Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Selective Service Sustains Self, Stirs Shit

2

Posts

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A FUCKING DRAFT

    IT IS NEITHER POLITICALLY NOR MILITARILY FEASIBLE

    Salvation122 on
    sig.png
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Not that it applies to me, as I'm not American, but I think having the ability to call a draft is a good thing.

    Now, I wouldn't agree to its use in Iraq (or a situation like Vietnam) but if there was a WWII type situation then it might be warranted, or if there was a massive threat to the American mainland or something (like a Russian or Chinese invasion, as unlikely as those are).

    Basically you just want to cover all your bases.

    Therefore tests have to be run on this system to ensure it will work if it has to.

    Is this just a simplistic view of it? As fucked as the political situation can get in the states sometimes, I have a hard time believing that someone could reinstate the draft again for political reasons after Vietnam.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • SupramanSupraman Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Not anymore--Canada has agreed to extradite draft dodgers. Really, it's go to war or prision.
    Well son of a bitch.

    Supraman on
    Sellin my comics. PM for huge list and low low prices. this the is craaaaazy supraman suprasale. All TPBs. over 142 trades. Marvel DC Image.
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Al_wat wrote:
    Not that it applies to me, as I'm not American, but I think having the ability to call a draft is a good thing.

    Now, I wouldn't agree to its use in Iraq (or a situation like Vietnam) but if there was a WWII type situation then it might be warranted, or if there was a massive threat to the American mainland or something (like a Russian or Chinese invasion, as unlikely as those are).
    In these instances, you're going to get more than enough volunteers to not need a draft anyway. This is basically a theory of mine:

    The more just the war in the eyes of the American populace, the more manpower you will have in order to fight it.

    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    If you're in an Iraq/Vietnam situation, which is NOT a just war, you will have very few soldiers to fight it with. You will either have to make a compelling case for its justness, get out, or draft.

    And if you start the draft, you will both increase opposition to the war, and crystalize opposition that already existed (along with just about everybody with a drafted family member). Meaning volunteerism drops to basically zilch. The war will almost assuredly be lost at this point (because of a combination of the draftees being of lower quality than volunteers, and public outrage eventually forces a withdrawl), but the populace will not care. They'll just be happy to be home.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Supraman wrote:
    I know the ever present <flee to canada> option is there

    Not anymore--Canada has agreed to extradite draft dodgers. Really, it's go to war or prision.

    No, we haven't. The policy of the Canadian government was to accept draft dodgers openly as political refugees (re: Trudeau's "haven from militarism" speech). That policy has not changed. What has changed is the current Conservative government's stand on the volunteer soldiers (about 50 of them in total) who have gone AWOL from their respective units and fled to Canada, claiming refugee status like the draft dodgers before them. The current uproar has to do with the fact that these people (termed war resisters now) have not been forced into the military, as there isn't currently a draft.

    It's a bit of a complicated issue, but Canada is still very much taking in people who oppose the war and who happen to be apart of the American military. It's just become a bit of a powerkeg, due to the fact that Stephen Harper is currently Prime Minister.
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.

    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    ololol give illegal immigrants citizenship and draft them instead!

    Actually, I think we do have a program that gives people citizenship in exchange for serving.
    It's a pretty decent program except that I don't think they can get higher than a secret clearance, so they'd be excluded from certain jobs. But otherwise even jobs far off from combat are open to them. I worked with a Mexican, Philipino, and Bhurmese back in Missippii, and that was in a very small command. My current one has God knows how many immigrants.

    On the concept of the draft itself: If I weren't already enlisted, I'd willingly go to prison. I don't believe anyone should be forced to kill or work to directly support actions that kill.

    Quid on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    On a not-entirely-unrelated note, I was listening to an interview on NPR recently (I think it was Friday, but I have no more specific information) in which an Air Force general was saying that, while the Army is having trouble filling recruitment goals, the AF is in exactly the opposite situation; they're looking at laying people off due to lack of funding. Basically they have too many airmen. They recently set up a system to allow "blue to green" transfers, basically letting airmen transfer to the Army instead of being laid off. Very few people took them up on the offer.

    God dammit. I've been thinking about the Air Force after college and have been getting encouragement from my family to pursue it but I knew something like this was going to happen.

    Sry we cut our hours go join the Army, kthx bye.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Quid wrote:
    Shinto wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    ololol give illegal immigrants citizenship and draft them instead!

    Actually, I think we do have a program that gives people citizenship in exchange for serving.
    It's a pretty decent program except that I don't think they can get higher than a secret clearance, so they'd be excluded from certain jobs. But otherwise even jobs far off from combat are open to them. I worked with a Mexican, Philipino, and Bhurmese back in Missippii, and that was in a very small command. My current one has God knows how many immigrants.

    On the concept of the draft itself: If I weren't already enlisted, I'd willingly go to prison. I don't believe anyone should be forced to kill or work to directly support actions that kill.

    That's pretty much my opinion. Some guys (all well past draft age in my epxerience) will go on about how mandatory military service for everybody is good for the spirit of a country, gives kids discipline or whatever, but imo it doesn't come close to outweighing the fact that you're forcing people to kill or be killed. Only when the fate of the nation itself is at stake would I consider it to be a valid option.

    I probably wouldn't go to prison myself though. I'd probably hope that my completely out of shape self would either get me rejected or assigned somewhere far away from shooting.

    Scooter on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    That's pretty much my opinion. Some guys (all well past draft age in my epxerience) will go on about how mandatory military service for everybody is good for the spirit of a country, gives kids discipline or whatever, but imo it doesn't come close to outweighing the fact that you're forcing people to kill or be killed. Only when the fate of the nation itself is at stake would I consider it to be a valid option.

    I occasionally advocate the idea of some kind of mandatory intensive civic service. The military is what people can usually relate it to but isn't always what is meant by this.

    What I mean is something like what you get at a summer camp. Surrounded by entirely new people with few preconceptions of who you are and from different cultural backgrounds who you needs to learn to work with to achieve some common goal. Give a sense of some kind of shared culture and experience.

    I don't think military service is a good fit for that. At least not our current, invade/occupy mode. I think draftees are an even worse fit for our modern military.

    Realized as I was writing this that I am now over draft age. I suppose I should start complaining about how young people lack moral fiber.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    That's pretty much my opinion. Some guys (all well past draft age in my epxerience) will go on about how mandatory military service for everybody is good for the spirit of a country, gives kids discipline or whatever, but imo it doesn't come close to outweighing the fact that you're forcing people to kill or be killed. Only when the fate of the nation itself is at stake would I consider it to be a valid option.

    I occasionally advocate the idea of some kind of mandatory intensive civic service. The military is what people can usually relate it to but isn't always what is meant by this.

    What I mean is something like what you get at a summer camp. Surrounded by entirely new people with few preconceptions of who you are and from different cultural backgrounds who you needs to learn to work with to achieve some common goal. Give a sense of some kind of shared culture and experience.

    I don't think military service is a good fit for that. At least not our current, invade/occupy mode. I think draftees are an even worse fit for our modern military.

    Realized as I was writing this that I am now over draft age. I suppose I should start complaining about how young people lack moral fiber.

    You're thinknig more of te New Deal era civil service corp s kinda stuff. Basically they rounded up all the unemployed people and put them to work building parks, roads etc.

    nexuscrawler on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    You're thinknig more of te New Deal era civil service corp s kinda stuff. Basically they rounded up all the unemployed people and put them to work building parks, roads etc.

    Kinda. It's definitely influenced by things of that sort (and right now that is one of the best examples of what to do with what would be a massive work force) and some of the other ideas like the Mormon tradition of mission and a few other sources.

    Not really on topic at all though.

    The Selective Service website is nicely run. This may be the extent of good things I can say about the program.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    You're thinknig more of te New Deal era civil service corp s kinda stuff. Basically they rounded up all the unemployed people and put them to work building parks, roads etc.

    Kinda. It's definitely influenced by things of that sort (and right now that is one of the best examples of what to do with what would be a massive work force) and some of the other ideas like the Mormon tradition of mission and a few other sources.

    Not really on topic at all though.

    The Selective Service website is nicely run. This may be the extent of good things I can say about the program.

    I like that idea but I don't see how you could make it mandatory. Maybe offer scholorships to kids out of high school who do civil service for a summer or something. It'd be good character building for younger kids too

    nexuscrawler on
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    That's pretty much my opinion. Some guys (all well past draft age in my epxerience) will go on about how mandatory military service for everybody is good for the spirit of a country, gives kids discipline or whatever, but imo it doesn't come close to outweighing the fact that you're forcing people to kill or be killed. Only when the fate of the nation itself is at stake would I consider it to be a valid option.

    That's not a problem if you still keep the conscript and voluntary forces separate. Conscripts for defense and voluntary for spreading democracy around the globe. When the fate of the nation is at stake it's a bit late starting to training new troops. Well, not late, but still not as good as having a ready reserve.

    The real issues with an all out conscription would be more with feasibility. It's pretty much a small country model.

    The morality only becomes an issue if you can't trust your politicians. Err, hm. :|

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.

    Thanatos on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    A massive force is useless for peacekeeping operations anyway.

    nexuscrawler on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.

    How about if instead we contract out the militia to other countries that need manpower for their own military campaigns?

    jothki on
  • GlaealGlaeal Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    jothki wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.

    How about if instead we contract out the militia to other countries that need manpower for their own military campaigns?

    Haven't we been doing that for the past 100 years?

    Glaeal on
    Qingu wrote: »
    In fact, there was never any decree by God through the Prophet that they couldn't recieve the priesthood.
    The last nine words of this statement are unnecessary.
  • AurinAurin Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Cantido wrote:
    On a not-entirely-unrelated note, I was listening to an interview on NPR recently (I think it was Friday, but I have no more specific information) in which an Air Force general was saying that, while the Army is having trouble filling recruitment goals, the AF is in exactly the opposite situation; they're looking at laying people off due to lack of funding. Basically they have too many airmen. They recently set up a system to allow "blue to green" transfers, basically letting airmen transfer to the Army instead of being laid off. Very few people took them up on the offer.

    God dammit. I've been thinking about the Air Force after college and have been getting encouragement from my family to pursue it but I knew something like this was going to happen.

    Sry we cut our hours go join the Army, kthx bye.

    You can still join the Air Force, but after your enlistment is up, it's up in the air if you can reenlist or not. It all depends on the career field. I had the option to reenlist, but my husband couldn't, unless he changed jobs, and they didn't offer anything he wanted. Soooo civilians yay.

    And that blue to green program.. I don't see how they thought that would work. :lol:

    Aurin on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.

    Its only really useful to a few countries in unique situations. Like Finland, for example. Every male citizen (I got exempted though because I live in Canada) when they turn 18 gets manadatory military training.

    The reason for this is to have a deterrent to Russia invading, which has happened several times in the past 100 years (although not since WWII).

    Canada would have no use for something like this, there is not a chance in hell the US would invade us. Same goes for the US, they have no need. Its useful for a country that is situated right next to a large aggressor.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Aurin wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    On a not-entirely-unrelated note, I was listening to an interview on NPR recently (I think it was Friday, but I have no more specific information) in which an Air Force general was saying that, while the Army is having trouble filling recruitment goals, the AF is in exactly the opposite situation; they're looking at laying people off due to lack of funding. Basically they have too many airmen. They recently set up a system to allow "blue to green" transfers, basically letting airmen transfer to the Army instead of being laid off. Very few people took them up on the offer.

    God dammit. I've been thinking about the Air Force after college and have been getting encouragement from my family to pursue it but I knew something like this was going to happen.

    Sry we cut our hours go join the Army, kthx bye.

    You can still join the Air Force, but after your enlistment is up, it's up in the air if you can reenlist or not. It all depends on the career field. I had the option to reenlist, but my husband couldn't, unless he changed jobs, and they didn't offer anything he wanted. Soooo civilians yay.

    And that blue to green program.. I don't see how they thought that would work. :lol:
    From the Air Force to the Army seems ridiculous to me, but there's a good chunk of the Navy doing it since they're fed up with the way advancement works.

    Quid on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Aurin wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    Quote:
    On a not-entirely-unrelated note, I was listening to an interview on NPR recently (I think it was Friday, but I have no more specific information) in which an Air Force general was saying that, while the Army is having trouble filling recruitment goals, the AF is in exactly the opposite situation; they're looking at laying people off due to lack of funding. Basically they have too many airmen. They recently set up a system to allow "blue to green" transfers, basically letting airmen transfer to the Army instead of being laid off. Very few people took them up on the offer.


    God dammit. I've been thinking about the Air Force after college and have been getting encouragement from my family to pursue it but I knew something like this was going to happen.

    Sry we cut our hours go join the Army, kthx bye.


    You can still join the Air Force, but after your enlistment is up, it's up in the air if you can reenlist or not. It all depends on the career field. I had the option to reenlist, but my husband couldn't, unless he changed jobs, and they didn't offer anything he wanted. Soooo civilians yay.

    And that blue to green program.. I don't see how they thought that would work. Laughing

    From the Air Force to the Army seems ridiculous to me, but there's a good chunk of the Navy doing it since they're fed up with the way advancement works.

    [spoiler:e182f3bf02]I don't know how to make elegantly pruned quote trees.[/spoiler:e182f3bf02]

    I'd probably never get to fly obviously. I'm trying to take Trig before I graduate college, as I hear the Air Force finds math very, very sexy. Maybe I can see what other kind of careers are out there, related to my degree. (At the very least, I'd learn cool shit in my field, I hope.) My mother's fiancee has family in the AF. He's very nice and he's been gently encouraging me to pursue becoming a pilot if I want, and that he can help me become one because he knows of some exploits like being a minority.

    Choppers are fun! *flips Apache over and crashes*

    I love this.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I would rather go to prison for life than serve for a country that allows our soldiers to bathe in contaminated water.

    SkyGheNe on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    A massive force is useless for peacekeeping operations anyway.

    If only we hadn't put so many soldiers in Iraq.

    Shinto on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    SkyGheNe wrote:
    I would rather go to prison for life than serve for a country that allows our soldiers to bathe in contaminated water.

    For that matter, I'll fight the people trying to draft me before I'll get sent overseas to kill on their behalf.

    I doubt very much that a draft would be reinstated, though. Besides the fact that there'd be a minor revolution in this country, would conscripts really be all that useful to the modern military? I don't know anyone who's in standard light infantry, but it seems that our soldiers get considerably more training than the "here's a uniform and a gun"* that was done during WWII.

    *Yes I know I oversimplify.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Then how do the pilots become pilots?

    ....and how much salad do they have to toss to stay pilots?

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Al_wat wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.

    Its only really useful to a few countries in unique situations. Like Finland, for example. Every male citizen (I got exempted though because I live in Canada) when they turn 18 gets manadatory military training.

    The reason for this is to have a deterrent to Russia invading, which has happened several times in the past 100 years (although not since WWII).

    Canada would have no use for something like this, there is not a chance in hell the US would invade us. Same goes for the US, they have no need. Its useful for a country that is situated right next to a large aggressor.

    Wasteful and expensive? Not really, no. Civic service is where it's at. If that entails defensive military service, then so be it. It works well for Finland, yes, but it also works quite well for Switzerland, and they haven't been involved in any war since Napoleon's last little jaunt.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    saggio wrote:
    Al_wat wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.
    Its only really useful to a few countries in unique situations. Like Finland, for example. Every male citizen (I got exempted though because I live in Canada) when they turn 18 gets manadatory military training.

    The reason for this is to have a deterrent to Russia invading, which has happened several times in the past 100 years (although not since WWII).

    Canada would have no use for something like this, there is not a chance in hell the US would invade us. Same goes for the US, they have no need. Its useful for a country that is situated right next to a large aggressor.
    Wasteful and expensive? Not really, no. Civic service is where it's at. If that entails defensive military service, then so be it. It works well for Finland, yes, but it also works quite well for Switzerland, and they haven't been involved in any war since Napoleon's last little jaunt.
    You're talking about pulling every member of the most productive part of your workforce out of the economy for 17% of the time.

    How is that not wasteful and expensive?

    Thanatos on
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Bwhuh? 17% of what?

    One year service, for example, would be 17% of... lemme see now... six years.


    ...

    Nevermind, I actually read the quote tree. Yes, that'd be crazy. Conscription is about training and readiness, not having a guy sit in every tree 24/7.

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    Al_wat wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    saggio wrote:
    mtvcdm wrote:
    If we ARE in a WWII situation, you'll have all the volunteers you can stand. It's a just war, everybody's behind it, everyone is committed to winning it.
    You should learn some Canadian history. Canada fought in both world wars from the beginning, and both times there was a major conscription crisis near the end of the conflict (1917 and 1944 respectively). As the body count climbed, supported dropped significantly, for both wars. In a major, protracted conflict, conscription is almost always necessary.

    Personally, I fully support conscription. In fact, I wish Canada would adopt a system of federal service based upon the Swiss model (how I love thee, Switzerland!). Return to having the militia as the main force in times of crisis, with a small, professional standing core of specialists and commanders that maintain force readiness in times of peace. The conscription would, in my perfect world, continue to operate during these peace times. The conscripts would then replace our current reserve system (which, in Canada, maintains historical units at near-strength and helps augment the full-on professional units which get deployed wherever).

    All able-bodied citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for federal service, and they would all serve at least 3-4 months every two years. This way, the small professional core would be able to function as an expeditionary force for peacekeeping duties, while the militia would be able to maintain sovereignty and defend the country with minimal effort. The only way to maintain such a model of federal service, though, would be for the government to make it permanent policy to keep out of military conflicts unless they directly threaten the country (invasion).

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a policy is currently viable for Canada, and most certainly not for the United States.
    That would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive.
    Its only really useful to a few countries in unique situations. Like Finland, for example. Every male citizen (I got exempted though because I live in Canada) when they turn 18 gets manadatory military training.

    The reason for this is to have a deterrent to Russia invading, which has happened several times in the past 100 years (although not since WWII).

    Canada would have no use for something like this, there is not a chance in hell the US would invade us. Same goes for the US, they have no need. Its useful for a country that is situated right next to a large aggressor.
    Wasteful and expensive? Not really, no. Civic service is where it's at. If that entails defensive military service, then so be it. It works well for Finland, yes, but it also works quite well for Switzerland, and they haven't been involved in any war since Napoleon's last little jaunt.
    You're talking about pulling every member of the most productive part of your workforce out of the economy for 17% of the time.

    How is that not wasteful and expensive?

    I think I misrepresented myself, here. The system would be setup so you'd get training/service for the first two years after you come of age, and then thereafter you must perform a month or so of service every year or two years thereafter until you come to a certain age (say, 50, or something). Such service doesn't have to be continual (a weekend every month for two years would work). The benefit of such a system would be great.

    First, the obvious defense benefits to once again having the CF based around the concept of the militia - for any sort of catastrophic invasion or weather crisis (think Quebec Ice Storm) a larger number of people would be trained and ready to be called in to do relief work and repairs for any damages. If the system of federal service isn't limited to just military, then we could get mechanisms in place for people to just do things that better their communities (run foodbanks, cleanup garbage, perform simple administrative stuff, work on civic improvements and projects).

    Any sort of productivity lost to the private sector would be more than made up for in the service to one's own community and the state itself. I can't really see how you think this is a bad idea.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • SeriphusSeriphus Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Well, looking past Iraq, the USA DOES actually have idological enemies in the world, and is certainly likely to need at least the credible threat of being able to "Do it's thing" to keep its people safe.
    Ignoring anything like the thought that Bush has completely sacrificed the good will of your traditional allies by repeatedly lying to the world, and smirking WHILE he lied, you guys do need to protect yourselves, you have a right to safety and your administrations have an obligation to provide for it.

    You need a draft. It needs to be soon, because even drafted soldiers are worse than useless without at least two years training/lead in to front line deploy.

    The poster above writing about his cousin on his third forced re-deployment is highlighting why a draft isn't just inevitable, but essential. Right now, if Iran went insane, and tried to take southern Iraq, you guys couldn't deal with the clean up. Sure, you could stop them, which would need nukes, but you are not allowed to simply switch over to a "Nuke everyone that disagrees with us" policy.
    A draft would be the best thing. For one thing, it would force you all to really think closely about the lies your various admins might try to get away with again. I don't see how you can continue to be able to protect yourselves without one.

    Seriphus on
    It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.

    Gibbon.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Seriphus wrote:
    Well, looking past Iraq, the USA DOES actually have idological enemies in the world, and is certainly likely to need at least the credible threat of being able to "Do it's thing" to keep its people safe.
    Ignoring anything like the thought that Bush has completely sacrificed the good will of your traditional allies by repeatedly lying to the world, and smirking WHILE he lied, you guys do need to protect yourselves, you have a right to safety and your administrations have an obligation to provide for it.

    You need a draft. It needs to be soon, because even drafted soldiers are worse than useless without at least two years training/lead in to front line deploy.

    The poster above writing about his cousin on his third forced re-deployment is highlighting why a draft isn't just inevitable, but essential. Right now, if Iran went insane, and tried to take southern Iraq, you guys couldn't deal with the clean up. Sure, you could stop them, which would need nukes, but you are not allowed to simply switch over to a "Nuke everyone that disagrees with us" policy.
    A draft would be the best thing. For one thing, it would force you all to really think closely about the lies your various admins might try to get away with again. I don't see how you can continue to be able to protect yourselves without one.

    Protect themselves from what? What current army with enough credible threat to potentially ruin one's way of life is mobilizing to land on the beaches of the U.S.A to justify a massive reorganization in societal deployment that would cost untold billions in losses from the economy? To do it just so that "administration can't lie to us no more" is somewhat a naive check-and-balance to a level of government that already has a method to keep them from "lying" (or I assume you mean deploying troops without forethought for a plan): it's called Congress and the Senate.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    [quote="Seriphus"..... you guys do need to protect yourselves, you have a right to safety and your administrations have an obligation to provide for it.

    You need a draft. It needs to be soon, because even drafted soldiers are worse than useless without at least two years training/lead in to front line deploy.[/quote]

    American is the single securest country on the face of the Earth. Any possible threat to the American people is either of the type that no amount of military manpower could prevent, or could easily be dealt with by the US' current military.

    The ONLY thing a draft would do is remove a significant percentage of the most productive segment of the population from productive activity, create social and political dissent of epic proportions, and absolutely destroy any chance of balancing the US budget.
    The poster above writing about his cousin on his third forced re-deployment is highlighting why a draft isn't just inevitable, but essential. Right now, if Iran went insane, and tried to take southern Iraq, you guys couldn't deal with the clean up. Sure, you could stop them, which would need nukes, but you are not allowed to simply switch over to a "Nuke everyone that disagrees with us" policy.
    A draft would be the best thing. For one thing, it would force you all to really think closely about the lies your various admins might try to get away with again. I don't see how you can continue to be able to protect yourselves without one.

    This entire section makes no goddam sense. Iran would never try and "take" Southern Iraq for any number of reasons. If they acted openly, they'd give the US government the political capital to bring the entire might of the US military to Iraq, which is the only thing lacking right now (for good reason). There's no military in the world that can openly challenge the US, and continually acting as if there is leads directly to the kinds of messes we have now.

    The US doesn't need more "grunt" level soldiers (which is the best you can hope for from conscripts), it needs more specialists. The only thing a draft does is make things more "fair" in terms of who goes to war, and that by no stretch of the imagination outweighs the crippling negatives.

    werehippy on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    There's no military in the world that can openly challenge the US, and continually acting as if there is leads directly to the kinds of messes we have now.

    The US doesn't need more "grunt" level soldiers (which is the best you can hope for from conscripts), it needs more specialists. The only thing a draft does is make things more "fair" in terms of who goes to war, and that by no stretch of the imagination outweighs the crippling negatives.
    OPENLY challenge. I read this to mean 'big ol' army vs. big ol' army, both meet on a battlefield, round 1, FIGHT!' In that sense, the US does not lose.

    Iraq is not that sense. There are two basic types of armies: conventional and guerilla.

    *Conventional armies are out in the open, and tend to be larger, but slow and lumbering, tearing down anything in their paths, regardless of how careful they try to be. Result: High body counts.
    *Guerilla armies hide in any manner they can think of- ANY manner- with the goal being you dying and never knowing what got you. Their armies are smaller, but quicker and harder to hit. Result: People on all sides never knowing when exactly they might be treated to a sudden complimentary body piercing.

    When conventional faces conventional, the biggest army with the most toys wins.
    When guerilla faces guerilla, you get a shitstorm nobody outside the war wants to get anywhere near. Best tactics win.
    When conventional faces guerilla, guerilla wins. No, I don't care what conventional army you use, and no, I don't care what guerilla army you put them up against. Guerilla wins.

    The US is conventional. Just about all the Iraqis are guerilla. (We were also conventional when facing the guerilla Viet Cong, and guerilla when we beat the conventional British. Everything else we've done in war was pretty much conventional vs. conventional, and since we had the most men and the best toys, we won.)

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    mtvcdm wrote:
    werehippy wrote:
    There's no military in the world that can openly challenge the US, and continually acting as if there is leads directly to the kinds of messes we have now.

    The US doesn't need more "grunt" level soldiers (which is the best you can hope for from conscripts), it needs more specialists. The only thing a draft does is make things more "fair" in terms of who goes to war, and that by no stretch of the imagination outweighs the crippling negatives.
    OPENLY challenge. I read this to mean 'big ol' army vs. big ol' army, both meet on a battlefield, round 1, FIGHT!' In that sense, the US does not lose.

    Iraq is not that sense. There are two basic types of armies: conventional and guerilla.

    *Conventional armies are out in the open, and tend to be larger, but slow and lumbering, tearing down anything in their paths, regardless of how careful they try to be. Result: High body counts.
    *Guerilla armies hide in any manner they can think of- ANY manner- with the goal being you dying and never knowing what got you. Their armies are smaller, but quicker and harder to hit. Result: People on all sides never knowing when exactly they might be treated to a sudden complimentary body piercing.

    When conventional faces conventional, the biggest army with the most toys wins.
    When guerilla faces guerilla, you get a shitstorm nobody outside the war wants to get anywhere near. Best tactics win.
    When conventional faces guerilla, guerilla wins. No, I don't care what conventional army you use, and no, I don't care what guerilla army you put them up against. Guerilla wins.

    The US is conventional. Just about all the Iraqis are guerilla. (We were also conventional when facing the guerilla Viet Cong, and guerilla when we beat the conventional British. Everything else we've done in war was pretty much conventional vs. conventional, and since we had the most men and the best toys, we won.)

    Vietnam didn't work because nearly the entire population wanted communism and we fubared the election that would have given it to them.

    The American Revolution was pretty much a world-war for Britain anyway, and they eventually realized it was in their best interest to leave us the hell alone, twice (hello 1812).

    We're not "losing" the "war" in Iraq in the conventional sense, because, conventionally, its already been won, and I know you realize that. I see that you're arguing that the ideological guerilla war-force is unbeatable with a conventional army, but that's only true when the army in question (America) is using the wrong methods. Sure, after a 40-year occupation of Iraq, we'd either have killed all the insurgents OR driven the entire country against us, but the war we're "losing" is the propaganda war--the indoctrination war. The majority of Iraq is not anywhere near as militant as you make it out to be--most want democracy, if I'm remembering polls correctly.

    Infrastructure and a non-corrupt police force (possibly too much to ask, but whatever) will most probably contribute to a homeostatic Iraq in the future, weeding out the insurgency on its own. The infrastructure is what's important at this point, not wiping out the insurgency.

    Moridin on
    sig10008eq.png
  • SeriphusSeriphus Registered User
    edited December 2006
    But your whole argument rests on people being sane. Werehippy, mate, Afganistan got invaded because not only did the Government there support the Taliban and Al Quada that murdered 3000 people IN NEW YORK CITY, but when they were told "Give up this list of people instantly", they in fact challenged your military to do their worst.

    That mook in Panama swung his sword about his head, and declared war on you.

    If Iran was to repeat the holding of hostages that they have already got away with against both YOUR embassy, and an embassy in London, you would have to use air power to punish them, because you simply don't have the soldiers to deal with IRAQ effectively, you can not hope to invade Iran.

    Right now, you do NOT have sufficent soldiers to repeat the Iraq war, let alone the bigger one that Iran would swiftly become. A fact.

    Seriphus on
    It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.

    Gibbon.
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Seriphus wrote:
    But your whole argument rests on people being sane. Werehippy, mate, Afganistan got invaded because not only did the Government there support the Taliban and Al Quada that murdered 3000 people IN NEW YORK CITY, but when they were told "Give up this list of people instantly", they in fact challenged your military to do their worst.

    That mook in Panama swung his sword about his head, and declared war on you.

    If Iran was to repeat the holding of hostages that they have already got away with against both YOUR embassy, and an embassy in London, you would have to use air power to punish them, because you simply don't have the soldiers to deal with IRAQ effectively, you can not hope to invade Iran.

    Right now, you do NOT have sufficent soldiers to repeat the Iraq war, let alone the bigger one that Iran would swiftly become. A fact.

    If Iran maliciously attacked anyone for no goddamn reason, the U.S. wouldn't be the only country in the world responding.

    Moridin on
    sig10008eq.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Seriphus, the US already spends something like three or four times the amount of the next closest nation on the military. We have the bodies for a war. We don't have it for an occupation, but that's more or less a given.

    Iran would be a bitch, but keep in mind that Iraq and Iran fought each other for 8 years in the 80s. The US and allies then took on that selfsame Iraqi army and kicked its ass in rather short order, then again in 2003.

    Both countries have been under sanctions for quite a while as well, which doesn't exactly help their warmaking ability.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    If there was a US war with Iran Israel would probably help.

    And that would be a pretty big help.

    This doesn't really apply to the topic that much though...


    edit: wrote Iraq instead of Iran

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • CodeCode Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Vietnam didn't work because nearly the entire population wanted communism and we fubared the election that would have given it to them.

    The American Revolution was pretty much a world-war for Britain anyway, and they eventually realized it was in their best interest to leave us the hell alone, twice (hello 1812).

    We're not "losing" the "war" in Iraq in the conventional sense, because, conventionally, its already been won, and I know you realize that. I see that you're arguing that the ideological guerilla war-force is unbeatable with a conventional army, but that's only true when the army in question (America) is using the wrong methods. Sure, after a 40-year occupation of Iraq, we'd either have killed all the insurgents OR driven the entire country against us, but the war we're "losing" is the propaganda war--the indoctrination war. The majority of Iraq is not anywhere near as militant as you make it out to be--most want democracy, if I'm remembering polls correctly.

    Infrastructure and a non-corrupt police force (possibly too much to ask, but whatever) will most probably contribute to a homeostatic Iraq in the future, weeding out the insurgency on its own. The infrastructure is what's important at this point, not wiping out the insurgency.

    If I wave a banner over my head that says I am a millionaire, does my bank account suddenly swell by several zero's? Just because someone declares we won, doesn't make it so. I see that you are trying to say the "conventional" war is won, but that is a bit of a misleading statement. There never was a conventional war in Iraq, it has been the same guerrilla tactics since day one. And I can speak from very close and personal experience when I say it got much hairier and more violent after Bush went around telling the world how "the war was over" Someone forgot to tell the other side.

    Code on
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Code wrote:
    Moridin wrote:
    Vietnam didn't work because nearly the entire population wanted communism and we fubared the election that would have given it to them.

    The American Revolution was pretty much a world-war for Britain anyway, and they eventually realized it was in their best interest to leave us the hell alone, twice (hello 1812).

    We're not "losing" the "war" in Iraq in the conventional sense, because, conventionally, its already been won, and I know you realize that. I see that you're arguing that the ideological guerilla war-force is unbeatable with a conventional army, but that's only true when the army in question (America) is using the wrong methods. Sure, after a 40-year occupation of Iraq, we'd either have killed all the insurgents OR driven the entire country against us, but the war we're "losing" is the propaganda war--the indoctrination war. The majority of Iraq is not anywhere near as militant as you make it out to be--most want democracy, if I'm remembering polls correctly.

    Infrastructure and a non-corrupt police force (possibly too much to ask, but whatever) will most probably contribute to a homeostatic Iraq in the future, weeding out the insurgency on its own. The infrastructure is what's important at this point, not wiping out the insurgency.

    If I wave a banner over my head that says I am a millionaire, does my bank account suddenly swell by several zero's? Just because someone declares we won, doesn't make it so. I see that you are trying to say the "conventional" war is won, but that is a bit of a misleading statement. There never was a conventional war in Iraq, it has been the same guerrilla tactics since day one. And I can speak from very close and personal experience when I say it got much hairier and more violent after Bush went around telling the world how "the war was over" Someone forgot to tell the other side.

    The hairiness of the war notwithstanding, Iraq's standing army was brought down in a matter of weeks. The insurgency is an entirely different animal than that. And I never said we "beat" the insurgency. "Beating" an ideology is so nebulous a feat, that I feel sorry for politicians trying to argue that in any sense of the word.

    Moridin on
    sig10008eq.png
2
Sign In or Register to comment.