Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[Smurf]

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US.

That doesn't really mean anything since it's Total $$ that counts, not GDP. Does it give an actual budget number you can compare? Either that or you could look at their source for GDP and work it out.

The war with Japan did not end with naval battles, they involved hard fighting on land, a landwar that was planned on being taken to their own capital.

It was actually an island hopping war and involved some pretty intense logistics. Now, I don't doubt China could do that today if necessary, but it's pretty obvious that America has a lot better logistical understanding and capability than China.
But that's completely besides the point anyways, what DOES this have to do with anything?

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

Yes.. yes it would. No one wants a major war - No one gets a major war. Seems pretty simple to me. Taiwan doesn't exactly have huge importance to China and USA, mainly domestic and diplomatic.

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave. We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland. If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

Actually that's probably exactly what's going to happen. One of you will come out on top and the other will back down.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not suggesting China's going to nuke the US. Or wait, an invasion force through space? COME ON! CHINA ISN'T GOING TO ATTACK MAINLAND USA OVER TAIWAN MAN!

P.S. And I wouldn't say MacArthur wanted to nuke China. He talked openly about it mostly as rhetoric for political reasons. I don't think MacArthur, had he had the power, would have wanted a full scale war with China. Let alone nuclear.

 

[Grogs]

P.S. And I wouldn't say MacArthur wanted to nuke China. He talked openly about it mostly as rhetoric for political reasons. I don't think MacArthur, had he had the power, would have wanted a full scale war with China. Let alone nuclear.

'Wanted' is probably not the right word, but from what I know about the man, I suspect he considered it a very viable option. He wouldn't have wanted a full scale war, but I think he was willing to do whatever it took to drive the Chinese forces back across the Yalu river, regardless of the consequences.

You have to remember that MacArthur was the senior Army commander in the WWII Pacific theater. It was a pretty common thing to load up hundreds of bombers with incendiaries and firebomb the heck out of Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Undoubtedly, he also knew about the massive bombing raids in German cities like Berlin and Dresden. That was the mindset, flatten the cities to win the war.

He was also deeply involved in the planning for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. He knew the figures for how many thousands were expected to die during the invasion. He also saw, firsthand, how 2 atomic bombs brought the war to a close and made the invasion unnecessary.

You also have to remember the climate of the time. Nuclear power was new, and thought to be the way of the future. Lobbing a few artillery propelled tactical nukes into enemy troops, dropping a few larger ones on key cities, and then mopping up with ground troops was considered to be a feasible military option.

 

[Rev Prez]

I really don't see the point in discussing barrel sizes or missile range or any of that crap since we are not qualified to know what any of that means.

Speak for yourself. I'm thoroughly qualified to understand measures of length and distance.

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US..

CIA gives GDP as given in PPP, which you should know is useless for determining the purchasing power of a country with respect to foreign goods and is therefore useless to plot expenditure against quality in warfighting systems. The relevant figure is the $70 billion expenditure estimate calculated under real exchange. We spend about as much or more each on personnel, procurement, revolving and management, and operations and maintenance than they do on their entire force. [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2006_greenbook.pdf]

And that is a GDP that the US is contributing to by importing goods, I might add! very smart!

The opportunity costs of letting Chinese industry and modernization languish far outweigh the risks of economically engaging the mainland in a way that is only marginally advantageous to Beijing strategically. The Chinese are no greater threat to us than when they first acquired the ability to hit our shores with nuclear weapons. They have no nuclear counterforce capability to speak of, and really that's the only jump in the nuclear sphere that matters. The US margin of militarity superiority--more importantly, Taiwan's as well--has remained constant and comfortably large.

Apparently Rumsfeld does not share you optimistic appraisal of the situation:

Actually, he does given the narrow focus of the hearing--Chinese naval power. Read again, and pay close attention to the excerpt from his testimony.

Look here Reverend...

Are you really that thick? I'm no Reverend.

...if we were ever attacked by China militarily (especially in a confrontation with Taiwan) then we would kick their ass all the way back through their own turf to set an example against making a direct military challenge to the US.

If we were ever attacked militarily by China, we would either win in that sphere or it would go nuclear. There is no strategic reason to invade China whatsoever--face it.

I will refer you back to WWII and the use of nuclear weapons on Japan - which was preceded by a planned land invasion of Japan to stop the aggressor - as a case in point.

WWII was also fought largely before the advent of nuclear sovereignty. Counterpoint: there were never any plans to take a war in Central Europe against the Soviets to Moscow; no planner could possibly anticipated such an end occurring before a nuclear exchange. Couterpoint two: throughout the entirety of the Vietnam War the United States did not pursue any strategy to end North Vietnam as a sovereign state, and in 1991 Coalition members commonly understood their mission was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait while leaving Baghdad intact. The absurdity of this point exceeds even your comparison of American and Chinese defense spending-to-GDP ratios.

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

And your opinion is foolishly held, at length, against tons of better reasoning and probably some of it yoru own.

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave.

No, the United States would break Beijing's ability to project power beyond her borders.

We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland.

You do realize that there was a fairly recent war where we did exactly that, through a series of UN Security Council resolutions that spelled out the aggressor's obligations to the injured party and to a disarmament process. The aggressor regime survived another fourteen years, much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president.

If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

And you inanely conclude that the only way to achieve this is through waging a land war on their territory.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

The Chinese already have an adequate countervalue force; who cares? That's what constrains action in the first place.

And I do not care what you believe. I think that you are a reverend though, since you preach alot.

And I think you're a high school kid who likes to pretend to knowledge he lacks; you flub a lot.

You are wrong again:

A conclusion reached only if you complete ignore what I've just said said. [http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/coll3/image/13.pdf ]

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

That doesn't really mean anything since it's Total $$ that counts, not GDP. Does it give an actual budget number you can compare? Either that or you could look at their source for GDP and work it out.

Military spending as % GDP indicates how important military growth is to that country. While it is absolutely clear that China's military spending is still less than the US, based upon the current rates of growth (for both China and the US) China's military is expected to surpass the US within 10-20 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm thoroughly qualified to understand measures of length and distance.

oh, ok there Euclid...i forgot that you tend to demand mathematical equations for politics

Actually, he does given the narrow focus of the hearing--Chinese naval power. Read again, and pay close attention to the excerpt from his testimony.

I guess I have to quote things verbatim, since it seems that you will not acknowledge them:

The plan is contained in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday defended, saying the military was closely watching China's moves but that the U.S. Navy remains the pre-eminent fleet.

``The United States Navy ... is the Navy on the face of the Earth that is a true blue water navy,'' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ``On the other hand, when one looks at trend lines, it is something that we have to think about.''

[snip]

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whose state of Maine is home to the Bath Iron Works, one of the Navy's largest ship builders, expressed her reservations to Rumsfeld.

``I recognize that our naval fleet still remains the most technologically advanced in the world. But the decreasing number of ships being procured, particularly in the light of the Chinese buildup, really concerns me,'' she said.

``Are you concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade's time?''

``Senator,'' Rumsfeld replied, ``it is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to.''

One of Rumsfeld's top aides, Douglas Feith, echoed the secretary's views in an appearance later Thursday before the Council on Foreign Relations, a private think tank.

Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, singled out China as among ``important powers in the world,'' whose strategic choices will influence U.S. national security.

``Of the new powers that are rising ... the country that can be expected to have the greatest effect on international relations is China,'' Feith said.

So..not exactly the force that you seem to describe: a bunch of retards with nothing but rowboats and BB guns?

Couterpoint two: throughout the entirety of the Vietnam War the United States did not pursue any strategy to end North Vietnam as a sovereign state

1) when did i say anything about ending chinese sovereignty??
2) we lost the vietnam war, so it wasn't really an option!
3) your statement makes no sense since the goal was to eliminate communism in vietnam and southeast asia - i find it hard to imagine how that would happen without removing the political boundary between north and south vietnam, which would remove the sovereignty of the north wouldn't it.
4) if you are saying that we purposely just wanted to maintain a line between the north and south, (like the 38th parallel in korea) then you are utterly ignorant of facts.
5) In analogy to Korea, leaving the agressor untouched on their own home turf only postpones the problem.

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked. (Really, if we were attacked to get to Taiwan). They could attack Taiwan, we repel, they attack, we repel..no, i don't think so. We would not just sit there repelling their attacks constantly. The obvious solution would be to let them know that there will be reprocussions if they do that, which could involve limited strikes against their mainland (or at least the threat of this by having plans on the table).

You do realize that there was a fairly recent war where we did exactly that, through a series of UN Security Council resolutions that spelled out the aggressor's obligations to the injured party and to a disarmament process. The aggressor regime survived another fourteen years, much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president.

Yes, a war that I support, I might add. And did we invade Baghdad the first time? No, and that was not a very good decision since we wound up having to do it all over again 15 years later. I guess that you are agreeing with me, since as a result "much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president"? I appreciate the point that you are making for me.

A conclusion reached only if you complete ignore what I've just said said.http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/coll3/image/13.pdf ]

Grow up and put down the GI Joe dolls. Unless you are a former naval officer it is completey foolish to try to discuss things like "which battle formation is superior" or whether an American missile is better than a Chinese missile, etc. I find it funny how someone reads a Time magazine article and they are suddenly an expert

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was stationed on a nuke sub. During his time in the service, he was utterly convinced that the Soviet technology was garbage, that there was no way in hell the Soviets could stand up to the US militarily due to our far-advanced technology. After his service, he came to realize that infact the Soviet military technology was just as advanced as ours, in some cases more so. He felt that the illusion was maintained by the service to keep the morale of the forces in place, but in reality is without basis.

Face facts: the Chinese are the next potential military threat to the US, everyone seems to acknowledge this except you.

 

[Art]

Quetzalcoatl9 I find myself in the disturbing position of agreeing with you
Something Prez missed in his analysis comparing military spend was that ultimately most of the US military force will remain in the US whilst China is fighting on home turf. Meaning America will only be able to bring perhaps 10% of her military arsenal to bear whilst perhaps 90% of China's will be available to her.
A useful analogy is the Falklands war. Although overall Britains armed forces dwarfed Argentina's in both quality and quantity the amount of this might that Britain could actually bring to bear in the conflict was very small. to the extent that Britains military commander in charge of the campaign said afterwards that they had been extremely fortunate to win it.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Quetzalcoatl9 I find myself in the disturbing position of agreeing with you

whoa...<falls out of chair>

 

[edward]

Draft or China?

If we invade any other country the draft will be inevitable. Recruiters did however meet their June goals by being allowed to accept high school drop outs and giving cash enlistment bonuses to others.

As far as China goes, the Chinese can bring us to our knees by simply refusing to export goods for six months.

 

[Smurf]

Face facts: the Chinese are the next potential military threat to the US, everyone seems to acknowledge this except you.

I have a big problem with this statement, especially since you claim it as 'fact'. China is in no way, what so ever, a threat to the integrity of the USA. The United States hasn't had an actual military threat to it since 1812 and it's not going to change simply because China gets a few extra dollars. America won't be threatened because someone else becomes a superpower, they'll be threatened when they can no longer be considered a superpower themselves.

 

[Smurf]

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked. (Really, if we were attacked to get to Taiwan). They could attack Taiwan, we repel, they attack, we repel..no, i don't think so. We would not just sit there repelling their attacks constantly. The obvious solution would be to let them know that there will be reprocussions if they do that, which could involve limited strikes against their mainland (or at least the threat of this by having plans on the table).

Just how important do you think Taiwan really is? The entire conflict will be over in a matter of days. The winner will be largely dependant on how much of their forces China decides to use for the attack and how much of USA's forces can get there in time. One of you will come out on top, take the island and a cease fire will be declared so everybody's military can stand around for a couple months while the silly politicians squabble over peace treaties before being demobilized.

 

[Art]

Just how important do you think Taiwan really is?

Taiwan is very important economically. I remember seeing an analysis done back in 1996 when tension was high and something like 70% of the worlds memory chips were produced there and very high percentages of other strategically important components too. All in a few large business parks. I don't know how much has changed since then but the conclusion at that time was that just a few missiles in the right places would devastate the entire world's economy.

 

[Rev Prez]

Military spending as % GDP indicates how important military growth is to that country.

No, it doesn't. Thirty five countries, including Greece and Maldives, rank higher than the US is defense spending to GDP. [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html] And here I thought pulling nonsense out of thin air was Art's specialty.

While it is absolutely clear that China's military spending is still less than the US, based upon the current rates of growth (for both China and the US) China's military is expected to surpass the US within 10-20 years.

Yet something else you've made up. Even if China's official growth rate of 9 percent isn't exaggerated, and even if she could sustain that high growth for twenty years, at a starting point of $1.2 trillion GDP under real exchange she'll have only grown to $7 trillion in twenty years. Needless to say, 4.3 percent of $7 trillion is a $100 billion short of US American defense spending today. Do you even bother to do the math?

oh, ok there Euclid...i forgot that you tend to demand mathematical equations for politics

Most political scientists do, and we're talking about defense budgeting. What? Did you think numbers had nothing to do with it?

I guess I have to quote things verbatim, since it seems that you will not acknowledge them:

I guess you'll have to actually find some supporting evidence. Here's a clue, though; the PRC already outnumbers the US in combatants. But who really cares if China has more than 300 ships? China already outnumbers in submarines, although three fifths of their undersea fleet are old Ming and Romeo boats from the 1950s restricted to brown water action (if that, since most are laid up). The bulk of their fleet are aging frigates, patrol boats, mine warfare ships and small craft.

So..not exactly the force that you seem to describe: a bunch of retards with nothing but rowboats and BB guns?

When you're done failing to find a single post of mine expressing such stupidity, you can save us both the trouble and call yourself an idiot.

1) when did i say anything about ending chinese sovereignty??

When you insisted we would fight them as we did the Japanese.

2) we lost the vietnam war, so it wasn't really an option!

South Vietnam lost the war, but that's another thread. The fact remains that your thesis that we necessarily take the fight into enemy territory is both absurdly off base.

3) your statement makes no sense since the goal was to eliminate communism in vietnam and southeast asia...

The goal was to stop Communism from spreading into South Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Your point is moot.

4) if you are saying that we purposely just wanted to maintain a line between the north and south, (like the 38th parallel in korea) then you are utterly ignorant of facts.

We had reason not to go north, reasons that far outweighed any consideration of knocking Hanoi of the face of the Earth.

5) In analogy to Korea, leaving the agressor untouched on their own home turf only postpones the problem.

Which is also absurd. The entire course of the war between November 1950 through to 1953 was fought without touching the aggressor's home turf.

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked.

We wouldn't have to. We would take the opportunity to destroy Chinese naval power and probably their short and intermediate range ballistic missile capabily.

Yes, a war that I support, I might add.

Who cares?

And did we invade Baghdad the first time? No, and that was not a very good decision since we wound up having to do it all over again 15 years later.

You have a very short attention span. You're trying to show that a war with China has an appreciable chance of ending up on the mainland. The Persian Gulf war achieved its limited objective, and Hussein never again invaded Kuwait or attacked any of his neighbors. That the Coalition ended up going back has nothing to do with the way the war was fought the first time around.

Unless you are a former naval officer it is completey foolish to try to discuss things like "which battle formation is superior" or whether an American missile is better than a Chinese missile, etc.

If you believe that, you have nothing to add here. So why do you insist on acting in a way you find foolish?

I find it funny how someone reads a Time magazine article and they are suddenly an expert

And since all you apparently have read is one article in the Times, perhaps its time for you to shut up and move on.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was stationed on a nuke sub.

You had no such friend.

Face facts:

This coming from a guy so patently and pathetically dishonest he gets knocked down by his own strawmen.

Rev Prez

 

[edward]

China

China doesn't have to do much militarily. At the current rate of industrialization in China, and the current rate of factory closings here, it is a moot point. They are gaining rapidly on us in both basic industry and technology.

Why would they go to war with their best customer?

http://www.itnetcentral.com/pcworld/article.asp?id=13650&info=PC+World&leveli=0

 

[Art]

And here I thought pulling nonsense out of thin air was Art's specialty.
Rev Prez

I have to contradict you on this point Prez as you are inarguably wrong, if you were hanging in thin air as you suggest, I assure you I wouldn't pull you out.
The oxygen saved by your absence would be a far greater contribution to the environment than the hot air you expel.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No, it doesn't. Thirty five countries, including Greece and Maldives...

<senseless ranting..>

...


<more senseless ranting, unsupported by facts>

Who cares?

Indeed.

I will leave you to your unsupported ideas that contradict all of the legitimate sources that I've posted, along with your childish assumptions and one-liners. In the words of Paul Harvey: "Good day!"

 

[edward]

original topic

It was lost in a childish pissing contest

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.kizash.com/films/1001/138/index.php

Says it all...

 

[Art]

http://www.kizash.com/films/1001/138/index.php

Says it all...

lol Thanks for that SOS it's hilarious So was the Britney Spears one on the same site

 

[The Smoking Man]

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

You missed one.

Even the national guard is hurting because of their new role abroad.

Bush used it to stay out of 'Nam and then took this option away from the populace by posting them abroad.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050711/us_nm/arms_usa_recruiting_dc_1][/PLAIN]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Army National Guard, struggling more than any other part of the U.S. military to sign up new troops amid the
Iraq war, missed its ninth straight monthly recruiting goal in June, officials said on Monday.

In danger of missing a third straight annual recruiting goal, the Army National Guard fell 14 percent short of its June recruiting target, the
Pentagon said. Three quarters through fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30, the Army National Guard stood 23 percent behind its year-to-date goal.

"I can tell you their goal is at risk, so we're concerned," Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said of the 2005 goal of 63,002 new soldiers.

...

Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, said another factor was that a declining number of soldiers at the end of their regular Army commitment were joining the National Guard. Allen said traditionally half of the National Guard was soldiers with prior military service, but the figure was now 35 percent.

"If you left the Army today and the reason you left was because of the overseas deployments, if that was a negative for you, why would you get in the Guard and face the same thing?" Allen asked.

 

[BobG]

"If you left the Army today and the reason you left was because of the overseas deployments, if that was a negative for you, why would you get in the Guard and face the same thing?" Allen asked.

The key is the overseas deployments - not just deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Part of the post-cold war dividend has been saving on military spending. The size of the forces have been reduced and the number of overseas bases have been reduced.

Meanwhile, the military has been expected to pick up new roles, since the absence of the cold war has made it harder to justify a large military. Now, they perform peace keeping missions and help block drugs from entering the US in addition to their traditional roles.

The military has transitioned to an expeditionary force. The fewer number of overseas military personnel has been offset by the reduction in the overall size of the military and new roles and military personnel are actually more likely to be stationed away from their family than they were during the cold war.

There's a key difference between being stationed at an overseas military base for a few years with your family or going on ever more frequent unaccompanied tours without your family for 6 months to a year. The tours may be shorter, but they result in major disruptions of the entire family. It makes it a lot harder to decide on the military as a 20 year career. While they may personally love the job they do in the military, it gets hard to ask their entire family to sacrifice so often for so long.

The Guard was a natural to be hit hard by the deployments. They experienced a boom of experienced well-qualified personnel trying to find a balance between their personal desires and family life. Now those same folks will just leave the military completely. If they weren't willing to make those kinds of family sacrifices for a full-time job, they're sure not going to make them for a part-time job.

All-in-all, people should realize that a smaller force means less capability. You can't rely on short termers in a military force that's become more and more dependent on high-tech tools (which means the Army's new shorter terms and/or a draft are pretty much worthless). You get what you pay for. Right now, taxpayers have a force that can defeat just about anyone fairly easily in battle provided they only fight in one theater at a time. Taxpayers don't have a force that can easily win two major wars in both the Middle East and Asia simultaneously as they were capable of during the cold war and they don't have a force that can occupy an invaded country without some major sacrifices - like the end of the National Guard's heyday of the 90's. They'll return to being more like the National Guard George Bush served in.

 

[Informal Logic]

We have a lot of young adults living at home with their parents because they are too spoiled to get out and struggle a little and make their own way. Also, they need their eyes opened to parts of the world outside our borders. Maybe a draft would be a good thing for America.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

We have a lot of young adults living at home with their parents because they are too spoiled to get out and struggle a little and make their own way. Also, they need their eyes opened to parts of the world outside our borders. Maybe a draft would be a good thing for America.

Are you sure that you don't mean a "mandatory service" rather than a "draft"? Because there is a difference.

A draft is when there are not enough reserve troops to support a war. This is usually a sign of horrific loses, where they need more meat to throw into the grinder to advance the machine. We could expect general civil unrest in such a situation, as history has shown.

A mandatory service would be requiring young people to spend a certain amount of time in gov. service (during both wartime or peacetime). Such a thing may not be a bad idea, and many countries with small populations are currently doing this in order to maintain a working defense.

 

[Rev Prez]

You missed one.

Even the national guard is hurting because of their new role abroad.

Have you been asleep for the past twenty years? The National Guard's been deploying regularly under 'total force' for a long time.

Rev Prez

 

[BobG]

Have you been asleep for the past twenty years? The National Guard's been deploying regularly under 'total force' for a long time.

Rev Prez

Air National Guard. But most fighter pilots just ask if they'll get to fly first, and wait until they're there to ask where they're going. In other words, the Air National Guard requests to be called-up instead of waiting for the need to arise.

Army National Guard and other ground based folks are usually only called up by the governor to respond to disasters in their own state. It takes a real crisis for them to be deployed overseas.

The Reserves, on the other hand, are called to active duty under less urgent conditions - whenever the manpower requirements surge beyond the capability of the active duty force. They still weren't called up all that often before the active duty reductions in the 90's and the advent of the 'Total Force' concept.

 

[russ_watters]

We often see reservists on tv and in the newspapers complaining about having to fulfil their obligation. That disgusts me. It means they joined for the money/benefits and hoped they'd never be called up. If they didn't want to server their country if called upon, they shouldn't have joined.

When I left the navy, I considered joining the reserves, but didn't precisly because I didn't want to be one of those guys.

 

[BobG]

We often see reservists on tv and in the newspapers complaining about having to fulfil their obligation. That disgusts me. It means they joined for the money/benefits and hoped they'd never be called up. If they didn't want to server their country if called upon, they shouldn't have joined.

When I left the navy, I considered joining the reserves, but didn't precisly because I didn't want to be one of those guys.

Same here. One of my reasons for getting out is that, at 20 years you're basically working for half pay (you could get your retirement pay just sitting at home). When you compare that to what you make in the civilian world, the difference is so big I would have felt like a fool to stay in.

I did consider joining the reserves specifically because I knew what I'd be doing if deployed (I had a nerd job - the only battlefields I saw were on TV). Still, while you're called up to active duty, your retirement pay stops (fair enough). The company I work for pays you the difference between your active duty pay and their pay (more than fair, in my opinion) However, they don't take into account that your retirement pay stopped (very few retirees join the reserves just for this reason). There's also a limit to how many days even a pro-military company compensates you - normally about 30 days worth.

I can understand some complaints from reservists deployed for 6 months to a year. Some (especially reservists in the medical field) are taking quite a big financial hit for being deployed. They should have known that risk existed going in and, but it has to get frustrating when the deployments last so long they start having trouble making their house payments. Rather than being disgusted, I consider it taking advantage of a respected military tradition - griping about your problems (it makes you feel better - really).

 

[hypatia]

Except now the reservists who have been there a year are being told they will half to stay longer.

 

[edward]

Few troops complained about the inital deployments. It is the multiple deployments that they are having a hard time accepting. I read that over 15% of those who were initially deployed have gone a second time and some are waiting for the call to go a third. That link was dated 2004.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Few troops complained about the inital deployments. It is the multiple deployments that they are having a hard time accepting. I read that over 15% of those who were initially deployed have gone a second time and some are waiting for the call to go a third. That link was dated 2004.

I think the most disheartening thing was brought out in one of the lawsuits brought against the government. Apparently, these guys paychecks now list their discharge date as their retirement date ie. when they turn 65.

 

[SOS2008]

Are you sure that you don't mean a "mandatory service" rather than a "draft"? Because there is a difference.

A draft is when there are not enough reserve troops to support a war. This is usually a sign of horrific loses, where they need more meat to throw into the grinder to advance the machine. We could expect general civil unrest in such a situation, as history has shown.

A mandatory service would be requiring young people to spend a certain amount of time in gov. service (during both wartime or peacetime). Such a thing may not be a bad idea, and many countries with small populations are currently doing this in order to maintain a working defense.

I'd like to see a draft if it were applied only to the children of parents who support the war and Bush.

 

[GENIERE]

I'd like to see a draft if it were applied only to the children of parents who support the war and Bush.

If the lefties have it their way, you’ll likely get your wish.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071305/brief3.html

A team of Senate and House Democrats today are planning to introduce legislation today aimed at significantly increasing size of the U.S. Army.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) airland subcommittee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a SASC member, and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), both members of the House Armed Services committee, are pressing for the passage of the United States Army Relief Act.

 

[Townsend]

I'd like to see a draft if it were applied only to the children of parents who support the war and Bush.

Would you really...so what about what the kid of the parents who support the war wants? Oh is, he/she is just pawn in your little chess game then?

Your words show that you are more concerned about the politics then the people. You are no better than the people you loath.

 

[Townsend]

I think I would like to have 2 years mandatory military service from all people upon reaching the age of 18. Well no, on second thought I would give them a choice, zero government support for the rest of their lives or mandatory military service.

By zero government support I mean that if any company has any kind of government contract, you cannot work there. You cannot receive any kind of government loans or grants. You cannot hold any kind of office...you get the point.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think I would like to have 2 years mandatory military service from all people upon reaching the age of 18. Well no, on second thought I would give them a choice, zero government support for the rest of their lives or mandatory military service.

By zero government support I mean that if any company has any kind of government contract, you cannot work there. You cannot receive any kind of government loans or grants. You cannot hold any kind of office...you get the point.

Sure ... you believe that YOU work for the government and that your government does not work for you.

I thought that was just a 'Communist Chinese' thing but I guess fascists crawl out of the woodwork under any system.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If the lefties have it their way, you’ll likely get your wish.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071305/brief3.html

A team of Senate and House Democrats today are planning to introduce legislation today aimed at significantly increasing size of the U.S. Army.

They are increasing the 'cap'. To fill it, they would need the imposition of a draft or to be able to sway the general public to sign up.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) airland subcommittee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a SASC member, and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), both members of the House Armed Services committee, are pressing for the passage of the United States Army Relief Act.

Yes, it would seem they want to have wars fought by trained career forces rather than the botched undertrained weekend warriors and aging crowd that you have in Iraq right now who seem to have problems pronouncing the words 'Geneva Conventions' much less respecting them.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Would you really...so what about what the kid of the parents who support the war wants? Oh is, he/she is just pawn in your little chess game then?

Your words show that you are more concerned about the politics then the people. You are no better than the people you loath.

It's a known fact that people with a vested interest tend to consider their decisions much more than those who don't.

The man lest likely to declare a 'war of convenience' is one who has 7 sons of service age.

The one most likely to declare a war of convenience is one who can put his children out of harms way or who doesn't have any at all.

Who are the most likely to go to war when one is declared? Certainly not the children of the Bush 'haves and have mores'!