User Panel
Quoted: gentlemen, the military service [red]should never be used or considered as an agent of social conditioning[/red] per-se (It will teach these kids a thing or two about respect--teach them civility, etc). The only social conditioning they should do is to end somebody else's society, or keep them from screwing with ours. Mandatory military service will turn all areas of the military into [red]1. accept everyone, 2. don't desrciminate, 3.touchy-feely everyone can be a bad-ass military man/woman/gay guy/lesbian/slightly handicapped (LD-ED)/no talent wannabe Army of One.[/red] View Quote Which is exactly what it is today.... We have the military that is the best trainied, most highly motivated, best equipped [red]team of killers in the world.[/red] View Quote I see you've been watching the tv. Our most sucessful operation in Afghanistan was the "Tora Bora" battle. Remember when the press and military were hooting about how they had "hundreds" of "the enemy" surrounded, and were killing the hell out of them?? When the operation was over they found 4 bodies, no wounded, and no blood trails. They all escaped. Don't let the Democrats-who damned near ruined it during Clinton-- make any decisions that would change a thing. National service --fine,whatever makes the Ones-who-know-all feel like they are making a fresh and radically new idea for everyone to help out the world--[red]don't screw with our military.[/red] View Quote We'll see about that, when and if they ever get into real combat. We all saw the results in Mogadishu. Here's one problem with an all volunteer army I see. It's made up of people from a certain socio-economic class. It tends toward those who are less educated, and cannot make it in the civilian economy. This means they do not have the education, (like so many in our country), to know what America is Supposed to stand for. This is why we can do all the "Meals on wheels" programs we do. Now we're doing "Nukes or Dukes" programs. Is that what the military is for? With an all volunteer armed force, the govt. can do what they want with it, because those in the military don't know any better, and have no place else to go, and there is no protest at home, 'cause nobodys ivy league son or daughter is in harms way. Most of those in the military have never, (like so many in our country), even read the Constitution they took an oath to. What do you think they are gonna do, if given an "Unlawful order", like they did when they bombed Serbia? Answer: "Follow Orders". And if that means knock, (or not), on YOUR door, so be it. Today we have ONLY ONE class in the military...MILITARY! So much for the idea of "citizen soldier". How many guys and women from the "upper class" are in the military? At least when there was a draft, some ivy leaguers served, some liked it and stayed. Gave the military some "social diversity". Not today. |
|
First let me say that the Draft Idea of the Congressman from NY is a poorly crafted attempt to create anti war sentiment, that said I wonder how many posts on this thread are from guys who served in the post WW2 and 60's Military. I enlisted in 1964 and served 3 years as an 11B1P (Airborne Infantry) Airborne is 100% volunteer and the majority of the troopers were draftees. I served with and under alot of very good men, enlisted and officers alike who were drafted, some whom came out of the best schools in the land, without the draft most of these guys would have never served and many elected to make the Military a career after being drafted. The 173d ABN won 12 MOH's during its 7 years in RVN and the majority of those won were won by Draftee's. The average Draftee was no better nor no worse than the average volunteer. Arlington Cemetery and the "Wall" are filled with the names of dead brothers who were Draftee's. Please dont dishonor them by calling them conscripts, slaves or the product of a liberal Idea.
|
|
Quoted: First let me say that the Draft Idea of the Congressman from NY is a poorly crafted attempt to create anti war sentiment, that said I wonder how many posts on this thread are from guys who served in the post WW2 and 60's Military. I enlisted in 1964 and served 3 years as an 11B1P (Airborne Infantry) Airborne is 100% volunteer and the majority of the troopers were draftees. I served with and under alot of very good men, enlisted and officers alike who were drafted, some who came out of the best schools in the land, without the draft most of these guys would have never served and many elected to make the Military a career after being drafted. [red]The 173d ABN won 12 MOH's during its 7 years in RVN and the majority of those won were won by Draftee's. The average Draftee was no better nor no worse than the average volunteer. Arlington Cemetery and the "Wall" are filled with the names of dead brothers who were Draftee's. Please dont dishonor them by calling them conscripts, slaves or the product of a liberal Idea.[/red] View Quote Thanks bro. DAMN good points made...... |
|
First of all, I do not wish to start a flame war. I am replying to this forum to clarify a few technical examples that have been raised.
Quoted: For all the technological advances we have made, we still have to have a man walk the earth to claim it, and I know of no technological advances that have significantly changed the workload or need for numbers of infantrymen in combat. The mission is the sqame. View Quote No argument here, as the land phase of Desert Storm should have clearly pointed out. NO WAR CAN BE WON WITHOUT OCCUPATION/LIBERATION OF THE BATTLEGROUND. This means you cannot rely completely on your Air Forces. Quoted:The Airforce LIES. A lot. Remember how the Patriot missiles hit 100% of their targets in Gulf War I? Then that figure became 80%, then 50%, now they don't think they hit more than 10% if that. View Quote The Patriot units were commanded by troops in the U.S. Army, [i]NOT[/i] the U.S. Air Force. As far as hit claims, I am not exactly sure who made them, but they were probably made by an upper echelon commander that was linked to those units. Either way, I doubt if the person who made the claims was doing so to boost one particular branch of service's image. He/she was probably boasting about the missile system's capabilities, since its mission in Desert Storm was different than for what it was designed. Quoted:BTW, a wing of B17s carried a lot more tonnage than a single B2. A single B2 is not capable of that degree of destruction View Quote There was a old adage in among B-17 crews in the U.S. Army Air Corps in England during 1944:[ [i]"We can hit any town in Germany from 10,000 ft........as long as the town is big enough."[/i] It is not the amount of destruction that should be being debated. It is the type of destruction. Especially with the advent of GPS guidance, a B-2 carrying its 16 2,000lb. Mark 84 bombs can DEFINITELY achieve more destruction that would be beneficial to the military commanders and the overall war effort. A B-2 loaded in that configuration can place each one of those Mk84s inside a 13 meter sphere, 3 dimensionally, around any target they designate. They can also do this by only risking TWO crewmen. It took TEN crewmen to man ONE B-17. You guys are talking about sending a whole WING! And what did you accomplish? You definitely did not take out 16 vital targets and at the same time risked hundreds of lives. Please let us remember this as well, my B-2 made it back. How many of your B-17s didn't? I really hope this was not 1945 and you ran across any Me-262's. Finally, I can do what I did at NIGHT as well! The Eighth Air Force relied on the British for bombing operations at night. Quoted:The B2 was never meant for conventional warfare, it was meant to penetrate Soviet defences for a nuke run. Nukes are the only way a B2 can have greater destruction than a wing of B17s. View Quote This is very true. However just because it was not designed for conventional use, does not mean it cannot adapt. The B-2 is a great example of this. Other examples are the Patriot Missile which was designed to be a Surface to Air Missile intended for use against aircraft, not incoming SCUDs. Even the AR-15/M16 can perform missions that it was not intended to due advances in equipment and technology. Yes the B-2 is an expensive piece of hardware at half the cost of an aircraft carrier (the aircraft is literally worth its weight in gold). However having the capability of being able to reliably destroy 16 targets on one flight and only risk the lives of two, is well worth the price. We must keep in mind that bombers do NOT fly fighter missions. Bombers can't cycle even near the rate of fighters. It takes much more support and logistics for bomber mission. The argument here is whether the price of technologically advanced and expensive pieces of military hardware have enough overall effect in wartime to be worth their monetary cost. The people of the United States of America and their military leadership will always value the lives of the men and women who are serving over the taxes that must be paid to equip them. Just my $0.02 EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS |
|
Ditto the 173rd. Outfit was famous by the time I was in.
Love the Heinlein posts. Why should some asshole vote us into a war if he wasn't willing to serve himself. You guys bashing the draft obviously didn't live through it. The problem with the draft in the sixties was political not military based. The government was not selective. They took every asshole that could walk and talk. The draftees were not held up to todays standards and conciencious objection was like wearing a sign that said take me. Hell, even being able to read or speak English was not an issue. The draft was political not military. Yes some of the biggest fuckups I served with were drafted but on the other hand some of the best soldiers I ever had the honor to serve with were drafted. To tell you the truth, I probably knew more RA's that were fuckups than draftees. Enlistment then was also not held up to todays standards. Well, I hope todays standards are higher. You guys shove the consitution out like a weapon when it comes to having the right to own your firearms but hide it in the closet when it comes to military service. Our constitution states that it is the responsibility of each citizen to serve six years. If we pick and choose what we like in the constitution, we are no better than the liberal anit-gunners we despise. It's true we don't need the manpower as in WWII and I can tell you I didn't think we needed as many people in the Military as we did in Viet Nam. I can't tell you how many soldiers I knew that wanted to go, had been and wanted to go back, that were kept stateside while draftees were shipped over by the boatload. I think almost everone now understands that rotation was a cluster fuck. I don't have an issue with a mandatory conscription with the stipulation that our Military have the say of who and why, not congress. The military shouldn't have to take them all and to look at what we pay our military and think we are getting the best of todays youth is stupid. Let's see, I'm a doctor I can make $385,000 in the public sector or be a Captain in the military. Let me think. Like it or not, our society is getting more liberal and the amount of the true warrior class is deminisioning. Sorry I went on a burner. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you think the military's gotten soft now, with only volunteers in the ranks - just imagine how many whiney-assed, cry-babies we'd end up with if service was mandatory. View Quote The "whiney-assed, cry-babies" don't end up in the armed forces, they find a way to stay out. Many draftees fought and died bravely for this country in more than one war. View Quote I agree with wetidlerjr, draftee's were just as reliable, patriotic and many times more gungho than those who volunteered. True character doesn't come with a switch, they were damn fine men very much interested in serving their country the best they could. God Bless our draftees, they served proudly. |
|
Tom- your burner is right on! I think our generation is going to look at the Draft in a much different way than the current young Turks. First and foremost our Military is a direct reflection of our society and man is this society different than ours...
|
|
I was kept out of the military because of the Bullshit physical and the "medical disorders" that make one "Unfit" for service. If this initiative would pass, then maybe people like myself who had a willingness to serve would be allowed to.
As far as the whiny-assed people...I would truly believe that there would be a truckload of attitude adjustment with a Drill Sergeant climbing into their ass during basic training. |
|
Quoted: [size=3]Repeat after me, mandatory military service only takes place in communist countries and free countries that have peaked in population. It is not economical for the best country on earth, that's us in the USofA, to have mandatory service. Get the idea out of your head and separate yourselves from the wacko liberals.[/size=3] View Quote Last time i checked we were not a communist country and we also havent peaked in population. Why don´t you think for a second before you spout off nonsense. |
|
I have yet to make the connection between democrats asking for a draft just ten years after democrats declared our military too large and slashed the balls out of it with a k-bar. Other than that, I really do not have an educated opinion on the draft. As far as I see it, we do not need one right now. Plenty of willing recruits. We have provisions to start it should we get ourselves into a bloody mess. It is called selective service.
I also come to the conclusion in my mind that draftees/volunteers basically make up the same cross section of society. People from all walks of life do join the military. In fact, a large number join it to go to college. I am sure every ex/current military here would agree that many people who join the military do so on a "billy bad ass" mentality. Only to prove their cowardice. My only real "opposition" to the draft is that the way in which it was carried out would be decided by politicians, not the commanders who have a much greater working knowledge of the base mental requirements for military reruits. The greatest courage usually comes from those you would least expect it too. Just my uneducated 2 cents. |
|
Love the Heinlein angle. If ya ain't willing to get a bit dirty for your country then you don't get to enjoy the priviledges. I would even like to see it applied to welfare/AFDC recipients now.
Being drafted is slavery? Does that mean them crackers who's numbers came up for vietnam get reparations? Damn! jesse jackson is gonna have a cow over that. The most important thing this thread had shown me is there are far more loonies here than I thought before. But then again mebbe the DU'ers are getting even... |
|
Representative Chuck Rangel (D) NY has a plan. Bring back the draft. It has good precedence for NY democrats. FDR brought it back himself. As Democrats believe the people, their property, their thoughts, their children and their beliefs belong to the government (which they so humbly lead), drafting them seems natural. But Chucky is playing slick. And I don't mean his hair. He knows President Bush isn't about to reinstate the draft. He is making points. Funny how when Bill Clinton was sending soldiers to die in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, Chucky found no need for caring about soldiers and casualties. When Bill Clinton had the 82nd in the air to effect a regime change in Haiti (back when regime change was trendy and a very liberal concept) Chucky thought the current force structure was just fine.
It is a good thing for Chucky there isn't a draft; it would destroy the Democratic Party. It wasn't so long ago that the DNC was coming up with great ideas in how to exclude the military vote in Florida. Why would an organization that is largely made up of lower income people vote so predominately Republican? I spent over 8 years in the active Army and am now in the National Guard. I had the honor to serve with men and women from all backgrounds. I also had the great pleasure of watching white boys from North Dakota meet black boys from Georgia for the first time. Watch them become friends and trust each other with their lives. Blacks and Latinos found out that they can succeed without someone holding their hand; that the vast majority of Americans care only for what you contribute to the team, not what you look like. They also found out the military isn't all that bad a deal, especially when you come from poverty. While blacks make up 26% of the total force, they make up well over 30% of the non-commissioned officers; AKA the careerists. And they have a disgusting little tendency to vote, much more so than the black community at large at least, Republican. Does Chucky really want a whole generation of blacks to learn that white Republicans aren't racists? Does Chucky really want spoiled white liberals to learn that blacks and other minorities are perfectly capable of succeeding without someone holding their hands? Does Chucky really want millions of men and women to learn the lessons of hard work, responsibility, and self reliance? I don't think so. The liberals have spent four decades brain washing children into race-warfare, reliance on others, and absolution for actions. Chucky's little scheme would destroy all that hard work. The most insidious part (for the Democrats, at least) is that serving your country leads you to love it more. Do you really want all these people traveling overseas and seeing how terrible other countries live and how wonderful America truly is? Fighting for freedom also leads you to value freedom more. Those who have carried guns in the defense of others might be slightly taken aback when told them may not carry them in defense of their families and themselves. My God, Chucky! Think about it. You would do more to set back the Democratic Party than the Civil War and Segregation combined. It is interesting that no polls have been taken among the military about how they feel about going to war with Iraq again. I guess we must let the Democrats speak for us. Speaking for myself, I have sworn to defend this country; as have over a million others in uniform. I can see plainly the threat Saddam Hussein and others pose to the US. After September 11th, I felt (as did others I served with) that we, the military, had let the country down. We are supposed to defend Americans and 3000 died on our watch. The greatest number of civilians killed in American History. I certainly don't intend to stand idly by and watch a megalomaniac develop the means to kill millions more. And I certainly won't let the Democrats' self-serving and newly found regard for soldiers pass by without a comment of dissent and disgust. |
|
So if there is a Mandatory service...All those folks will be allowed VA benifits. The use of VA hospitals if that is really worth while. The government and the Armed services will go Bankrupt. It will be like Social Security everyone will be getting it. Does this mandatory service include women. After all they fought for equal rights and they should also have to do service.
This will not float unless we start doing real bad when we attack Iraq and then the Big K |
|
I think it will show all able bodied men that firearms are fun.
I really believe that all of us should serve our country. |
|
Quoted: Please let us remember this as well, my B-2 made it back. View Quote Interesting. Just how good is that radar-absorbing material anyhow? Were you shot at while you were delivering ordinance? Did you get any positive air-to-air or ground-to-air locks? I note that they're keeping the B2s off the recent Gulf deployments. How far is it both ways to Korea again? [:D] |
|
Quoted: There was a old adage in among B-17 crews in the U.S. Army Air Corps in England during 1944:[ [i]"We can hit any town in Germany from 10,000 ft........as long as the town is big enough."[/i] It is not the amount of destruction that should be being debated. It is the type of destruction. Especially with the advent of GPS guidance, a B-2 carrying its 16 2,000lb. Mark 84 bombs can DEFINITELY achieve more destruction that would be beneficial to the military commanders and the overall war effort. A B-2 loaded in that configuration can place each one of those Mk84s inside a 13 meter sphere, 3 dimensionally, around any target they designate. View Quote It was only later that there was outright bombing of whole towns and cities to break the morale of the German people. |
|
Sounds like a good idea to me...
Give them a 3-MOS 'dream sheet' when they turn 18... If there's an opening in your class for what you pick and you qualify (based on BMT graduation scores), you get it... If not, 'needs of the service'... Make it 2yrs mandatory service, and most of those who didn't want to be there would end up as cooks, paper pushers, weather baloon chasers, etc... Send them to another part of the country/world, so they become aware of life beyond their city limits. When they're done (and some may never be 'done', deciding to stay after the 2yr requirement), hopefully they'll have learned something that will help them in their future life (job skills, 'focus', or at the very least, a resume reference)... It would give some the realization that there's more to the world than what's on sale at the mall next week. Others would get the chance at a 'fresh start' on life, away from home and the associated problems. And of course, there are the types who just want something to belong to (and will, for 2 years at least, have that filled by a *legal* and well respected organization). And the service would no longer have to be concerned with how many support personell they can retain or recruit (as these fields would be the easiest to fill with 2yr draftees)... So these efforts could be focused on the more specialized fields... Edited to add: I still think that combat specialties should be voluntary except in time of war. If some WANT to spend their 2yrs in the infantry, so be it (and some would). Otherwise, there are plenty of jobs neccicary-but-not-critical that can be filled by a conscript who just wants to go home (while still putting them through 2 years, and a chance to change their mind about the whole thing (and a bit more, too))... |
|
Quoted: Today we have ONLY ONE class in the military...MILITARY! So much for the idea of "citizen soldier". How many guys and women from the "upper class" are in the military? At least when there was a draft, some ivy leaguers served, some liked it and stayed. Gave the military some "social diversity". Not today. View Quote This one made me think... Would some of the people I knew from my 1 year of ROTC, in 98, have been the same way (I'm in for the scholarship) if they had actually served before? Maybe some people would take military service and politics more seriously if they experienced it first hand (rather than going along with the 'Hey, why are we spending so much on the military' line that caused so much truble under Clinton... And then there are those, like me (If selected... I find out on 8/Feb/02 weather I'm in (AF OTS) or not), who would eventually go anyway. So those who would volunteer would, of course, have little change (unless they would have done what I'm trying to (i.e. enter commissioned))... |
|
Added to say, I wonder if these guys (Dems) actually beleive Iraq will be that tough of a nut to crack, or that the draft would be a deterrant to US military involvement.
Personally, I think that after 1 or 2 generations, it would bring 'the rest of the country' more in touch with reality on international/military issues, since they would all have been there in some way. People would base their information on 'when I was in the (AF/Army/Navy/etc)' rather than 'Peter Arnet said...' or 'I saw this made for TV movie once', or 'This Senator was on TV last night and...'... |
|
Quoted: Just how good is that radar-absorbing material anyhow? View Quote Extremely good. Good enough to make its radar cross section smaller than that of even and F-117A. Quoted:Were you shot at while you were delivering ordinance? View Quote Probably not since you never saw me on ingress. I think I see what you mean though. The B-17s DID get shot at, that's putting it really lightly. Quoted:Did you get any positive air-to-air or ground-to-air locks? View Quote Do you mean by enemy A/A and S/A threats? If so, I tend to doubt it. Quoted: I note that they're keeping the B2s off the recent Gulf deployments. How far is it both ways to Korea again? [:D] View Quote Of course they are not being deployed! They don't need to be. With this platform we are able to strike anywhere with a flight time of 24-36 hours from Whiteman AFB. Yes we need to establish tanker tracks, but this is the B-2's mission and in that mission, the KC-135s and KC-10s are well incorporated. Do you think we sent B-2s to Asia when they struck targets in Afghanistan? Did we send them to Europe when they struck targets in Kosovo? Of course we didn't. This is the beauty of the system. [i]"Global Power, Global Reach"[/i] is the motto at Whiteman. I am not, in any way, saying the B-2 is perfect. In fact, I often question its value. However, given its capabilities, it does give an air commander great latitude and flexibility with the tasking of difficult missions with point DMPI's (Designated Mean Point of Impact). It also gives that same commander a sense of relief, along with his/her charges, knowing that he has greatly minimized the risks that have to be taken in executing the mission. Understand that my origial intent was to display the [i]technolgical[/i] advances we have made in the past 55-60 years. Murphy's Law will always apply. EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS |
|
Quoted: Another things that needs to be clarified is that those bombing runs often had specific targets (trainyards, factories, etc) but because the munitions and technology of the time were literaly hit and miss it would take several B-17s to take out the targets, and bombs would invaryably end up in someones backyard, kitchen, livingroom, whatever. It was only later that there was outright bombing of whole towns and cities to break the morale of the German people. View Quote I know, I was just trying to illustrate the way bomber crews themselves felt about some of their taskings. After flying over the same targets, sometimes up to five times, they sometimes became cynical when the subject of their accuracy with the famed Norton Bombsight was raised. EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS |
|
The Draft had a positive effect on many young men. When the age of 20-21 came they had to make some very important life decisions, enlist, volunteer for the draft, get married, go to college ect. In other words you were forced to face life as an adult which is something very lacking in todays young. Weapons, so dear to our hearts here on AR15 are another factor. I believe we would have far fewer anti gun people if mandatory military servive were in effect. As an example, its hard to find men raised in the 50s and 60s who dont love guns, its not a coincidence that this group is the last to face the draft. Patriotism is another factor, you of course can be a patriot without serving in the military but military service most certainly raises the level. As to the cost of VA benefits, the average draftee ( 2yr service obligation ) didn't collect ANY benefits unless injured or wounded. Most Vet's I know would not go near a VA hospital. The Draft did have its slackers and sliders but the average kid in my youth (the 60's) looked forward to serving just as his Father and older brothers had served.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.