What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

It is now time for a "Soft" Military Draft

Likkmee

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
14,095
Reaction score
4,581
Points
310
Location
Second World
If we’d mind our own business rather than impose our will for the benefit of the ultra wealthy and bankers, there wouldn’t be combat zones.

What makes you think that? You have any evidence to support such a claim? I have plenty of evidence the opposite is true. Such as U.S. maintaining a tiny military and isolationist policies leading up to World War Two. Neither of those did a thing to prevent the Germans and Japanese from attacking us.

Try studying some history.
Lol. You don’t know history. If you did, you would know the dangers of having a large standing army. Read up on it.

I've taught American and World History for years genius. You read up on it. If you can read of course (which is debatable).
Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.
NOTHING A "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" cant keep at bay. I can get me some nukes and Migz on ebay like Kim Dong Tu Short did ? Or they don't take Bitcoin any longer
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
46,352
Reaction score
28,091
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Now that the Joe Dufus administration announced the policy of purging the military of White Conservative Patriots our military is going to be pretty damn weak and incompetent. Queers, trannies, Negros and a few butch women ain't much of a fighting force.

China putting their man in the White House really paid off. No wonder they were so happy when Joe Dufus won.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
406
Points
198
If we’d mind our own business rather than impose our will for the benefit of the ultra wealthy and bankers, there wouldn’t be combat zones.

What makes you think that? You have any evidence to support such a claim? I have plenty of evidence the opposite is true. Such as U.S. maintaining a tiny military and isolationist policies leading up to World War Two. Neither of those did a thing to prevent the Germans and Japanese from attacking us.

Try studying some history.
Lol. You don’t know history. If you did, you would know the dangers of having a large standing army. Read up on it.

I've taught American and World History for years genius. You read up on it. If you can read of course (which is debatable).
Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.

Could you provide a few historical examples?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
43,135
Reaction score
14,292
Points
2,250
If we’d mind our own business rather than impose our will for the benefit of the ultra wealthy and bankers, there wouldn’t be combat zones.

What makes you think that? You have any evidence to support such a claim? I have plenty of evidence the opposite is true. Such as U.S. maintaining a tiny military and isolationist policies leading up to World War Two. Neither of those did a thing to prevent the Germans and Japanese from attacking us.

Try studying some history.
Lol. You don’t know history. If you did, you would know the dangers of having a large standing army. Read up on it.

I've taught American and World History for years genius. You read up on it. If you can read of course (which is debatable).
Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.

Could you provide a few historical examples?
Lol
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
406
Points
198
If we’d mind our own business rather than impose our will for the benefit of the ultra wealthy and bankers, there wouldn’t be combat zones.

What makes you think that? You have any evidence to support such a claim? I have plenty of evidence the opposite is true. Such as U.S. maintaining a tiny military and isolationist policies leading up to World War Two. Neither of those did a thing to prevent the Germans and Japanese from attacking us.

Try studying some history.
Lol. You don’t know history. If you did, you would know the dangers of having a large standing army. Read up on it.

I've taught American and World History for years genius. You read up on it. If you can read of course (which is debatable).
Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.

Could you provide a few historical examples?
Lol

concession accepted
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
43,135
Reaction score
14,292
Points
2,250
If we’d mind our own business rather than impose our will for the benefit of the ultra wealthy and bankers, there wouldn’t be combat zones.

What makes you think that? You have any evidence to support such a claim? I have plenty of evidence the opposite is true. Such as U.S. maintaining a tiny military and isolationist policies leading up to World War Two. Neither of those did a thing to prevent the Germans and Japanese from attacking us.

Try studying some history.
Lol. You don’t know history. If you did, you would know the dangers of having a large standing army. Read up on it.

I've taught American and World History for years genius. You read up on it. If you can read of course (which is debatable).
Then surely you know the dangers of a large standing army.

Could you provide a few historical examples?
Lol

concession accepted
LOL
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
636
Points
140

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.
If you need canon fodder for a low price, then try to form foreign legions to do dirty work abroad.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,353
Reaction score
17,357
Points
2,300
Company-grade officers in Vietnam were the exception. Most were canon fodder anyway. OCS and ROTC, not really military folks at all.
As a Vietnam era veteran, I can say that your statement was bovine excrement. While company grade officers, enlisted and junior NCOs weren’t carrier soldiers, they were “military folks” right down to the bones. They sacrificed sweat, blood and years of their lives when their country called them to serve. There was literally no difference between draftees and enlistees. They bled the same blood, sweated the same sweat, dealt with the same fears and frustrations and had the same ultimate objectives- to survive, to help their buddies and other unti members to survive, to win every fight and to get home safely. Claiming that they were somehow lesser than career military is a odious insult to their duty, sacrifice and bravery, you should be ashamed of yourself.
.....a big problem was the 6 month tour for officers --really bad for the whole military....this was a KILLER.......
..once they got to know their men and vice versa--they were out of Vietnam
..same with the 1 year tour for non-coms
etc
..I was in the USMC for 8 years- like with civilian managers/etc, we had good officers and ''bad'' ones
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,353
Reaction score
17,357
Points
2,300

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.
..I was in for 8 years...the marriage thing was ridiculous--like with civilians...these ''kids'' would get married and then divorced not long after
....the USMC wanted non-married personnel at one time ....
---but, the US military has accomplished its missions/etc with married personnel ...

..how is the US military ''fkd up?
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,353
Reaction score
17,357
Points
2,300
I'm glad the OP is around to remind us about the complete insanity of most conservatives.

"What we need is cannon fodder".

Yeah, drive YOUR kids and grand kids to the enlistment office and tell them that we need people who are expendable.
I'm glad the OP is around to remind us about the complete insanity of most liberals
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
42,101
Reaction score
7,764
Points
1,870
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Military recruiters are already given access to the nation's high schools to pitch the idea to the young guys about the advantages of signing up to be a soldier or sailor and seeing the world. I think the only difference you offer is requiring the young guys to give them an answer and make an actual response to their appeals.

Sexist much? Do you realize that women join the military also?
 

Desperado

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
34,854
Reaction score
8,999
Points
1,340

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.
Then get off your ass and enlist as Army Infantry
 
Last edited:

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
9,987
Reaction score
10,979
Points
2,138

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.
Get rid of the TRannies seeking sex change----they offer nothing but problems and cost a shit load of money. Shoot our traitors leaving or giving weapons to terrorists forcing us to go back to war, MAKE NATO buddies pay for their own (LIKE TRUMP WAS DOING)
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
42,101
Reaction score
7,764
Points
1,870
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Then get off your ass and enlist as Army Infantry
Part of his problem, is that he is basing information from his time in the military, which is just a little dated as he has stated that he served in Vietnam. That puts him close to Biden in age.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
The best way to get volunteers to sign up is to bring back the draft. They will line up to join then, hoping to get to be able to choose the service they get into.
 
Last edited:

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
31,761
Reaction score
17,691
Points
1,915
The best way to get volunteers to sign up is to bring back the draft. The will line up to join then, hoping to get to be able to choose the service they get into.


Not necessarily. I can't see the US conscripting millions in the military. They don't have weapons and uniforms and barracks for that many. I think that most fellows who didn't want to go to the military already would just take their chances.
Further, they don't have enough wars to keep millions of men occupied during their enlistment.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
Not necessarily. I can't see the US conscripting millions in the military. They don't have weapons and uniforms and barracks for that many. I think that most fellows who didn't want to go to the military already would just take their chances.
Further, they don't have enough wars to keep millions of men occupied during their enlistment.
Thy don't just draft everybody at once, they fill slots; that's where the lotteries came in. Draftees do shorter stints, for one, and they're cheaper than turning the military into a job corp or a place for faggots to get free sexual mutilation and cosmetic surgeries. It's a lot better than ruining the lives of National Guardsmen and Reservists with 8 year call ups and other bad ideas that cost them houses, businesses, jobs, etc. Some did four tours, which is ridiculous and unfair.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top