Who Here Supports a Draft?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb its misery.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food etc are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's 'something that happens to other families.'

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Who Here Supports a Draft?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb it's misery.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food etc are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's 'something that happens to other families.'

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Who Here Supports a Draft?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

Oh I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one. I'm listening.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL, ya some disaster.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

I can't wait to here an explanation for this one. Go ahead. You have my attention.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

LOL, ya some disaster.

You really think it's been a success? By the way, nice Bertrand Russell quote. It fits perfectly with this thread and the popular notion the all volunteer army has been a rousing success.

Either way, how about answering the draft question first.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who Here Supports a Draft?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb it's misery.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food etc are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's 'something that happens to other families.'

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you.

Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.

As for you, your just wanting a draft to scare up protests for the war. You do not give a good rat's ass about our troops or our Government.

So tell me, have you served? And if so are you STILL serving? If not why wait for a draft, do the right thing and join up to "help out" and learn first hand all about war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I support raising the Army by about 600 k troops and the Marine Corps by about 30k. PERMANENTLY , not just for this little war. We foolishly gutted the military in the 90's.

I suspect those numbers can be sustained over time by an all volunteer force, we did it in the 70's and the 80's and can do it again.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Funny how just 55 years ago the human mind could take 4 years of war without a rotation State side, but now a year long tour is just to much to handle.

As for you, your just wanting a draft to scare up protests for the war. You do not give a good rat's ass about our troops or our Government.

So tell me, have you served? And if so are you STILL serving? If not why wait for a draft, do the right thing and join up to "help out" and learn first hand all about war.

I won't lie to you. I'm a young healthy 19 year old who has not and will not serve unless forced to. The only way I'm going to fight for the current rabble in Washington is if they issue a draft, at least then I'll feel a sense of duty.

Plus I'm in Canada studying on scholarship. I'm orignally from the Detroit area - dearborn.

Fight for the all volunteer army? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't purposefully fight for them in a million years. Why not? I thought about signing up once while visiting my cousin in Taylor, Michigan. I did research and the more I found out about the experiment that is the all volunteer army, the more it turned me off.

Secondly, are you part of the "if you haven't served, shut the hell up," crowd? Like I told someone else tonight, that line of reasoning is in lockstep with the values of the SS or the clowns running the show in North Korea.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I support raising the Army by about 600 k troops and the Marine Corps by about 30k. PERMANENTLY , not just for this little war. We foolishly gutted the military in the 90's.
I suspect those numbers can be sustained over time by an all volunteer force, we did it in the 70's and the 80's and can do it again.

The were not needed because the Soviet Army divisons they were intended to guard against had collapsed and folded. Its interesting to note, by the way, the decision to gut the troops was a direct result of the direction the all volunteer army purposefully took for the future.

This is what you get when you to privatize the army. Like any corporation, there's going to be downsizing.

And that's what happened.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.

Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.

The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You made the claim it was only right that people be FORCED to serve. So basically your argument is, if I am not forced to do it, I won't.

Good, the military doesn't need people in it that do not want to be there. The draft is a bad idea. Especially a draft whose only purpose is to scare up protesters.

The all volunteer military is long past "experimental". It is a vibrant functioning entity and has raised the most advanced and most powerful military on the face of the planet.

I agree with you there, it's now fully operating at a miserable level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The were not needed because the Soviet Army divisons they were intended to guard against had collapsed and folded. Its interesting to note, by the way, the decision to gut the troops was a direct result of the new direction the all volunteer army purposefully took.

You are aware that the "all Volunteer" Army has been around since 1973? LONG before the Soviet Union Collapsed? We had over 2 million troops in all services at one point , all volunteers.

As for the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union removing a need for the forces we had? I beg to differ, even in the 90's we knew we did not have the troops we needed as the force was drawn down.

With the Soviets we had a stable world of sorts, neither side could risk an all out war but had to be prepared for one. With the collapse of the Soviets chaos became the norm in a lot of places in the world. I suggest , and I point to the past 20 years as evidence, that instead of drawing down we should have maintained our military because it was actually needed more AFTER the Soviets Collapsed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh and the decision to gut the military had absolutely nothing to do with the Army and it's direction. It had to do with politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs.

I suggest you do a tad bit of research. Before the Soviet collapse our national Military plan was to be able to fight 2 and a half wars at the SAME TIME. And until very recently that was STILL the National plan. Except we no longer had the Divisions or man power to do so. SO finally someone changed the plan.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You are aware that the "all Volunteer" Army has been around since 1973? LONG before the Soviet Union Collapsed? We had over 2 million troops in all services at one point , all volunteers.As for the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union removing a need for the forces we had? I beg to differ, even in the 90's we knew we did not have the troops we needed as the force was drawn down.

With the Soviets we had a stable world of sorts, neither side could risk an all out war but had to be prepared for one. With the collapse of the Soviets chaos became the norm in a lot of places in the world. I suggest , and I point to the past 20 years as evidence, that instead of drawing down we should have maintained our military because it was actually needed more AFTER the Soviets Collapsed.

I'm perfecty aware of that. But as the years passed, the AVA took on more of a modern business model. Hence, the downsizing.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Ohh and the decision to gut the military had absolutely nothing to do with the Army and it's direction. It had to do with politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs.
I suggest you do a tad bit of research. Before the Soviet collapse our national Military plan was to be able to fight 2 and a half wars at the SAME TIME. And until very recently that was STILL the National plan. Except we no longer had the Divisions or man power to do so. SO finally someone changed the plan.

It absolutely did.

Got evidence to back the claim that "politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs" was the reason? Because that sounds more like political rhetoric than empirical evidence to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Got evidence to back this claim up?

LOL just history, read a little.

Google the term " peace dividend" for starters. And then Google the mission statement of the US Military for the last 20 years.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

LOL just history, read a little.

Google the term " peace dividend" for starters. And then Google the mission statement of the US Military for the last 20 years.

You honestly think the mission statement of the US military is evidence?

Are you being serious?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You honestly think the mission statement of the US military is evidence?

Are you being serious?

Are you being stupid? How exactly does one determine what the plans of the military are if they are not going to go by the STATED PLANS of , well, that military?

And which of us actually spent 16 years in said military, with access to plans and preperations and contingency plans and training all those years? I guess we spent all those years in those field exercises just to waste time and waste tax payers money?

Ohh did I mention my father spent 22 years in the Army? I wonder which of us would know what the military was all about?

 

[weaverd33]

I believe the draw down in the 90's was 100% political. It would have been almost political suicide to champion a huge military that could fight on two fronts when there was no "perceived" threat to us. The American public did not want to pay for something they did not think they needed.

On the draft issue, I don't think that would work. It would do more harm than good. I personally would like to see military service required of all Americans. At least a 2 year stint. There opinions are from a former Navy Submariner.