Lion's Weekend Blurb - August 11-12

[Lion]

According to THIS STORY (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292949,00.html), US Army Lt. General Douglas Lute, President Bush's new war advisor, favors the return of a military draft. As most are aware, America has an 'all-volunteer' military. In question is the health of America's current military, and the stress that is placed on those serving, and of course their families. If we continue fighting the war in Iraq at the current level, then it may be necessary to bring back the draft. If America gets involved in another major conflict in the near future, then without question we would need it. Parents who are against the current Iraq war discourage their children from volunteering for service, and the military is struggling to fill their quotas of new enlistees. So far the volunteer military has worked well over the years, and has produced good soldiers for the most part. If people were forced to join via the draft, would this affect the quality of the military? Those of you who are of age (18) or nearing that age, and if the draft should return, would you happily go off to war if the call comes YOUR way?

[HawkEye1102002]

In my general oppinion, the draft would reduce any army's combat effectivness as the draftees may not have the will to serve their country unlike the volenteers.

Also I would like to see a multi national force in Iraq instead of a US dominated force, I think it is high time the UN pulled its finger from its a**e, stop all the infighting and send in some peacekeepers.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

I will say right now, I do not want to work alongside those who did not volunteer. Let alone fight alongside them.

[Hellscream2007]

I agree with what HawkEye said.

If people are forced to do stuff, it usually ends bad in the long run...Usually.
I was born late enough, as of now, drafting is also a thing of the past with us. (Us being belgium)

And of course, it's far from my home. Then again, if some country invaded mine I would fight back, but I wouldn't go looking for it.

As for filling up spots... they cut themselves in the finger.
I don't know about you, but I rather see a survival probablity of 80% then one of 40%. If I knew it was only to be getting sent away and dying...

I remember that song: oohooohoo, you're in the army, now. (80's song)

And Krasny, that would be the sanest thing to do, cause what do you have when a soldier next to you decides to run, when you are lying in the dirt taking the shots?

[sverkuijlen2000]

I'm not American, but if the dutch government ever decides to re institute military draft I'm emigrating.
I'm not going to risk my neck in someone else's war.

-Sver

[berlin88]

I will say right now, I do not want to work alongside those who did not volunteer. Let alone fight alongside them.

I partially disagree with your comments Krasny. In the long run an all volunteer military force is the way to go, but sometimes a temporary draft may be called for. I do not like the draft, but I do feel it important to keep the army prepared for current or future operations.

Parents opposed to the war, NBC news and other left wing activists are doing everything they can to make the Iraq war look bad and discourage people from joining the US military.

The National Guard, reserves and other units are being worn down and exhausted by repeated and lengthy deployments to Iraq. A short term draft could alleviate that problem, by providing extra soldiers.

My question for you Krasny, is how do we meet the recruiting goals without the use of a draft? What do we do to counteract the left wing liberals anti- war activists who are working very hard to keep young people from joining up.

[NuclearDreams]

In Germany it is a manditory two year Civil or Military service. For the most part it's a joke. Those who are "drafted" into one or the other have serious motivation problems right from the beginning. I don't agree with the draft what-so-ever, KO's point being the main reason. I have talked to my two older sons about joining the U.S. military and the benefits they'll achieve if their head is screwed on right before they go in. I believe it is my job as a father to paint the military in a positive light for my kids. I've explained to them their duty to God, family and country. If parents would stop being so anti-everything and consider that life is what you make of it, then military service can be a positive experience. Remember, for those interested, there are literally dozens of non combat jobs that will help young kids to get ahead in life.

[Derek]

Are they allowed to join the US military? They're not US Citizens, are they?

[NuclearDreams]

They have U.S. and German citizenships. Before they join the U.S. military they have to give up the German one.

[General Kane Nash]

Are they allowed to join the US military? They're not US Citizens, are they?

Just read this:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/f/noncitizen.htm

and this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/16/immigration_bill_offers_a_military_path_to_us_dream/

more data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

Hum, I am almost sure if congress go ahead with this law you will got the chance to achieve al your requirements in volunteers... could you give me an Abrams? please, I will be more than happy to fight for you to join your great nation WAAAGH!!!!, oh wait, wrong army warcry :lol::lol:

[WNxAnthrax]

As 2008 fastly approaches im currently in the process of strengthing my muscles, my Agility, my endurance for Summer 2008 Air Force Academy. I'll be 22 when i enlist for the Air Force. Signing up for Security Forces Apprentice. It's the Air Forces version of a Military Police. So yes, i'd be more then willing to join the service and im currently in the process of it.

Air Force is the best way to go for the Military. Best coverage, best care of its service members and lots and lots of benefits and great pay.

[warstomp]

I think its a bad idea will produce many low quality troops. I will probally have to try and get canadian citizenship if this happens lol. Some people were not made for military service. Just like some people are not made to use the computer. Some like to read some don't. This is just like how schools require you to read chapter books on your own time when not everyone likes to read. All around its a bad idea to force anyone to do something they don't like.

[Rocketerz]

I would serve in a real war, not an Iraq Bush war.

[berlin88]

I would serve in a real war, not an Iraq Bush war.

Just what do you consider to be a real war? USA vs Russia or China?

[Iamrecognized]

No. Certainly not. That would be the absolute worst thing they could do, besides stay in Iraq. The only reason that the draft worked in WWII was that people were for that war. That is basically the only war that the whole US supported. In this case, with the vast majority of people against the war, and an even higher number of people of draft age against it, it would probably start a massive amount of dissent that could even lead to outright rebellion.

[Avapodnaught]

The option of a draft could save lives by putting people where they belong in their profession, but the obvious let down has been stated, is that person dedicated enough for the job?

How has the independence of america gone down? we blame our leaders but what we have done in the past has been done by our own people, not by government alone, now Id be against the draft if they just took kids with a look... or takingt them illegally, but I wouldn't c y our standards of living should be let down because of how we have progressed (if anything, we should be proud, true, and more dedicated to what seems to be the place that everyone else wants to get in... but... I guess standard of living, has affected us so...)

[Derek]

No. Certainly not. That would be the absolute worst thing they could do, besides stay in Iraq. The only reason that the draft worked in WWII was that people were for that war. That is basically the only war that the whole US supported. In this case, with the vast majority of people against the war, and an even higher number of people of draft age against it, it would probably start a massive amount of dissent that could even lead to outright rebellion.
Thats entirely wrong really. The draft working in WWII had absolutely nothing to do with people supporting the war. The draft was used in WWII because it was the only way that they could have gotten nearly enough men to effectively fight the war. In any drawn out war with high casualties (read: not Iraq) an all-volunteer army will be all-dead in a matter of months, you have to have a draft.

But Iraq is not such a situation. The casualties in Iraq have been very low by the standards of WWII, and there is no need for a draft.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

They've been low in Iraq period, we've been in the country for 4 years and casualties havn't even totalled the average yearly casualty in say Vietnam.

[Iamrecognized]

Thats entirely wrong really. The draft working in WWII had absolutely nothing to do with people supporting the war. The draft was used in WWII because it was the only way that they could have gotten nearly enough men to effectively fight the war. In any drawn out war with high casualties (read: not Iraq) an all-volunteer army will be all-dead in a matter of months, you have to have a draft.

But Iraq is not such a situation. The casualties in Iraq have been very low by the standards of WWII, and there is no need for a draft.

That is not what I was saying. I meant that the draft was accepted by the people then, and the army did well with it, primarily because the country almost entirely supported the war.

[HawkEye1102002]

But Iraq is not such a situation. The casualties in Iraq have been very low by the standards of WWII, and there is no need for a draft.

Quoted for truth, the casualties on the Allies has been quite low compaired to other wars.

I don't agree to pull out of Iraq yet (as the job must be done IMO) but I can see a huge need for a multi-national UN force and not a US dominated one, but we won't be seeing one though cos of infighting and bickering.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

I would serve in a real war, not an Iraq Bush war.

And guess what, that is the kind of attitude that isn't needed in the Armed Forces. We have a job to do, and we're to do it regardless of personal opinion. I hope they never re-instate the draft, because I'd hate to serve beside self-righteous pricks like you.

[Delta-4]

And guess what, that is the kind of attitude that isn't needed in the Armed Forces. We have a job to do, and we're to do it regardless of personal opinion. I hope they never re-instate the draft, because I'd hate to serve beside self-righteous pricks like you.I agree completely, even though I'm still nowhere near the age to enlist. Very good point, KO.

[Camel]

And guess what, that is the kind of attitude that isn't needed in the Armed Forces. We have a job to do, and we're to do it regardless of personal opinion. I hope they never re-instate the draft, because I'd hate to serve beside self-righteous pricks like you.

:rockbrow:Btw, your 3rd sentence contradicts the 2nd one.....:thought:

[Avapodnaught]

Yes, that is contradicting... but what I think he means is the soldiers attitude toward y they r there in the first place.... but not how they are against eachother.. that is always bound to happen....

[sniperelite7]

For something like Iraq, an all volunteer force would be enough. But the minute a major war erupts like say China. We would need to have the draft. CHina has a million something soliders. We are going to need enough to match them.

[canman87]

(as the job must be done IMO)

But what exactly constitutes "getting the job done"? A war on terrorism can never be truly won. There is never going to be a day where we say, "Whew, got 'em all! War's over!" I mean, it's stuff like this war that creates new terrorists every day.

It's like trying to fight a war against jealousy: Pointless. :nuts:

That being said, if the draft came about for this war, I'd be in Canada or in jail. I don't believe in what we're doing over there, so I see no reason to risk dying for it. Now, if we were fighting a war to defend our country against a direct invasion or something to that effect, then yes, I would gladly fight. I love the country, I just have a problem with the leadership. Politicians are all corrupt, power-hungry people that will say or do whatever it takes to stay in power.

[Iamrecognized]

Quoted for truth, the casualties on the Allies has been quite low compaired to other wars.

I absolutely hate it when people say this! Yes, less people have died in Iraq than other wars we have fought in, but it is still too many. One would be too many, seeing as the war exists for no reason. We belonged fighting in Vietnam more than we did in Iraq. Vietnam was mainly done as part of containment, a policy during the cold war than was basically us showing we would not back down, that we were serious, like with the Cuban Missile Crisis. We can't do that in Iraq though! What have we accomplished? We destabilized a country that was focused on hating Saddam, and now have them fighting each other, and mad at us, with absolutely no control over the area. We cannot show the terrorists we will not back down, because they are not afraid to die.

And guess what, that is the kind of attitude that isn't needed in the Armed Forces. We have a job to do, and we're to do it regardless of personal opinion. I hope they never re-instate the draft, because I'd hate to serve beside self-righteous pricks like you.

No, actually what is being said here makes sense. He does not believe in this war, and therefore it is stupid to ask him to put his life on the line for it.

But what exactly constitutes "getting the job done"? A war on terrorism can never be truly won. There is never going to be a day where we say, "Whew, got 'em all! War's over!" I mean, it's stuff like this war that creates new terrorists every day.

It's like trying to fight a war against jealousy: Pointless. :nuts:

That being said, if the draft came about for this war, I'd be in Canada or in jail. I don't believe in what we're doing over there, so I see no reason to risk dying for it. Now, if we were fighting a war to defend our country against a direct invasion or something to that effect, then yes, I would gladly fight. I love the country, I just have a problem with the leadership. Politicians are all corrupt, power-hungry people that will say or do whatever it takes to stay in power.

Exactly, and, relating to my previous posts, this is why the draft worked well in WWII. We were attacked and we were pissed. With Vietnam though, people hated it, and the army and the draft were despised by the people. Reinstating the draft when so many people hate the war would do the exact same thing, only now more people would find ways out, and there would be an intense dislike of the troops, which is not what we need.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

No, actually what is being said here makes sense. He does not believe in this war, and therefore it is stupid to ask him to put his life on the line for it.

With that taken into account he still is unfit to be a soldier. Being a soldier entails doing your job day and night, whether you like it or not, regardless of the conditions that surround you. You do not have to agree with why you're fighting, but you will fight. That is part of the job. That is why we need to maintain an All Volunteer Force, because we sure as **** don't want to serve beside someone that isn't a real soldier.

[HawkEye1102002]

I absolutely hate it when people say this! Yes, less people have died in Iraq than other wars we have fought in, but it is still too many.

So what you are trying to say that the deaths soldiers in past wars to secure our way of life today is too many?
You may not like it when the fact that less soldiers has died in Iraq compaired to previous wars is stated, but I did not state this down as a "good thing", I stated this because the media has created false images of Iraq and half truthes.


We were attacked and we were pissed. With Vietnam though, people hated it, and the army and the draft were despised by the people.

What bothers me alot about that statement is that you were pissed about being attacked in Pearl Harbour, and yet everyone was in favour of the draft, if everyone was truely indeed pissed then the US army would have comprised mostly of volenteers. Now during Vietnam, during more advanced times, the reason people hated Vietnam was because TV images was being beamed directly into the populations house, lots of people had TV's back then and the media was not regulated like it was in WW2.

In my oppinion, if live TV images beamed into peoples homes during WW2, images of Allied troops dead, burning tanks and scenes of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, I wouldn't think American involvement of WW2 would have nowhere near the support it had then, infact I belive there would be a big Nazi sympathy going around, like the Ho Chi Ming sympathsisers during Vietnam.

[Iamrecognized]

So what you are trying to say that the deaths soldiers in past wars to secure our way of life today is too many?
You may not like it when the fact that less soldiers has died in Iraq compaired to previous wars is stated, but I did not state this down as a "good thing", I stated this because the media has created false images of Iraq and half truthes.

No, I am saying that any death in this war is too many. The other wars (Vietnam excluded) had to be fought. This one certainly does not.

And the media is creating an image that people are dieing, and that the government is playing it down, which they are.


What bothers me alot about that statement is that you were pissed about being attacked in Pearl Harbour, and yet everyone was in favour of the draft, if everyone was truely indeed pissed then the US army would have comprised mostly of volenteers. Now during Vietnam, during more advanced times, the reason people hated Vietnam was because TV images was being beamed directly into the populations house, lots of people had TV's back then and the media was not regulated like it was in WW2.

In my oppinion, if live TV images beamed into peoples homes during WW2, images of Allied troops dead, burning tanks and scenes of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, I wouldn't think American involvement of WW2 would have nowhere near the support it had then, infact I belive there would be a big Nazi sympathy going around, like the Ho Chi Ming sympathsisers during Vietnam.

No, that is not true. First of all a hell of a lot of people did volunteer in WWII. Secondly, no if they saw what was truly going on, it would not sway people all that much, for the same reason I said before. People saw merit in preventing the Nazi takeover, and pushing back the Japanese, who had bombed us when we were not even in the war. With Vietnam, we had not been attacked... People were ify on the idea to begin with, and when they saw the carnage, and there was no reason for it, they turned against it. And that is the same thing that is happening with this war, even without the widespread showing of carnage.

And for the record, seeing our dead troops would not create any Nazi sympathizers, mainly because of what the Nazi's did. And if they saw everything like they did in Vietnam, they would have seen the concentration camps and the true scale of the Holocaust, which would have probably driven people towards the cause even more.

[Rocketerz]

And guess what, that is the kind of attitude that isn't needed in the Armed Forces. We have a job to do, and we're to do it regardless of personal opinion. I hope they never re-instate the draft, because I'd hate to serve beside self-righteous pricks like you.

I have nothing against our Armed Forces, and I stand behind them and appreciate them 100%. Im just saying, there are no weapons of mass destruction, we can't defeat terrorism. I think we need to withdraw over the next few years and quickly replace our troops with Iraqi forces. So while I don't appreciate being flamed that I dislike our troops is wrong, They are doing a great job, I just don't like the man giving the orders. When I say real war I mean fighting a war that we have a chance, people that don't care about doing suicide attacks all the time. :scared:

[Derek]

No, that is not true. First of all a hell of a lot of people did volunteer in WWII.
Not nearly enough. Had the US military in WWII been all-volunteer it would have been a worthlessly small fighting force against Japan and Germany, even if it was well trained and in high morale. People are more content to let everyone else volunteer while they encourage them from the home front. It takes a draft to actually get most of them to fight.

With Vietnam, we had not been attacked... People were ify on the idea to begin with,
Germany never attacked us either, in fact before the war a sizable minority sympathized with Nazi Germany. The population was far less than "ify" about war with Germany, it was out of the question before the war started, therefore as you said yourself, when they saw the carnage of the war they would have said it was too much and that it was a European war that the US shouldn't have been involved in, but back then all they got was patriotic propaganda designed by Hollywood and paid for by the US Government to keep their support for the war. Had they had the same kind of news they had in Vietnam and now in Iraq, there would have been massive protests against the war.

[Wrecking Crew]

I am old enough to remember all the wars and engagements since the second world war and have seen National Service, (Draft) and regular armed forces at work.

One of the gripes the draftees had was, the excessive number of regular soldiers who were assigned to home bases and "cushy" posts, while the majority of partly trained draftees were sent to the front lines. Basically to be used as "cannon fodder".

I think that the full timers should be sent, as far as it was practical, to the war zones and the draftees given the chance to volunteer to go there, but otherwise to fill the roles of support troops. (i.e. transport, medical, supply and logistics.) This would also give them the chance to further their training and be better equipped to face the enemy if things became desperate.

At the end of the day, a mans got to do what a mans got to do!

[HitmanUltra]

I never really understood war, you know? If I came to your house, took out a gun and shot you, that would be murder. If I went to a college, shot a bunch of 19-20 years olds, it would be a tragic massacre. I'll be labeled as evil, inhumane, sadistic. But on the battlefield you get promoted for this kinda of stuff? I don't believe things in life are always black and white, and the same goes for international politics. If it is not a just war (usually self-defense by my definition), aren't people committing murders? But people just call it 'war' and then all the killings are excused. Think about it, if you met that enemy soldier off the battlefield, you might like him, you might even become friends.

But on the battlefield, you have to kill each other, even though he did nothing to you, even though you don't hate him. I just find this concept so damn weird and scary. Systematic killing, it's human brutality at its worst.

Army providing a good way to succeed? I don't doubt it provides good experience, but I'll just tell my kids to study really hard so they get in a good college and a good job. No offense to any soldiers here though, I think you are doing a great job serving our country, being willing to put your life on the line.


My ideas of a just conflict is WWII, and if we were to go into Sudan to stop that genocide, but unfortunately we are too busy in Iraq. Saddam is a baddie, no doubt about that, but he wasn't killing tens of thousands per week. We can say all we want about 'freeing' the Iraqi people, but I'm sure oil is at least part of the motivation for America.

[NuclearDreams]

I never really understood war, you know?

Because, as you stated, you understand nothing about war this should of been the end of your drivel.

I don't believe things in life are always black and white

Grey is where people like you feel at home...always standing on the fence.

Think about it, if you met that enemy soldier off the battlefield, you might like him, you might even become friends.

The American soldiers of WW2 said the same thing about the Germans, but they still killed them.

But on the battlefield, you have to kill each other, even though he did nothing to you, even though you don't hate him.

That statement is just plain retarted. There have been very few battlefields in the history of mankind where two sides didn't kill each other, so quit your whining.

I just find this concept so damn weird and scary. Systematic killing, it's human brutality at its worst.

Whether you like it or not that's how some problems are solved.

Army providing a good way to succeed? I don't doubt it provides good experience, but I'll just tell my kids to study really hard so they get in a good college and a good job. No offense to any soldiers here though, I think you are doing a great job serving our country, being willing to put your life on the line.

Why you sniveling whimp! You'd rather let someone else die for you because you haven't got the spine to stand up and defend the land that bore you?

My ideas of a just conflict is WWII, and if we were to go into Sudan to stop that genocide, but unfortunately we are too busy in Iraq.

That statement coming from you means nothing. You've already made it clear that you'd weasle out of any conflict anyway.

Saddam is a baddie, no doubt about that, but he wasn't killing tens of thousands per week.

Oh, hundreds per week is not enough for you eh?

but I'm sure oil is at least part of the motivation for America.

That's just plain ignorant. The amount of money the U.S. would earn on Iraqi oil revenues would not be enough to pay of the accumulated war debt. It would cost much less to drill holes in Alaska then to fly thousands of miles with a massive army to occupy a spot in the desert for four years.