Mandatory military service
-
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:
-
: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.
