Mandatory military service
-
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?
Mark Nischalke wrote: And where do the conscript's missions come from He only has two missions 1) Win the war. 2) Go home. and they come from him. Mark Nischalke wrote: And why is this? What don't you respect about them? Because they are political tools more than they are soldiers. The only rational for having large standing special forces units is precisely so that a political leader can surgically exercise his will militarily without turning control of a war effort over to the direct management of the military. Yes, I understand that the military is under the control of our politicians, and should be, but we will never agains see the kinds of victories we had in WWII against any enemy without the military being given a more direct responsibility over *how* to wage the war. As long as we are dependent upon special forces, that will never happen. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
Mark Nischalke wrote: And where do the conscript's missions come from He only has two missions 1) Win the war. 2) Go home. and they come from him. Mark Nischalke wrote: And why is this? What don't you respect about them? Because they are political tools more than they are soldiers. The only rational for having large standing special forces units is precisely so that a political leader can surgically exercise his will militarily without turning control of a war effort over to the direct management of the military. Yes, I understand that the military is under the control of our politicians, and should be, but we will never agains see the kinds of victories we had in WWII against any enemy without the military being given a more direct responsibility over *how* to wage the war. As long as we are dependent upon special forces, that will never happen. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
LOL :) :rolleyes: :) The only response I can give to such dribble.
-
"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
Actually, one of the main reasons the AK47 is so popular IS because it's so darn easy to produce. The other main reason is that it's amazingly reliable. Both reasons stem from its great design. The problem the Soviets have always had is in quality control; they're excellent designers and researchers (smart enough to design weapons and systems that can be reliably manufactured by their own industry). Heck, even our own stealth aircraft are largely based on Russian research, about a mathematical method for calculating wave reflections off of solid surfaces or somesuch. -- Eric
-
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:
Most of that territory was captured during the Republic period. Re: http://members.tripod.com/~S\_van\_Dorst/reparmy.html Hardly sounds like a professional army to me. "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.
What about the women? Shouldn't they get called too? It's equality remember! Why should men have to miss 1 year of college while the women get to go ahead of men and get their degrees :mad:. I think that if women want to be equal they should be forced to sign up for selective service when they turn 18 just like men. Because they are equal aren't they???? I :love: Microsoft and :bob:
-
Most of that territory was captured during the Republic period. Re: http://members.tripod.com/~S\_van\_Dorst/reparmy.html Hardly sounds like a professional army to me. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: Most of that territory was captured during the Republic period ... with a professional army. We're not discussing here Republic vs Empire, but professionals vs amateurs. There was a professional army in Rome, even during the Republic (since III century BC) http://members.tripod.com/~S\_van\_Dorst/reparmy2.html I vote pro drink :beer:
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Most of that territory was captured during the Republic period ... with a professional army. We're not discussing here Republic vs Empire, but professionals vs amateurs. There was a professional army in Rome, even during the Republic (since III century BC) http://members.tripod.com/~S\_van\_Dorst/reparmy2.html I vote pro drink :beer:
I think you are way off. The Romans did not even think about having a standing professional army until the defeat of Hannibal (late 2nd century, if memory serves). And if I'm not mistaken the majority of the Army was still conscripted even in Caesar's time. The link I posted supports other reading I have done. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. What are your sources? "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
What about the women? Shouldn't they get called too? It's equality remember! Why should men have to miss 1 year of college while the women get to go ahead of men and get their degrees :mad:. I think that if women want to be equal they should be forced to sign up for selective service when they turn 18 just like men. Because they are equal aren't they???? I :love: Microsoft and :bob:
Hell, women would be the first ones I would draft. Maybe teach 'em to keep the mouth's shut about 'equality' for a while. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
I think you are way off. The Romans did not even think about having a standing professional army until the defeat of Hannibal (late 2nd century, if memory serves). And if I'm not mistaken the majority of the Army was still conscripted even in Caesar's time. The link I posted supports other reading I have done. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. What are your sources? "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Stan Shannon wrote: The Romans did not even think about having a standing professional army until the defeat of Hannibal (late 2nd century, if memory serves). Hannibal was finaly defeated at Zama 202 BC, which is late 3rd century. Anyway, I'm not sure if Roman soldiers were conscripted or volunteers, but the fact that they served 25 years, and were payed for their duty makes them professional soldiers. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The Romans did not even think about having a standing professional army until the defeat of Hannibal (late 2nd century, if memory serves). Hannibal was finaly defeated at Zama 202 BC, which is late 3rd century. Anyway, I'm not sure if Roman soldiers were conscripted or volunteers, but the fact that they served 25 years, and were payed for their duty makes them professional soldiers. I vote pro drink :beer:
OK. I was thinking Hannibal was a century later, maybe I'm confusing his period with one of their civil wars. (I'm a programmer, dammit, not a historian!) Anyway, I guess it does depend on your definition of 'professional'. To me if you tell a guy he has to go and bring his own weapons he is a conscript. But, you are correct, if he has done nothing else for 25 years I suppose that qualifies him as a professional. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
OK. I was thinking Hannibal was a century later, maybe I'm confusing his period with one of their civil wars. (I'm a programmer, dammit, not a historian!) Anyway, I guess it does depend on your definition of 'professional'. To me if you tell a guy he has to go and bring his own weapons he is a conscript. But, you are correct, if he has done nothing else for 25 years I suppose that qualifies him as a professional. "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
So, we can make peace, and forget about soldiers :) I vote pro drink :beer:
-
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.
Reno Tiko wrote: 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. Exactly, and if this is a free country how does this work? -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman Frankly AOL should stick to what it does best: Fooling millions of americans into believing that it, AOL, is the web. -Paul Watson
-
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.
I've seen a lot of bullshit in the replies to this message. And as one who is to be drafted next year, without any consideration to his own will I think I have a right to barge in. First of all there's no actual difference between both systems, the thing is how you run them. An army like here in Israel is not voluntary but still maintains good quality because the government does great work with propaganda raising "our" moral and patriotic feelings. They give "us" a cause, and if they don't then some stupid murderer blows up a bus a mile away from my home and reminds us that we can't sit idle. So our military CAN'T be voluntary. And while I'm not keen on serving I do understand that it's something we can't let go of. All of you saying "I'm not afraid being shot" that's because you're either stupid or never been to a situation where your life was in danger. I am afraid to be shot. I am afraid to get killed for no reason at age 18. I am afraid when tanks have to secure our capital city. I am afraid when the same bus I drive every day to school blows up. I am afraid when 2 soldiers are slaughtered by a whole village in front of Italian news cameras, filming the whole thing. I am afraid when missiles from Iraq crash on buildings 10 km from my home. Just the other day someone told me "imagine how it is like in other countries, when they don't have to check your bags when you go inside the mall". You don't know how it is to show your ID to prove you're not a murderer armed with explosives. You only see the big news, not the day-to-day effect on our lives. Most of you don't understand how it is when you HAVE to keep the quality of your army or else, one day, you just won't have a home. I got used to it of course, and I don't think it's so bad, it's not like we live in war zone or something. But there is always something interupting the day to day routine. I object forced military service in countries that don't need it, however I do believe some kind of contribution should be made. Here we have people who don't want to or can't serve in the military so they volunteer somewhere. Some in MDA (it's like the red cross), and others in a whole lot of places. I myself volunteer in MDA (but not instead of the military service) as a medic. I see a lot of harsh sights. I've seen death and worse in many occasions, I've seen stabings, GSW and other stuff. And I wouldn't want to experience even one bit of it on myself. Wake up and smell the coffee guys, before someone blows up your coffee-shop. Isaac Sasson,
-
I've seen a lot of bullshit in the replies to this message. And as one who is to be drafted next year, without any consideration to his own will I think I have a right to barge in. First of all there's no actual difference between both systems, the thing is how you run them. An army like here in Israel is not voluntary but still maintains good quality because the government does great work with propaganda raising "our" moral and patriotic feelings. They give "us" a cause, and if they don't then some stupid murderer blows up a bus a mile away from my home and reminds us that we can't sit idle. So our military CAN'T be voluntary. And while I'm not keen on serving I do understand that it's something we can't let go of. All of you saying "I'm not afraid being shot" that's because you're either stupid or never been to a situation where your life was in danger. I am afraid to be shot. I am afraid to get killed for no reason at age 18. I am afraid when tanks have to secure our capital city. I am afraid when the same bus I drive every day to school blows up. I am afraid when 2 soldiers are slaughtered by a whole village in front of Italian news cameras, filming the whole thing. I am afraid when missiles from Iraq crash on buildings 10 km from my home. Just the other day someone told me "imagine how it is like in other countries, when they don't have to check your bags when you go inside the mall". You don't know how it is to show your ID to prove you're not a murderer armed with explosives. You only see the big news, not the day-to-day effect on our lives. Most of you don't understand how it is when you HAVE to keep the quality of your army or else, one day, you just won't have a home. I got used to it of course, and I don't think it's so bad, it's not like we live in war zone or something. But there is always something interupting the day to day routine. I object forced military service in countries that don't need it, however I do believe some kind of contribution should be made. Here we have people who don't want to or can't serve in the military so they volunteer somewhere. Some in MDA (it's like the red cross), and others in a whole lot of places. I myself volunteer in MDA (but not instead of the military service) as a medic. I see a lot of harsh sights. I've seen death and worse in many occasions, I've seen stabings, GSW and other stuff. And I wouldn't want to experience even one bit of it on myself. Wake up and smell the coffee guys, before someone blows up your coffee-shop. Isaac Sasson,
> it's not like we live in war zone or something. Asked with respect, but what would you call it? From the outside looking in I see checkpoints, troops on the street, random skirmishing with mortors and small arms and then vile carnage delivered by something loud and mean. >All of you saying "I'm not afraid being shot" that's because you're either stupid or never been to a situation where your life was in danger. Not true on both counts. I am afraid of living with soldiers on my streets. I'm afraid of having to show my nationalized ID card to satisfy the whim of an official while walking down the street. I'm afraid of having a stranger search my belongings every time I go shopping. I'm afraid that people will accept it as normal and move on with their lives. Most of all I'm afraid my mother, my father, my sister, my brother, and my neices and nephews will not have the ability to live in a place where they have the ability to excersise thier free will. I'm not afraid because of all those reasons I just mentioned and because I know that if I doing my job to prevent those things from happening requires me to enter harms way, I'll go back again. I'm not afraid of being shot.