alabama to Nam. "Comes back to that self righteous thing... " Yea I tend to get that way. Unlike some who just get F&*ed over I get self righteous. I have a mental problem that prohibits me from ignoring facts or making them up. Best regards 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
>>>"A criminal is a criminal" >>OK and the logic of that statement is .... You were implying a tie between military service and the crime rate. I was trying to point out that Kinville was a dangerous place to be during Vietnam, at a time when the draft was in full swing, because you had taken criminals off the street and put them into the military. I'm not making a blanket statemnt that draftees were criminals, I'm just stating that criminals who got drafted continued to do crime elswhere and that your point about the crime rate and military inspired attitude adjustments is misleading. >>Sure our industrial capacity ( not capability - The germans had us beat there ) 3a) 1. Ability to perform or produce; capability. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capacity You should probably write Websters or somebody and explain it to them. >>Yea I tend to get that way. Unlike some who just get F&*ed over I get self righteous. I have a mental problem that prohibits me from ignoring facts or making them up. Were you addressing something I said? Kinda lost as to what your talking about here. As a part time lobbyist, I try to debate people -- not simply assert I'm right. I think I do a pretty good job of stating facts, but if I've err'd on something, please let me know. >BTW I went straight from Ft. Rucker Alabama to Nam. Thank you for your service.
