Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to break a volunteer army...

24

Posts

  • IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I highly doubt there will be a draft again in the US again, unless we actually face an invasion. Its one of the factors that prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.

    Were we invaded by viet nam in your alternative history?
    Learn to read, where did I say we were invaded by Vietnam? I said the lack of a draft for Iraq, which Vietnam had, prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.

    Alador239.png
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    That's what I thought I said.

    Did you mean to say "wouldn't" in your post?
    I highly doubt there will be a draft again in the US again, unless we actually face an invasion. Its one of the factors that prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.

    Were we invaded by viet nam in your alternative history?
    Learn to read, where did I say we were invaded by Vietnam? I said the lack of a draft for Iraq, which Vietnam had, prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.


    you "learn to read" and "learn about your government" too

    we have the draft. They just have to get in a situation shitty enough to use it. They weren't drafting people at the start of viet nam.

    "Maybe we're here to eat the sandwich." -- Joe Rogan
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Cap's Kooky Quartet Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I can't imagine a scenario short of '<insert name of American city here> has been nuked' in which the American public would support a draft. The public just wouldn't stand for it.

    I guess I could reword it as "The public would not stand for a draft short of the '<insert name of American city here> has been nuked' scenario". Maybe I'm just having an 'English is my second language' day. :p

    2qt8f2t.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    you "learn to read" and "learn about your government" too

    we have the draft. They just have to get in a situation shitty enough to use it. They weren't drafting people at the start of viet nam.

    Well, to be fair we have registration for the draft. I agree that aside from an actual invasion (or possibly with a nuclear terrorist attack) you'll not actually see anybody drafted...no matter how bad the all-volunteer military gets.

    Also, you're wrong on the pre-Vietnam draft. There was a draft that started before Korea, went through the Korean War, and continued right through Vietnam. There were less people drafted during peacetime, which is why you don't hear about it much. But guys were still having their numbers called. EDIT: In other words, the draft was used to fill the "peacetime" ranks through the bulk of the Cold War.

    Spoiler:
  • IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User
    edited August 2007
    That's what I thought I said.

    Did you mean to say "wouldn't" in your post?
    I highly doubt there will be a draft again in the US again, unless we actually face an invasion. Its one of the factors that prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.

    Were we invaded by viet nam in your alternative history?
    Learn to read, where did I say we were invaded by Vietnam? I said the lack of a draft for Iraq, which Vietnam had, prevents the Iraq war from ever being as bad as Vietnam.


    you "learn to read" and "learn about your government" too

    we have the draft. They just have to get in a situation shitty enough to use it. They weren't drafting people at the start of viet nam.
    Don't be stupid, there is a difference between having a draft ready in case of invasion or something along those lines, and actually implementing it. Vietnam got really bad, because the US started using it and forcing people to fight.

    Alador239.png
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Hey what happens if you never sign up for selective service. I never did. No one ever asked either.

    casketiisigih1.png
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If there was a legitimate threat to our security (ie. invasion, massive nuke, etc.) and we actually went to war with a country, I would feel obligated to join.

    Let's hope we never have to experience something as bad as world war 2.

    sig.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Oops.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    Hey what happens if you never sign up for selective service. I never did. No one ever asked either.

    If you go to college, you'll be asked. I'm pretty sure most colleges require a student to fill out a FAFSA, and the question is on there.

    Aside from that, not much. If we ever start drawing numbers, though, expect to get in big trouble if you don't rectify this.
    Don't be stupid, there is a difference between having a draft ready in case of invasion or something along those lines, and actually implementing it. Vietnam got really bad, because the US started using it and forcing people to fight.

    Draftees were forced to fight in Korea and WWII, as well. And I'll reiterate...people were being drafted during peacetime throughout the Cold War, including before the start of any combat operations in Vietnam.

    Vietnam was a problem not because people were being forced to fight, but because people were being forced to fight an unpopular war. Nowadays we have volunteers to fight our unpopular wars.

    Spoiler:
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    A massive nuke? Do you guys even know what you are talking about? You're not going to defend shit from a massive nuke. If a nuke blows up a place like Seattle completely, there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you join the army.

    As for a land invasion, I doubt it will happen. America has one of the best strategic positions in the world. Two oceans on the side, and single allies to the north and south.

    Really it's more realistic to just say you will never join in a war. America should concentrate on diplomatic solutions. Put the right people in power and we won't have to worry about wars or drafts.

    casketiisigih1.png
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Cap's Kooky Quartet Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    A massive nuke? Do you guys even know what you are talking about? You're not going to defend shit from a massive nuke. If a nuke blows up a place like Seattle completely, there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you join the army.

    Yeah, I don't think that's what anyone was suggesting.

    2qt8f2t.jpg
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't know how much a large standing army would actually be beneficial. The technological and political realities have whittled down the role of the modern infantry into that of a foreign police force. And they are not suited for that role. Armies fight an enemy - in the absence of an identifiable enemy the armies inevitably turn on the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

    Spoiler:
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Cap's Kooky Quartet Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html

    An interesting article regarding the opinions of in-the-field troops. We need to start seeing more of this sort of journalism in American newspapers.

    2qt8f2t.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Vietnam was a problem not because people were being forced to fight, but because people were being forced to fight an unpopular war. Nowadays we have volunteers to fight our unpopular wars.

    But that's their point. The only way a draft is gonna work is if we have another popular war. And with the way information spreads these days, I don't see that happening barring the US getting invaded or nuked by another country or something seriously major.

    And do you really WANT drafties in Iraq? Do you really wanna shove guns into the hands of a bunch of people and send them off to patrol and secure a country they don't wanna be in? I can see that leading to a hell of alot more abuse of civilians then we're seeing now.

  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If you go to college, you'll be asked. I'm pretty sure most colleges require a student to fill out a FAFSA, and the question is on there.

    Aside from that, not much. If we ever start drawing numbers, though, expect to get in big trouble if you don't rectify this.

    Ok well I went to a private college. No one ever asked me, and I also never filled out FAFSA because with my parent's incomes I wouldn't have gotten jackshit anyway and the school's scholarships were good enough.

    And how "big" is this trouble we are talking about? Who's going to come after me? The police? Fuck the police.

    casketiisigih1.png
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    A massive nuke? Do you guys even know what you are talking about? You're not going to defend shit from a massive nuke. If a nuke blows up a place like Seattle completely, there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you join the army.

    Yeah, I don't think that's what anyone was suggesting.

    What I'm saying is a massive Nuke isn't going to convince anyone to join the army*. It's just going to make people realize the true terror of Nuclear powers and bring the Nuclear Options out onto the table. When nukes fly, soldiers are gonna be pretty useless.


    *Speaking dramatically of course. Some people will probably join, but not enough to change the wording here.

    casketiisigih1.png
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Cap's Kooky Quartet Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    A massive nuke? Do you guys even know what you are talking about? You're not going to defend shit from a massive nuke. If a nuke blows up a place like Seattle completely, there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you join the army.

    Yeah, I don't think that's what anyone was suggesting.

    What I'm saying is a massive Nuke isn't going to convince anyone to join the army*. It's just going to make people realize the true terror of Nuclear powers and bring the Nuclear Options out onto the table. When nukes fly, soldiers are gonna be pretty useless.


    *Speaking dramatically of course. Some people will probably join, but not enough to change the wording here.

    I think people would be willing to swallow a military draft if such a thing happened, in which case convincing someone to join the army wouldn't be a problem, because they wouldn't really have a choice (short of draft dodging or other options, depending on what sort of financial resources are available to you).

    2qt8f2t.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    And how "big" is this trouble we are talking about? Who's going to come after me? The police? Fuck the police.

    If a draft is called, and you've still not registered? Depending on what actions you take then, possibly "prison" big.

    If you go ahead and take care of it beforehand, then probably "you should have done this earlier...oh well, have a nice day" big.
    And do you really WANT drafties in Iraq? Do you really wanna shove guns into the hands of a bunch of people and send them off to patrol and secure a country they don't wanna be in? I can see that leading to a hell of alot more abuse of civilians then we're seeing now.

    A majority of actual volunteer troops don't want to be there anymore. The difference? At least draftees would only do one tour. I'd say a draftee on his first tour is less likely to rape him an Iraqi than a volunteer on his third. I honestly don't think any of you have any real idea what 12 months straight in that place is like. Having done year there, I still can't imagine what 15 months would be like.
    I don't know how much a large standing army would actually be beneficial. The technological and political realities have whittled down the role of the modern infantry into that of a foreign police force. And they are not suited for that role. Armies fight an enemy - in the absence of an identifiable enemy the armies inevitably turn on the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

    Personally I think a large reserve force would be better for peacekeeping, even relatively violent peacekeeping operations like Iraq, provided deployments could be kept relatively infrequent (every six or eight years).

    And yeah, I'm not fond of using infantry as police officers either...but a majority of people in this country seem to think it's a grand idea, so that's the world we're working with.

    Spoiler:
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    And how "big" is this trouble we are talking about? Who's going to come after me? The police? Fuck the police.

    If a draft is called, and you've still not registered? Depending on what actions you take then, possibly "prison" big.


    Has there ever been a court case on this?

    casketiisigih1.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    Has there ever been a court case on this?

    People who refused the draft in the Vietnam era (and earlier) were prosecuted. It's the law, man...you can very much be sent to prison for evading it illegally.

    EDIT: Think about it...conscription wouldn't work real well if there were no consequences for saying "no." Also, I don't think any of this is particularly relevant.

    Spoiler:
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    Has there ever been a court case on this?

    People who refused the draft in the Vietnam era (and earlier) were prosecuted. It's the law, man...you can very much be sent to prison for evading it illegally.

    EDIT: Think about it...conscription wouldn't work real well if there were no consequences for saying "no." Also, I don't think any of this is particularly relevant.

    Just another thing, what if your like 60 years old and they call a draft but you never signed up for SS. Prison?

    casketiisigih1.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    And how "big" is this trouble we are talking about? Who's going to come after me? The police? Fuck the police.
    If a draft is called, and you've still not registered? Depending on what actions you take then, possibly "prison" big.
    Has there ever been a court case on this?
    Many. It's specifically authorized in the constitution.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    Just another thing, what if your like 60 years old and they call a draft but you never signed up for SS. Prison?

    If you're no longer eligible? Probably not. Seriously, it's easier (and smarter) just to go register, then move to Belize if they call your number, if you really don't want to get drafted. Because then if you don't get called you have nothing to worry about.

    Just go fucking do it already.

    Spoiler:
  • CasketCasket __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    Just another thing, what if your like 60 years old and they call a draft but you never signed up for SS. Prison?

    If you're no longer eligible? Probably not. Seriously, it's easier (and smarter) just to go register, then move to Belize if they call your number, if you really don't want to get drafted. Because then if you don't get called you have nothing to worry about.

    Just go fucking do it already.

    Nah I prefer to live on the edge.

    casketiisigih1.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Casket wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casket wrote: »
    Just another thing, what if your like 60 years old and they call a draft but you never signed up for SS. Prison?

    If you're no longer eligible? Probably not. Seriously, it's easier (and smarter) just to go register, then move to Belize if they call your number, if you really don't want to get drafted. Because then if you don't get called you have nothing to worry about.

    Just go fucking do it already.

    Nah I prefer to live on the edge.

    Good for you, then. Moving along........

    EDIT: On a side note, I never got around to registering either...then again, I enlisted at 19 so it only mattered for like a year.

    Spoiler:
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Personally I think a large reserve force would be better for peacekeeping, even relatively violent peacekeeping operations like Iraq, provided deployments could be kept relatively infrequent (every six or eight years).

    And yeah, I'm not fond of using infantry as police officers either...but a majority of people in this country seem to think it's a grand idea, so that's the world we're working with.

    I don't know how effective they would be as peacekeepers either. The myriad players in the Iraqi conflict are not under the control of any central authority, or even any unifying ideology.

    The problems would thus be twofold - firstly, the actual participants of the sectarian violence are civilians whose ultimate goal is genocide. There is no standing army or even militia to target. Secondly - it is nearly impossible to break grassroots Genocidal convictions, and they are ultimately by far the most effective. The Rwandan genocide is the most recent and grisly example. Such violence is inevitable the moment the United States retreats from the conflict. Unless, of course, the United States remains in occupation for a generation - long enough for children born during the occupation to reach adulthood.

    As it stands, the American occupation of Iraq is doomed to utter failure. The occupation cannot remain with the dwindling political and public support for the operation.

    It is times like this where I remember how the Romans occupied the Middle East. If a soldier was killed in a town, the Romans would invite the neighboring towns to come and watch as they randomly crucified virtually all of the town's inhabitants. For another example, during the Boer War, the British developed the first concentration camps, and did not hesitate to burn down farms that they believed were supplying the insurgency. Both cases demonstrated that, in order to win in the asymmetrical conflict, the larger side had to completely ignore the precepts of Justice that were part of its domestic traditions. Of course, neither side had to deal with CNN. Just an aside.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Yeah, I agree that the use of military forces for peacekeeping isn't a great idea...I was just saying that, regardless of use, reserve forces are generally better to have "extra" of than active forces. Costs are lower, you get a better cross-section of society, you don't create a warrior class that's out of touch with the civilian world, etc. So preserving the all-volunteer military would benefit from a significant expansion of our reserve forces, particularly combat reserves.

    Because while Iraq in particular might have been ill-fated, it's generally a good idea to be able to put 150K+ boots on the ground for a few years at a time (and maybe not even all in the same place)...at least if you plan on being as powerful as we are.

    In other words, I'm not talking about the troubles facing the all-volunteer military in Iraq specifically...Iraq just happened to be the first conflict that put it to the test. I agree that Iraq is a clusterfuck that we probably can't "win" by any sensible definition, and that we're wasting every single life we lose there.

    EDIT: I'm probably gone for a while now...just wanted to throw out again that I don't mean for this to become a thread on whether the war in Iraq is a good idea, but rather as a general discussion of whether the all-volunteer army is capable of dealing with an operation like this and what (if anything) can be done to change that.

    Spoiler:
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    My understanding of voluntary military service was that you willingly trade away your life for personal gains (or for your country, or whatever honorable illusions people may have about it), and you don't get to bitch and complain about it.

    But maybe there is something about the word "voluntary" that I'm missing here.

    People bitch about voluntary things all the time. How should the military be different? No, you're not required to care, but I certainly still get to bitch and complain. And really, you should care (at least, assuming your a citizen...I forget whether or not you are) since it's this same all-volunteer military that we depend on for national defense and any other operations necessary.

    No, you don't depend on it for national defense. You depend on it for offense. Mountains of difference.

    And as far as other operations go, the point is sort of moot since their "necessity" is questionable at best. No war -- except ones fought in defense of the homeland -- is necessary. On rare cases, exceptions might be acceptable (such as to stop genocides, like in Hitler's case), but no war that America has fought before or after WW2 fits into that category.
    Just because a person supported an invasion does not place any obligation on them, moral or otherwise, to go join the military to share those guys' burden.

    I disagree, but I don't intend this to be the main thrust of the discussion. I'd say supporting military adventurism around the globe does place a moral obligation on physically able people to at least sign up for a stint in the reserves or something. But I don't think either of us are objectively right or wrong.

    People who support "military adventurism" (I like the term by the way) support it because they are either misinformed by propaganda, or are simply delusional (i.e. "we're making a positive difference by helping those people!"). Considering this fact, do you still think their support places that moral obligation on them?

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    On rare cases, exceptions might be acceptable (such as to stop genocides, like in Hitler's case), but no war that America has fought before or after WW2 fits into that category.

    Except for the Kosovo War.

    Spoiler:
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The American public likes military adventurism. The military can't handle Iraq. Solution: Bigger military?

    No!

    The military is already too damned big. Cut it down, bitch-slap the hawkish populace, and pursue some pacifist foreign policy. We wouldn't need a bigger army if we didn't insist on playing hegemon, anyway, and if a legitimate emergency did arise it wouldn't be hard to find the 'political will' for a temporary expansion of the forces.

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    The military is already too damned big. Cut it down, bitch-slap the hawkish populace, and pursue some pacifist foreign policy. We wouldn't need a bigger army if we didn't insist on playing hegemon, anyway, and if a legitimate emergency did arise it wouldn't be hard to find the 'political will' for a temporary expansion of the forces.

    I wish I could lime this harder.

    Seriously, you people bitch about shitty education and healthcare. Maybe downsize the military a little and use the money saved to improve those? And who knows, maybe if you shift spending from barbarism to civilization, the attitudes might start getting reflected in your public as well.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    People who support "military adventurism" (I like the term by the way) support it because they are either misinformed by propaganda, or are simply delusional (i.e. "we're making a positive difference by helping those people!"). Considering this fact, do you still think their support places that moral obligation on them?

    Absolutely. But you're not required to agree.

    EDIT: To elaborate, nobody seems to care much about the "didn't know any better" defense when some poor schlep signs up for the military at 18 and ends up doing three tours in Iraq...I don't see why the "didn't know any better" defense should suddenly work for the 26-year-old (or 30-year-old, or 40-year-old) who, through support of public policy, sent him there.
    Seriously, you people bitch about shitty education and healthcare. Maybe downsize the military a little and use the money saved to improve those? And who knows, maybe if you shift spending from barbarism to civilization, the attitudes might start getting reflected in your public as well.

    I doubt it, but honestly I'd agree that were it to work this would probably be preferable.

    Spoiler:
  • HelysianHelysian Registered User
    edited August 2007
    isn't the operation to play peacekeeper in Iraq until the political situation stabilizes?

    yea, they probably can prevent mass riots and any mass genocide attempts

    but they aren't going to be wiping out the insurgencies and other threats since they aren't centralized enough to have a solid target to destroy


    just my amateur opinion

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    You don't seem really convinced, for a draft to happen there must be something out there making it worth it. A good pay? Respect from your family? Saving your country? Higher chance of getting a decent job afterwards? Getting laid? Anything?

    The sandbox we so dearly call Iraq offers none of this.

    At the moment military service can help you get a better job, though actually a draft might well undermine this. There are some benefits offered to veterans (and presumably to any theoretical draftees)...easier access to home loans, help with paying for college, and for those without access already at least some rudimentary health care (you can use VA hospitals, even for non-service-connected conditions, with co-pays on a sliding scale).

    And yeah, probably helps with getting laid.

    But really what we're talking about here isn't some lofty "for the betterment of our youth" draft. I'm referring more to a right-now "we need more soldiers for the ongoing campaign" draft. It isn't about what's in it for the draftee, it's about what's in it for the military/government. Which is why the below most definitely applies.
    For as far as I am aware only the health insurance is decent for US standards. I doubt there would be much support for a draft, not from the age group getting shafted by this, but also not from their parents.

    Oh, no shit. So what I'm getting so far from this thread is a general, "they volunteered, they should just deal with it, no matter how bad it gets," coupled with a side of, "we don't really want to hear about it."

    Not from any individual, and not from you Aldo. Just, you know, in general.

    EDIT: And really, an expansion of our active and reserve forces is a much better idea, especially in the long run. But that won't solve the current ongoing problem, which is only going to get worse in the next year or two (unless we suddenly say "fuck it" on the whole Iraq thing...which I'm rooting for). And it still requires a change in attitude from the 18-25 set, in that military service can't just be "somebody else's problem" anymore. Which will be made all the more difficult by what's been going on for the last few years, even if we do end Iraq tommorow.

    I would join some branch of the army if I could specifically opt out of Iraq, like going to Afghanistan.
    Of course, if this option was given to our troops we would have a much larger problem.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Helysian wrote: »
    isn't the operation to play peacekeeper in Iraq until the political situation stabilizes?

    yea, they probably can prevent mass riots and any mass genocide attempts

    but they aren't going to be wiping out the insurgencies and other threats since they aren't centralized enough to have a solid target to destroy


    just my amateur opinion

    Anbar province looks good since the surge, but thats only because there are enough troops to keep Al-Qaeda out and make sure they stay out.
    Of course, once we have fewer troops in Iraq Anbar is left to the wolves.
    And yes, and end to de-baathification and a sharing of oil revenues would be a terrific salve to our problems, but they're politically impossible in Iraq's Shia and Kurd dominated government.

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I have to wonder if the end of the Iraq war will spawn a Baby Boom Mk. II.

    jk0Btsj.png
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Delzhand wrote: »
    I have to wonder if the end of the Iraq war will spawn a Baby Boom Mk. II.

    A baby boom... of terrorists!

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I have no interest in leaving my home to fight for some political agenda. Now were America to come under attack im more than happy to die defending my home soil from an enemy either foreign or domestic. However im not going to fly halfway around the world to do a job Iraq's should be doing.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • WindbitWindbit Registered User
    edited August 2007
    One of my friends is now in basic training. I honestly can't understand why he'd want to take a gamble and risk his life. It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would join the army. If I knew I could get a job and make a decent living in Canada, Japan, or England I'd leave America as soon as I graduate. Until the US Government stops fucking up constantly and the majority of American citizens stop being so damn idiotic I don't see why people think America is worth dying for to defend.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »

    And as far as other operations go, the point is sort of moot since their "necessity" is questionable at best. No war -- except ones fought in defense of the homeland -- is necessary. On rare cases, exceptions might be acceptable (such as to stop genocides, like in Hitler's case), but no war that America has fought before or after WW2 fits into that category.

    Civil war: Saving america from itself.
    Other then that, you're about right, everything else has been a war of choice.

Sign In or Register to comment.