If there Is A Draft....

LoneStarMadam wrote:

au1929 wrote:
LSM wrote

Quote:
Ya see, it's like this, I am not out to win admiration & popularity

Let me congratulate you for being eminently successful

Thank you, I believe too that I have been successful in that I don't suffer fools readily nor do I sell out.
As he/she whined LSM/Monte cargo, if all you can do is blah, blah, please take it to another forum.

You fine people will have to excuse my absence for now, I have much more important things to do than to entertain you, I have to clean the cats litter box, I will think of y'all while doing that chore. ta ta

Hope you at least have the capability and smarts to perform that task.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
LSM wrote

Quote:
Ya see, it's like this, I am not out to win admiration & popularity

Let me congratulate you for being eminently successful

Thank you, I believe too that I have been successful in that I don't suffer fools readily nor do I sell out.
As he/she whined LSM/Monte cargo, if all you can do is blah, blah, please take it to another forum.

You fine people will have to excuse my absence for now, I have much more important things to do than to entertain you, I have to clean the cats litter box, I will think of y'all while doing that chore. ta ta

Hope you at least have the capability and smarts to perform that task.

LSM/Monte Cargo, if all you can do is blah, blah, please take it to another forum. He/she whined.

0 Replies

1. I don't believe there is any real chance that we will return to a military draft. A volunteer professional force is superior in almost every respect, but sheer numbers. Quantity has little to do with quality, and it is quality that we should be looking for. Draftee's are both less lethal, and more likely to become casualties in 21st century conflicts. The existing military bolstered by the National Guard and Reserves, IS too small. The answer to that lies not in raising huge levees of conscripts with short enlistments, but to increase the size of the volunteer army.

I think a better question is "what is size military is the United States likely to require given the probable challenges over the next 10 to 50 years. It seems likely now that the threat from the Radical Islamic Movement centered in Southwest Asia will become more intense, and that a nuclear threat in Northeastern Asia is in the cards. China will remain a dangerous potential adversary for a long time. The U.S. military during the Cold War expected to be ready for two and a half major conflicts on opposite sides of the globe, and we need to return to those levels of readiness.

Resumption of the military draft has little to do with the war fighting capability of our nation, and a whole lot to do with political posturing.

2. IF the military draft were reinstated, ifs my opinion that for fairness sake it should apply to all citizens between the ages of 18 and 24. I would expect Congressionally determined exemptions, including school deferments, to be part of the program.

Texas Madam, how does it feel to be Custer? The great majority of A2K members deplore any military conflict, especially if a conservative or Republican supports the effort. Politically these folks are pretty far left and political correctness rules supreme. Personal morality here always trumps loyalty to the nation and the values of our ancestors. "my country, right or wrong, my country still" is regarded as an anachronism. The left wing of the Democratic Party now has their opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of their political philosophy. Thankfully, most of the Democrats in Congress haven't completely lost their senses.

0 Replies

Most volunteers have been duped into joining the military with promises of college and benefits they could not get otherwise. They have no intention of dying or killing people. Most of them are hoping to avoid the war and go off to Japan or Germany or someplace. It's a shame.

0 Replies

Quote:

The great majority of A2K members deplore any military conflict, especially if a conservative or Republican supports the effort.

I take issue with this, because it is inaccurate.

We deplore unneccessary military conflict. For example, you don't see many here criticizing our decision to attack Afghanistan. Why? Because it was obvious to everyone that it was neccessary.

If you believe it was neccessary to attack Iraq (as the Prez and his crew obviously did) then it is your responsibility to show in which ways it was neccessary, and to convince those who are inherently opposed to war that it is neccessary. Both the Prez and his supporters here on A2K have failed miserably in this task. Yet they portray it as a failure of character amongst those who aren't convinced our actions were neccessary, instead of a failure by those who are attempting to push aggressive actions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

1. I don't believe there is any real chance that we will return to a military draft. A volunteer professional force is superior in almost every respect, but sheer numbers. Quantity has little to do with quality, and it is quality that we should be looking for. Draftee's are both less lethal, and more likely to become casualties in 21st century conflicts. The existing military bolstered by the National Guard and Reserves, IS too small. The answer to that lies not in raising huge levees of conscripts with short enlistments, but to increase the size of the volunteer army.

I think a better question is "what is size military is the United States likely to require given the probable challenges over the next 10 to 50 years. It seems likely now that the threat from the Radical Islamic Movement centered in Southwest Asia will become more intense, and that a nuclear threat in Northeastern Asia is in the cards. China will remain a dangerous potential adversary for a long time. The U.S. military during the Cold War expected to be ready for two and a half major conflicts on opposite sides of the globe, and we need to return to those levels of readiness.

Resumption of the military draft has little to do with the war fighting capability of our nation, and a whole lot to do with political posturing.

2. IF the military draft were reinstated, ifs my opinion that for fairness sake it should apply to all citizens between the ages of 18 and 24. I would expect Congressionally determined exemptions, including school deferments, to be part of the program.

Texas Madam, how does it feel to be Custer? The great majority of A2K members deplore any military conflict, especially if a conservative or Republican supports the effort. Politically these folks are pretty far left and political correctness rules supreme. Personal morality here always trumps loyalty to the nation and the values of our ancestors. "my country, right or wrong, my country still" is regarded as an anachronism. The left wing of the Democratic Party now has their opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of their political philosophy. Thankfully, most of the Democrats in Congress haven't completely lost their senses.

PC is pure hogwash, I hate it. If you think something, say it, I believe we still have free speech. I don't mind being shot at by liberals, they have their views/beliefs, I have mine. The thing that is really rotten about some here is that they like to play in the mud & throw mudballs. Now mind you, I'm not a shy person & don't mind throwing mudballs back, in fact, I do exactly that on ocassion, but some will chastise me for that while calling me a bad ol name. :wink: Even had one chastise myself & another poster with this LSM/Monte Cargo-If all you can do is call names (or something like that) then please find another forum then on another thread that same poster called me a sarcastic blowhard. lol
Not sure about most here on the war issue, but I will say that they seem to favore dem president wars, haven't figured that out yet.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Most volunteers have been duped into joining the military with promises of college and benefits they could not get otherwise. They have no intention of dying or killing people. Most of them are hoping to avoid the war and go off to Japan or Germany or someplace. It's a shame.

But they do know that there's a chance that they will see a war once they sign on the dotted line. If they go in expecting nothing but a higher education & a Club Med like lifestyle, they're in for a surprise. As for the college funds, there is that, but they have to help towards it, the old GI Bill where college tuition was flat out paid is gone. The medical benefits are great, I am very thankful for our medical benefits that my husband worked 22 years for. He did see war & he did understand that there was a high probability that he would. He was also spat on & cursed....by Americans, that's why most of the military members could not wear their uniforms on the streets of their own country. It's getting close to the bad old days again.

0 Replies

a good service recruiter can concentrate on collage, health care and other advantages of the military but never remind someone that there is a good chance that they will be sent to Iraq too have their arss shot off. It just isn't done. Reminding a kid that there is a good chance they will be killed or maimed is a good way to lose them. As to spitting on military people most of the posters on this thread support the kids who have to go to war without supporting the war. The same type and number who spit on and call our kids names are the same type who follow Bush around kissing his footsteps and believing every thing he says because he is the president. These people don't reason. They decide things based on emotion. The thing to remember is he ia a politician. Politicians lie like dogs.

0 Replies

The reason the military has to paint a rosy picture to get people to inlist is simply because this is an unpopular war. And that the young haven't been duped into believing the war was necessary and is meaningful. I would site WW2. The young were lining up to inlist Why because they understood what was at stake. In Iraq no matter the outcome the US will be the loser.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

No wars would be even better, but that won't happen.

really, there could easily have been no war in iraq

0 Replies

I find it ironically hilarious that Asherman chooses Custer as a symbol--the archetypal politically-motivated military idiot who picked the wrong fight, at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Of course, that ended his life, and his prospects for running for the office of President. Unfortunately, it also ended the lives of hundreds of cavalrymen and Indians.

0 Replies

Actually, there isn't "a good chance they'll get their asses shot off in Iraq".

The casualty rates in Iraq are among the lowest of any major U.S. conflict. Casualties in the Great War were larger both in real numbers and as a percentage of men in uniform. WWII cost more in casualties during D-Day, or Iwo Jima, than years in Iraq, again in both real and percentage numbers. The Marines lost more men at Chosin in a week than they have in Iraq.

The people getting their asses shot off are the Iraqi commons, and they're being killed off by Iraqi terrorists and Radical Islamic "volunteers" from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So far it seems only American troops are trying to protect the Iraqi's by keeping up the pressure against those who are trying to set up a Taliban style government.

0 Replies

Quote:

The people getting their asses shot off are the Iraqi commons, and they're being killed off by Iraqi terrorists and Radical Islamic "volunteers" from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Also, they are being killed by their own government, by Shiite militias, and by US troops who decide that they are worth killing to get to terrorists.

Quote:

The casualty rates in Iraq are among the lowest of any major U.S. conflict...

Of course, our superior medical technology ensures that we save far more people than we had the ability to do in any previous war. This doesn't mean that they aren't casualties, however; just that they don't die off.

A soldier who is near an IED who goes off can be a casualty as well, even if he is not apparently damaged; the 'shell-shock,' or shaking of the brain due to concussive force, can cause a lifetime of emotional and mental problems. Those who have experienced this repeatedly are guaranteed to have issues even if they don't catch shrapnel.

And the soldier who has to shoot a 14-year old kid, because he might kill him or his buddies? He's a casualty as well. He has to live with that sh*t for the rest of his life.

I find your attitude towards those who have suffered in this war to be callous, but unsurprising.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I did some volunteer work at BAMC, an Army hospital in San Antonio. they have a fantastic trauma & burn center. A lot of our wounded are sent to BAMC after their stop in Germany at a US AF Hospital. These men & women are some of the bravest people I have ever had the honor to meet. Some were not able to ever go back into service, one that lost his legs to an IED, believe it or not, went back to parachuting for the US Army. These men & women will never be the same, but most of them are sorry that they won't get to help finish the job, their words, not mine. While we set back here behind our keyboards & run this war, these men & women have been there, done that, & they don't complain. Honor & integrity, their motto, & they live it.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Actually, there isn't "a good chance they'll get their asses shot off in Iraq".

The casualty rates in Iraq are among the lowest of any major U.S. conflict. Casualties in the Great War were larger both in real numbers and as a percentage of men in uniform. WWII cost more in casualties during D-Day, or Iwo Jima, than years in Iraq, again in both real and percentage numbers. The Marines lost more men at Chosin in a week than they have in Iraq.

The people getting their asses shot off are the Iraqi commons, and they're being killed off by Iraqi terrorists and Radical Islamic "volunteers" from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So far it seems only American troops are trying to protect the Iraqi's by keeping up the pressure against those who are trying to set up a Taliban style government.

Oh! Then that makes it OK! Asherman, we started this war. The Taliban was certainly not a threat until we moved in there. The percentage dying would be extremely small in comparison if we simply let things alone or tried to engage in constructive dialogue before going in there with guns blasting. It's unfortunate that we did the things we did. We will spend lifetimes trying to make things "right" again.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Asherman wrote:
Actually, there isn't "a good chance they'll get their asses shot off in Iraq".

The casualty rates in Iraq are among the lowest of any major U.S. conflict. Casualties in the Great War were larger both in real numbers and as a percentage of men in uniform. WWII cost more in casualties during D-Day, or Iwo Jima, than years in Iraq, again in both real and percentage numbers. The Marines lost more men at Chosin in a week than they have in Iraq.

The people getting their asses shot off are the Iraqi commons, and they're being killed off by Iraqi terrorists and Radical Islamic "volunteers" from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So far it seems only American troops are trying to protect the Iraqi's by keeping up the pressure against those who are trying to set up a Taliban style government.

Oh! Then that makes it OK! Asherman, we started this war. The Taliban was certainly not a threat until we moved in there. The percentage dying would be extremely small in comparison if we simply let things alone or tried to engage in constructive dialogue before going in there with guns blasting. It's unfortunate that we did the things we did. We will spend lifetimes trying to make things "right" again.

Exactly how would one constructively dialogue with a bunch of murdereous neanderthals? Do you suppose they would have allowed the women to work, go to school, quit wearing burkas, quit beating them if a naked toe was seen in public, beaten if they were out alone? COnstructive dialogue would've stopped that? Never mind that the taliban was aiding OBL.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The reason the military has to paint a rosy picture to get people to inlist is simply because this is an unpopular war. And that the young haven't been duped into believing the war was necessary and is meaningful. I would site WW2. The young were lining up to inlist Why because they understood what was at stake. In Iraq no matter the outcome the US will be the loser.

Not everybody is as unpatriotic as you like to paint our military, most are courageous & truly believe that they are answering a call to duty....unlike a few here that will remain nameless. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I look forward to Lonestarmadam enlisting.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

I look forward to Lonestarmadam enlisting.

How do you know I haven't had my turn?
I look forward to your answer....not really.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Actually, there isn't "a good chance they'll get their asses shot off in Iraq".

The casualty rates in Iraq are among the lowest of any major U.S. conflict. Casualties in the Great War were larger both in real numbers and as a percentage of men in uniform.

Link, please with the actual percentages. Are we talking KIAs only?

Not that it matters, WWII was a justifiable war and, most would agree, necessary war, not a war of choice. In that conlict, Hitler was the madman. In this case, the madman is George W. Bush.

0 Replies

If there Is A Draft....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know