A Political Question

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Crono]

I know this is way off topic, but I am interested in this.  I serve in the Army National Guard, I have served a tour in Iraq and will be going back in a couple of years.  From what I have seen of the US army, and whats its lacking, is troops that are committed, regardless of the cause.  Also there is low recruitment numbers, its due to the US being in a conflict that is frequently reported upon as well as the loss of soldiers lives that are reported.  There is also sentiment in the US that the conflict is unjust and unnecessary. 

Even with this turn of events, I have come to a conclusion as of late that involves the young men of the US serve a 2 year obligation to the armed forces.  It would be similar to what Israel does as well as several EU nations.  My reason for thinking this is what it would do for discipline of the young generation of my country as well as having enough numbers to conduct a conflict regardless of the reason.  In having those numbers the loss of soldiers lives would be drastically reduced because there would be adequate numbers to conduct the task and prevent such casualties.

What are your thoughts, and please think through your answers, I want this to be an open forum for a discussion.

[AxisSlowzo]

It comes down to the fact that LARGE standing armies are slowing becoming obsolete for everything except occupation.  They are expensive to maintain, basically all the needs of a city but without the tax part.  While a mandatory enlistment would help American youth, think of the percentage of our population that would be, it would be a MASSIVE amount of kids.  It would work in smaller countries, but in the U.S. it wouldn't be cost effective.

On the upside, basic would weed out allot of people 

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

Nope, I think the president is a dumbass, and that the war is not being done properly, and we are currently fighting in Iraq for nothing. Now if we were actively hunting for Osama Bin Laden, sure I'll help out, but right now we are playing "big brother" in Iraq imo.

I support the troops, but I don't support the idiots in charge. Like I said, if we were hunting for the man that caused 9/11 then I will go buy a rifle from the gunstore and put a pot on my head and get on a C-130 but if there was to be a service enlistment to go fight in Iraq specifically then I'm going to Canada and then the Bering Strait to Russia.

[Warbirds]

Congress wouldn't allow any type of draft to be re-instated; so it's kind of a moot point, anyway.

[Crono]

I am not talking a draft, I am talking an amendment to the constitution that would require 2 years of mandatory services for all young men between the ages of 18-26, requirement being that if they went to college after high school they would do service after college as an officer.  This would take the strain of over deployed troops off the army.

[AxisSlowzo]

Nope, I think the president is a dumbass, and that the war is not being done properly, and we are currently fighting in Iraq for nothing. Now if we were actively hunting for Osama Bin Laden, sure I'll help out, but right now we are playing "big brother" in Iraq imo.

I support the troops, but I don't support the idiots in charge. Like I said, if we were hunting for the man that caused 9/11 then I will go buy a rifle from the gunstore and put a pot on my head and get on a C-130 but if there was to be a service enlistment to go fight in Iraq specifically then I'm going to Canada and then the Bering Strait to Russia.

You realize that the US was already in Iraq in the first gulf war and just left them to pick up the pieces.  Hence the second gulf war to do what we should have done in the first one.  Occupation takes many many more troops than actually destroying a countries military takes.  Yeah i think the WMD stuff was probably BS, but keep in mind that Sadam used chemical weapons on hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen, so if he did have them, the chance of him using them was there.  Its not like he fired scuds at Israel or anything either.

But yeah, theres not gonna be a draft untill the second american revoultion (hilary VS obama)

[AxisSlowzo]

plus i think that the Government would rather have those people working and making money(taxes) than having to spend money training them and then feeding them.  Plus college is to easy now, there'd be to many officers.

[Crono]

About the Iraq issue, sorry to say but its not the responsibility of the US to be the world police.  As well, the US sold those chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran Iraq conflict.  Ever seen the photos of the Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?  And since I have been there I know the reasons for being there.  Here is a hint, it involves oil, lots of fucking oil.

[Lt_Apollo]

if what you are saying was to hapin now, america would colaps on its self. most americans dont want any thing to do with the war or military, and inacting this would only make way for protesting and riots. who wants there sone or duaghter to be drafted into the army, my perents would freek if tjis ever hapind and would eather go through a long leagle battle or have us move in with our famly in greece.


besides internal termoil, what would you do if you where say china or any other powerfull contry, if you saw the US army swell you would asume that they where planning somthing, thus premtive strike, thus conter strike, thus war.

we dont need war killing of our citizens do we.

besides all that, where going to have a almost compleat militeristic socity, as evry one is forced into the armd forces.

ya ya im perinoid lol.

[scrapking]

Compulsory service would be entirely antithetical to what US Army doctrine has been for over 30 years - forming a professional army.

Do you want to be in a foxhole with someone who was forced to serve, and at that, only for 2 years?

We can't change that philosophy just because of Iraq.  The problems in Iraq are more about what was already done (or not done) than about what still can be done.

[AxisSlowzo]

Yeah, of course it involves oil. Not disputing that reasons it was done, but now thats its done, I think the world is better off.  I know everyone is saying blah blah blah us is world police, but now that we have a WORLD economy, theres very little that doesn't have a butterfly effect.  Its not like other countries dont look out for their own interests, or make up lousy reasons to do so.  It would be impossible to the US to go back to its  pre WW2 isolationist mindset.

[Apex]

Nah.

A mandatory military service would be contraproductive for the military and the society as a whole. Forcing every male to do armed service would increase manpower, but would drastically decrease motivation and professionality. There would always be people there who dont want to be there, and are often not mentally qualified either. The general acceptance for a state, which forces you to bear a weapon, even if its against your beliefs, would shrink too.

I live in Germany, where all adult males have to chose between one year of military or social service. Originally intended as military service only for protection against the eastern block, nowadays its original intention is lost. It is now seen as a year of service you pay for the society which you grow up in.

The fact that you can make a choice whether to bear arms or whether to work in a hospital makes it something that most people look rather forward to, suiting their individual character. It is not something people feel like having to do against their will, as a mandatory military time would. The fact that all recruits indirectly volunteered to be a soldier keeps the moral and professionality rather high, as well as having a pretrained strategical reserve.

In my oppinion the fact that the motivation to join and to stay in the United States Armed Forces begins to waver is the result of being stuck in a guerilla conflict that was begune under not so honest political pretenses, and that the military nature of the conflict itself is hard to cope.
Maybe it is also the realization that war is a big shit.
I also think that the conclusion of mandatory military service automatically leading to more discipline in society is a bit naive.  

I belief that noone should be forced to carry a weapon. To provide some kind of service to the environment you live in is a good thing on the other hand, but it should definitely not just be a military service.
Hopefully war itself is redundant some day, and then all can pay their duty helping people in a non violent way.

[scrapking]

Wait...hold on a minute...

we let you Germans have guns?  Nobody came around to collect them after the Berlin Wall went down?  Or after Poland joined NATO?  I need to call my Congressman!  Somebody is not doing their job, or watching enough "Band of Brothers".  You'd think the French would have been on top of that...after all we've done for them - and all you've done TO them.


 

[Apex]

Wait...hold on a minute... we let you Germans have guns? 

G36, state of the art.

Apart from that, well, you have already forbidden us to use nuclear submarines. We also dont have them. Officially.

[Crono]

You ever seen the Leopard tank?  Pretty impressive.

[TodlichPanther]

if what you are saying was to hapin now, america would colaps on its self. most americans dont want any thing to do with the war or military, and inacting this would only make way for protesting and riots. who wants there sone or duaghter to be drafted into the army, my perents would freek if tjis ever hapind and would eather go through a long leagle battle or have us move in with our famly in greece.


besides internal termoil, what would you do if you where say china or any other powerfull contry, if you saw the US army swell you would asume that they where planning somthing, thus premtive strike, thus conter strike, thus war.

we dont need war killing of our citizens do we.

besides all that, where going to have a almost compleat militeristic socity, as evry one is forced into the armd forces.

ya ya im perinoid lol.

Could you re-write this in English please? the idea looks good, but, its a little tough to understand.

[Apex]

You ever seen the Leopard tank?  Pretty impressive.

Been running next to it. Panzergrenadier.

[Lt_Apollo]

o yes sory, i type to fast for my own good, ill run my next large comets through spell check

[Skunker]

I know this is way off topic, but I am interested in this.  I serve in the Army National Guard, I have served a tour in Iraq and will be going back in a couple of years.  From what I have seen of the US army, and whats its lacking, is troops that are committed, regardless of the cause.  Also there is low recruitment numbers, its due to the US being in a conflict that is frequently reported upon as well as the loss of soldiers lives that are reported.  There is also sentiment in the US that the conflict is unjust and unnecessary. 

Even with this turn of events, I have come to a conclusion as of late that involves the young men of the US serve a 2 year obligation to the armed forces.  It would be similar to what Israel does as well as several EU nations.  My reason for thinking this is what it would do for discipline of the young generation of my country as well as having enough numbers to conduct a conflict regardless of the reason.  In having those numbers the loss of soldiers lives would be drastically reduced because there would be adequate numbers to conduct the task and prevent such casualties.

What are your thoughts, and please think through your answers, I want this to be an open forum for a discussion.

Though i've not got a completely solid position, being a youth in America I'd have to say I agree with this idea. I would not mind spending 2 years of my life in the military as mandatory service to my country. Though I have more enthusiasm for the idea than any of my peers would, it  is something that would help to discipline an otherwise overly greedy and selfish youth. Kids in America have virtually no respect for anything or anyone, and especially authority. They absolutely despise it. Well maybe it's time that they learn that really they're authority's bitch for all intents and purposes, and that if they work with the system instead of rebelling against it like a bunch of smacktards, together they can accomplish bigger things. I am always inspired by the commitment and dedication of the members of our armed forces, but I have no legitimate life interest in joining them - for me it would be a career black hole and I don't want to put myself in that position. That doesn't stop me from admiring and respecting the men and women who do serve - but it does for some people.

[jjwa]

It is a very interesting idea. I am not sure what the cost would be for the government, if they would be huge, or if they would even be lower than normal. It's a lot of extra manpower, but that manpower also needs to be trained, equipped, managed and paid. Sometimes I see such useless youth (including myself) who lack discipline and have a very weird view of how things work in the world. That's when I think 6 months to 2 years of service wouldn't be so strange for them. Let them grow some balls and discipline. So in general, I would be in favor of the idea.

Oh btw, officially, we still have to go in service in The Netherlands. You get a letter when you become 17 years old, giving you a military number and telling you about your 'duties'. They only 'suspended' the recruiting, so you never have to go, unless you apply voluntarily of course. So when war breaks out, we'll all be wearing green within a day or two I guess.

Wait...hold on a minute...

we let you Germans have guns?  Nobody came around to collect them after the Berlin Wall went down?  Or after Poland joined NATO?  I need to call my Congressman!  Somebody is not doing their job, or watching enough "Band of Brothers".  You'd think the French would have been on top of that...after all we've done for them - and all you've done TO them.


 

It's indeed interesting to see how big the war industry is in Germany. The Leopard (2) tank has been called the 'Euro-Panzer', because of how many european countries use it.

Look at The Netherlands, how much German weaponry we have. In our Dutch army, we have not only the Leopard 2, but also the Pzh 2000 artillery, Fennek 'Light Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle', Glock pistol side-arms (standard issue for both Dutch army and police). And from Heckler&Koch the MP5 smg, two specialist rifles and also (automatic) grenade launchers.
In the USA as well, I believe the Glock pistols are also standard-issue. And a bunch Heckler & Koch guns being sold and used there, such as the HK MP5.

Pretty much all of that stuff is state of the art. On par with the American stuff or better. I guess they went from making war, to making money on war .