WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Conscription (Drafting) - Your Views
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 1/11/07
@rhynny - There were quite a few reasons I joined. To make a very long story short, I had a very sheltered childhood, and when going to college immediately after high school I made alot of poor decisions (both academic,financial, and social). In the end, I decided that the best thing I could do was join the military to get some much lacking self discipline, experience, save some money, and get the MGIB to go back to school with. Which is where I am now - going back to school with MGIB. Had the world been like it is today back then, I probably wouldn't have joined though.

@simpleyesa - Personally, I think the guy should be court martialed and sent to Levenworth (military prison). When you join you're expected to follow all lawful orders. He isn't a concientous objector, he is specifically refusing to go to Iraq. He may not agree with these orders, but they are lawful. He is an also an officer, which means he is to set an example for his troops. Problem is he in stop loss unit (which means you can't leave even if your enlistment or commision is up), so he can't resign his commision.

Now I don't agree with the Iraq war or the way it's been handled. He is entitled to have an oppinion, but he knew the risks when he joined - particularly regarding Iraq - and since he is infantry he should have expected to go there eventually.

I don't think he is a coward like some say (I don't blame him for not wanting to die in this war in the least), but I think he is mistaken about what his rights are as a military officer.
13014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F / in the club
Offline
Posted 1/11/07
I don't think he isn't willing to go to Iraq; he refuses to go cos of the 'facts' he claimed to know accidentally (researched to be true but not yet proven). If you've been there, you should have seen the suffering of the Iraqis. If the war was illegal, it must have also violated some laws. Well, I am not in the position to point anything, but I’m an activist myself and I don't support malicious mandatory.
835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Whitebase
Offline
Posted 1/11/07
I don't know too terribly much. I take the ostridge approach in that, I bury my head in the sand and if I can't see it happening then it doesn't exist.

All I do know is that, as was said, it should probably be army exclusive. Or at least keep it out of the AF. They're already sucking a projected 40,000 personnel out of the combined manpower pool. Would make no sense to kick 40,000 trained volunteers out just to turn around a few years later and draft in voluntold conscripts.

Not to mention the fact that I've noticed people don't like to be forced to do things. And when they're forced like that they tend to perform subpar in environments where their life isn't on the line in the immediate sense.
Posted 1/12/07
1. id like to point out that conscription and draft are different things, contextually. conscription is referring to the forced drafting of conquered or occupied peoples, or people outside of the current military bounds, usually. when the chinese were being beaten by the japanese, many were conscripted as grunt work and rear guards and things. this is much safer than putting them on front lines.

2. i think drafting is ok if it is a threat to the country. not some measly little terrorists, or a genocide on the other side of the world...if we are actually attacked and INVADED (only with invasion will i agree to it) then i think drafting is fine. HOWEVER, i don't think drafting young kids and putting them on the front lines is fine, in any case, unless the countries doom is looming. use them for logistics, for training, for food and medical prep. the battles should be fought by those willing to give their lives, not forced to put their lives on the line by the men in charge. if you are going to put anyone in combat, train them. and even this 9-12 months of training is too little unless it is a time of dire war. roman soldiers went through up to 4 years of training, and they almost never lost in battle. their mettle was supreme. spartans were raised from the age of i believe 6 to fight, and they were only ever defeated to superior tactics, not once through superior battle or morale. 10,000 untrained or poorly trained, and poorly geared, troops are nowhere near as useful as 1,000 amazing soldiers, who know their job like the back of their hand. training is an absolute necessity.

3. draft should be semi-voluntary. now, i know this is kind of an oxy-moron, but hear me out. you are either a. drafted to be in the army, or another branch but not on the battle field or b. agree to help the forces in another manner. there are often outside groups of hired people who help in recon, in politics and in dissuading violence, in getting more people to join, more countries to help out, more ideas etc. they are officially outside of the military quite often, but still help the fight for the government. most people would want to choose this, so there would need to be a deciding factor.

4. morale...you have to find a way to keep morale high. a unit with no morale is as good as broken in a battle. raise not only the soldiers mettle with training, but also their morale with incentives and REASON. logical battle, and the care for the well-being of the soldiers helps. every single great general in history that i can name was on a personal basis with many soldiers...their morale was extremely high because they loved their commander, they loved the fight, they loved the reason. give soldiers that, and they will fight with every ounce of their being. do it not, and many will fall.
13298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
doing that is like taking away someone's freedom. so they shouldn't.
8021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Insert Semi-Cleve...
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
according to the Times article about the 'surge' the US has already deployed 15% of its reserves in the Army, the Airforce and the Navy... that's quite a big percent....
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
^ Could you post the source link please?
13014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F / in the club
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
What is MGIB and ICBM, anyway? Geez, the topic is sooo confusing.
835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Whitebase
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
MGIB - Montgomery GI (General Issue. Slang terminology for a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in modern day relevance) Bill. An optional program supported by the US Military body which allows personnel to recieve X amount of funding towards higher education at the cost of X amount of money out of each paycheck for X amount of time. The MGIB is usually used after the individual has completed their contracted service commitment.

ICBM - Inter-continental Ballistic Missile: Pretty self explanatory. It's a missile that can go from one continent to another. The usual fear in these is the fact that you can put a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead on to one and wipe out someplace to the effect of San Fransisco from Pyongyang. (Just as an example)

EDIT: Bleh. Roy typed up the explanation while I was typing mine.


Nonetheless~
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 1/12/07

royjovero wrote:

I am also with you on the point that if the AF was the way it is currently, four and a half years ago when I joined, I would've definitely stayed away. As I've stated before, the modern military has become extremely politically-driven.

And in the case of the Air Force, they are trying to go back to their Army roots. Such is seen in the new 'Warfit' fitness requirements and AEF deployment cycles. They've even gone so far as to try to make those who deal with ICBMs and space systems (myself included, as I'm an ICBM maintainer) to deploy when we're needed more on home station.

Before I go too far off-topic, azrael has hit this topic right on the nose.

This was a good discussion, and I hope that it continues so that we can see everyone's views on such a controversial subject.


I was worried when they were starting to train everyone to be capable of doing Security Forces as I was leaving. Have they changed the AEF deployment cycle? I actually like the 3-4 month rotations, I suspect they've chucked that out the window though. Actually I wouldn't mind 6 months, just for the money. Whole year tax free... but I'm kind of crazy when it comes to deployments deployments - I even volunteered for TCN duty less than a month after coming back from the middle east and I got turned down :(. I remember telling my shop chief "I don't care how nice or how nasty it is, if there is somewhere I can, send me first." I got to see alot of cool stuff because of that, but I had absolutely no fear, even though I probably should have.

That's ridiculous they're trying to deploy you missle guys. Whatever happened to them saying "oh noes everyone, we have too many airmen!"?
6326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Hogwarts
Offline
Posted 1/12/07

henz_lan wrote:

There was a request for a "serious" thread.

So...

Should countries enforce conscription?

I believe not, verging on the edge of being a pacifist; I think it will create nationalist nations in which Nazi-esque feelings are fostered (such as Switzerland).
I know people from a few places where conscription is enforced, my german friends have claimed a mix of mental disorders, judaism and homosexuality (faked) in order to be exempt from doing a year in the Forces. In their view it takes too much time out of your life when you could be getting on and getting a job or qualifications.
A russian friend of mine is scared of being drafted, the russian army is litterally a prison sentence for a year! The conscripts are (apparently, according the Economist Newspaper) forced to steal by their superiors in order to survive.

Anyway, that's enough of my opinion, now it's your turn...



Conscripts....
That just shows, that "Freedom" is nothing but a blissful dream.
13014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F / in the club
Offline
Posted 1/12/07
^ Wow! I’ve learned a lot from you guys.

@ Roy – If you’re a ICBM maintainer, then you have a tough job. Cool.
@ Marato – Roy’s explanation was a bit confusing (still; no offense meant Roy, ok ^_^); thanks for further explanation, I got the clear picture.


835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Whitebase
Offline
Posted 1/13/07

azrael910 wrote:
I was worried when they were starting to train everyone to be capable of doing Security Forces as I was leaving. Have they changed the AEF deployment cycle? I actually like the 3-4 month rotations, I suspect they've chucked that out the window though. Actually I wouldn't mind 6 months, just for the money. Whole year tax free... but I'm kind of crazy when it comes to deployments deployments - I even volunteered for TCN duty less than a month after coming back from the middle east and I got turned down :(. I remember telling my shop chief "I don't care how nice or how nasty it is, if there is somewhere I can, send me first." I got to see alot of cool stuff because of that, but I had absolutely no fear, even though I probably should have.

That's ridiculous they're trying to deploy you missle guys. Whatever happened to them saying "oh noes everyone, we have too many airmen!"?


On the SF Augmentee thing, nothing ever happened with that. I was one for about... a month. And that was a few weeks after 9/11 when the wing king realized the base didn't have one and was in a scurry to impress the USAFE big-wigs. Since then, not a peep out of that growing to anything larger.

There has been no real changes to the overall AEF cycle system. Sometimes you go for 3, sometimes you go for 6. Sometimes you get royally screwed and go for 12. Sometimes it's only 1. Like the last rotation I went out on. I went for a 1 month AEF cycle to: Tyndall AFB Florida. That's right, an AEF rotation to Florida. Not a TDY. An actual AEF rotation. Didn't feel too proud of myself. Despite the fact I've already spent 6 months in Pakistan and 3 months in Iraq with a possible second run in Iraq.

As for deploying missile troops, they're deploying everyone. Even the finance people aren't safe anymore. My career field is pretty used to being deployed non stop. Even more so after the current turn of events in the past 5 years. Which is why they're starting to dismantle base-level comm and turn us into combat comm units. Having everything done at the NOSC level.

And they are pulling that 'oh-noe's! We have too many airmen!" deal. I know because I have to retrain or get kicked out because there are too many in my career field. They have already projected that by the early part of the next decade that the AF will be reduced by 40,000 personnel.

Which likely defaults on what was said earlier; any possible draft shouldn't have to deal with the AF. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to drop 40k to put more back in that aren't trained. Not to mention the saturation you would have from any that stayed later on in the NCO ranks. Much like today, there will be a huge vaccum in the NCO ranks in about 5 years where there will be too many junior airmen, too many senior NCO's, and not enough junior NCO's to accomodate.

Mainly because some bored general somewhere though of a 'great' idea that might just get him that next star.
8021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Insert Semi-Cleve...
Offline
Posted 1/13/07

mauz15 wrote:

^ Could you post the source link please?


sorry for the lateness of my reply, i was on the road back to Uni for the better part of the day...settling down after the xmas holidays is sooooo tiring.....

as for the source, well, i just saw it in the Jan. 2007 edition of the Times, i was scanning it in my local Borders. i tried looking through the Times online archive except i dont have a subcription and i cant afford one... here's a list of articles from the free search though...


* that link requires me to have an account there. thanks anyway
PS: the link was too long and that screws up the whole page
~mauz15
Posted 1/13/07
Please note "The Times" is quite a centrist paper, it used to lean to the right but has been shifting along with the general public.
I would in general trust it, however newspapers have the aim of selling well, so they will readily exagerate to try to make things sound good to read.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.