Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/20/2005 1:14:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:05:26 AM EDT by AROptics]
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:17:52 AM EDT
One answer is troops who enlist are of a better quality then troops who are "forced/ drafted".



Disclamer- while many/most drafted troops fought and served honorably,there was a reson why the .mil went to an all volunteer(sp) force.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:20:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 1:21:35 AM EDT by AROptics]
Seems no amount of "quality" is securing Iraq...Maybe it is time to try quantity. That UCMJ makes a soldier out of quite a lot of miscreants. What did Patton (George C. Scott) say? "I assure you...you will ALL do your duty."
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:25:33 AM EDT
We could put a million extra troops in Iraq and that's not going to solve the problem. The success or failure of the mission in Iraq ultimately rests with the Iraqis themselves. Either their army and police forces grow into a force capable of handling their own security or they don't. If they can't, then it doesn't make much difference what we do at this point because the political will to remain there and keep a boot on their necks isn't going to be there much longer. And the political will to start up the draft for Iraq is most definately not there.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:26:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 1:28:01 AM EDT by chrome1]
Conscription without national backing breeds contempt ....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:44:16 AM EDT
Becauee we don't want draftees in our Army. I would gladly do extra tours or extend mine if it came down to that or having a bunch of conscripts.

Wars are not won overnight. But they will be won. We have a society now that is waaayyy too impatient and wants to change things just because they don't get results as fast as they want.

It takes time to build an army from nothing, even more when the only military experience to draw from is from an Army whose system was worse than nothing.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:46:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Seems no amount of "quality" is securing Iraq...Maybe it is time to try quantity. That UCMJ makes a soldier out of quite a lot of miscreants. What did Patton (George C. Scott) say? "I assure you...you will ALL do your duty."



No, the UCMJ makes people do just the bare minimum to stay out of trouble. Staying out of trouble does not a professional soldier make.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:54:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 1:57:21 AM EDT by AROptics]
OK, so you aren't cut out to be a professional soldier... then you'll shovel shit (there is a lot of it) in Louisiana.

The time for national service in America has arrived. Bush should make this the centerpiece of his legacy. Tomorrow "you" (if you want to be a man at any point in your life) will go and help your American brothers in Iraq. Or, pussy, you can help with the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.

America can't stand for free riders. The time for service is now. Otherwise, the time for America may have been yesterday.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:02:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:05:26 AM EDT by MuRDoC]

Originally Posted By AROptics:
(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



there is a B on your reply menu, hit that
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:08:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
OK, so you aren't cut out to be a professional soldier... then you'll shovel shit (there is a lot of it) in Louisiana...



Look, I know you must have just read Starship Troopers or something like that, but conscription is an idea whose time has come and gone. Even the Russians, masters of the 'large crappy army' concept, are looking to ditch conscription.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:16:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:31:18 AM EDT by AROptics]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
OK, so you aren't cut out to be a professional soldier... then you'll shovel shit (there is a lot of it) in Louisiana...



Look, I know you must have just read Starship Troopers or something like that, but conscription is an idea whose time has come and gone. Even the Russians, masters of the 'large crappy army' concept, are looking to ditch conscription.




The Russkies aren't the masters of much of late. The Russkies talk big but frankly we think they are short of know how...I mean you can't expect some ignorant peons ...(sorry, just got done watching Dr. Strangelove).

An idea that has "come and gone"? You mean like crazed suicide attacks, genocide, religious wars? The only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know.

[and... Do you think Iraq is worth winning?]
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:24:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
An idea that has "come and gone"? You mean like crazed suicide attacks, genocide, religious wars? The only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know.



You seem to have no problem saddling America with a less effective army so you can play social engineer. Not to mention, you don't seem to have the vaguest idea how bad conscription would be for the quality of our forces.



Do you think Iraq is worth winning?]


Of course. And only a damned idiot would think a conscript army will fare better in a COIN campaign than would the outstanding professional army we have now.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:27:33 AM EDT
I'm not in favor of conscripting an army. I'm so against it, in fact, that I'm joining up to avoid the draft.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:31:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:32:22 AM EDT by 4xys2xxs]

Originally Posted By swingset:
I'm not in favor of conscripting an army. I'm so against it, in fact, that I'm joining up to avoid the draft.






OMG that cracked me up!

ETA:


Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



It's not bold worthy.

Sorry
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:35:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:37:06 AM EDT by AROptics]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
An idea that has "come and gone"? You mean like crazed suicide attacks, genocide, religious wars? The only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know.



You seem to have no problem saddling America with a less effective army so you can play social engineer. Not to mention, you don't seem to have the vaguest idea how bad conscription would be for the quality of our forces.



Do you think Iraq is worth winning?]


Of course. And only a damned idiot would think a conscript army will fare better in a COIN campaign than would the outstanding professional army we have now.



You are aware of course, the Greatest Generation was in part forged in the post-conscription furnace of WWII. I heard we won that war, and Korea (pretty much), with conscripts... against some determined foes with far greater resources than the present one.

We can choose to lose or win. Don't kid yourself it won't have been a choice.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:42:20 AM EDT
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain......

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:45:15 AM EDT
If you think we need more troops thaen why don't you enlist?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:45:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
You are aware of course, the Greatest Generation was in part forged in the post-conscription furnace of WWII.



'Post-conscription' furnace of WWII? You are not making any sense.



I heard we won that war, and Korea (pretty much), with conscripts... against some determined foes with far greater resources than the present one.



Right. Find me Talibania or Alquedistan on a map, and a large conventional campaign may be called for. Until then, try to get a clue about the real nature of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sending in wave after wave of conscripts would not help us in either situation.



We can choose to lose or win. Don't kid yourself it won't have been a choice.



And following your assinine suggestion of going to a conscript army is a certain way to lose the war against terrorism.

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam, where we had several hundred thousand conscripts in-country at a time? Could it possibly be that large conventional forces are not best suited for this sort of fighting?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:47:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:51:28 AM EDT by AROptics]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam...?



Pussies like you.

[Sorry, I couldn't pass that up]

Seriously. Not allowing our professional Army to make the call (Shinseki). Not being able to bomb an outhouse without LBJ's approval. Having a dickhead like McNamara constantly screwing with the professional soldiers.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:53:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam...?



Pussies like you.

[Sorry, I couldn't pass that up]

Seriously. Not allowing our professional Army to make the call (Shinseki). Not being able to bomb an outhouse without LBJ's approval. Having a dickhead like McNamara constantly screwing with the professional soldiers.


Seems to me like you came into this with a preconceived notion, and no amount of logic, most of it proffered by professional soldiers, is going to change your mind.

Now you are defeated in the realm of ideas, and like a liberal you started the name calling.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:01:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam...?



Pussies like you.

[Sorry, I couldn't pass that up]

Seriously. Not allowing our professional Army to make the call (Shinseki). Not being able to bomb an outhouse without LBJ's approval. Having a dickhead like McNamara constantly screwing with the professional soldiers.


Seems to me like you came into this with a preconceived notion, and no amount of logic, most of it proffered by professional soldiers, is going to change your mind.

Now you are defeated in the realm of ideas, and like a liberal you started the name calling.




Liberal? Noooo
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:01:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



Your title is too stupid to be in bold.
The draft is an idiotic idea. We need trained, professional soldiers and we have enough of them to do the job. If we wanted more soldiers, we could simply raise the enlistment bonus.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:02:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Seems no amount of "quality" is securing Iraq...



It seems that way to you because you don't know what you're talking about.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:03:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam...?



Pussies like you.

[Sorry, I couldn't pass that up]



You COULD have...but it wouldn't have been in character.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



Your title is too stupid to be in bold.
The draft is an idiotic idea. We need trained, professional soldiers and we have enough of them to do the job. If we wanted more soldiers, we could simply raise the enlistment bonus.



We already have raised the bonus for the Army, and the maximum age, and blue to green, and extended tours, and maxed out the activation periods, and ordered stop loss and, and, and have spent 200 billion dollars. [But the contractors are the ones really making the big bucks].
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:09:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

But since you are so sure of your position, explain to me how we didn't win Vietnam...?



Pussies like you.

[Sorry, I couldn't pass that up]



Of course you couldn't! You sure haven't provided anything thoughtful in this thread of yours, so you may as well troll.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:10:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



Your title is too stupid to be in bold.
The draft is an idiotic idea. We need trained, professional soldiers and we have enough of them to do the job. If we wanted more soldiers, we could simply raise the enlistment bonus.



We already have raised the bonus for the Army, and the maximum age, and blue to green, and extended tours, and maxed out the activation periods, and ordered stop loss and, and, and have spent 200 billion dollars. [But the contractors are the ones really making the big bucks].



We haven't raised it as much as we could. You should try going by the facts instead of the DU talking points you're emailed every week.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:20:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops?

(how do I get my title in BOLD?)



Your title is too stupid to be in bold.
The draft is an idiotic idea. We need trained, professional soldiers and we have enough of them to do the job. If we wanted more soldiers, we could simply raise the enlistment bonus.



We already have raised the bonus for the Army, and the maximum age, and blue to green, and extended tours, and maxed out the activation periods, and ordered stop loss and, and, and have spent 200 billion dollars. [But the contractors are the ones really making the big bucks].



Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:50:06 AM EDT
"Like a lot of senior Army guys, I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration, the young general said. He listed two reasons. "One is, I think they are going to break the Army." But what really incites him, he said, is, "I don't think they care."
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:52:46 AM EDT
because it would make a whole generation of super-libs just like 'Nam did.

the draft is stupid, if you dont want to fight, you should not be forced to, and this is coming from someone in the army who does want to fight.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:09:13 AM EDT
I don't think you can compare kids these days to kids of the Greatest Generation. They were the "greatest generation" for a reason. Folks in those days were a different breed than now. It's sad to say, but it's the truth. The truly tough, brave and patriotic Americans who are able and willing are already in the armed forces. There's no point in taking the best fighting force in the world and dumb it down with a bunch of draftees, many of which have zero interest in contributing. Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the fat trimmed down myself.

I'd rather have 25 well motivated soldiers who want to be there, rather than 100 who do not.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:14:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
"Like a lot of senior Army guys, I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration, the young general said. He listed two reasons. "One is, I think they are going to break the Army." But what really incites him, he said, is, "I don't think they care."



"young general"?????

You know the beauty of anonymous quotes... anyone can make them up. That doesn't even sound like a generals quote..... "Army guys"?????
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:31:44 AM EDT
What makes you think Iraq is worth winning?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:19:58 AM EDT
Can anyone name one senior commander of any force that wants conscript troops?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:22:11 AM EDT
You want Cindy Sheehan to have REAL political power?

Institute the draft.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:22:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Do we really have enough troops? (how do I get my title in BOLD?)

It's worth the war, but not worth the draft. Why? It's not a war of national preservation. We need to fight the muslim enemy in Iraq, but we don't need to send double digit percentages of our military age males in order to win.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:18:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Orwell84:
What makes you think Iraq is worth winning?



He didn't think, and neither did you.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Seems no amount of "quality" is securing Iraq...Maybe it is time to try quantity. That UCMJ makes a soldier out of quite a lot of miscreants. What did Patton (George C. Scott) say? "I assure you...you will ALL do your duty."



Marines dont make soldiers.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:24:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Seems no amount of "quality" is securing Iraq...Maybe it is time to try quantity. That UCMJ makes a soldier out of quite a lot of miscreants. What did Patton (George C. Scott) say? "I assure you...you will ALL do your duty."



Marines dont make soldiers.



UCMJ=Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's misusing the term, however, as he misuses almost everything.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:29:07 AM EDT
Tagged for when AROptics lets "Halliburton" or "War for Oil" slip. Shouldn't be long now.


Top Top