Who Here Supports a Draft?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Dude, you can call me a personality all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. My posts have been pretty cut and dry. You have made a claim, (among many) and posted bogus evidence that doesn't back up your claim. You have taken articles and "evidence" and applied a conclusion that doesn't match or even relate. An analogy to your debate:

TGS says : (In essence)--"When you strike a match, you get water"

And for the record, I have much more personality than you will ever have....

Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out specific points of contention.

Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?

Point out the article. Show us how you "think" it doesn't match the conclusions.

You somehow made the assumption my opinion is rooted solely for opinion's sake.

Well, it is not. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.

Typing " you don't know what you're talking about," or " posted bogus evidence" does nothing to substantiate any of your claims.

What it does, is show an unforgivable propensity to make dull accusations without offering any specifics.

You are, what you have always proven to be: a lazy poster who thinks typing " I owned you" or "you don't know what you're talking about," somehow discredits anything the GAO has concluded in its reports.

Start doing your homework or do not. Embarrassing yourself is not an option you can continue to afford to make.

Find an authoritative report discrediting the methods and conclusions of the non-partisan GAO report. Can you find one? Have you even attempted?

Be specific or get lost.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[Gunny]

Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out specific points of contention.

Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?

Point out the article. Show us how you "think" it doesn't match the conclusions.

You somehow made the assumption my opinion is rooted solely for opinion's sake.

Well, it is not. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.

Typing " you don't know what you're talking about," or " posted bogus evidence" does nothing to substantiate any of your claims.

What it does, is show an unforgivable propensity to make dull accusations without offering any specifics.

You are, what you have always proven to be: a lazy poster who thinks typing " I owned you" or "you don't know what you're talking about," somehow discredits anything the GAO has concluded in its reports.

Start doing your homework or do not. Embarrassing yourself is not an option you can continue to afford to make.

Find an authoritative report discrediting the methods and conclusions of the non-partisan GAO report. Can you find one? Have you even attempted?

Be specific or get lost.

It's really as simple as that.

Perhaps you should find something that corroborates the GAO's findings instead of relying on one fat, corrupt bureaucratic tick's fingerpointing at another?

No, you aren't going to do THAT. You aren't going to listen to anyone that has worked IN the system and knows how it operates and knows how the GAO operates.

The GAO HAS TO find problems. There would be no need for the GAO if they didn't. They aren't getting paid to tell you everything's hunky-dory.

But you don't want to be bothered by the truth because it doesn't gel with your hatred for the US military.

Your misuse of the little information you do reference coupled with your continually presenting your opinions as fact are documented throughout these military threads. As is your obvious ignorance on the subject.

Now, if you're going to cry foul every time someone shoots your lame arguments down as if that person is being nasty to poor little old you, I suggest you get that smarmy, nasty attitude out of YOUR posts to others, junior.

 

[BrianH]

Perhaps you should find something that corroborates the GAO's findings instead of relying on one fat, corrupt bureaucratic tick's fingerpointing at another?

No, you aren't going to do THAT. You aren't going to listen to anyone that has worked IN the system and knows how it operates and knows how the GAO operates.

The GAO HAS TO find problems. There would be no need for the GAO if they didn't. They aren't getting paid to tell you everything's hunky-dory.

But you don't want to be bothered by the truth because it doesn't gel with your hatred for the US military.

Your misuse of the little information you do reference coupled with your continually presenting your opinions as fact are documented throughout these military threads. As is your obvious ignorance on the subject.

Now, if you're going to cry foul every time someone shoots your lame arguments down as if that person is being nasty to poor little old you, I suggest you get that smarmy, nasty attitude out of YOUR posts to others, junior.

That's exactly right Gunny, I couldn't have put it better myself. I know that no one knows the military better than members or former members thereof, however, what TGS doesn't realize, is that it doesn't take a military member to recognize the dumbass conclusion that TGS draws from his "information" and "evidence." I'll never claim to know as much as present of former military personnel, but I do know that the BS that TGS has thrown out here has nothing to do with decisions made by the military. Most if not all of these things, the military has no control of....such as : Funding, Taxes, Foreign Policy, etc.... I'm almost considering putting TGS on ignore, but it's like a tranwreck and I can't help but respond to him...

What a doofus.... (not you Gunny; TGS)....

Oh Gunny....how hot is it there in SA???

 

[BrianH]

Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out specific points of contention.

Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?

Point out the article. Show us how you "think" it doesn't match the conclusions.

You somehow made the assumption my opinion is rooted solely for opinion's sake.

Well, it is not. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.

Typing " you don't know what you're talking about," or " posted bogus evidence" does nothing to substantiate any of your claims.

What it does, is show an unforgivable propensity to make dull accusations without offering any specifics.

You are, what you have always proven to be: a lazy poster who thinks typing " I owned you" or "you don't know what you're talking about," somehow discredits anything the GAO has concluded in its reports.

Start doing your homework or do not. Embarrassing yourself is not an option you can continue to afford to make.

Find an authoritative report discrediting the methods and conclusions of the non-partisan GAO report. Can you find one? Have you even attempted?

Be specific or get lost.

It's really as simple as that.

You can accuse me of being lazy all you want...but the fact remains...others and I, in this thread any many others, are stomping your ass when it comes to your retarded conclusions based on one set of biased "evidence." If you don't believe me, check out the poll I posted about you in the FLAME ZONE....The pole 70% of voters say you're a dumbass. The other 30% only voted no because they don't believe you post good "evidence" in the first place. I'd say your batting (conservatively) 90%-95% of the dumbass scale.

Let me tell you how it works. When you come blasting onto a thread (or start one) and make a claime and post evidence about it, it is YOUR job to PROVE it. It is not everyone else's job to prove it for you. Your conclusions can be picked apart without going out and doing hardcore research. Your conclusions are so shallowly researched that it makes it easy to discredit. You've taking a GAO report and got a negative conclusion of the Military....BIG SUPRISE. That's like going to Jasper, TX and getting "America's Opinion" of blacks and racism....
You're taking a obviously biased organization's word for it. Gunny made this point very clear in his last post. You can bitch and moan all you want about me "not posting evidence of my claim", but others realize that your arguments are so feeble, there's no need to do research. Come back when you've finished your college goverment class--it'll teach you how the three branches and the military work...

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You can accuse me of being lazy all you want...but the fact remains...others and I, in this thread any many others, are stomping your ass when it comes to your retarded conclusions based on one set of biased "evidence." If you don't believe me, check out the poll I posted about you in the FLAME ZONE....The pole 70% of voters say you're a dumbass. The other 30% only voted no because they don't believe you post good "evidence" in the first place. I'd say your batting (conservatively) 90%-95% of the dumbass scale.

Let me tell you how it works. When you come blasting onto a thread (or start one) and make a claime and post evidence about it, it is YOUR job to PROVE it. It is not everyone else's job to prove it for you. Your conclusions can be picked apart without going out and doing hardcore research. Your conclusions are so shallowly researched that it makes it easy to discredit. You've taking a GAO report and got a negative conclusion of the Military....BIG SUPRISE. That's like going to Jasper, TX and getting "America's Opinion" of blacks and racism....
You're taking a obviously biased organization's word for it. Gunny made this point very clear in his last post. You can bitch and moan all you want about me "not posting evidence of my claim", but others realize that your arguments are so feeble, there's no need to do research. Come back when you've finished your college goverment class--it'll teach you how the three branches and the military work...

Will you ever stick to the actual issue?

Can you?

Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Will you ever stick to the actual issue?

Can you?

Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?

The only bore here is you and your ignorant claims.

 

[BrianH]

Will you ever stick to the actual issue?

Can you?

Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?

Because your "topic of interest" is not interesting when you plague it with a faulty conclusion. I've already addressed the actual issue and you've chosen to ignore it.

I've addressed the fact that your claim that "A draft would be cheaper and more efficient" is bogus because all you are doing is replacing people who want to be in the military (volunteers) with people who don't want to be there (conscripted)....they both need the same equipment, arsenal, supplies, support, etc.... It would not be any cheaper or run more efficiently. Not only would you spend time drawing, notifying, and transporting millions of conscripts...you'd have to put more resources into tracking down AWOLs and draft dodgers that have fled to Canada and Mexico.

I won't mention the specifics about the other threads, but I've also already addressed the fact you apply the wrong conlcusions to your evidence, and therefore do not deserve a dignified response. Until you can learn to get your shit together and actually post a conclusion that actually reflects the information, I will continue to call you out on your stupidity.

 

[jillian]

Will you ever stick to the actual issue?

Can you?

Why do you have to bore me with your long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with the specific topics of interest?

We keep telling you, baby, you only get to post *your* post. After that, people do with it what they will. And, apparently, they have.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because your "topic of interest" is not interesting when you plague it with a faulty conclusion. I've already addressed the actual issue and you've chosen to ignore it.

You certainly have not.

 

[BrianH]

You certainly have not.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/54341-15-billion-unaccounted-for-in-iraq-4.html#post694318

 

[mightypeon]

Germanys political situation is quite close to the one of the US, while noone (save some "Terrorist" nutheads who are in no way able to bring down a nation) wishes to invade them, their forces are mainly used for interventionist purposes as well as some catastrophe relief.

Beeing German, it is the German system I can talk about most.
Every Male in Germany has to serve (unless he is Jewish, has 2 brothers who served etc.). He can either serve in the army or in a "civil service" which can be anything from working in a libary to working in a hospital. This choice can be made quite freely.

Currently, only the ones with a relativly decent fitness (second highest grade, I have no idea how this translates into the US recruit graduation) who do not wish to do civil service are drafted into the army.
There they serve 9 months, unless they specifically apply for it, they will not be send into other countries. It is possible for a conscript to prolong his stay for an additional 15 months (with 3 times increased pay per month), this can be done at enrollment or during the 9 months, the latter beeing prefered since it gives the army time to evaluate the conscript. It is quite frequent for a basic conscript to become interested in pursuing an officer or NCO carreer.

Basically, the German army uses conscription as a screening process with the goal of recruiting the top 10-20 percent of each recruitment run into actual positions. They are especially interested in recruit with a fairly good education.

Based on many factors they more or less succeed with that.
Active Draft avoidance (like running away to Russia) is rare, few people wish to become a fugitive just to dodge 9 months of boredom. Showing up Drunk/Stoned/Crazy at the pre enrollment evaluation is quite frequent(and fairly unsuccesfull).


For several reasons I doubt that this approach would work in the USA.
Germany has a draft tradition that goes back to the middle ages, America does not. While instating a draft because of manpower shortages could be possible politically ("We need more soldiers!") getting one for gaining better ones is likely unfeasable. Also, Draft avoidance in Germany is low because draftess will not end up in Irak/Afghanistan, also, they can exclude the possibility of ending up there by going into the civil service.
Last but not least, the Germans are very serious about not starting/aiding "aggressive wars". In fact, there is a law suit against Rumsfeld (charged with conducting an aggressive war, charged in Germany because the US fails to persecute him) in Germany which, as a matter of fact, made him cancel any visits to Germany. Since beeing a part of an agressive war is the last thing a draftee wants to be, this does help do reduce dodging.


A direct Draft, which means give random male people a Gun and send them to Irak/Vietnam whereever is not going to be succesfull in the case of the USA. It does work for repressive systems like Imperial japan, the 3. Reich and the Soviet Union, provided they maintain propaganda control, it would not work for a democracy at least not if they are not directly threatened.


Other notable military entities with draft systems are Russia, Israel and South Korea, however my knowledge here is a bit limited.

 

[Reality]

I am totally against a draft. It would bring in people like you who have NO business in MY Army.

Stay in Canada....they like folks like you.

YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.

Your fucking military....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.

Your fucking military....

Glad you want no part of MY Military. As well.

 

[Gunny]

YOUR Military? You fucking waste of space. Its politically paranoid scitzos like you, who think the military is YOURS, that give us war in perpetuity against a verb like the current iteration of the war in Vietnam currently in the middle east. The only thing killing the draft did is make these half-witted excursions a reality for people who view the world like Stalin did.

Your fucking military....

Who the fuck are you, pissant?

 

[Bootneck]

Who the fuck are you, pissant?

I think he's a politically paranoid scitzo.

 

[Shogun]

Id imagine that "my" military was in reference to their service IN the military.


what a silly strawman to tangent the topic of the thread..

 

[BrianH]

I think he's a politically paranoid scitzo.

Hmmm...........

 

[Ravi]

Damn, Sheptard got banned? He was a hoot.

 

[Charles_Main]

No need for a draft, unless we are planning to go to war with China. A profession army is 10 times better than a conscripted one.

 

[BrianH]

Damn, Sheptard got banned? He was a hoot.

Sure enough....I never looked at it before. The Good Shemptard. LOL.