Did you even read what I said? It's pretty damn foolish to be pushing for those riots when all you want is to put an end to the war. Especially when the draft is not going to happen, unless maybe if we are going to get dragged into a war with Iran.
Just push for ending the war and bringing the troops home. You lose a lot of credibility with a stupid idea like instituting the draft, because you have a lot better chance of meeting your goals without even bringing it up.
Bolded parts make me wonder what reality you've been living in. Its been four years since we started this war, and the article I linked to has them talking about increasing troop sizes and decreasing rotation times over there.
Your "the draft is not going to happen" logic is flawed as well, since you don't know that and have no way of knowing it, so please stop bringing that up like its an actual salient argument.
The fact is that America really dosen't give a fuck about the war anymore. For the most part its faded to a steady buzz in the background - they know we're still there but they don't know or care why. You've pretty much ignored everyone's conventional wisdom when it comes to the fact that you being to care when its YOUR son and daughter who might end up getting sent there, as opposed to that lady down the street who had the son who lost a leg in an Humvee rollover.
Did you even read what I said? It's pretty damn foolish to be pushing for those riots when all you want is to put an end to the war. Especially when the draft is not going to happen, unless maybe if we are going to get dragged into a war with Iran.
Just push for ending the war and bringing the troops home. You lose a lot of credibility with a stupid idea like instituting the draft, because you have a lot better chance of meeting your goals without even bringing it up.
Bolded parts make me wonder what reality you've been living in. Its been four years since we started this war, and the article I linked to has them talking about increasing troop sizes and decreasing rotation times over there.
Your "the draft is not going to happen" logic is flawed as well, since you don't know that and have no way of knowing it, so please stop bringing that up like its an actual salient argument.
The fact is that America really dosen't give a fuck about the war anymore. For the most part its faded to a steady buzz in the background - they know we're still there but they don't know or care why. You've pretty much ignored everyone's conventional wisdom when it comes to the fact that you being to care when its YOUR son and daughter who might end up getting sent there, as opposed to that lady down the street who had the son who lost a leg in an Humvee rollover.
I do know there won't be a draft, because a bill for it has been raised multiple times by Rangel and was immediately buried. Apparently you weren't paying attention or aware of it happening. If a draft WERE plausible you might have a point about it ending the war. But it isn't going to happen just for Iraq.
Did you even read what I said? It's pretty damn foolish to be pushing for those riots when all you want is to put an end to the war. Especially when the draft is not going to happen, unless maybe if we are going to get dragged into a war with Iran.
Just push for ending the war and bringing the troops home. You lose a lot of credibility with a stupid idea like instituting the draft, because you have a lot better chance of meeting your goals without even bringing it up.
Bolded parts make me wonder what reality you've been living in. Its been four years since we started this war, and the article I linked to has them talking about increasing troop sizes and decreasing rotation times over there.
The legislative branch, and the public, are pushing wildly for troops to come home. Unfortunately, Bush has vowed to veto any bill that specifies a date for total withdrawal, and the executive branch's insane abuse of military power and wanton ignorance of checks and balances will go unstopped until we pass a withdrawal bill on a veto-proof margin.
Still, the bolded parts ring true to me. We are going to get out, and we are going to get out without a draft, because those are the gears already at work. What reality are you living in, soldier? The public-approved plan won't get through because of executive stupidity, and you think the public's greatest fear is somehow a more likely alternative?
There is still a congress, even if they have been mostly powerless as of late.
Well, the public isn't pushing wildly for it. Only 21% want immediate withdrawl.
An additional 37% say troops should come home within a year, but that doesn't actually mean that they will favor immediate withdrawl come March of 2008. It just means they want there to be an end in sight.
More seriously losing patience with the war than "pushing wildly for troops to come home."
The legislative branch, and the public, are pushing wildly for troops to come home. Unfortunately, Bush has vowed to veto any bill that specifies a date for total withdrawal, and the executive branch's insane abuse of military power and wanton ignorance of checks and balances will go unstopped until we pass a withdrawal bill on a veto-proof margin.
Still, the bolded parts ring true to me. We are going to get out, and we are going to get out without a draft, because those are the gears already at work. What reality are you living in, soldier? The public-approved plan won't get through because of executive stupidity, and you think the public's greatest fear is somehow a more likely alternative?
There is still a congress, even if they have been mostly powerless as of late.
I'm not saying we're never going to get out. However the point I'm making is that we're going to get out much sooner than if we just sit here waiting for the US populace to get tired of this godforsaken war.
What reality am I living in, drama princess? I'm living in the reality that had us in Vietnam for almost twenty goddamn years. So maybe I'm not going to trust too much in your "assurances" that we'll be out soon. History, the fact that there are very connected people making tons of cash off this, and that the Pentagon is making ten year plans for Iraq says a lot more to me than "lets just let it work itself out".
Here's the question: Do you think a draft would turn people for or against the war.
I do know there won't be a draft, because a bill for it has been raised multiple times by Rangel and was immediately buried. Apparently you weren't paying attention or aware of it happening. If a draft WERE plausible you might have a point about it ending the war. But it isn't going to happen just for Iraq.
So because its been buried before, we should never talk about it or the possibility of it coming around again? Because Savant said so.
Dude, what fucking forum do you think you're in? I gotta ask, did you even fucking read the fucking article in the OP that pretty much screams WE'RE HURTING FOR TROOPS?
A draft would tear the country to tatters, more or less, in my opinion. If a draft was instituted, I doubt we would really be able to focus on the war very much at all-- without the media howitzer turned to it, there is no war anyway. Focus on the ensuing riots and protests instead, and, well, it ends. I don't doubt that the draft would cause the shit to hit the fan, and likely bring an end to the conflict.
What I was telling you is that a draft needs to go through congress, and we can't even pass bills for the withdrawal of troops because they are being vetoed. The draft would likely not be presidentially-vetoed, but I highly doubt that the situation is dire enough that congress would pass it in your interest.
I know that there has been some talk of more radical representatives (maybe senators, I don't remember) proposing the draft for this reason, but I don't think it got very far.
A draft would tear the country to tatters, more or less, in my opinion. If a draft was instituted, I doubt we would really be able to focus on the war very much at all-- without the media howitzer turned to it, there is no war anyway. Focus on the ensuing riots and protests instead, and, well, it ends. I don't doubt that the draft would cause the shit to hit the fan, and likely bring an end to the conflict.
What I was telling you is that a draft needs to go through congress, and we can't even pass bills for the withdrawal of troops because they are being vetoed. The draft would likely not be presidentially-vetoed, but I highly doubt that the situation is dire enough that congress would pass it in your interest.
I know that there has been some talk of more radical representatives (maybe senators, I don't remember) proposing the draft for this reason, but I don't think it got very far.
See, I agree with everything you just said. I disagree with the idea we shouldn't discuss it because its stupid and never ever going to happen so lets just shut up about the draft. Not that you've said that, but that's the vibe I've been getting from certain people.
And Raangel (D-NY) has been doing what you described in the last sentence.
I think it is sort of upsetting, though, in that the events following a draft's declaration that would precipitate the end of the war could happen now, too. We could have riots! We could have protests, on a much larger scale, that are boisterous enough to draw media attention. In theory, I guess, we could have these things-- at least.
It just upsets me that without the actual draft having passed, and the lives being on the line-- and likely lives having been lost in the interim, outside of the war-- that the protests and riots wouldn't mean a thing. They would be 'unjustified.' It pisses me off that there's no weight to saying, 'This can really only escalate into a draft, so let's cut it now,' but all of the weight in the world to, 'The draft's passed, we didn't see this coming so let's cut it hard and fast now.'
That's why we're talking about instituting a draft. I'm pretty sure if you're told "here's your draft card look on TV tonight to see if your number is called" there will be riots overnight.
It's not even that it has to be a draft. That's just the thing I can see having the most impact.
What disturbs me is that right now our future commanders in chief know that they can wage a rather long war for any reason they feel like, so long as they use a volunteer army. I haven't had a damn thing change in my life since the Iraq War started, or at least not enough to notice. No food drives, no metal drives, no rationing, no anything. It's not that we need to send more kids over now, of course when the war's at 30% approval rating it's mad to actually want a draft instituted. The point is that it might be a good thing to have in the future. Or if not a draft at least something that says "when your government goes to war, you will be inconvenienced even if you're not in the army". Honestly, Vietnam was a clusterfuck, but I think it might have been over a bit sooner if you couldn't escape the draft simply by going to college. Lack of responsibility is what leads to thinking about things like "withdrawing with honor" instead of "is this worth it?".
I think part of it too is that we're not exposed to it in the same way we were with Vietnam, when footage of the war was in our living rooms every night (well, not mine, I wasn't alive yet).
In this war, the government did a top notch job of clamping down on any images that would unsettle people early on, and I still don't see much actual footage.
I think it is sort of upsetting, though, in that the events following a draft's declaration that would precipitate the end of the war could happen now, too. We could have riots! We could have protests, on a much larger scale, that are boisterous enough to draw media attention. In theory, I guess, we could have these things-- at least.
It just upsets me that without the actual draft having passed, and the lives being on the line-- and likely lives having been lost in the interim, outside of the war-- that the protests and riots wouldn't mean a thing. They would be 'unjustified.' It pisses me off that there's no weight to saying, 'This can really only escalate into a draft, so let's cut it now,' but all of the weight in the world to, 'The draft's passed, we didn't see this coming so let's cut it hard and fast now.'
tl;dr-- fucken amerecanz
The genius of democracy is more in the ability to react than the ability for foresight.
I think it is sort of upsetting, though, in that the events following a draft's declaration that would precipitate the end of the war could happen now, too. We could have riots! We could have protests, on a much larger scale, that are boisterous enough to draw media attention. In theory, I guess, we could have these things-- at least.
It just upsets me that without the actual draft having passed, and the lives being on the line-- and likely lives having been lost in the interim, outside of the war-- that the protests and riots wouldn't mean a thing. They would be 'unjustified.' It pisses me off that there's no weight to saying, 'This can really only escalate into a draft, so let's cut it now,' but all of the weight in the world to, 'The draft's passed, we didn't see this coming so let's cut it hard and fast now.'
tl;dr-- fucken amerecanz
Pretty much why I'm disgusted everytime I see an "American Flag with an Eagle crying and Twin Towers in the background" t shirt, or a yellow ribbon. Most of America wasn't asked to sacrifice anything, but even if they were, I'm sure there'd be shit flying. "Hey, we can't make SUVs because we're going to start putting out new uparmored vehicles", for example.
And military reform? Man, I think if we see it all (and the Iraqi War isn't retconneded as the Vietnam War was), it'll be after this administration and after the current crop of yes men and assholes are thrown out on their ear, and it'll have to come from within and from below the current military structure. When I saw this, I mean you're not going to see it from the Generals and the people in Washington. Its going to have to come from the Captains and the Majors, and the mid level NCOs. To be honest, I see the "flight of the Captains" that occured allowing a lot of substandard Lieutenants and other Captains to step up and be in places they had no business at.
To cite an example, the Army promotion rate from 1LT to Captain is almost 100%. The Army says this is because "they have so many good leaders", while historically the promotion rate has been much, much lower. In my own experience, it says the Army is fucked. When I was in Afghanistan, a platoon leader signed off on members of his platoon giving their interpreter money to go purchase about a pillowcase sized bag of vicodin. He was relieved for cause, but a few months later I ran into him. He was a Captain in the S-3 (Operations) shop. Before, someone like this would have been best advised to find a new occupation, but he's probably made Major by now.
I do know there won't be a draft, because a bill for it has been raised multiple times by Rangel and was immediately buried. Apparently you weren't paying attention or aware of it happening. If a draft WERE plausible you might have a point about it ending the war. But it isn't going to happen just for Iraq.
So because its been buried before, we should never talk about it or the possibility of it coming around again? Because Savant said so.
Dude, what fucking forum do you think you're in? I gotta ask, did you even fucking read the fucking article in the OP that pretty much screams WE'RE HURTING FOR TROOPS?
I'm just using recent history as my guide for the viability of the draft. I don't know what you are using. The administration is well aware of how unpopular the draft would make the war, which is why it has been so effectively blocked. What reason do I have to believe that the draft would suddenly have a chance of going anywhere in the current political climate? Maybe if Bush is gone, but by then you have removed a major roadblock to your real exit goal.
Seriously, you are arguing on the grounds of making more people suffer, unwillingly at that, or at the very least threatening it. It should be painfully obvious that it would be unpopular, moreso than just abandoning our positions. America is a democracy, so there is some correlation between what is popular and what the government does.
Could someone please expand on the quotation marks around "volunteer" in this thread? I have a feeling that they represent some fairly important ideas.
Could someone please expand on the quotation marks around "volunteer" in this thread? I have a feeling that they represent some fairly important ideas.
We have an all volunteer force, however stop loss policies are in effect that don't let a lot of people who are currently in to end their time when they were supposed to. People who were scheduled to get out in 2004 might still be in the military and serving.
A draft would tear the country to tatters, more or less, in my opinion. If a draft was instituted, I doubt we would really be able to focus on the war very much at all-- without the media howitzer turned to it, there is no war anyway. Focus on the ensuing riots and protests instead, and, well, it ends. I don't doubt that the draft would cause the shit to hit the fan, and likely bring an end to the conflict.
What I was telling you is that a draft needs to go through congress, and we can't even pass bills for the withdrawal of troops because they are being vetoed. The draft would likely not be presidentially-vetoed, but I highly doubt that the situation is dire enough that congress would pass it in your interest.
I know that there has been some talk of more radical representatives (maybe senators, I don't remember) proposing the draft for this reason, but I don't think it got very far.
See, I agree with everything you just said. I disagree with the idea we shouldn't discuss it because its stupid and never ever going to happen so lets just shut up about the draft. Not that you've said that, but that's the vibe I've been getting from certain people.
And Raangel (D-NY) has been doing what you described in the last sentence.
Why would they institute a draft if they know it is going to be wildly unpopular and result in the end of the war? It doesn't make much sense to commit political suicide (and yes the party that institutes a draft is going to lose a lot of votes). Furthermore, the pentagon isn't going to push for a draft because they know it will not help the war effort in Iraq. You have come to the conclusion that the draft will usher in our retreat from Iraq; I'm pretty sure the military brass has come to the same conclusion. As far as the need for more troops goes, unfortunately, it is much easier (and beneficial in terms of continuing the war) for the military leadership to screw soldiers over and decrease their "dwell time" as well as other things, than it is for them to get a draft initiated.
If you want someone to blame look at the military leadership and the president. The American people have funded this war in the trillions of dollars and have for the past 2 decades funded the most expensive (by far) army in the world. It isn't their fault that the guys at the top have decided to spend it on retarded projects instead of things like body armor and benefits for soldiers after service. You might not think much of the yellow ribbons and "support the troops" bumper stickers, but it is a hell of a lot better than getting spat on and called a baby killer. Also, I don't think anyone is going to blame the failure in Iraq on a lack of effort on the part of the troops fighting the war. I'm not sure who said that but I think it was suggested in this thread.
Could someone please expand on the quotation marks around "volunteer" in this thread? I have a feeling that they represent some fairly important ideas.
We have an all volunteer force, however stop loss policies are in effect that don't let a lot of people who are currently in to end their time when they were supposed to. People who were scheduled to get out in 2004 might still be in the military and serving.
In addition, most military contracts are for 8 years, with 4/8 of that as active duty or 6/8 as a reservist. The remainder (4 years for active, 2 years for reservists) are spent in inactive (or individual? I forget) ready reserve, where you don't have to do anything unless they activate you.
Usually, the time in IRR goes by without the person noticing, but I know some Army retirees got called back up under IRR obligations a few years ago. Which means that, although they signed the contract initially, you can bet they aren't too happy being told they aren't really retired, and get their asses to the desert. I know the same thing just recently happened to a bunch of Marines in the IRR
Could someone please expand on the quotation marks around "volunteer" in this thread? I have a feeling that they represent some fairly important ideas.
We have an all volunteer force, however stop loss policies are in effect that don't let a lot of people who are currently in to end their time when they were supposed to. People who were scheduled to get out in 2004 might still be in the military and serving.
I'm just using recent history as my guide for the viability of the draft. I don't know what you are using. The administration is well aware of how unpopular the draft would make the war, which is why it has been so effectively blocked. What reason do I have to believe that the draft would suddenly have a chance of going anywhere in the current political climate? Maybe if Bush is gone, but by then you have removed a major roadblock to your real exit goal.
Seriously, you are arguing on the grounds of making more people suffer, unwillingly at that, or at the very least threatening it. It should be painfully obvious that it would be unpopular, moreso than just abandoning our positions. America is a democracy, so there is some correlation between what is popular and what the government does.
We're obviously arguing two different things here. You're talking as if someone is going to put a draft into play, I'm talking using the draft as an example of how things have gotten so bad that we need a draft to get America to realise the shit has hit the fan. We're not talking about the political viability, for the last damn time.
And FYI, Skippy, its not just "a few". We're talking in the magnitude of thousands here.
Look again -- I never said it was a few. The Army retirees were around 5,000, I believe, and the current crop of Marines is somewhere around 1500 I think.
Look again -- I never said it was a few. The Army retirees were around 5,000, I believe, and the current crop of Marines is somewhere around 1500 I think.
Usually, the time in IRR goes by without the person noticing, but I know some Army retirees got called back up under IRR obligations a few years ago. Which means that, although they signed the contract initially, you can bet they aren't too happy being told they aren't really retired, and get their asses to the desert. I know the same thing just recently happened to a bunch of Marines in the IRR
I'm kind of new at this entire "English" thing but I'm pretty sure there's no numbers in there. But now we're just arguing semantics.
We're obviously arguing two different things here. You're talking as if someone is going to put a draft into play, I'm talking using the draft as an example of how things have gotten so bad that we need a draft to get America to realise the shit has hit the fan.
America realizes this already. It's the President who refuses to admit it.
We won't be pulling out until things turn so horrifically bad in Iraq that Bush's own party completely disowns his Iraq policy and bipartisan support for withdrawal reaches the critical mass required to override the White House's veto power. And even after that point, the withdrawal plan will allow for tens of thousands of American troops to remain in theater, along with hundreds of thousands of contractors and employees of private military companies.
Tiemler on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
The trenches are manmade; those would be hell in any environment. You know what I mean.
The point is that Ege02 said the draft in Vietnam was different from the draft in WWI and WWII because Vietnam was a harsh and unforgiving argument. I want him to explain what insanely stupid universe that statement is valid in.
The thing that makes trenches ever-so-slightly less of an hostile environment than jungles/desert is that in trench warfare, you know where the enemy is. Conscripts are much more capable of performing well in trench-warfare than against guerrilla tactics (as seen in Vietnam).
Besides, although it is true that WWI was fought in trenches, WWII was not. And in that case, the environment was familiar. The lush meadows and pine forests of Europe are nowhere near as harsh as the jungles of Vietnam or Iraqi/Afghani deserts.
I mean really, you have to be an absolute retard to be in favor if instituting draft for Iraq.
Lush meado-
You little mother-
I can't believe my grandfather fucking fought in WWII to provide a safe haven for things like you to grow to 'intellectual' 'maturity' in.
The trenches are manmade; those would be hell in any environment. You know what I mean.
The point is that Ege02 said the draft in Vietnam was different from the draft in WWI and WWII because Vietnam was a harsh and unforgiving argument. I want him to explain what insanely stupid universe that statement is valid in.
The thing that makes trenches ever-so-slightly less of an hostile environment than jungles/desert is that in trench warfare, you know where the enemy is. Conscripts are much more capable of performing well in trench-warfare than against guerrilla tactics (as seen in Vietnam).
Besides, although it is true that WWI was fought in trenches, WWII was not. And in that case, the environment was familiar. The lush meadows and pine forests of Europe are nowhere near as harsh as the jungles of Vietnam or Iraqi/Afghani deserts.
I mean really, you have to be an absolute retard to be in favor if instituting draft for Iraq.
Lush meado-
You little mother-
I can't believe my grandfather fucking fought in WWII to provide a safe haven for things like you to grow to 'intellectual' 'maturity' in.
I think ege is trying to say (although rather inelegantly) that both Iraq and Vietnam were essentially counter-insurgency wars, fought not against a standing army that you could see and understand, but against people who were and are virtually indistinguishable from the general populace, and do not operate on traditional military lines.
It's a different kind of war, and ege is right in pointing out that the role of conscripts has definitely changed from holding a line or pushing through in an offensive to one that is essentially perpetual occupation. If you want historic examples, just look at Yugoslavia during the Second World War - the Wehrmacht, the most technologically advanced fighting machine of the day could not subdue or effectively stand against a relatively small number of insurgents. They were playing a completely different game than the Wehrmacht was. Just as the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan are today.
The army is stretched and they announced the continued extra deployments a few months ago so people could make plans based on it. At the same press conference the general "retard" said that it was expected that few of the deployments would last 15 months and that many would last less than a year as a troop draw down is planned for next year.
The recruitment rates are what they expected, and no it's not because of a lot of old guys getting in now, by far the largest piece of the recruitment pie is still the normal young adults the Army has always attracted.
I know soldiers in the Army, I know a few that just got their orders for deployment. One guy I know is in the desert out west training for Iraq right now. They aren't depressed to be soldiers, in fact they are quietly excited to do their part. It's what they signed up for, it's what they trained for, it's the job they want to finish.
As for what's going on in Iraq, do you guys even read the paper? 5 provinces are under the Iraqi governments security control now, all but one is to be included by the end of 2007 with the last, Baghdads' province, to be under full Iraqi control in early 2008. It's taken them time, but the first generals idea to build the army and police in Iraq is paying off, the Iraqi's are standing their ground, fighting the insurgents, showing that they are the future of Iraq, not Al-Quada. The locals are turning the insurgents in now, the weapons stashes found have more than doubled in the last month. What more do you want?
I vote for pulling out and letting a civil war decide Iraq's fate.
Or maybe just take their oil and lower our gas prices, then GTFO.
But maybe I'm just a minority opinion. Iraq Civil War on PPV. :O
I tend to agree with that first part.
It's going to happen whether we want it to or not, unless we stay there for a couple decades to calm things down. And I really don't think it's worth it. Maybe I am just pessimistic.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Not so fast. I don't think we're really getting a full picture of the kind of progress that's currently taking place thanks to the latest surge. Let's just stay and see how it goes. It isn't unreasonable to think that things could turn around. For instance, the latest reports from Rep. Mike Pence suggest that walking through a market in Baghdad is like being back in Indiana.
"I, too, find myself leaving my day at the market in Baghdad with a new sense of cautious optimism that freedom might just work for these people," Pence said during a news conference inside the fortified Green Zone.
Pence said he was deeply moved by his ability to "mix and mingle unfettered among ordinary Iraqis" and to have tea and haggle over the price of a rug.
The army is stretched and they announced the continued extra deployments a few months ago so people could make plans based on it. At the same press conference the general "retard" said that it was expected that few of the deployments would last 15 months and that many would last less than a year as a troop draw down is planned for next year.
The recruitment rates are what they expected, and no it's not because of a lot of old guys getting in now, by far the largest piece of the recruitment pie is still the normal young adults the Army has always attracted.
I know soldiers in the Army, I know a few that just got their orders for deployment. One guy I know is in the desert out west training for Iraq right now. They aren't depressed to be soldiers, in fact they are quietly excited to do their part. It's what they signed up for, it's what they trained for, it's the job they want to finish.
As for what's going on in Iraq, do you guys even read the paper? 5 provinces are under the Iraqi governments security control now, all but one is to be included by the end of 2007 with the last, Baghdads' province, to be under full Iraqi control in early 2008. It's taken them time, but the first generals idea to build the army and police in Iraq is paying off, the Iraqi's are standing their ground, fighting the insurgents, showing that they are the future of Iraq, not Al-Quada. The locals are turning the insurgents in now, the weapons stashes found have more than doubled in the last month. What more do you want?
I vote for pulling out and letting a civil war decide Iraq's fate.
Or maybe just take their oil and lower our gas prices, then GTFO.
But maybe I'm just a minority opinion. Iraq Civil War on PPV. :O
I tend to agree with that first part.
It's going to happen whether we want it to or not, unless we stay there for a couple decades to calm things down. And I really don't think it's worth it. Maybe I am just pessimistic.
While avoiding work yesterday and poking around Wikipedia, I read up on the U.S. army's transformation plans - basing the army less on divisions and more on the smaller brigades. It sounds a lot like the old 19th century reforms to the British army's regimental system, with the smaller self-contained forces and split between overseas and domestic deployment (it's expected that active-duty brigades will serve one out of every three years deployed).
The war in Vietnam was lost because of shitty tactics, shitty equipment (the M16 originaly would not fucking fire when it got damp or began to heat up, genius when you're fighting a war in the Southeast Asian jungle!) brought to you courtest of the Military Industrial Complex (hey its cheaper to make this weapon fully auto and give it a 20 round magazine. FUCKING BRILLIANT), and fighting for lame ass platitudes while your mission changes every year.
Aaaaactually, what caused the problems with the M16 was the powder used in the original issue M193 (?) round. It was switched just before production, after field tests - it was cheaper! The M16 was a rifle that was said to "not need to be cleaned" and the new powder created exceptional amounts of fouling. The M16-type gas system isn't a closed gas system (piston system) ala the AK-47. As the bolt rotates and slides back to eject the spent casing, carbon from said casing is spewed into the reciever through the gas tube. Thus, the weapon would jam when enough carbon built up to create friction/interfere with clearances - which wasn't very long. But you're right, heat/water didn't help this at all.
Anyway, that isn't a problem now. The M16 series of rifles is one of, if not the best assault rifles ever made, despite it's bumps along the road.
I'm not sure what the fully auto comment is about, but the M14 also used a 20-round magazine, albiet it had a much lower cyclic rate.
FWIW, wasn't Vietnam a military victory? As in, we killed more of them than they did of us? At least until support for the war started to drop?
Anyway, the topic at hand. These long rotations are the worst idea ever. A good friend of mine who is a convoy driver in the Army is really upset about this, especially since he just got married last week.
The army is stretched and they announced the continued extra deployments a few months ago so people could make plans based on it. At the same press conference the general "retard" said that it was expected that few of the deployments would last 15 months and that many would last less than a year as a troop draw down is planned for next year.
The recruitment rates are what they expected, and no it's not because of a lot of old guys getting in now, by far the largest piece of the recruitment pie is still the normal young adults the Army has always attracted.
I know soldiers in the Army, I know a few that just got their orders for deployment. One guy I know is in the desert out west training for Iraq right now. They aren't depressed to be soldiers, in fact they are quietly excited to do their part. It's what they signed up for, it's what they trained for, it's the job they want to finish.
As for what's going on in Iraq, do you guys even read the paper? 5 provinces are under the Iraqi governments security control now, all but one is to be included by the end of 2007 with the last, Baghdads' province, to be under full Iraqi control in early 2008. It's taken them time, but the first generals idea to build the army and police in Iraq is paying off, the Iraqi's are standing their ground, fighting the insurgents, showing that they are the future of Iraq, not Al-Quada. The locals are turning the insurgents in now, the weapons stashes found have more than doubled in the last month. What more do you want?
Well, it'd be nice if they stopped killing each other, and us.
It'd also be nice if more than 50% of the people of Iraq thought things were better now than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Posts
Bolded parts make me wonder what reality you've been living in. Its been four years since we started this war, and the article I linked to has them talking about increasing troop sizes and decreasing rotation times over there.
Your "the draft is not going to happen" logic is flawed as well, since you don't know that and have no way of knowing it, so please stop bringing that up like its an actual salient argument.
The fact is that America really dosen't give a fuck about the war anymore. For the most part its faded to a steady buzz in the background - they know we're still there but they don't know or care why. You've pretty much ignored everyone's conventional wisdom when it comes to the fact that you being to care when its YOUR son and daughter who might end up getting sent there, as opposed to that lady down the street who had the son who lost a leg in an Humvee rollover.
But I must ask Siliconenhanced or anyone else in the military:
Do you see any Military reform happening in the forseeable future?
Also STFU Ege 02.
That's why it was so easy for Napoleon and Hitler to conquer Russia.
I do know there won't be a draft, because a bill for it has been raised multiple times by Rangel and was immediately buried. Apparently you weren't paying attention or aware of it happening. If a draft WERE plausible you might have a point about it ending the war. But it isn't going to happen just for Iraq.
Still, the bolded parts ring true to me. We are going to get out, and we are going to get out without a draft, because those are the gears already at work. What reality are you living in, soldier? The public-approved plan won't get through because of executive stupidity, and you think the public's greatest fear is somehow a more likely alternative?
There is still a congress, even if they have been mostly powerless as of late.
An additional 37% say troops should come home within a year, but that doesn't actually mean that they will favor immediate withdrawl come March of 2008. It just means they want there to be an end in sight.
More seriously losing patience with the war than "pushing wildly for troops to come home."
I'm not saying we're never going to get out. However the point I'm making is that we're going to get out much sooner than if we just sit here waiting for the US populace to get tired of this godforsaken war.
What reality am I living in, drama princess? I'm living in the reality that had us in Vietnam for almost twenty goddamn years. So maybe I'm not going to trust too much in your "assurances" that we'll be out soon. History, the fact that there are very connected people making tons of cash off this, and that the Pentagon is making ten year plans for Iraq says a lot more to me than "lets just let it work itself out".
Here's the question: Do you think a draft would turn people for or against the war.
So because its been buried before, we should never talk about it or the possibility of it coming around again? Because Savant said so.
Dude, what fucking forum do you think you're in? I gotta ask, did you even fucking read the fucking article in the OP that pretty much screams WE'RE HURTING FOR TROOPS?
What I was telling you is that a draft needs to go through congress, and we can't even pass bills for the withdrawal of troops because they are being vetoed. The draft would likely not be presidentially-vetoed, but I highly doubt that the situation is dire enough that congress would pass it in your interest.
I know that there has been some talk of more radical representatives (maybe senators, I don't remember) proposing the draft for this reason, but I don't think it got very far.
See, I agree with everything you just said. I disagree with the idea we shouldn't discuss it because its stupid and never ever going to happen so lets just shut up about the draft. Not that you've said that, but that's the vibe I've been getting from certain people.
And Raangel (D-NY) has been doing what you described in the last sentence.
It just upsets me that without the actual draft having passed, and the lives being on the line-- and likely lives having been lost in the interim, outside of the war-- that the protests and riots wouldn't mean a thing. They would be 'unjustified.' It pisses me off that there's no weight to saying, 'This can really only escalate into a draft, so let's cut it now,' but all of the weight in the world to, 'The draft's passed, we didn't see this coming so let's cut it hard and fast now.'
tl;dr-- fucken amerecanz
I think part of it too is that we're not exposed to it in the same way we were with Vietnam, when footage of the war was in our living rooms every night (well, not mine, I wasn't alive yet).
In this war, the government did a top notch job of clamping down on any images that would unsettle people early on, and I still don't see much actual footage.
The genius of democracy is more in the ability to react than the ability for foresight.
Pretty much why I'm disgusted everytime I see an "American Flag with an Eagle crying and Twin Towers in the background" t shirt, or a yellow ribbon. Most of America wasn't asked to sacrifice anything, but even if they were, I'm sure there'd be shit flying. "Hey, we can't make SUVs because we're going to start putting out new uparmored vehicles", for example.
And military reform? Man, I think if we see it all (and the Iraqi War isn't retconneded as the Vietnam War was), it'll be after this administration and after the current crop of yes men and assholes are thrown out on their ear, and it'll have to come from within and from below the current military structure. When I saw this, I mean you're not going to see it from the Generals and the people in Washington. Its going to have to come from the Captains and the Majors, and the mid level NCOs. To be honest, I see the "flight of the Captains" that occured allowing a lot of substandard Lieutenants and other Captains to step up and be in places they had no business at.
To cite an example, the Army promotion rate from 1LT to Captain is almost 100%. The Army says this is because "they have so many good leaders", while historically the promotion rate has been much, much lower. In my own experience, it says the Army is fucked. When I was in Afghanistan, a platoon leader signed off on members of his platoon giving their interpreter money to go purchase about a pillowcase sized bag of vicodin. He was relieved for cause, but a few months later I ran into him. He was a Captain in the S-3 (Operations) shop. Before, someone like this would have been best advised to find a new occupation, but he's probably made Major by now.
I'm just using recent history as my guide for the viability of the draft. I don't know what you are using. The administration is well aware of how unpopular the draft would make the war, which is why it has been so effectively blocked. What reason do I have to believe that the draft would suddenly have a chance of going anywhere in the current political climate? Maybe if Bush is gone, but by then you have removed a major roadblock to your real exit goal.
Seriously, you are arguing on the grounds of making more people suffer, unwillingly at that, or at the very least threatening it. It should be painfully obvious that it would be unpopular, moreso than just abandoning our positions. America is a democracy, so there is some correlation between what is popular and what the government does.
You're about two pages late.
We have an all volunteer force, however stop loss policies are in effect that don't let a lot of people who are currently in to end their time when they were supposed to. People who were scheduled to get out in 2004 might still be in the military and serving.
Why would they institute a draft if they know it is going to be wildly unpopular and result in the end of the war? It doesn't make much sense to commit political suicide (and yes the party that institutes a draft is going to lose a lot of votes). Furthermore, the pentagon isn't going to push for a draft because they know it will not help the war effort in Iraq. You have come to the conclusion that the draft will usher in our retreat from Iraq; I'm pretty sure the military brass has come to the same conclusion. As far as the need for more troops goes, unfortunately, it is much easier (and beneficial in terms of continuing the war) for the military leadership to screw soldiers over and decrease their "dwell time" as well as other things, than it is for them to get a draft initiated.
If you want someone to blame look at the military leadership and the president. The American people have funded this war in the trillions of dollars and have for the past 2 decades funded the most expensive (by far) army in the world. It isn't their fault that the guys at the top have decided to spend it on retarded projects instead of things like body armor and benefits for soldiers after service. You might not think much of the yellow ribbons and "support the troops" bumper stickers, but it is a hell of a lot better than getting spat on and called a baby killer. Also, I don't think anyone is going to blame the failure in Iraq on a lack of effort on the part of the troops fighting the war. I'm not sure who said that but I think it was suggested in this thread.
In addition, most military contracts are for 8 years, with 4/8 of that as active duty or 6/8 as a reservist. The remainder (4 years for active, 2 years for reservists) are spent in inactive (or individual? I forget) ready reserve, where you don't have to do anything unless they activate you.
Usually, the time in IRR goes by without the person noticing, but I know some Army retirees got called back up under IRR obligations a few years ago. Which means that, although they signed the contract initially, you can bet they aren't too happy being told they aren't really retired, and get their asses to the desert. I know the same thing just recently happened to a bunch of Marines in the IRR
Not possible.
We're obviously arguing two different things here. You're talking as if someone is going to put a draft into play, I'm talking using the draft as an example of how things have gotten so bad that we need a draft to get America to realise the shit has hit the fan. We're not talking about the political viability, for the last damn time.
And FYI, Skippy, its not just "a few". We're talking in the magnitude of thousands here.
I'm kind of new at this entire "English" thing but I'm pretty sure there's no numbers in there. But now we're just arguing semantics.
America realizes this already. It's the President who refuses to admit it.
We won't be pulling out until things turn so horrifically bad in Iraq that Bush's own party completely disowns his Iraq policy and bipartisan support for withdrawal reaches the critical mass required to override the White House's veto power. And even after that point, the withdrawal plan will allow for tens of thousands of American troops to remain in theater, along with hundreds of thousands of contractors and employees of private military companies.
Lush meado-
You little mother-
I can't believe my grandfather fucking fought in WWII to provide a safe haven for things like you to grow to 'intellectual' 'maturity' in.
You
Are
Wrong
Seriously. Pack it the fuck in.
I host a podcast about movies.
I think ege is trying to say (although rather inelegantly) that both Iraq and Vietnam were essentially counter-insurgency wars, fought not against a standing army that you could see and understand, but against people who were and are virtually indistinguishable from the general populace, and do not operate on traditional military lines.
It's a different kind of war, and ege is right in pointing out that the role of conscripts has definitely changed from holding a line or pushing through in an offensive to one that is essentially perpetual occupation. If you want historic examples, just look at Yugoslavia during the Second World War - the Wehrmacht, the most technologically advanced fighting machine of the day could not subdue or effectively stand against a relatively small number of insurgents. They were playing a completely different game than the Wehrmacht was. Just as the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan are today.
The army is stretched and they announced the continued extra deployments a few months ago so people could make plans based on it. At the same press conference the general "retard" said that it was expected that few of the deployments would last 15 months and that many would last less than a year as a troop draw down is planned for next year.
The recruitment rates are what they expected, and no it's not because of a lot of old guys getting in now, by far the largest piece of the recruitment pie is still the normal young adults the Army has always attracted.
I know soldiers in the Army, I know a few that just got their orders for deployment. One guy I know is in the desert out west training for Iraq right now. They aren't depressed to be soldiers, in fact they are quietly excited to do their part. It's what they signed up for, it's what they trained for, it's the job they want to finish.
As for what's going on in Iraq, do you guys even read the paper? 5 provinces are under the Iraqi governments security control now, all but one is to be included by the end of 2007 with the last, Baghdads' province, to be under full Iraqi control in early 2008. It's taken them time, but the first generals idea to build the army and police in Iraq is paying off, the Iraqi's are standing their ground, fighting the insurgents, showing that they are the future of Iraq, not Al-Quada. The locals are turning the insurgents in now, the weapons stashes found have more than doubled in the last month. What more do you want?
Or maybe just take their oil and lower our gas prices, then GTFO.
But maybe I'm just a minority opinion. Iraq Civil War on PPV. :O
I tend to agree with that first part.
It's going to happen whether we want it to or not, unless we stay there for a couple decades to calm things down. And I really don't think it's worth it. Maybe I am just pessimistic.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
See? Not patronizing or anything.
Yeah, everything is working so well.
Yeah, I think you are. :P
Aaaaactually, what caused the problems with the M16 was the powder used in the original issue M193 (?) round. It was switched just before production, after field tests - it was cheaper! The M16 was a rifle that was said to "not need to be cleaned" and the new powder created exceptional amounts of fouling. The M16-type gas system isn't a closed gas system (piston system) ala the AK-47. As the bolt rotates and slides back to eject the spent casing, carbon from said casing is spewed into the reciever through the gas tube. Thus, the weapon would jam when enough carbon built up to create friction/interfere with clearances - which wasn't very long. But you're right, heat/water didn't help this at all.
Anyway, that isn't a problem now. The M16 series of rifles is one of, if not the best assault rifles ever made, despite it's bumps along the road.
I'm not sure what the fully auto comment is about, but the M14 also used a 20-round magazine, albiet it had a much lower cyclic rate.
FWIW, wasn't Vietnam a military victory? As in, we killed more of them than they did of us? At least until support for the war started to drop?
Anyway, the topic at hand. These long rotations are the worst idea ever. A good friend of mine who is a convoy driver in the Army is really upset about this, especially since he just got married last week.
It'd also be nice if more than 50% of the people of Iraq thought things were better now than they were under Saddam Hussein.
That correlation is not due to America being a democracy.
You don't decide who won a war simply by comparing casualties on both sides.
If you don't call that "winning," I don't know what is.
winning a war =! military victory