News Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[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'!

 

[Townsend]

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'!

This does not address my point. What about the kids that have to goto war? All anyone seems to be concerned with is the politics, what of the people who are fighting the war? Not their fathers...get it?

 

[Townsend]

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.

How am I being a fascist?

The government does not have a duty to work for anyone! I hate this progressive, the world owes me something, kind of attitude. The government is the people and the people do not owe anyone anything.

 

[GENIERE]

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

The vested interest being life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?

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

False premise or trolling? Remember DNFTT.

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.

A war of necessity however…

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

Under Bush’s leadership it seems all will have more including the government. Because of the tax cuts, tax revenue is up 40% from corporations, 15% from the “wealthy” and very little from the middle class. Of course the poor pay nothing. Let's see, Euro down, Dollar up, Chirac dead, Blair very alive, UK < 5% unemployment, France >10% unemployment...

Lets see, oil prices are dropping due to lesser demand from China. Is it due to a decreased economic growth or a switch to the more polluting coal? Anyhow I dumped my gas futures a week or so ago.

...

 

[The Smoking Man]

How am I being a fascist?

The government does not have a duty to work for anyone! I hate this progressive, the world owes me something, kind of attitude. The government is the people and the people do not owe anyone anything.

Duh ... 'OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.'

Does NOT mean you work for them.

You seem to have forgoten that the people are not responsible to the government but hat a government is responsible to its people.

Yes you are being a fascist when you force ANYBODY to fight for something they do not believe in.

In America it is the individual's rights that are paramount and that is why the draft is so heinous ... it makes people take up arms when they do not believe in the cause.

More civil countries who do have manditory service, like Holland, allow people who are pacifists to enter into other types of service like medical fields for two years.

 

[The Smoking Man]

This does not address my point. What about the kids that have to goto war? All anyone seems to be concerned with is the politics, what of the people who are fighting the war? Not their fathers...get it?

It sure as heck isn't the people fighting the war that declare said war.

In most cases, it is the people who have nobody involved in the forces.

I believe that of all of congress and the senate there were two children of these men stationed in Iraq.

The politics IS what is influenced by realities of war.

Bush chose to engage Iraq knowing they were not a nuclear power and yet he negotiates with North Korea. This is in direct conflict with the refusal to negotiate with terrorists. Why is that? BECAUSE THE FALLOUT WOULD EFFECT THE USA AND US ALLIES.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The vested interest being life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?

Saddam was denying you those things?

False premise or trolling?

What is false about it?

A war of necessity however…

I didn't say that a man with 7 sons would always vote against war did I? I just said that he would give it greater consideration.

Under Bush’s leadership it seems all will have more including the government. Because of the tax cuts, tax revenue is up 40% from corporations, 15% from the “wealthy” and very little from the middle class. Of course the poor pay nothing. Let's see, Euro down, Dollar up, Chirac dead, Blair very alive, UK < 5% unemployment, France >10% unemployment...

Lets see, oil prices are dropping due to lesser demand from China. Is it due to a decreased economic growth or a switch to the more polluting coal? Anyhow I dumped my gas futures a week or so ago. ...

So this little party political broadcast has what to do with the content of this board?

Your observation are also incredibly juvinile at best. China HAS been using coal for its entire existence. In fact, the USA is attempting to block the Chinese purchase of Unocal which would facilitate a move FROM high sulphur coal. I guess, as in all aspects of the environment, the USA has the wrong end of the stick again.

 

[Art]

Lets see, oil prices are dropping due to lesser demand from China. Is it due to a decreased economic growth or a switch to the more polluting coal? Anyhow I dumped my gas futures a week or so ago.

...

Oil prices dropping

7/12/2005 5:40:39 PM ET
Stocks battle $60 crude oil to a draw..... The finish came on a day when stocks had to battle a $1.70-a-barrel rise in the price of crude oil to $60.62 and a 5% jump in the price of natural gas.

Somewhat higher than the $30 level the Iraq war was supposed to reduce.

On the subject of CNOOC's (75% owned by the Chinese gov't) takeover bid for Unocal

At hearings Wednesday in Washington, lawmakers said the CNOOC offer was part of a Chinese effort to gain control of foreign oil and gas sources, and that a deal would give China political leverage in areas where the oil company has resources.
"The simple fact is that energy is a strategic commodity," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter. He said Unocal's holdings, which include drilling rights and exploratory capabilities in Asia and elsewhere, "represent strategic assets that affect U.S. national security."

Lawmakers and witnesses dismissed CNOOC claims that its offer was a purely commercial deal.

To accept that it "is extraordinarily naive," said former CIA Director James Woolsey.

And the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil? At least the Chinese are prepared to pay for their 'political leverage in oil producing regions'

 

[kat]

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'!

Since it's such a well known fact, I'm sure you won't mind posting proof.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Since it's such a well known fact, I'm sure you won't mind posting proof.

Sure, America refused the second world war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and America came under threat. When it was a possibility for Americans to die in the war, your considerations changed.

In Vietnam there were hundreds of Bushs and Clintons with parents of influence who were decisionmakers who were allowed to sit out the war in roles far different than what you are seeing now. You're not going to tell me that 'Little Rock Arkansas' was the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail are you and that you think the 'younger Bush' just might have seen action?

Was Bill Clinton going to see any action from his digs in an English University?

Kerry just didn't quite understand the game and ended up doing a couple of days on shore in Nam and spent the rest of the time dreaming up new ways to get a new Purple Heart.

Go on, after JFK, Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, Inoue(sp?) and a few of the old guard, how many war heros are now serving in the congress and how many were in 'the guard' or University?

 

[BobG]

Sure, America refused the second world war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and America came under threat. When it was a possibility for Americans to die in the war, your considerations changed.

In Vietnam there were hundreds of Bushs and Clintons with parents of influence who were decisionmakers who were allowed to sit out the war in roles far different than what you are seeing now. You're not going to tell me that 'Little Rock Arkansas' was the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail are you and that you think the 'younger Bush' just might have seen action?

Was Bill Clinton going to see any action from his digs in an English University?

Kerry just didn't quite understand the game and ended up doing a couple of days on shore in Nam and spent the rest of the time dreaming up new ways to get a new Purple Heart.

Go on, after JFK, Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, Inoue(sp?) and a few of the old guard, how many war heros are now serving in the congress and how many were in 'the guard' or University?

McCain and Kerry. And Kerrey, as well, although he's not currently serving in office. And McCain is one of the couple that also has a son in the military. That's two (plus a recent Senator now out of office) right off the top of my head without putting much thought into it.

About a third of Congress have prior military experience, although I don't have the current numbers. The number tends to decrease with each election, though. (Fewer Vets in Congress)

It's not exactly pertinent, but is an interesting trivia question - who's the only female veteran in Congress?

 

[Art]

It's not exactly pertinent, but is an interesting trivia question - who's the only female veteran in Congress?

Heather Wilson USAF 1978 - 89

 

[The Smoking Man]

McCain and Kerry. And Kerrey, as well, although he's not currently serving in office. And McCain is one of the couple that also has a son in the military. That's two (plus a recent Senator now out of office) right off the top of my head without putting much thought into it.

About a third of Congress have prior military experience, although I don't have the current numbers. The number tends to decrease with each election, though. (Fewer Vets in Congress)

It's not exactly pertinent, but is an interesting trivia question - who's the only female veteran in Congress?

Oooo ... cool 2... Out of HOW many?

And how many have military experience similar to Shrub?

You say you don't even know who they are. How do you know HOW they served or when?

Heck, a few of them have fake diplomas from diploma mills!

How do you know WHAT the story is?

A few are also Democrats. What is their current voting record? (I will ignore the initial vote that took you into Iraq since the 'books were cooked' as we all know. http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686 )

You have also linked to data published in the year 2000.


So what about Jo Ann Davis, R-Va? Did she not make it back into congress?

 

[Townsend]

Duh ... 'OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.'

Does NOT mean you work for them.

You seem to have forgoten that the people are not responsible to the government but hat a government is responsible to its people.

What are you talking about? The government has a responsibility to protect peoples agreed upon rights...you know, the ones in the bill or rights. That is the ONLY responsibility of the government to the people and that is the only reason the government should exist.

Yes you are being a fascist when you force ANYBODY to fight for something they do not believe in.

Um no...http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascism does not mean mandatory military service and mandatory military service does not mean fascism. Words have meanings and you cannot just twist those meanings to fit your definitions at will.

In America it is the individual's rights that are paramount and that is why the draft is so heinous ... it makes people take up arms when they do not believe in the cause.

If that’s so then why are we compromising the rights of the individual with BS progressivism?

More civil countries who do have manditory service, like Holland, allow people who are pacifists to enter into other types of service like medical fields for two years.

Well, that is what I am advocating now isn’t it? I am saying you are cut off from government service if you don't serve two years. That’s not mandatory at all!

Regards
[edit]the government has a responsibilitiy to uphold the constitution which enumerates its powers and the rights of the individual[/edit]

 

[2CentsWorth]

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.

In other words, mandatory by way of blackmail. That sounds about right (from the "right"). I can't imagine if I had a child who had to go to Iraq right now. It's bad enough the lives and taxes being wasted in Shrub's War. And I think it would be the last straw for many Americans.

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.

Ditto.

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'!

A couple of people I know who have supported the war and Bush are now very nervous about a draft. People who are victimized by a crime suddenly become pro-capital punishment. I think this is the point that was being made above.

 

[solutions in a box]

Getting back to the daft

Current "administration approved" tactics the military may use to increase enlistment and retain personnel include:

Change of regulations allowing high school drop outs to enlist.

Bonuses of $150,000 for Special Forces, and Navy Seals if they re-enlist, even if they are not currently stationed in a combat zone.

Bonuses for former military who will enlist again.

Increased age limit for joining National Guard or Reserves.

Bonuses for first time and delayed entry enlistees.

Allowing illegal aliens to join the military.

Under the, no child left behind act, schools are required to give students personal information to military recruiters.

 

[Townsend]

In other words, mandatory by way of blackmail. That sounds about right (from the "right").

So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.

Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?

 

[Townsend]

Current "administration approved" tactics the military may use to increase enlistment and retain personnel include:

Change of regulations allowing high school drop outs to enlist.

Bonuses of $150,000 for Special Forces, and Navy Seals if they re-enlist, even if they are not currently stationed in a combat zone.

Bonuses for former military who will enlist again.

Increased age limit for joining National Guard or Reserves.

Bonuses for first time and delayed entry enlistees.

Allowing illegal aliens to join the military.

Under the, no child left behind act, schools are required to give students personal information to military recruiters.

With a couple of exceptions it has been that way for years now. Its nothing new at all and it certainly does not correspond to this war. Just saying that so people don't get the idea that recruitment is down because of the all the fighting going on.

 

[edward]

Townsend.

Who are you kidding, most of the recruitment tactics listed are recent ie the last two years. Military rercuitment lies go waaay back.

For those of you who have talked about why young people join the military, here is a link with the DOD point of view. The joiners are the ones that the recruiters love to find.

From: http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper26.html

Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military.

Many of the youth in this group feel they are not college material or that they are not ready for college at this time. Some are not academically inclined, and others believe that they lack the discipline to study and avoid the "party" temptation if they were to go away to school. "Discipline" and "taking orders" form the most central images of military life for Joiners. These images were not necessarily negative. Several youth noted that accepting discipline can serve an important and maturing role in their lives. For many, the military is considered a structured environment that can prepare them for future careers.

The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits. Training is considered a stepping stone to the future. Some are enlisting expressly to obtain money for education. These youth are either not ready for college at this time or require funds in order to pursue higher education. Relatively few youth mention serving their country as a motivation for enlistment. The few that did were often apologetic and prefaced their remarks with "I’m not all that patriotic, but..." as if embarrassed to admit a larger social or ideological motivation. Most expressed apprehension about war. Combat and the possibility of dying or killing were worrisome, but they generally considered they were entering a peacetime military.

 

[Matthias765]

If only one person got killed everyday in Iraq, in just a month 30 people would have been killed, so it would be better if nobody got killed, which is really obvious.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend.

Who are you kidding, most of the recruitment tactics listed are recent ie the last two years. Military rercuitment lies go waaay back.

No they have been around for along time. In fact the US Navy had the highest recruitment ever about a year after 9-11. I have 8.5 years of service so please stop trying to bullsh!t me ok.

Bonuses of $150,000 for Special Forces, and Navy Seals if they re-enlist, even if they are not currently stationed in a combat zone.

Bonuses are nothing new...I got a 36,000 dollar bonus for reenlisting for 4 years and I had a normal rating.

Bonuses for former military who will enlist again.

Being happening on and off for years...welcome to 15 or 20 years ago.

Increased age limit for joining National Guard or Reserves.

They have been doing this for years too, its called a waiver. The only difference is that now its official.

Bonuses for first time and delayed entry enlistees.

This is new but not that new...welcome to about 3 years ago.

Allowing illegal aliens to join the military.

Have you ever in your life been to a military base? I know some old Master Chiefs that are retiring after 32 years of service. Guess what...they joined out the Navy as an Alien while living in another country. Been happening for years.

Under the, no child left behind act, schools are required to give students personal information to military recruiters.

Whats the point? That is not a recruitment tool as much as it is to keep recruiters and possible enlistees honest.

Why don't you try taking your argument to somewhere else because it is all BS.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.

Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?

Now you have almost got it.

You are assuming that just republicans are taxpayers, is that it?

Personally I could give a 'rats ...' but you seem to have this perverse notion that 'he who sits on the other side of the floor is a traitor' because he believes in the freedom of the individual instead of him being indentured and controlled by the state.

Must they all 'drink the koolaide' to prove they are loyal and have the right to live in America?

The more you speak, the more I am glad I left the USA in favour of China where it seems less and less likely I will face a war except in the boardroom.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend.

Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments.

Yeah, and I actually respect these people for taking control of their lives. Why would that bother you so much? Oh, right, I almost forgot...you liberals want to keep people down by supporting welfare and encouraging people to stop trying.

Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military.

This article is crap...most people who come from military families are considered well to do. Exactly the opposite of what this article is saying. So I say BS.

Many of the youth in this group feel they are not college material or that they are not ready for college at this time. Some are not academically inclined, and others believe that they lack the discipline to study and avoid the "party" temptation if they were to go away to school. "Discipline" and "taking orders" form the most central images of military life for Joiners. These images were not necessarily negative. Several youth noted that accepting discipline can serve an important and maturing role in their lives. For many, the military is considered a structured environment that can prepare them for future careers.

This misconstrues the facts. I belong to this group when I joined and I can tell you from experience that there is a lot more it than what this article is saying.

The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits. Training is considered a stepping stone to the future. Some are enlisting expressly to obtain money for education. These youth are either not ready for college at this time or require funds in order to pursue higher education. Relatively few youth mention serving their country as a motivation for enlistment.

Again why do you have a problem with people earning their way through life?

The few that did were often apologetic and prefaced their remarks with "I’m not all that patriotic, but..." as if embarrassed to admit a larger social or ideological motivation. Most expressed apprehension about war. Combat and the possibility of dying or killing were worrisome, but they generally considered they were entering a peacetime military.

This is complete and utter crap...I cannot believe you would post such crap and try to pass it off as real. What the hell kind of website is that anyways? Most importantly why is trying to sound like a DOD paper when it obviously is not?

 

[The Smoking Man]

So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.

Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?

So, Americans have to pay for what they give to the government in taxes by taking up arms against a nation in the Middle East who threatens Kuwait and Israel?

This is freedom to you?

So you are saying that what what Halliburton is doing IS corporate welfare; that they are NOT biting the hand that FEEDS?

You're saying the private individuals who are being paid $10,000 per month to drive a truck are really just 'true patriots' and 'good republicans' who believe in the almighty American dollar and are defending the Republican way of life?

 

[Townsend]

Now you have almost got it.

You are assuming that just republicans are taxpayers, is that it?

Nope...and please don't start saying I am saying that. Stick to what is actually said and drop your misconceptions about me, ok.

Personally I could give a 'rats ...' but you seem to have this perverse notion that 'he who sits on the other side of the floor is a traitor' because he believes in the freedom of the individual instead of him being indentured and controlled by the state.

Wrong...from here on out quote me where I am making such claims before you put words into my mouth, thank you.

Must they all 'drink the koolaide' to prove they are loyal and have the right to live in America?

To get something you must give something...a simple concept.

The more you speak, the more I am glad I left the USA in favour of China where it seems less and less likely I will face a war except in the boardroom.

Well, you are welcome back anytime. I accept your views even if I don't agree with them and I would have no problem having you as my neighbor.

Regards,

 

[edward]

Townsend

"Have you ever in your life been to a military base? I know some old Master Chiefs that are retiring after 32 years of service. Guess what...they joined out the Navy as an Alien while living in another country. Been happening for years. BS."


Youre not the only military veteran here dude. I could name 7 military bases that I was assigned to.

The big differences between then and now is that then serving in the military was a legal way to gain citizenship. But documentation was needed.
The guys coming up from mexico and joining now have nothing but fake green cards.

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3157

The link you call an article and crap was actually a study done for the DOD by:
http://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dmdc.html

Never presume you know everything. Only a swabbie would talk out of his arse.

 

[Townsend]

So, Americans have to pay for what they give to the government in taxes by taking up arms against a nation in the Middle East who threatens Kuwait and Israel?

You think that by putting words into my mouth that you can actually win an argument?

This is freedom to you?

Just so you know I think that freedom is liberty for the individual, both socially and economically.

So you are saying that what what Halliburton is doing IS corporate welfare; that they are NOT biting the hand that FEEDS?

No, if I said that then you would probably quoted me saying it but I didn't so you somehow feel compelled to tell me what I am saying.

You're saying the private individuals who are being paid $10,000 per month to drive a truck are really just 'true patriots' and 'good republicans' who believe in the almighty American dollar and are defending the Republican way of life?

There is no point to this if all you can do is place words into my mouth.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

Townsend



You're not the only military veteran here dude. I could name 7 military bases that I was assigned to.

The big differences between then and now is that then serving in the military was an easy way to gain citizenship. But documentation was needed a passport or any legal document was Ok.
The guys coming up from mexico and joining now have nothing but fake green cards.

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3157

Never presume you know everything.

You people are the worst ever in the world at assuming crap. I don't believe you were in the service at all. But I never assumed anything. The point is that you are stating that crap like its a new thing. You leave out the fact that its not new at all! Thats more like lying than anything else, especially if you actually knew the difference.

I could name 7 military bases that I was assigned to.

You PCSed to 7 different bases? Is that what you're saying?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nope...and please don't start saying I am saying that. Stick to what is actually said and drop your misconceptions about me, ok.

I did quote you:

So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.

Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?

You clearly state that the problems is with the 'liberals'.

Wrong...from here on out quote me where I am making such claims before you put words into my mouth, thank you.

I did ... as above you state that the liberals are wrong because they refuse to recognize that they are required to support their government and pay for what they receive with the possible loss of life in a war and go further on to say that you demand 2 years service out of each citizen in payment:

Well, that is what I am advocating now isn’t it? I am saying you are cut off from government service if you don't serve two years. That’s not mandatory at all!

To get something you must give something...a simple concept.

Well, you are welcome back anytime. I accept your views even if I don't agree with them and I would have no problem having you as my neighbor.

That's not the question. I would like a say in the disposition of the lives of my children. You do not offer me that and those conditions are unacceptable.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You think that by putting words into my mouth that you can actually win an argument?


Just so you know I think that freedom is liberty for the individual, both socially and economically.



No, if I said that then you would probably quoted me saying it but I didn't so you somehow feel compelled to tell me what I am saying.





There is no point to this if all you can do is place words into my mouth.

Regards,

So stop speaking in esoteric words that must be interpreted and deal in hard facts then.

What is it you expect from the average US citizen relative to Iraq?

Do you believe that all us citizens should now, if they are of service age, go down to the registration office and sign up for service to put in their two years in Iraq?

And if they refuse to do so and they are the majority of the population and the majority of the population refuses the draft, do you think the government is correct in acting against the majority of the people by deliberately acting against the will of the democracy by penalizing them for 'not paying'?

Again, do you believe the government reflects the will of the people or the people reflect the will of the government?

 

[edward]

You people are the worst ever in the world at assuming crap. I don't believe you were in the service at all. But I never assumed anything. The point is that you are stating that crap like its a new thing. You leave out the fact that its not new at all! Thats more like lying than anything else, especially if you actually knew the difference.



You PCSed to 7 different bases? Is that what you're saying?

Thats right 7 and the official link to the "article" you called crap is :

http://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dmdc.html