Countdown to the draft... [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

Peaches

11-03-2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 05:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 01:43 PM
Just out of idle curiousity, were you ever in the military?

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the overwhelming majority of people in uniform want to have to deal with a bunch of non-volunteers about as much as they want a sharp stick in the eye.
I was in the reserves. I know what you are saying, but the military needs bodies. Who the hell is going to volunteer to go to Iraq in an ill equipped force fighting an enemy they can't see? At least in Viet Nam, they were well equipped. [/b][/quote]
You are truly uninformed.

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

Mike AI

11-03-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts. [/b][/quote]

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria. [/b][/quote]
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve?

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Nov 3 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Nov 3 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 01:43 PM
Just out of idle curiousity, were you ever in the military?

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the overwhelming majority of people in uniform want to have to deal with a bunch of non-volunteers about as much as they want a sharp stick in the eye.
I was in the reserves. I know what you are saying, but the military needs bodies. Who the hell is going to volunteer to go to Iraq in an ill equipped force fighting an enemy they can't see? At least in Viet Nam, they were well equipped.
You are truly uninformed. [/b][/quote]
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.

Mike AI

11-03-2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve? [/b][/quote]

I am only an armchair general.

Are you sure you are not confusing the US with USSR's war in Afganistan?? It is not even close to a quagmire. I doubt we will send more troops then we have now. The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D

Buff

11-03-2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve? [/b][/quote]
Afghanistan just announced their new ELECTED president, after the results of the first election Afghan women have ever participated in were tallied. What planet are you on. I served for 8 years.

Peaches

11-03-2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 06:11 PM
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.
I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do.

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 3 2004, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 3 2004, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve?

I am only an armchair general.

Are you sure you are not confusing the US with USSR's war in Afganistan?? It is not even close to a quagmire. I doubt we will send more troops then we have now. The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D [/b][/quote]
That was my point. The quagmire did not refer to US troops. They are mired in the shit of Iraq.

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Nov 3 2004, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Nov 3 2004, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 06:11 PM
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.
I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do. [/b][/quote]
Sure, Peaches. The last defense of the uninformed. Say nothing and hope no one notices.

Mike AI

11-03-2004, 05:17 PM

Afganistan is a shit hole. It has always been that way, and will continue to be that way. Who cares? As long as they are not causing problems internationally, and not hurting the US interest, they can do whatever they want.

Peaches

11-03-2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 06:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 3 2004, 02:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 06:11 PM
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.
I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do.
Sure, Peaches. The last defense of the uninformed. Say nothing and hope no one notices. [/b][/quote]
Wow, you busted me. You're just too smart for any of us here. Yet, here you are after you get banned time and time and time again........

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 3 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 3 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
Who exactly, do you think is going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are long term conflicts.

The recruitment goals for all branchs of service are met EARLY every year. The Pentagon just has to let more people in.

Higher pay and better benefits would help as well.

Not everyone in this country sees the military as a bad thing. Many people see military service as honorable. I am proud that our Nation has people like this. The Pat Tillman's of the world.

As far as long term battles, Afganistan is pretty much over - we won't need many troops there. Iraq is another story. The bigger threats are N. Korea, Iran, Syria.
Afghanistan is sliding into the quagmire it always was. How long did you serve?
Afghanistan just announced their new ELECTED president, after the results of the first election Afghan women have ever participated in were tallied. What planet are you on. I served for 8 years. [/b][/quote]
The elected officials of Afghanistan will never run that country. They have even odds of surviving their term. There are tons of "elected" governments in Africa too. Who the hell cares if they have democracy anyway? What has that got to do with the price of bacon or the training of terrorists?

PornoDoggy

11-03-2004, 05:19 PM

I am not nearly as concerned about the supply of recruits as I am about retention.

Both are tied to the economy. As long as Bush continues to "grow" the economy in the manner he has so far, recruiting will not be a problem, but retention could become one very soon.

Afganistan is pretty much over

I hope you are right. I don't think you are.

Winetalk.com

11-03-2004, 05:21 PM

J'Dude, is that really you?
;-)))

KeyGuy

11-03-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 3 2004, 02:22 PM
J'Dude, is that really you?
;-)))
Of course it is. Didn't you recognize my accent?

Winetalk.com

11-03-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 3 2004, 05:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 3 2004, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Nov 3 2004, 02:22 PM
J'Dude, is that really you?
;-)))
Of course it is. Didn't you recognize my accent? [/b][/quote]
I have not,
I was busy voting
;-)))

dantheman

11-03-2004, 05:24 PM

hahahahahahahahahahaha

brains are not your strong suit, do you dance?

PornoDoggy

11-03-2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 05:12 PM
The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D
Isn't that attitude what got us to where we are today? If we walk away from Afghanistan before we build a truly stable central government, we will have failed.

I don't think quaqmyre fits the situation in Afghanistan, but I think declaring victory at this point calls for a carrier landing in a flight suit. It would not suprise me to see more troops deployed to Afghanistan in the next year.

sarettah

11-03-2004, 05:42 PM

Hmmm... I would hope that there would not be a draft, but be aware that we (meaning we as in we the people, ya know, the guvmint) spend 26 million dollars a year and employ 13,412 people in various positions (full, part time and volunteer) to guarantee that if a draft is called for that we can react quickly.

That is a hell of a lot of effort for something that won't be needed because There will be NO draft

************************************************** ************

refs...............

http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm

On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 - 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate.

Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have stated for the record that they oppose a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also has opposed the draft on numerous occasions.

Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

WHO MUST REGISTER

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

chart of whomust register: http://www.sss.gov/must.htm

http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM

QUICK FACTS AND FIGURES
Registration compliance (end of Sept 2003)

Men 18 to 25 years old who have registered: 93 percent Men 20 to 25 years old who have registered (draft-eligible): 95.4 percent Number of names and addresses on file for men 18 to 25 years old: About 13.5 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Budget (FY 2004)

$26,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Personnel

Full-time positions (FTEs) are authorized at 166. Part-time Reserve Force Officer (RFO) positions staffed in peacetime are 350. There are 56 part-time State Directors (including Guam, Puerto Rico, N. Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, Washington, D.C., and New York City). There are 10,620 part-time volunteer Local & Appeal Board members and 240 Civilian Review Board members (part-time volunteers). Number of Local Boards currently total 1,980

Almighty Colin

11-03-2004, 06:30 PM

:rolleyes:

grimm

11-04-2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
this is interesting though.... our troops have not been called back. we are running out of replacements. I watched the segment on 60 minutes about the humvees with plywood floors, and the motorola non secure radios that are being used....with all this money, why not have the appropriate equipment to fight this war....

and eventually we have to rotate a lot of these guys home. We are sending national guardsmen over as is.

a draft is not something out of the question with the agenda we have, and our military oplan of attack in themiddle east, not to mention north korea.

OldJeff

11-04-2004, 06:24 AM

So many things to comment on.

Peaches - no increase in out of the closet gays - homosexuality will be a crime in the US, cause thats the way it is in the bible :)

I give the draft no chance of happening unless we invade another country - then I give it a 50% chance.

If we are attacked again I give it a 90% chance.

PD right on the money - no draft possible in the election years

Grimm - as for the resouces in Iraq - (IMO) we are going to start pulling back there - enough republicans WITH re-election to worry about have seen there is a large segment of te population that is not too happy about the way things are going there - fear not though we will still guard the oil interest, it is important that we keep control of our new huge oil reserve.

Peaches

11-04-2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by grimm+Nov 4 2004, 04:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Nov 4 2004, 04:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Even in defeat the hysteria continues.

There will be NO draft. ( unless there is a major world war)
this is interesting though.... our troops have not been called back. we are running out of replacements. I watched the segment on 60 minutes about the humvees with plywood floors, and the motorola non secure radios that are being used....with all this money, why not have the appropriate equipment to fight this war....

and eventually we have to rotate a lot of these guys home. We are sending national guardsmen over as is.

a draft is not something out of the question with the agenda we have, and our military oplan of attack in themiddle east, not to mention north korea. [/b][/quote]
More money for the military would solve the problems with equipment and more soldiers with no draft needed.

OldJeff

11-04-2004, 12:36 PM

I agree that more money for the military will fix a lot of the problems with equiptment, but so would more responsible spending, the government still spends WAY to much for everything - I think it is better than the days of $400 toilet seats, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I disagree that more money will fill the bodies needed IF this thing escalates, yes they have met their current recruitment goals, but I am predicting they will not in the coming years. While there is active warfare happening (all bets are off IF there is anoth attack on the US)

People that are looking to sign up to go get shot at are pretty scarce (which is one of the reasons we have so few special forces, and why the Marines are a small service branch)

As far as the rate of pay the soldies, sailors, airmen, marines get - triple it today. raise my taxes if necessary. These men and women are so underpaid for the job they do it is silly. (see folks it is very possible to oppose the war and support the soldier)

As for supporting the CIC - blind support of the chain of command is simply stupid (I learned that from my chain of command)

Military
Police
Fireman

All paid far too little

Especially when I compare it to what I get paid to sling smut

dantheman

11-04-2004, 12:50 PM

People that are looking to sign up to go get shot at are pretty scarce (which is one of the reasons we have so few special forces, and why the Marines are a small service branch)

well most of that post was your predictions,thoughts and some things that are just not true. The above statement is nothing be BS. for example, marines are not SMALL because of any shortages that's just plain nuts, please dont post things as facts just becasue you think or want them to be.

kath

11-04-2004, 12:57 PM

Quick question since we have so many vets in here.... my son is 15 and he went to the recruiters awhile back, asking about qualifications to get into the military, found out about taking the ASVAB, etc. etc. Anyway, after answering a few preliminary questions he found out that he would be unable to join based on over 95% of jobs listed because he is color-blind. This includes anything combat oriented and basically only leaves him with desk jobs - although nothing tech-oriented like he was hoping. :(

Anyway - my question is... because they most likely wouldn't accept him in times of peace, would he be elligble for the draft? At that point would they just NOT care whether he is color-blind or what?

TIA for any info you can share.

:salute:

Peaches

11-04-2004, 12:59 PM

What's interesting is when I was researching the military for CT, a large percentage of military members said they'd not only do it again, but they'd do it for free.

Jeff, I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people in this country who are willing to fight for what they believe.

The $$$ issues I'm talking about isn't for more pay, it's to increase size so they can recruit more. Right now the AF is required to get rid of 20K enlistees and the Navy is close to that number.

OldJeff

11-04-2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 4 2004, 12:51 PM
People that are looking to sign up to go get shot at are pretty scarce (which is one of the reasons we have so few special forces, and why the Marines are a small service branch)

well most of that post was your predictions,thoughts and some things that are just not true. The above statement is nothing be BS. for example, marines are not SMALL because of any shortages that's just plain nuts, please dont post things as facts just becasue you think or want them to be.
Dan,

Maybe it is the cold medicine and I am not making myself clear.

I do not thinkl the Marines have any shortages - They are small with good reason, there are simply not that many that can cut it as a Marine

I have HUGE, DEEP, repect for anyone willing to put themselves in harms way.

I simply believe that you are not going to continue to find that many people looking to volunteer to go get shot at, especially when the war we are fighting is not against the people who attacked us.

Peaches - I think you are overestimating the number. (one of us is probably mistaken, I honestly hope things don't get so bad we need to find out)

PornoDoggy

11-04-2004, 01:58 PM

Now, I'm a Navy man, so I'm biting back an entire library of jokes here, but ...

There is no way the Marine Corps is a small service due to a lack of volunteers. The Marine Corps is a small service due to the nature of its mission. Throughout most of the all-volunteer force era, the Marine Corps has had the highest standards for enlistment.

And boys and girls, no offense, but the number of people willing "to volunteer to go get shot at" fluctuates greatly with the economy.

Peaches

11-04-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by OldJeff@Nov 4 2004, 02:50 PM
Peaches - I think you are overestimating the number. (one of us is probably mistaken, I honestly hope things don't get so bad we need to find out)
I spend a lot of time on a military message board. The number of kids that are being turned away because of juvenille felonies, prior hard drug use, broken but healed bones, etc. is amazing and that's just the number of people who are taking the time to post about it on that one board.

I just find it VERY hard to believe that if they got more money into the system and lifted the restrictions they couldn't easily fill up any need for enlisted they need with zero need for a draft. Right now they are being very picky because they can only let a certain number in.

But I could be wrong - it's happened before :awinky:

PornoDoggy

11-04-2004, 02:18 PM

Back in the days when it was hard to get people to join the service and a waiver could be granted more easilly for a juvinile felony, the attrition rate (failure to complete basic training) for those individuals was about 3 times the average of those without similar circumstances. Prior hard drug use substantiated by a record check (schools, law enforcement) was about the same.

The medical standards due tend to be a lot more arbitrary, and never did have much of an impact on attrition. Don't know what, if any, problems they presented over the course of an enlistment/career.

The standards are there for a lot more reasons than just hassling people.

The standards fluctute based on the supply of recruits, which is dependent upon the economy.

dantheman

11-04-2004, 02:33 PM

gotcha Jeff. The bottom line is if we need more then we'll recruit more. There''s plenty of young people that are willing and mostly able to defend our nation. IF we have to fight multiple fronts then yeah I can see where it's possible to run short on some long drawn out engaments but this is all just speculation and rumors.
AS of now, our military is in fine form and without a doubt the finest collection of talented young people in the world. DONT short change them, their ready,able and trained to do their part. Next time you come across one, THANK THEM!

Semper Fi :salute:

KeyGuy

11-04-2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 3 2004, 02:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 06:11 PM
Easy for you to say, but you said nothing. Englighten me, if you can.
I don't have the desire to enlighten you on this or any other moronic BS you spew. I doubt many here do.
Sure, Peaches. The last defense of the uninformed. Say nothing and hope no one notices.
Wow, you busted me. You're just too smart for any of us here. Yet, here you are after you get banned time and time and time again........ [/b][/quote]
Yeah, peaches. Just too smart for you. But that is a slam dunk. LMFAO

KeyGuy

11-04-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 05:12 PM
The reality is as long as the Afgans are not training terrorists, and causing problems outside their borders - no one cares what goes on in the inside.

Afganistan has no oil. :D
Isn't that attitude what got us to where we are today? If we walk away from Afghanistan before we build a truly stable central government, we will have failed.

I don't think quaqmyre fits the situation in Afghanistan, but I think declaring victory at this point calls for a carrier landing in a flight suit. It would not suprise me to see more troops deployed to Afghanistan in the next year. [/b][/quote]
America has only built one truly stable government in its history as far as I know. A whole lot of verbage, and no real action.

KeyGuy

11-04-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 4 2004, 10:00 AM
What's interesting is when I was researching the military for CT, a large percentage of military members said they'd not only do it again, but they'd do it for free.

Jeff, I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people in this country who are willing to fight for what they believe.

The $$$ issues I'm talking about isn't for more pay, it's to increase size so they can recruit more. Right now the AF is required to get rid of 20K enlistees and the Navy is close to that number.
Hands up all the armchair generals on this board that would enlist. And if you would, why haven't you? Its easy to send your neighbours sons and daughters off to war and avoid it yourself. Ask the Bush family for instructions.

dantheman

11-04-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 4 2004, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 4 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@Nov 4 2004, 10:00 AM
What's interesting is when I was researching the military for CT, a large percentage of military members said they'd not only do it again, but they'd do it for free.

Jeff, I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people in this country who are willing to fight for what they believe.

The $$$ issues I'm talking about isn't for more pay, it's to increase size so they can recruit more. Right now the AF is required to get rid of 20K enlistees and the Navy is close to that number.
Hands up all the armchair generals on this board that would enlist. And if you would, why haven't you? Its easy to send your neighbours sons and daughters off to war and avoid it yourself. Ask the Bush family for instructions. [/b][/quote]
been there, we'll talk after you finish bootcamp : ))

SemperFi :salute:

KeyGuy

11-04-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by dantheman+Nov 4 2004, 01:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dantheman @ Nov 4 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 4 2004, 04:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@Nov 4 2004, 10:00 AM
What's interesting is when I was researching the military for CT, a large percentage of military members said they'd not only do it again, but they'd do it for free.

Jeff, I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people in this country who are willing to fight for what they believe.

The $$$ issues I'm talking about isn't for more pay, it's to increase size so they can recruit more. Right now the AF is required to get rid of 20K enlistees and the Navy is close to that number.
Hands up all the armchair generals on this board that would enlist. And if you would, why haven't you? Its easy to send your neighbours sons and daughters off to war and avoid it yourself. Ask the Bush family for instructions.
been there, we'll talk after you finish bootcamp : ))

SemperFi :salute: [/b][/quote]
Past history. Nothing to do with the question.

OldJeff

02-07-2005, 06:41 AM

Thought this was an appropriate place for this link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/index.html

Almighty Colin

02-07-2005, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by OldJeff+Feb 7 2005, 06:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Feb 7 2005, 06:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Thought this was an appropriate place for this link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/index.html [/b]
I read that article too. I would have put it in an Iran thread. The interesting part to me was the following:

<!--QuoteBegin-Rumsfeld

If a second war front should open, "it might take somewhat longer, it might be done in a slightly different way, but the estimates I get are that, basically, we're capable of performing the tasks that the president has assigned," Rumsfeld said. [/quote]

Peaches

02-07-2005, 08:47 AM

I should let you guys read all the posts from the people who are TRYING to get into the military but can't because they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma, etc. Even if you have a child you have to get a waiver and if you're a single parent, you don't get in at all unless you legally assign custody to someone else.

Just lessening some of the requirements would assure more people in the military with zero reason for a draft.

Of course, congress hasn't approved to expand the military and they are, in fact, making the AF and Navy smaller, so it's really a moot point.

OldJeff

02-07-2005, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 7 2005, 08:48 AM
I should let you guys read all the posts from the people who are TRYING to get into the military but can't because they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma, etc. Even if you have a child you have to get a waiver and if you're a single parent, you don't get in at all unless you legally assign custody to someone else.

Just lessening some of the requirements would assure more people in the military with zero reason for a draft.

Of course, congress hasn't approved to expand the military and they are, in fact, making the AF and Navy smaller, so it's really a moot point.
I think the Secretary of Defense has a little bit more information, and his saying that recruitment is below what they expected carries a little more weight than a message board.

Unless we are attacked again, opening additional fronts WILL casue further decrease in recruitment, and WILL eventually lead to a draft. (Unless of course we start leveling entire countries)

Peaches

02-07-2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by OldJeff+Feb 7 2005, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Feb 7 2005, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@Feb 7 2005, 08:48 AM
I should let you guys read all the posts from the people who are TRYING to get into the military but can't because they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma, etc. Even if you have a child you have to get a waiver and if you're a single parent, you don't get in at all unless you legally assign custody to someone else.

Just lessening some of the requirements would assure more people in the military with zero reason for a draft.

Of course, congress hasn't approved to expand the military and they are, in fact, making the AF and Navy smaller, so it's really a moot point.
I think the Secretary of Defense has a little bit more information, and his saying that recruitment is below what they expected carries a little more weight than a message board.

Unless we are attacked again, opening additional fronts WILL casue further decrease in recruitment, and WILL eventually lead to a draft. (Unless of course we start leveling entire countries) [/b][/quote]
Again, if they lessoned the standards, recruitment would be fine. Also note that he was talking about the guard and reserves, not full time military :awinky: The marines are the only ones that aren't reaching goals and so far that was only for the month of Jan. AF has had their troops reduced 20K by congress and the Navy by 15K. Right now if you fail a class in the AF, you are out. It used to be they would retrain you into another specialty.

The guard and reserves are losing recruits because people are realizing they might actually have to serve instead of doing drills 2 days a month, 2 weeks a year and getting a paycheck and decent benefits for, as my friend in the guard says "Playing Army". It was a great part time job until there was a war.

Winetalk.com

02-07-2005, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 3 2004, 04:20 PM
I think it will be within a year and a half. After the elation of this election, reality will soon follow.
"Hero dies once, coward dies every day"

PornoDoggy

02-07-2005, 12:19 PM

Just lowering the standards is not the answer. For example, of the things that peaches listed (they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma) all of the non-medical requirements are there for a damned good reason - people with those in their background are far more likely to fail to make it through boot camp or a first enlistment.

BTW ... the 3% blip for the Marines doesn't concern me much. The problems for the Army National Guard is far more significant.

Peaches

02-07-2005, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 7 2005, 01:20 PM
Just lowering the standards is not the answer. For example, of the things that peaches listed (they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma) all of the non-medical requirements are there for a damned good reason - people with those in their background are far more likely to fail to make it through boot camp or a first enlistment.
Uh, who do you think we're going to get if the draft is activated?

Almighty Colin

02-07-2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 7 2005, 12:20 PM

BTW ... the 3% blip for the Marines doesn't concern me much. The problems for the Army National Guard is far more significant.
yeah, agreed

PornoDoggy

02-07-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 7 2005, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 7 2005, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Feb 7 2005, 01:20 PM
Just lowering the standards is not the answer. For example, of the things that peaches listed (they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma) all of the non-medical requirements are there for a damned good reason - people with those in their background are far more likely to fail to make it through boot camp or a first enlistment.
Uh, who do you think we're going to get if the draft is activated? [/b][/quote]
Peaches,

I don't think we're going to end up with conscription.

Decreasing the standards is not the answer. They are going to have to do what any employer does when faced with an employee recruiting problems.

OldJeff

02-07-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Feb 7 2005, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Feb 7 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 7 2005, 12:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Feb 7 2005, 01:20 PM
Just lowering the standards is not the answer. For example, of the things that peaches listed (they have bad credit, they have juvenille felonies or adult misdemeanors, childhood asthma, previously broke a bone, they have a GED and not a diploma) all of the non-medical requirements are there for a damned good reason - people with those in their background are far more likely to fail to make it through boot camp or a first enlistment.
Uh, who do you think we're going to get if the draft is activated?
Peaches,

I don't think we're going to end up with conscription.

Decreasing the standards is not the answer. They are going to have to do what any employer does when faced with an employee recruiting problems. [/b][/quote]
I'll take "Better Pay and Working conditions"

Of course it would make me happier if the cut down on the "need" for more military. You know, maybe use them in the context for which they were form - protecting the United States - instead of whatever the fuck we are doing in the middle east.

No I don't know what they are doing over there, but I do know what they are NOT doing

They are not finding WMD's
They are not fighting terrorist's

And based on Iraq's leaning towards voting in an Ayhatollah (sp) - I looks like they are not doing much of a job at spreading western democracy either.

Peaches

02-07-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 7 2005, 02:05 PM
Peaches,

I don't think we're going to end up with conscription.

Decreasing the standards is not the answer. They are going to have to do what any employer does when faced with an employee recruiting problems.
Well, they're giving good bonuses, so I'm sure that will help. Up to $150K for certain special ops reupping for 6 years.

Mine got a $8K bonus for 4 years and right now his AFSC is giving over $20K for re-enlistment.

It's hard to say they aren't getting much now. We figured out that with his pay, free housing, free food, free medical/dental care, free gym/pool/golf facilities, discounts at the BX and commissary, low cost life insurance etc. He's making about $43K a year. That doesn't include the free education while he's in and the $25K or so for the MGIB. Nor does it include the COLA he'll be getting for Japan and the above mentioned bonuses. No, it's not a lot, but for an uneducated 21 year old, he could do worse. It certainly pays more than first year police and firemen.

Edited to add - my point was that they would decrease the standards before conscription crosses their minds :)

aeon

02-07-2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 01:35 PM
I do not think there will be conscription.

If there IS some form of conscription, it will either happen in 2005, or in 2007.

I can guaran-goddamn-t-you that it will NOT happen in 2006 or 2008 (barring an attack that dwarfs 9/11).
Don't make me get all hostile with you. I'm hoping for a draft...I wanna see the neocon's kids splattered all over the street so the democracy they install can elect even more Iranian Mullah's and tell them their kids died for nothing - reality only works for some people when it touches them.

I wanna see a real draft - this isn't vietnam..the guys in the navy and airforce now aren't in the trenches...back then, you navy guys were in the middle of the shit...neck deep...and you guys earned respect - today those kids are looking for an easy way out - some occupational training. Let's drag some of those flag waving shit machines to the front lines - put em' with the marines/army...let them face what real soldiers deal with and see how people react then when they come back in body bags.

Almost 2K kids have died for these free people to vote for an Islamic theocracy. Congrats...we’re spreading fundamental Islam.

Bin Laden is owning Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.