Who Here Supports a Draft?

[Gunny]

Also, please don't post the same thread twice in two different places. If you wish to have a thread title corrected, changed, moved or deleted, PM one of the staff and under normal circumstances we will be more than happy to help you out.

Thanks

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

The EXACT same conclusion can be reached regarding your initial post and premise of this thread.

If that's what you think, then explain yourself. Because what I offered in my first post (which is opinion) is vastly different than someone trying to pass off as fact, a claim based off of a myth.

 

[Gunny]

If that's what you think, then explain yourself. Because what I offered in my first post (which is opinion) is vastly different than someone trying to pass off as fact, a claim based off of a myth.

See post #83, previous page.

And THIS is a perfect example why not to post the same topic twice in different places. I responded to your initial comment in one thread, then came back to the same thread topic and responded again, only it was in a different thread.

We need to try and keep the confusion down to a dull roar here.

 

[mattskramer]

As far as war goes, who wants to fight a so-called war politics won't allow you to win? That's not fighting a war. It's being a target.

Thanks for the information but first of all, I would ask what constitutes winning the war? The democrats consider that we have done enough. We defeated Sadam. We practically imposed a new system of government. We trained Iraqi soldiers and police. In that sense, we won or at least did our share. Now it is time for use to remove a large portion of our military from Iraq and force the Iraqi citizens to take care of their own nation. The republican perspective is that it is not time to pull out. We should remain there indefinitely – perhaps 100 years according to McCain.

Secondly, as I said before, I don’t want some commanding officer telling me where I should go and what I should do when it involves risking my life. After all is said and done, was our going to war really worth it? Was it worth so many deaths and so much destruction? I doubt it. Saddam was not a significant threat to America. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but there are more powerful evil dictators that warrant more attention than Saddam ever did.

It just was not worth it from the start and that is one big reason why I shy away from being a soldier. WWII – You bet ya. I would have gone in there with guns blazing. The Iraq war – errrr. No thanks.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks for the information but first of all, I would ask what constitutes winning the war? The democrats consider that we have done enough. We defeated Sadam. We practically imposed a new system of government. We trained Iraqi soldiers and police. In that sense, we won or at least did our share. Now it is time for use to remove a large portion of our military from Iraq and force the Iraqi citizens to take care of their own nation. The republican perspective is that it is not time to pull out. We should remain there indefinitely – perhaps 100 years according to McCain.

You and I are pretty much in agreement, with the usual few minor changes.

While I agree in principle we should be able to pull back, I'd say the answer lies with this question: Do you think if we pull back now, the Iraqi government could and would stand on its own?

While the left is trying to sell each other and the rest on pulling out "now," do you actually think that if a Democrat is elected President that it will actually happen?

Do you really think a Democrat is going to pull us out, taking the chance that the Iraqi government collapses? The song and dance isn't going to matter. The left will take the blame based on "everything was fine til you screwed it up." And you can bet your last dollar THAT is how it will be sold, and THAT is how it will be perceived.

Secondly, as I said before, I don’t want some commanding officer telling me where I should go and what I should do when it involves risking my life. After all is said and done, was our going to war really worth it? Was it worth so many deaths and so much destruction? I doubt it. Saddam was not a significant threat to America. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but there are more powerful evil dictators that warrant more attention than Saddam ever did.

It just was not worth it from the start and that is one big reason why I shy away from being a soldier. WWII – You bet ya. I would have gone in there with guns blazing. The Iraq war – errrr. No thanks.

You need to read my comments on the draft. I don't support it, and I used a generalization of the sentiments you are stating. Quite simply, for whatever reason(s), and I have no reason to disrespect your beliefs, if you don't want to be there, I don't want you there.

Since you tossed it in the ring, what I will say is that is my opinion based on current circumstances. If this nation was in a war for its survival, I would expect everyone that enjoys its freedoms should be toting a rifle.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

When aren't "some Army officials" requesting more troops, war or no? Be specific as to your claim and support it with some fact.

Hiring contract civilians is a smoke and mirror job to give the appearance of carrying out military downsizing. It started in the late 80s under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and is in no way a result of current events.


Plain and simple ... the draft forces people to be in the military and it should be avoided at all costs. It's hard enough training people who WANT to be there, and I damned sure don't need some psycho-numbnuts who hates the world because he was drafted carrying a loaded weapon behind me.

Then there's the "one size fits all" part of your little theory. There are people who just don't belong in the military just as I know damned-well I don't belong on a car lot selling cars. I can see it now ... "C'Mere and buy this f-ing car."

Some, like you, are on their second thread after joining this board bashing the capabilities of the US military without any real clue what they're talking about.

Why would I want someone like YOU in my company destroying the morale of my Marines and half-assing everything you do when it only takes the time of you questioning an order to get most of those Marines DEAD?

Feel free to explain.

Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA (all volunteer army) has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.

I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.

Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater". The reasons are obvious for the jump. It pays more, soldiers have vast legal protections, they serve less time and have better equipment than your regular joe.

The US military, along with some ambitious Washington politicians, thought outsourcing the war in Iraq to mercenaries was/is an integral part of the AVA. They argued it was part of a "cost cutting" measure designed to lead a more efficient US military. In fact, it turned out to be anything but an honest attempt to save money. Instead it turned into a grotesque swindle of soldiers and taxpayers. Remember, the executive administration smeared those who argued that the Iraq war could cost hundreds of billions of dollars or more, some were even forced to resign or had their credibility attacked. Washington claimed the Iraq war would " pay for itself."

Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term.

Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?

Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty. Thousands of IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers. Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty. Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.

And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for a surge at all?

That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's inherent design flaws have been exposed in Iraq.

Even if we went into Iraq knowing there was going to be a draft. I do not think the fraud, the waste, the overcharging etc would have occurred in Iraq in the same proportions that is going on right now had we conscripted citizens into battle.

The AVA has been a dismal failure. And the Iraq war is evidence of that.

That is my opinion.

 

[BrianH]

I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.

with all due respect...you can't make a baseless opinionated thread supported with nothing, and expect a serious discussion.

You also can't say that the military is doing a bad job, when it's not the military making the deicisions. We have the most effective military force on the planet. (if you don't agree, where's your proof--opinions and speculation are not proof) The fact is, even though you don't agree with the war, the troops do a good job of doing what they're ordered to do. The military does a great job, simple as that...the politicians (much like in Vietnam) have done a shitty job of getting things done...it's a political war, hence, the politicians make the decisions.

 

[BrianH]

Certainly. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA (all volunteer army) has been a disaster for America. I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management complete with outright fraud, waste, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at criminal rates.

Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater". The reasons are obvious. It pays more, soldiers have more "legal flexibility", they serve less time and have better equipment than your regular joe.

How is this possible? Oh yes, because the US military thought outsourcing the war in Iraq to mercenaries was/is an integral part of the AVA.

Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term.

Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?

Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty. Thousands of IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers. Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty. Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.

And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for surge at all?

That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's flaws have been exposed in Iraq.

So it's the military doing this??? Let me fill you in on something, the military does what the government (president/congress, etc...) says they do. The military hates mercenaries like black-water. Sure they're helpful, but they get paid out of the ass for nothing more than "doing business" for greed, while the AMerican soldier's salary gets shit on. And I'm not sure that the payments payed to black-water are coming out of the military treasury....

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

So it's the military doing this??? Let me fill you in on something, the military does what the government (president/congress, etc...) says they do. The military hates mercenaries like black-water. Sure they're helpful, but they get paid out of the ass for nothing more than "doing business" for greed, while the AMerican soldier's salary gets shit on. And I'm not sure that the payments payed to black-water are coming out of the military treasury....

I never ever claimed it was coming from the military treasury. The point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket - which it does.

 

[BrianH]

I never ever claimed it was coming from the military treasury. Though the point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket.

So because the money comes from tax-payers pocket, that means the military doesn't do a good job. THose two things aren't even closely related.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

So because the money comes from tax-payers pocket, that means the military doesn't do a good job. THose two things aren't even closely related.

You have some serious reading comprehension problems.

 

[midcan5]

This is getting too long for easy review.

Knowing many WWII vets, few think it was a 'good war' actually maybe none. The only good thing is it ended in capitulation by three countries that attempted to create an imperialist world. All GIs were glad it was over.

I have read that no insurgency type war has ever been won but is Iraq an insurgency or an occupation of a country torn by civil unrest and sectarian difference. We went in and made a mess plain and simple. You cannot create the necessary infrastructure out of dust.

And to ask the question I asked above, how is it that Americans today have no sense of duty and would rather contract out our duty as citizens etc. And a volunteer military could work but I agree it could eventually become another failed business venture - could, because it is not close yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA (all volunteer army) has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.

I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.

Wrong as usual. Blackwater and such companies exist because people like you agreed cutting the army to the bone was a good idea, they exist because there are no troops to assign those jobs to. They do NOT exist because someone claimed it would be cheaper to hire civilians.

Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater". The reasons are obvious for the jump. It pays more, soldiers have vast legal protections, they serve less time and have better equipment than your regular joe.

The US military, along with some ambitious Washington politicians, thought outsourcing the war in Iraq to mercenaries was/is an integral part of the AVA. They argued it was part of a "cost cutting" measure designed to lead a more efficient US military. In fact, it turned out to be anything but an honest attempt to save money. Instead it turned into a grotesque swindle of soldiers and taxpayers. Remember, the executive administration smeared those who argued that the Iraq war could cost hundreds of billions of dollars or more, some were even forced to resign or had their credibility attacked. Washington claimed the Iraq war would " pay for itself."

Let us see, what is it we are missing? Ohh ya, proof your claims are even remotely true. provide us some links to sources and documents that support the above claims.

Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term.

Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?

Every member of the military is told about stop loss and they are told about what happens to the IRR in case of MILITARY need. Claiming otherwise is an outright lie.

Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty. Thousands of IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers. Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty. Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.

IRR is actually the inactive service obligated period that everyone signs on when they join. I believe currently everyone that joins is obligated for 8 years but can chose to serve 4 or 6 active and the rest in IRR. And again IRR is explained to the person before they sign the dotted line. They are not part time soldiers, your thinking of the National Guard. And the National Guard also knows that in time of need THEY get activated. Years ago the Army decided that the Guard would be considered part of the active force for planning purposes. 1/3 of every Division was a Guard Brigade, that would be activated in time of need.

And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for a surge at all?

That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's inherent design flaws have been exposed in Iraq.

Absolute hogwash. You can not even support any of your claims. And then add this as well.

Even if we went into Iraq knowing there was going to be a draft. I do not think the fraud, the waste, the overcharging etc would have occurred in Iraq in the same proportions that is going on right now had we conscripted citizens into battle.

The AVA has been a dismal failure. And the Iraq war is evidence of that.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is completely incorrect. It is hardly based on facts, or you would be providing those facts rather than " your opinion".

 

[Swamp Fox]

More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.

Just because one is too lazy to get his ass to a library and do some research does not mean papers researching Clinton's executive decisions regarding military deployment exist.

Goodshithead,
The only one spewing garbage here is you. And Clinton did deploy the military more then any other president.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Your opinion is completely incorrect. It is hardly based on facts, or you would be providing those facts rather than " your opinion".

 

[dread]

I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.

Where is your empirical evidence for this?

 

[dread]

More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.

Where is your empirical evidence of this?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Goodshithead,
The only one spewing garbage here is you. And Clinton did deploy the military more then any other president.

As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.

 

[dread]

As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.

You post here so you dont get that option.

 

[Swamp Fox]

As evidenced by your personal attacks, you are a waste of time. Put me ignore. I don't want you anywhere near me, or my threads.

What are you, 5? Are you going to run to your room and pout now? Maybe you should stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until I leave the thread.