NationStates Jolt Archive

O.k. I have to ask, because during the WHOLE friggin campaign, it was crammed down my throats by every lefty with an extra minute to waste. Where is this draft you all warned about? Is there even one of you with the balls to admit they were wrong, or are you all still forecasting re-instatement of the draft for the country?

Well, while I personally never thought there would be a draft, lets look at this objectively for a second.

The likelihood of instituting a draft for just Iraq is ludicrous. There's no need for it now that training of Iraqi forces is picking up. Had the elections not gone so well, however, we might not be discussing this idea, we might be living it.

Iran - If we invade Iran, a country much larger, with a more effective military...and (OMG :eek: ) the extreme likelihood of WMDS, we are GOING to need more men to take care of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan all at the same time. The length of the external borders of these three countries put together rival the U.S. itself, part of the reason why immigration is becoming such a problem/issue.

North Korea - Not as likely to need a draft, considering South Korea has it's own army, and there isn't a country in the area that want's to see North Korea expand, but their WMD's pose a significant threat to conventional forces in the region.

If NK nukes our troops in SK, you can bet your ass we'll see a draft.

O.k. I have to ask, because during the WHOLE friggin campaign, it was crammed down my throats by every lefty with an extra minute to waste. Where is this draft you all warned about? Is there even one of you with the balls to admit they were wrong, or are you all still forecasting re-instatement of the draft for the country?

First, get off your high horse.

Second, I do not think there will be a draft for Iraq. But if we go to war with Iran or Korea, (god forbid) then...I don't want to think about it.

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

Well, while I personally never thought there would be a draft, lets look at this objectively for a second.

The likelihood of instituting a draft for just Iraq is ludicrous. There's no need for it now that training of Iraqi forces is picking up. Had the elections not gone so well, however, we might not be discussing this idea, we might be living it.

...snip...

If NK nukes our troops in SK, you can bet your ass we'll see a draft.

Firstly, had the need for a draft... well... isn't. Unlike the way the media displays the military, we are well-manned and armed. A draft would be necessary if there was an actual military against us, perhaps, rather than insurgents and "pockets of resistence."

IRT N. Korea: N. Korea wouldn't use nukes on S. Korea because they want the territory. They might use low yield weapons near the southern tip of korea to shut down the major ports, but nothing abouve the Daegu area is likely to be hit with anything of that magnitude. In terms of a draft? Ha! I guarantee the first thing you'd see are a couple of our birds flying to the NK. We can't use high-yield weapons because of the danger to Japan and China, but I guarantee we'd blast every squar inch of NK, to prevent it from becoming a nuclear war.

To go back to my main point: we have the technology, we have the personnel. A draft would be far, FAR too much of a waste of time, money... and... time.

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

Yeah, forced against his will but at sometime in the past he volunteered for military service. He knew what could be expected of him at a later date. It ain't a draft at all. I don't like to see anyone seperated from their families but he knew what could happen and now he must do his duty. At least he did and did not run.

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

You know what? I feel absolutely zero remorse! Every person who k=joins the military signs a contract. And every person who signs it has a chance to read it first. So, if they just didn't expect to have to live up to the contract, well then boo hoo for them. I guess they should have paid for college themselves!

I forgot about this!

You know what? I feel absolutely zero remorse! Every person who k=joins the military signs a contract. And every person who signs it has a chance to read it first. So, if they just didn't expect to have to live up to the contract, well then boo hoo for them. I guess they should have paid for college themselves!

That's how most Reservists, feel, unfortunately. Most active duty Soldiers feel the same way about Reservists, because they are always complaining about it. They know that they can be called up. They think that they're civilians and forget that contract they signed.

You know what? I feel absolutely zero remorse! Every person who k=joins the military signs a contract. And every person who signs it has a chance to read it first. So, if they just didn't expect to have to live up to the contract, well then boo hoo for them. I guess they should have paid for college themselves!

The fact remains he is being forced against his will to go to Iraq. That fits most definitions of draft.

The fact remains he is being forced against his will to go to Iraq. That fits most definitions of draft.

Against his will... yes.

In accordance with a SIGNED, LEGAL CONTRACT... yes.

Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that you signed a CONTRACT, which is LEGALLY BINDING.

Shoulda thought about it while he was at MEPS.

The fact remains he is being forced against his will to go to Iraq. That fits most definitions of draft.

Im afraid it only fits the "lazy hippies" definition of a draft! To the rest of us, it fits the definition of "contractual obligation" You can't refuse to pay your phone bill because people you didn't like called you!

Who ever said that the Iranian Army was more effective than that of Iraq's? If I remember correctly, they pose absolutely no threat. Their airforce is completely broken. Their air defenses are so scattered we could fly the entire 5th Bomber Wing through the holes. Considering that Israel could fly 1970's-era aircraft through Iran at will, I doubt we'd have any problems. The WMD's...well, if we hit Iran, we'd be doing it in order to prevent them from fielding the bombs in the first place. :p

Besides this, the Iranian population is far more pro-western than the Iraqi's, especially the youngsters. They want reform, and even the older people that remember the days of the Shah have seen that the Ayatollahs failed to deliver on their promises. The army is badly equipped, badly supplied, and relatively untrained and undisciplined. With a proper application of airpower, it would be a pushover.

Is there any point in discussing this? Your mind was made up from the start of this thread; you ask no questions, you only dissmiss other people's questions.

Are you just trying to pick a fight, or do you actually want to pursade people? Because your powers of pursuasion leave something to be desired.

Im afraid it only fits the "lazy hippies" definition of a draft! To the rest of us, it fits the definition of "contractual obligation" You can't refuse to pay your phone bill because people you didn't like called you!

Well said, although I think we should refrain from the name calling. Yes, when you said "the rest of us," it transformed your generalized sentence into a selective one. (I just wanna stop the hostilities before they start. ^^)

Is there any point in discussing this? Your mind was made up from the start of this thread; you ask no questions, you only dissmiss other people's questions.

Are you just trying to pick a fight, or do you actually want to pursade people? Because your powers of pursuasion leave something to be desired.
I thought my question was rather obvious, if maybe a little rude. The question was," Who still thinks there will be a draft, and who thinks they were wrong in saying it in the first place?"
Im sorry if being opinionated scares you. Not a good forum to be in if thats the case.

Well said, although I think we should refrain from the name calling. Yes, when you said "the rest of us," it transformed your generalized sentence into a selective one. (I just wanna stop the hostilities before they start. ^^)
Dang it! Hit by politeness! lol I apologize if I offended anyone. Please substitute "those of us who think that it is your duty to honor your military contract" for "the rest of us"

Dang it! Hit by politeness! lol I apologize if I offended anyone. Please substitute "those of us who think that it is your duty to honor your military contract" for "the rest of us"

thanks. (although i wasn't offended :P )

I know some people get Reeeeeeeeeeealy reactive to things that simple. Sometimes its "OMG, the wind is blowing! JNDG;ighdognowgoe!"

I'd rather be hit by politeness than by a mortar assault by offended NSers, that's for sure. >_>

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

Funny, in the business world, we call that a term of employment.

Like how I can't do IT consulting on the side to customers... or how if I SHOULD invent anything while employed by my firm, it belongs to the firm.

That's not a draft. Draft would be calling up people whom haven't taken the oath before!!

Im afraid it only fits the "lazy hippies" definition of a draft! To the rest of us, it fits the definition of "contractual obligation" You can't refuse to pay your phone bill because people you didn't like called you!

I never questioned the legality of this type of draft, nor the method by which it is instated. I merely said that it is a form of forced military service which is, in fact, regarded as a draft by a great number of people. It has been dubbed in the media a "backdoor draft". I did not invent the term, it was invented by others. Which proves beyond any doubt that when you say "the rest of us", you are not, in fact, speaking of everyone else, but only of the people who do not reffer to this as a backdoor draft.

The difference between what I said and what you said is that I recognized the fact that many people, like yourself, do not consider this type of forced service a draft. While you pretended that everyone but me knows it is not a draft. In other words, I was accurate in my statement, while you were deceptive.

Originally posted by Ancient and Holy Terra

Who ever said that the Iranian Army was more effective than that of Iraq's? If I remember correctly, they pose absolutely no threat. Their airforce is completely broken. Their air defenses are so scattered we could fly the entire 5th Bomber Wing through the holes. Considering that Israel could fly 1970's-era aircraft through Iran at will, I doubt we'd have any problems. The WMD's...well, if we hit Iran, we'd be doing it in order to prevent them from fielding the bombs in the first place.

Besides this, the Iranian population is far more pro-western than the Iraqi's, especially the youngsters. They want reform, and even the older people that remember the days of the Shah have seen that the Ayatollahs failed to deliver on their promises. The army is badly equipped, badly supplied, and relatively untrained and undisciplined. With a proper application of airpower, it would be a pushover.

I'm curious as to your sources for your info on Iran's military, because it matches nothing I've heard, seen or read.

The bolded statement sounds remarkably simliar to how Bush's administration described the situation in Iraq before we went over there. Something about being welcomed as liberators...hmmm.

I never questioned the legality of this type of draft, nor the method by which it is instated. I merely said that it is a form of forced military service which is, in fact, regarded as a draft by a great number of people. It has been dubbed in the media a "backdoor draft". I did not invent the term, it was invented by others. Which proves beyond any doubt that when you say "the rest of us", you are not, in fact, speaking of everyone else, but only of the people who do not reffer to this as a backdoor draft.

The difference between what I said and what you said is that I recognized the fact that many people, like yourself, do not consider this type of forced service a draft. While you pretended that everyone but me knows it is not a draft. In other words, I was accurate in my statement, while you were deceptive.

I already covered it, and he wasn't deceptive at all. It is called a back-door draft because it is involuntary, however just because it is unwanted does not make it a draft, technically. You may think as you wish, but anyone who signs a contract should read it first. If congress were to declare war, a Soldier who retired 30 years ago could be called up. It's part of the system. Once you're a Soldier, you're never truly a civilian again.

I thought my question was rather obvious, if maybe a little rude. The question was," Who still thinks there will be a draft, and who thinks they were wrong in saying it in the first place?"
Im sorry if being opinionated scares you. Not a good forum to be in if thats the case.

Good to know you are capable of being reasonable. Yes, your first post, and subsequent posts were rude, giving me no impression at all you had serious questions. If you did have questions it seemed that you really had no interest in the answer, beyond desiring more fuel for your hatred.

The question of the Draft is fairly obvious, there will not be a draft in the next 4 years. Attempting to institute the draft is political suicide. Overextending the US's military force in an uneeded war is also political suicide. Accusing the president of both gives his opponents some political ammunition to expend. Considering the position of the president's opposition in the upper levels of power right now, their desire to attack him on all fronts seems fairly obvious.

With the president's popularity at all-time lows right now, threats of the draft might carry farther than in the days after the election. They also take some of the wind out of the recent political developments in the president's favor.

Threats of the draft are merely a political tool, because the military would have little use for conscripts outside of garrison troops for our overseas bases on peaceful fronts. Such a move would free up combat troops for more important duties, but would almost certainly cost more on the home front than it would be worth. One look that the National Guard's morale will tell you what the cost of such an undertaking would be.

The current military situation is reaching rather high degree's of unsustainability in some areas; our special forces and intelligence divisions are being worked ragged, with no end in sight. Given the nature of these to branches though, a draft would have little or no effect on the crisis in manpower. Drafts don't provide specialists in these fields; they provide cannon fodder.

What we so desperately need is a massive rethinking of our hiring practices for the military, refocusing on special forces and intelligence. Allowing our most important troops to get desperately needed rest. Veterans of 3 and 4 tours (friends of mine) are getting recalled again and again, despite their increasing burdens of PTSD and combat fatigue.

In that sense, the draft will be useless, no robotic soldiers would help either. As a political tool to get accross the point that our military is hurting in key areas, it might prove effective.

What we so desperately need is a massive rethinking of our hiring practices for the military, refocusing on special forces and intelligence. Allowing our most important troops to get desperately needed rest. Veterans of 3 and 4 tours (friends of mine) are getting recalled again and again, despite their increasing burdens of PTSD and combat fatigue.

In that sense, the draft will be useless, no robotic soldiers would help either. As a political tool to get accross the point that our military is hurting in key areas, it might prove effective.

Actually for the past 4 years the Army has been recruiting more Special Forces and Intelligence personnel. Bear in mine, in order to qualify for Gov't Intelligence positions (including military intelligence) you must have not commited certain levels of crimes or other actions which could indicate a level of immaturity when handling sensative material.

What the military REALLY needs is less civilians. Less contracts, less inbedded reporters. We do our jobs, and we have enough people.

[snip]
What the military REALLY needs is less civilians. Less contracts, less inbedded reporters. We do our jobs, and we have enough people.

whats wrong with civilians?

I'm curious as to your sources for your info on Iran's military, because it matches nothing I've heard, seen or read.

The bolded statement sounds remarkably simliar to how Bush's administration described the situation in Iraq before we went over there. Something about being welcomed as liberators...hmmm.

The military has repeatedly stated that it would have absolutely no problem penetrating Iranian airspace and hitting any target in the country. If I remember correctly (and I think this is from GlobalSecurity), the Iranian Army is composed of outmatched Soviet MBTs and other secondhand military vehicles. The aircraft are primarily ex-American fighters that are gradually falling into a state of disrepair since we cut off supplies of spare parts. Their navy wouldn't stand a chance against that of the United States (although that's not saying much, no fleet has a chance against the United States). I think that something along the lines of 2/3rds of the army is composed of conscripts. I know that they currently deploy some modern military vehicles, but I'm not sure whether or not these have been dispersed.

As for my comments about the Iranian people: There are numerous reports of protests in Iran by people demanding reform. The (re?)-election of the figurehead President of Iran only happened because of demands from the young people. I remember reading an article that showed how the Ayatollah's hold over Iranian society was quickly unraveling. Right across the street from the old US Embassy, a bookstore now sells books in English. Some shopkeepers keep stashes of adult magazines (and female anatomy books, lol) for sale by request. Iran is no longer the Islamic State it once was. People still practice Islam there (and to be fair, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the religion), but the government can no longer use it as a tool for stirring the people into a frenzy.

I'm going to head off and look for those links; I know that one of the most often mentioned actions against Iran is that of a military blockade to cut off oil shipments; without oil exports, the economy would quickly collapse, which most people believe would lead to an overthrow of the Ayatollahs. The problem we'd have right now would be retasking American forces in Iraq for an invasion of Iran. Rest assured, there is almost no possibility of that happening in the near future.

I'm curious to know what you've heard about the Iranian army; my information only comes from a few sources, so I'm not entirely certain of its accuracy.

whats wrong with civilians?

My only complaint about having civilian contractors in the military (note: I am NOT in the military) is that it allows for headcount reductions and for money to be spent from different pots. This often leads to corruption.

For example, the whole Halliburton thing would never have happened had the military never gone to contractors for suppy chain logistics in the 60s/70s.

Also, with fewer "support" positions in the hands of actual soldiers, you end up with conflicts. A contractor can swap out key personel at the drop of a hat, then the new guy or gal has to learn the job all over again.

[snip]
For example, the whole Halliburton thing would never have happened had the military never gone to contractors for suppy chain logistics in the 60s/70s.

Sure it wouldve, they still would have recieved no bid contracts for the reconstruction. If you want to lower corruption then close the loopholes. Ban no-bid contracts or make them alot more difficult to offer. Dont just throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Also, with fewer "support" positions in the hands of actual soldiers, you end up with conflicts. A contractor can swap out key personel at the drop of a hat, then the new guy or gal has to learn the job all over again.

I fail to see how transferring personnel causes a conflict.

whats wrong with civilians?

Civilians within themselves... nothing at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those HARD CORE military guru's that think the only thing civilians are good for is target practice 'cause they're too scared to serve their country. Trust me, I'm not THAT rash.

What I mean is that "Civilians in the Military" is rather... oxymoronic.. rather, just moronic. While support jobs are taken by contracts, Soldiers are forced to only enlist in Infantry, Arty (Artillery), or other Direct Combat MOSs. That in turn hurts recruiting if you tell a guy (or girl) that the ONLY job they can have is a direct combat MOS. Additionally, while Soldiers are trained to perform multiple tasks at one pay rate, contracted civilians are paid a far greater wage for a more limited scope of responsibility, therefore reducing efficiency while increasing cost.

Sure it wouldve, they still would have recieved no bid contracts for the reconstruction. If you want to lower corruption then close the loopholes. Ban no-bid contracts or make them alot more difficult to offer. Dont just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Doubtful at best. The no-bid contract directly came from the fact that the majority of congressmen (of both parties) have Haliburton links. Haliburton got powerful back in the 70s when it started doing such contracting. Simply put, they'd not be where they are today had that never come to pass. Kind of like how right now Chrysler still exists because the gov't bailed them out in the 80s.

I fail to see how transferring personnel causes a conflict.

Have you ever worked in a difficult job? Ever have someone leave and seen everything fall to pieces for a week or three until the new person came up to speed? Now imagine that happening in places where you're remote, where travel is difficult and communications are limited... and things get much worse.
Never mind that if the place comes under attack...

Doubtful at best. The no-bid contract directly came from the fact that the majority of congressmen (of both parties) have Haliburton links. Haliburton got powerful back in the 70s when it started doing such contracting. Simply put, they'd not be where they are today had that never come to pass. Kind of like how right now Chrysler still exists because the gov't bailed them out in the 80s.



Have you ever worked in a difficult job? Ever have someone leave and seen everything fall to pieces for a week or three until the new person came up to speed? Now imagine that happening in places where you're remote, where travel is difficult and communications are limited... and things get much worse.
Never mind that if the place comes under attack...

Wait... didn't you say you're NOT in the military? That's a pretty damned accurate assesment, as that situation arises daily when new personnel are rotated. Mind you, a Soldier is a Soldier 24/7. Meaning that in a more remote location (ie. Iraq) you learn your job, or die. You put in as many hours it takes. Civilian employees however, get overtime as soon as they pass 8hrs in a day.

[snip]
Have you ever worked in a difficult job? Ever have someone leave and seen everything fall to pieces for a week or three until the new person came up to speed? Now imagine that happening in places where you're remote, where travel is difficult and communications are limited... and things get much worse.
Never mind that if the place comes under attack...

Yeah, but I dont see why contractors would be more inclined to transfer people than the military is. Contractors have a great motivation to make sure things do not break down, money! If they allow these kinds of things to happen, they wont get the next contract. I dont see why it would be more likely for contractors to do this than the military.

The military has repeatedly stated that it would have absolutely no problem penetrating Iranian airspace and hitting any target in the country. If I remember correctly (and I think this is from GlobalSecurity), the Iranian Army is composed of outmatched Soviet MBTs and other secondhand military vehicles. The aircraft are primarily ex-American fighters that are gradually falling into a state of disrepair since we cut off supplies of spare parts. Their navy wouldn't stand a chance against that of the United States (although that's not saying much, no fleet has a chance against the United States). I think that something along the lines of 2/3rds of the army is composed of conscripts. I know that they currently deploy some modern military vehicles, but I'm not sure whether or not these have been dispersed.

As for my comments about the Iranian people: There are numerous reports of protests in Iran by people demanding reform. The (re?)-election of the figurehead President of Iran only happened because of demands from the young people. I remember reading an article that showed how the Ayatollah's hold over Iranian society was quickly unraveling. Right across the street from the old US Embassy, a bookstore now sells books in English. Some shopkeepers keep stashes of adult magazines (and female anatomy books, lol) for sale by request. Iran is no longer the Islamic State it once was. People still practice Islam there (and to be fair, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the religion), but the government can no longer use it as a tool for stirring the people into a frenzy.

I'm going to head off and look for those links; I know that one of the most often mentioned actions against Iran is that of a military blockade to cut off oil shipments; without oil exports, the economy would quickly collapse, which most people believe would lead to an overthrow of the Ayatollahs. The problem we'd have right now would be retasking American forces in Iraq for an invasion of Iran. Rest assured, there is almost no possibility of that happening in the near future.

I'm curious to know what you've heard about the Iranian army; my information only comes from a few sources, so I'm not entirely certain of its accuracy.


Then you would agree that there is no need for armed intervention in Iran, since it is only a matter of time that the regime will be overthrown by its own people, correct?

Yeah, but I dont see why contractors would be more inclined to transfer people than the military is. Contractors have a great motivation to make sure things do not break down, money! If they allow these kinds of things to happen, they wont get the next contract. I dont see why it would be more likely for contractors to do this than the military.

The reason is that Soldiers cannot chose (for the most part) where they serve. A civilian looks for where he/she wants to go, what they offer, etc. While we are assigned to perform multiple tasks, they take a contract, and serve only that required time. They don't need to excel, they only need to meet the minimum so things don't crash. Soldiers on the other hand, either do everything they can, or are looked at suspiciously. It's all-or-nothing in the green monkey suit :/

Then you would agree that there is no need for armed intervention in Iran, since it is only a matter of time that the regime will be overthrown by its own people, correct?

That depends. The reading of Iran is that the government is stable, even though the people are not content. There hasn't been a catalyst to trigger an overthrow yet. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons despite the efforts of the US and the EU, then that catalyst could likely come in the form of UN Sanctions.

Then again, perhaps the regime will just collapse. There is always that possibility, although it's admittedly not as probable as one involving outside events.

That depends. The reading of Iran is that the government is stable, even though the people are not content. There hasn't been a catalyst to trigger an overthrow yet. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons despite the efforts of the US and the EU, then that catalyst could likely come in the form of UN Sanctions.

Then again, perhaps the regime will just collapse. There is always that possibility, although it's admittedly not as probable as one involving outside involvement.

In my country, 30 years ago, in April 24th 1974, the Fascist regime issued a newscast saying that "peace reigned throught the country". This seemed evident not just to foreigners, but even to most common people.
The next day we had a democratic revolution.

The thing is, you can't know when the people are going to rebel, neither do you have the right to do it for them, its their country. Any armed attack on Iran will have the dire consequences of joining the people togheter for defence. And Iran is already dominated by the shiites, there are little ethnic divisions among them.

ANd about the nukes.. let them have them. Iran is surrounded by two nuclear armed hostile powers (Israel and Pakistan), and they actually never started a war in the region. With time, more trade, and adequate pressure, they will lose all reasons to start a war, if they have any.

The reason is that Soldiers cannot chose (for the most part) where they serve. A civilian looks for where he/she wants to go, what they offer, etc. While we are assigned to perform multiple tasks, they take a contract, and serve only that required time. They don't need to excel, they only need to meet the minimum so things don't crash. Soldiers on the other hand, either do everything they can, or are looked at suspiciously. It's all-or-nothing in the green monkey suit :/

That really doesnt answer my question at all. Civilians are there for a certain amount of time, so are soldiers. What makes a civilian more likely to be transferred?

That really doesnt answer my question at all. Civilians are there for a certain amount of time, so are soldiers. What makes a civilian more likely to be transferred?

As I said, with their ability to chose the job and contract, they can determine when to move on or continue in one location. We are assigned to a location for usually twice the duration of a normal civilian contract, and because our promotion system is based on boards and personnel information reviews, our promotions are at the hands of judgement calls, whereas if a civilian wants to get promoted, they simply find a job offering a promotion to a higher grade, permitted they meet requirements.

It's not that civilians are MORE likely to get transferred, as their placement is based on their desires. The issue is that because of the civilianization, Service Members are being reclassified by the DoD, meaning we lose control over our personnel, promotions and assignments because positions are no longer authorized for SMs.

*snip*

I’m intrigued where is your home country, Argentina, Spain? cant think of any more post 45' fascist states.

I’m intrigued where is your home country, Argentina, Spain? cant think of any more post 45' fascist states.

Portugal.

And there are ALOT of post 45 fascist states.

In my country, 30 years ago, in April 24th 1974, the Fascist regime issued a newscast saying that "peace reigned throught the country". This seemed evident not just to foreigners, but even to most common people.
The next day we had a democratic revolution.

The thing is, you can't know when the people are going to rebel, neither do you have the right to do it for them, its their country. Any armed attack on Iran will have the dire consequences of joining the people togheter for defence. And Iran is already dominated by the shiites, there are little ethnic divisions among them.

ANd about the nukes.. let them have them. Iran is surrounded by two nuclear armed hostile powers (Israel and Pakistan), and they actually never started a war in the region. With time, more trade, and adequate pressure, they will lose all reasons to start a war, if they have any.

The problem is that the government continually calls for the annihilation of Zionist forces. Though the people don't share this sentiment (for the most part, most Iranians wonder what they did to anger America), as long as the public face is that of wiping out Israel and driving America into the ground, we'll continue to consider them a threat, whether or not they warrant it.

Finally, letting Iran have nukes would be a bad idea. Most military tacticians are in agreement that nuclear weapons have almost no practical use in wartime, which narrows their use to that of destroying Israel. Israel may seem paranoid, and it may blow some situations completely out of proportion, but it would never choose to totally annihilate Iran.

That really doesnt answer my question at all. Civilians are there for a certain amount of time, so are soldiers. What makes a civilian more likely to be transferred?

If you're a soldier, you go to Iraq or South Korea or wherever they tell you to.
My friend's girlfriend can CHOOSE to quit, or be transferred.

Wait... didn't you say you're NOT in the military? That's a pretty damned accurate assesment, as that situation arises daily when new personnel are rotated. Mind you, a Soldier is a Soldier 24/7. Meaning that in a more remote location (ie. Iraq) you learn your job, or die. You put in as many hours it takes. Civilian employees however, get overtime as soon as they pass 8hrs in a day.

Exactly right, I'm not in the military. But I'm pretty well read on matters. :)
There was a good article on it in TIME during the Haliburton no-bid scandal.

(I've been reading TIME every week since 1982, and I regularly listen to NPR, despite it being as far left as FoxNews is right. I dislike extremists on either side).

The problem is that the government continually calls for the annihilation of Zionist forces. Though the people don't share this sentiment (for the most part, most Iranians wonder what they did to anger America), as long as the public face is that of wiping out Israel and driving America into the ground, we'll continue to consider them a threat, whether or not they warrant it.

Finally, letting Iran have nukes would be a bad idea. Most military tacticians are in agreement that nuclear weapons have almost no practical use in wartime, which narrows their use to that of destroying Israel. Israel may seem paranoid, and it may blow some situations completely out of proportion, but it would never choose to totally annihilate Iran.

Yes, they are a bit (A LOT) insane against Israel, but even if they had nukes, they may be mad, but they are not stupid: Going against Israel would mean suicide for Iran, they wouldnt pull that off. Even if they were to nuke israel without israel retaliating, Europe and the US would wipe out Iran.. not logic for Iranians.

The greatest fear in my opinion isnt Iran with a nuke in a missile, they wouldnt use it. My greatest fear would of Iran giving the Nuke to some religious zealot, that would use it against an american or european city. But then again, should that happen, and since there are only two countries that could do so (NK and Iran), they would be wiped out anyway. So they wouldnt do it.

Exactly right, I'm not in the military. But I'm pretty well read on matters. :)
There was a good article on it in TIME during the Haliburton no-bid scandal.

(I've been reading TIME every week since 1982, and I regularly listen to NPR, despite it being as far left as FoxNews is right. I dislike extremists on either side).

Same here, only opposite :p

I almost always take the radical opposite side when debating with a radical of either side... so I guess my political affiliation would be contrarian? :confused:

Same here, only opposite :p

I almost always take the radical opposite side when debating with a radical of either side... so I guess my political affiliation would be contrarian? :confused:

What? You read Newsweek??

That's a great way to invest (I bought gold during the dot com bubble... I'm buying tech right now...) I'm not sure how that works in ideology. :D

The greatest fear in my opinion isnt Iran with a nuke in a missile, they wouldnt use it. My greatest fear would of Iran giving the Nuke to some religious zealot, that would use it against an american or european city. But then again, should that happen, and since there are only two countries that could do so (NK and Iran), they would be wiped out anyway. So they wouldnt do it.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of. There are enough terrorists trying to get a nuclear warhead in the first place; if Iran offered to give them one for a low, low price, we'd have a problem.

Still, as you correctly stated, such an action would be pretty easy to trace. It's not like that many anti-American nations with nuclear weapons are around these days. :p

We'll see what happens in the next few months. :D

What? You read Newsweek??

That's a great way to invest (I bought gold during the dot com bubble... I'm buying tech right now...) I'm not sure how that works in ideology. :D

Actually I read both Time and Newsweek, so I can properly equalize my propaganda intake. I find it funny when non-military argue about what the military needs (ie. drafts, up-armored vehicles, recruiting)... I can tell you first hand what problems my job has....

Actually I read both Time and Newsweek, so I can properly equalize my propaganda intake. I find it funny when non-military argue about what the military needs (ie. drafts, up-armored vehicles, recruiting)... I can tell you first hand what problems my job has....

I find them to be about the same, really. I figure that TIME balances out NPR, and FoxNews balances out the New York Times...

I actually disagree there. The non-military should indeed argue about what the military needs: but they need to argue WITH the military, not against it. I fully believe that the military knows how to do it's job. I also fully believe that the military needs to be told what it's job IS. ;)
(Basically, I have equal fear of the military industrial complex and the peace-at-any-price folks.)

I find them to be about the same, really. I figure that TIME balances out NPR, and FoxNews balances out the New York Times...

I actually disagree there. The non-military should indeed argue about what the military needs: but they need to argue WITH the military, not against it. I fully believe that the military knows how to do it's job. I also fully believe that the military needs to be told what it's job IS. ;)
(Basically, I have equal fear of the military industrial complex and the peace-at-any-price folks.)

Actually I do agree that they should argue with us, but I do not think that we should be considered "blind" robots. (I have been accused of being such merely for supporting my Commander-in-Chief....)

One of the reasons we have the House Armed Forces Committee, where military officials (allbeit they -are- officers ;) ) are drilled by the House and Senate members on what the military needs.

Let's just say, the military used to run itself once, and one brave man stood between democracy and tyranny.... (I'll give you a clue who it was... his face is on the Quarter....) The military -needs- the civilian sector to control it, as we are a "service" to the country, but I feel personally that having civilians -in- the military weakens are ability to perform that "service" properly.

whats wrong with civilians?


in this case he seems to be refering to civilian contractors.

Actually I do agree that they should argue with us, but I do not think that we should be considered "blind" robots. (I have been accused of being such merely for supporting my Commander-in-Chief....)

Of course! That (the other extreme) is no good either...

One of the reasons we have the House Armed Forces Committee, where military officials (allbeit they -are- officers ;) ) are drilled by the House and Senate members on what the military needs.

Which is a good middleground. I just wish that things weren't so partisan -- take base closings for example. Or where contracts get done. (We're pretty peeved that for the 1st time EVER Sikorsky isn't making the Presidential choppers...) but Connecticut looses out to Texas, since we didn't vote for Bush... (albeit, we did moreso than we had in 2000).

Let's just say, the military used to run itself once, and one brave man stood between democracy and tyranny.... (I'll give you a clue who it was... his face is on the Quarter....) The military -needs- the civilian sector to control it, as we are a "service" to the country, but I feel personally that having civilians -in- the military weakens are ability to perform that "service" properly.

Right on.

There still could be a draft. One reason is that we have started to see a drop in our End Reserve. That means more people are leaving than are being replenished. Mind you that not all are leaving for the same reason. we have already sustained 1,543 KIA, and 11,442 WIA, with a total of 16,723 casualties. Mind you, that is a small number compared to the relative size of the force, but there are other personnel being rotated out, with less personnel to replace them. This article below is from General Healy, commander of the US Army Reserve. It details how the current establishment of procedures will make the Reserve unable to accomplish it's objectives.
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/usar_memo-20dec2004.htm

For more on casualties, use this link.
http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

When you serve your term, if you don't do eight, you get to spend eight on inactive ready-reserve. That means that after three, or four, years in service, they can call your happy ass back in-it's in the goddam contract. Your friend signed up, and served, and got out-but until he was off the IRR, he was subject to recall.
BUT, to recall him, he had to have served, and to serve, he signed the contract, if he didn't read it, it's on him.
ergo-it is not involuntary anymore than paying your mortgage or insurance fees is involuntary, he used his GI benefits, now he's on the 'paying' side. That's how it Works.

I never questioned the legality of this type of draft, nor the method by which it is instated. I merely said that it is a form of forced military service which is, in fact, regarded as a draft by a great number of people. It has been dubbed in the media a "backdoor draft". I did not invent the term, it was invented by others. Which proves beyond any doubt that when you say "the rest of us", you are not, in fact, speaking of everyone else, but only of the people who do not reffer to this as a backdoor draft.

The difference between what I said and what you said is that I recognized the fact that many people, like yourself, do not consider this type of forced service a draft. While you pretended that everyone but me knows it is not a draft. In other words, I was accurate in my statement, while you were deceptive.

This is not a draft of any sort. All US Soldiers sign up for eight years. They may have 2, 3, 4, or 5 active, then the ballance inactive. That is why it is called the inactive ready reserve. They are not drafted they are already a part of our reserve forces. And if there is a need they are called up.

What? You read Newsweek??

That's a great way to invest (I bought gold during the dot com bubble... I'm buying tech right now...) I'm not sure how that works in ideology. :D

Very good economic strategy...buy what is cheap in hopes of t getting pricey.....Gold is on the rise right now.......tech is down....but wait...here come intel's dual core chips to save the day.....you have 18 months before your tech stocks will skyrocket, no matter what field.....

You know what? I feel absolutely zero remorse! Every person who k=joins the military signs a contract....you know what? I dont feel any remorse either...

Anyone who signs a contract with a Recruiter...is a Moron.

Very good economic strategy...buy what is cheap in hopes of t getting pricey.....Gold is on the rise right now.......tech is down....but wait...here come intel's dual core chips to save the day.....you have 18 months before your tech stocks will skyrocket, no matter what field.....

Exactly.
Medium term is the best way to increase wealth. This is why you should NEVER buy what other people are buying, and should never listen to the people on tv.
Especially that guy on the commercial who says "we think so!". (In this ad, it's always the same commerical, just with a different commodity/stock type that has already run up and is near apogee.)

Gold isn't on the rise, it's risen. It's just about right now: historically, an oz of gold should always cost about what a good men's suit does.
Today: $424.60. That means I've made ~$200/oz from 1998. That's a 7.55% return on investment per year. :cool:

... I dont see why it would be more likely for contractors to do this than the military.

mis 2 centavos:

If you sign and join...you are an Idiot...cos you are givin-up some fundamental rigths...

If you cant resist the urge to "visit" Baghdad...at least do it as a Contractor...

that way if its not what you expected...you can always leave it all, and go home.

It all depends on the situation and whether or not the US is going to continue to play parent to the bad little boys and girls of the world.

you know what? I dont feel any remorse either...

Anyone who signs a contract with a Recruiter...is a Moron.

So... I'm a moron for wanting to serve my country?

The problem is that people sign up for the wrong reason. To call it throwing away your life is somewhat accurate. You give up your life to something greater. A good soldier will lose himself in the Way, leaving all matters to the Master. He should live by the four vows which are:
To Never be outdone in the Way of the Warrior.
To be of Good use to the Master.
To be filial to your parents.
To manifest great Compassion, and to work for the sake of Man.

-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

you know what? I dont feel any remorse either...

Anyone who signs a contract with a Recruiter...is a Moron.
I'm sorry, did you just insult all military personnel?
Perhaps you meant to say something different?

O.k. I have to ask, because during the WHOLE friggin campaign, it was crammed down my throats by every lefty with an extra minute to waste. Where is this draft you all warned about? Is there even one of you with the balls to admit they were wrong, or are you all still forecasting re-instatement of the draft for the country?

I knew they were wrong! I've always said that the draft isn't coming back. Even Bush, Rumsfeld, The JCS, and Congress said they don't need a draft. Never trust anything the left tells you regarding the military.

If NK nukes our troops in SK, you can bet your ass we'll see a draft.

No need for a draft when NK will be glass.

I already covered it, and he wasn't deceptive at all. It is called a back-door draft because it is involuntary, however just because it is unwanted does not make it a draft, technically. You may think as you wish, but anyone who signs a contract should read it first. If congress were to declare war, a Soldier who retired 30 years ago could be called up. It's part of the system. Once you're a Soldier, you're never truly a civilian again.

Hate to break it to ya but the only way this soldier could've been called up and shipped is one of 2 things:

1) he never completed his full term in the service. There is a minimum requirement to serve and if you don't complete it you can be called up.

2) Those that did serve full terms and were placed on the inactive reserve list that can be activated if needed.

Depending on what you call a draft, there may already be a draft going on. If you call involuntary military service a draft, then yes there is a draft going on at this very moment. Someone I know is being forced against his will to abandon a high paying job and his family to go fight in Iraq because he had been in the military a few years back.

I hate to tell you this, and your friend this, but he shoulda read the contract he signed when he joined the military. What happened to him was NOT a draft, it was him doing what he signed up to do. High paying job or not, he got reinstated just like it says. Why the HELL do you think I, being raised next door to Ft. Hood, did not sign up for military service when I graduated? I read the fine print. So, it was not involuntary, just forgotten. No excuses as far as I can see. Just take it as a lesson learned.

As for the draft, it is illegal as written. I'd be able to tie them up in court for a while with the fact that it is male only. Sexual discrimination, baby. LOL I'm all for the war, but the lil bits they have in the military service contracts, even with almost 100K in bonuses the first two years, kept me out. :) Oh well, perhaps when I'm out of college I'll go do some civilian work there.

Hate to break it to ya but the only way this soldier could've been called up and shipped is one of 2 things:

1) he never completed his full term in the service. There is a minimum requirement to serve and if you don't complete it you can be called up.

2) Those that did serve full terms and were placed on the inactive reserve list that can be activated if needed.

Actually, in the event of a National Emergency, there is a third way: read those neatly hidden USCs, and you'll find that prior service military are priority over civilians in being "drafted" back in, since they have already conducted military training. Unless you are so medically disabled that you cannot perform any duties, than you're still considered ex-military to the U.S. Government. Although, at this point, we'd have to be in a thermo-nuclear war with Terminator robots before that code is carried out. I like to call it the "Oh Shit!" law.

Oh, and to back this, the current ACS (Army Chief of Staff) was pulled out of a couple of years worth of retirement and called back. Even when there is no longer a minimum lenth of contract (any contract after your first) you can still be called back up. This is highly uncommon, but not impossible, nor illegal.

I hate to tell you this, and your friend this, but he shoulda read the contract he signed when he joined the military. What happened to him was NOT a draft, it was him doing what he signed up to do. High paying job or not, he got reinstated just like it says. Why the HELL do you think I, being raised next door to Ft. Hood, did not sign up for military service when I graduated? I read the fine print. So, it was not involuntary, just forgotten. No excuses as far as I can see. Just take it as a lesson learned.

As for the draft, it is illegal as written. I'd be able to tie them up in court for a while with the fact that it is male only. Sexual discrimination, baby. LOL I'm all for the war, but the lil bits they have in the military service contracts, even with almost 100K in bonuses the first two years, kept me out. :) Oh well, perhaps when I'm out of college I'll go do some civilian work there.

Good luck. It was tried as sexual discrimination a few years back, and lost horribly. The SS worded their point in just a way as to have its policy approved. But hey, maybe you can beat 'em. GL.

O.k. I have to ask, because during the WHOLE friggin campaign, it was crammed down my throats by every lefty with an extra minute to waste. Where is this draft you all warned about? Is there even one of you with the balls to admit they were wrong, or are you all still forecasting re-instatement of the draft for the country?
Of course there will be a draft. It's just a year or two off... like Global Warming. Always just a few years away.

[/kidding]
THERE IS NO DRAFT! Draftees can NEVER replace the skilled professionals that make up our volunteer military.