NationStates Jolt Archive

The US army is falling way behind its quota. IIRC, they are the only service facing a major shortage now. What can it do to attract more potential recruits? I personally have no interest in the army, maybe that's the problem, they just aren't appealing enough.

Free Ford Mustangs as an enlistment bonus might help. Also coupon books good for free blowjobs at brothels around the world would be an incentive.

It could stop kicking people out because of sexual orientation, for one.

Bigger Guns.

More Boom.

Seriously, they need to pay soldiers more, provide better health benefits than the VA currently does, and make sure that mistakes like running short of body armor and armored vehicles don't happen again. That actually might help.

Free Ford Mustangs as an enlistment bonus might help. Also coupon books good for free blowjobs at brothels around the world would be an incentive.
O_O I would be the first one in line.

Good way to start would be to convince recruits that they're not going to die in a foreign country for a bullshit reason. Of course, to do that, you'll have to change Presidents and convince the Congress (both parties!) to do its damn job when it comes to war declarations.

It really needs to cut down on gun related deaths. Getting shot is occupational hazard that many people are unwilling to accept.

Increase visible support of veterans or those injured. I would not want to join the Army when I see stories of people coming home from Iraq only to be homless because they were reservists, and lost the job they had while they were in Iraq, and got no VA support. I also don't want to join when I see how difficult it can be for those injured in Iraq or Afghanistan to get medical care once they are at home.

These people fought for their country. They volunteered for service. The least the nation and government could do is ensure that they receive the proper care and support they need when they come home.

Not sending people to die in wars that many people are against would be a good start.

Good way to start would be to convince recruits that they're not going to die in a foreign country for a bullshit reason. Of course, to do that, you'll have to change Presidents and convince the Congress (both parties!) to do its damn job when it comes to war declarations.
I think you could be onto something, there. I don't see how the scuffle in Iraq has anything to do with protecting the American people or the constitution. (For a start, if they were really worried about Al Queda the neo cons would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead...)

I think you could be onto something, there. I don't see how the scuffle in Iraq has anything to do with protecting the American people or the constitution. (For a start, if they were really worried about Al Queda the neo cons would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead...)
Or at least stuck with Afghanistan in a real way instead of the offhand, afterthought way they have.

With the total screw up in Iraq, and the failure to capture Osama, the only way you're going to get more people interested in going off to war in the US is to draft them. If people go off to that nonsense willingly at this point, there's something wrong with them.
I hear there are hundreds of people moving to Canada from the US... and some of them are soldiers who were in Iraq, and realized it was wrong. Others are betting on a draft being necessary, and don't want that crap.
We love Americans who don't like war. :)

Oh that's easy .... start training soldiers to know that they actually can be human and not follow stupid, dangerous, or immoral orders.

It could stop kicking people out because of sexual orientation, for one.
I think he meant people who can fight! :D


J/K!

Oh that's easy .... start training soldiers to know that they actually can be human and not follow stupid, dangerous, or immoral orders.
Wait, if soldiers are told that they can disobey dangerous orders, how do you get them to fight instead of just staying home?

Oh that's easy .... start training soldiers to know that they actually can be human and not follow stupid, dangerous, or immoral orders.
Tell soldiers not to follow dangerous orders? Your joking, right? RIGHT?

Wait, if soldiers are told that they can disobey dangerous orders, how do you get them to fight instead of just staying home?

By giving them real incentive to fight. For example, if someone attacks us. However, if the war is based on a lie (ok ok "bad intelligence"), then the soldiers should have the option of packing up and going home.

With the total screw up in Iraq, and the failure to capture Osama, the only way you're going to get more people interested in going off to war in the US is to draft them. If people go off to that nonsense willingly at this point, there's something wrong with them.
I hear there are hundreds of people moving to Canada from the US... and some of them are soldiers who were in Iraq, and realized it was wrong. Others are betting on a draft being necessary, and don't want that crap.
We love Americans who don't like war. :)
Don't they have a lot of the legal groundwork they'd need for a draft in place already?
If recruitment is still falling even with recruiters leaning heavily on schoolboards (having to specify that you don't want your kid to be pestered into joining up must be a great joy for parents at the moment) I suppose a draft is going to be inevitable. America doesn't have a very big standing army in terms of infantry, and that's going to be a lot more useful than guided missiles if you're fighting a war with insurgents hidden among the civillian population.

Kick-ass cyberarmors that you get to keep!

Tell soldiers not to follow dangerous orders? Your joking, right? RIGHT?

Nope. Not joking at all.

Captain: Soldier, I order you to walk through that mine field, which is surrounded by snipers, using this clown suit for armor.
Grunt: No thanks.
Captain: Fine! *pouts and walks away*

War is war, but stupid is stupid. Driving a car is dangerous, but we make the decision every day whether or not to drive it. If it's pouring rain, with lightning and thunder and zero visibility, we enjoy the luxury of saying, "I don't think I'll drive today".

At the rate we're going, a draft will be necessary. Look for one to be implemented early in 2007 - they won't do it before the midterm elections.

At the rate we're going, a draft will be necessary. Look for one to be implemented early in 2007 - they won't do it before the midterm elections.

I'm going to hold you too it.

Wait, if soldiers are told that they can disobey dangerous orders, how do you get them to fight instead of just staying home?
Well, in my mind, a line is drawn between pointless danger and danger with reason. For example, In Vietnam, there was one attack where a frontal assualt was made on the same path that an attack had been done the day before. The soldiers knew it was a bad idea, they knew it would be a trap, and they did it anyway. They were ambushed, and more than half of them died, their objective a failure. That was pointless danger, and the soldiers knew it.

Then there is danger with reason. An example of this would be the soldiers who went back into Mogidishu (I am sure I have misspelled that) in the incident where the Blackhawk helicopters had been shot down in Somalia. They knew they were going into a dangerious and hostile situation, but they wanted to do it, to save their fellow soldiers. They felt it their duty to save their brothers under fire, and even the bodies of those that were already dead. That isdanger with reason.

Kick-ass cyberarmors that you get to keep!

http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/acy/acy2012.jpg
Like this?

Don't they have a lot of the legal groundwork they'd need for a draft in place already?
If recruitment is still falling even with recruiters leaning heavily on schoolboards (having to specify that you don't want your kid to be pestered into joining up must be a great joy for parents at the moment) I suppose a draft is going to be inevitable. America doesn't have a very big standing army in terms of infantry, and that's going to be a lot more useful than guided missiles if you're fighting a war with insurgents hidden among the civillian population.
Actually, the legal groundwork is not in place IIRC. When Congress abolished the draft, they made it so that it could only be reinstated by an act of congress.

By giving them real incentive to fight. For example, if someone attacks us. However, if the war is based on a lie (ok ok "bad intelligence"), then the soldiers should have the option of packing up and going home.
This wouldn't increase recruitment though. It would only make sure that no matter what kind of war we're fighting some or most of our troops won't show up. Very counter productive.

Nope. Not joking at all.

Captain: Soldier, I order you to walk through that mine field, which is surrounded by snipers, using this clown suit for armor.
Grunt: No thanks.
Captain: Fine! *pouts and walks away*

War is war, but stupid is stupid. Driving a car is dangerous, but we make the decision every day whether or not to drive it. If it's pouring rain, with lightning and thunder and zero visibility, we enjoy the luxury of saying, "I don't think I'll drive today".
Ya, and our Soldiers and Marines, and Airmen have the luxury of saying "No, I don't think I'll enlist in the military, I'll get a civilian job"

See how choice works?

And you obviously don't grasp the sheer stupidity of letting soldiers disobey direct orders when other peoples lives are at stake. Man, am I glad your a civilian!

*Ask very nicely

*Free cookies and lemonade

*Declare war on Bob Dole (that way, virtually everyone will want to enlist)

At the rate we're going, a draft will be necessary. Look for one to be implemented early in 2007 - they won't do it before the midterm elections.
Thats funny, I heard the same thing in 2004 about the draft in '05!

Ya, and our Soldiers and Marines, and Airmen have the luxury of saying "No, I don't think I'll enlist in the military, I'll get a civilian job"

See how choice works?

And you obviously don't grasp the sheer stupidity of letting soldiers disobey direct orders when other peoples lives are at stake. Man, am I glad your a civilian!
See my post number 24 in this thread.

soldiers who don't 'follow orders' get killed in war. Not a good idea at all.:sniper:

At the rate we're going, a draft will be necessary. Look for one to be implemented early in 2007 - they won't do it before the midterm elections.
The longer we go without it, the more convinced I am that the Bush administration will start pulling out of Iraq first--they don't have the stroke to get a draft through Congress right now anyway, and with the increasing likelihood that the Democrats will at least close the gaps in both Houses of Congress (if not take at least one of them back), I doubt there will be a draft.

Actually, the legal groundwork is not in place IIRC. When Congress abolished the draft, they made it so that it could only be reinstated by an act of congress.
My mistake, then.

http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/acy/acy2012.jpg
Like this?
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. If they gave out those even I would sign up.

Well, in my mind, a line is drawn between pointless danger and danger with reason. For example, In Vietnam, there was one attack where a frontal assualt was made on the same path that an attack had been done the day before. The soldiers knew it was a bad idea, they knew it would be a trap, and they did it anyway. They were ambushed, and more than half of them died, their objective a failure. That was pointless danger, and the soldiers knew it.

Then there is danger with reason. An example of this would be the soldiers who went back into Mogidishu (I am sure I have misspelled that) in the incident where the Blackhawk helicopters had been shot down in Somalia. They knew they were going into a dangerious and hostile situation, but they wanted to do it, to save their fellow soldiers. They felt it their duty to save their brothers under fire, and even the bodies of those that were already dead. That isdanger with reason.
Yeah, but who gets to decide if the danger is reasonable or not? The troops? What if the mission is dangerous but necessary and only half of your men decide to go. It might end up killing alot more people in the long run.

My mistake, then.
Actually, you're part right. The draft requires an act of Congress to be reinstated, but the framework is still there--draft boards still exist (I applied to be on one when I lived in California), and men still have to register for the Selective Service at age 18, so it wouldn't take much, except the act of Congress (which is major, admittedly).

Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. If they gave out those even I would sign up.

Same here. :cool:

Yeah, but who gets to decide if the danger is reasonable or not? The troops? What if the mission is dangerous but necessary and only half of your men decide to go. It might end up killing alot more people in the long run.
Its not the troops who should decide this, you are right, but it is the officers. I watched a program on PBS about that ambush in Vietnam. One of the Lt. in charge of a company (they couldn't interview the other company leaders, I think they were dead) wanted to protest the strategy being used. He didn't.

It wasn't that he felt the attack should not happen at all, he just felt the the strategy picked was the single worst idea possible. He kept his mouth shut, and his entire company died. He is not sure how he survived. During the battle, he ended up taking command when the Colonel (who had planned the strategy) just froze up and stopped giving orders. He was only in command for about a minute, when something knocked him unconcsious, and the next thing he knew he was in a medic tent, and his company was gone. He doesn't even know how he got out of the battle area.

No one questioned the orders of the Colonel in the briefing meeting. Maybe if someone had, things would have turned out differently. In the middle of a battle, you obviously have to follow your orders without delay. In a planning meeting the night before a battle, where the officers are discussing the plan, they should be able to raise concerns.

If your concerns are serious enough (like you think your men are about to go into an ambush and all die, achieving nothing, and that colonel doesn't listen), it is your responsibility to go to higher authrorities, as your commander may be suffering from some sort of mental breakdown or something.

(Actually, the colonel in question was. He was in the middle of losing his kids because his wife was divorcing him, she felt she could not support him and the war any longer. When he froze up, and stopped giving orders, all he was doing was looking at a photo of his children).

The US army is falling way behind its quota. IIRC, they are the only service facing a major shortage now. What can it do to attract more potential recruits? I personally have no interest in the army, maybe that's the problem, they just aren't appealing enough.


Fighting justifiable wars!

Fighting justifiable wars!

Exactly. The yabble-babble about soldiers refusing to obey dangerous orders is just inane. Armed forces can never work efficiently if that's the case. What they need to do is to make sure the officers are well trained and know their job. Just like those in charge of the nation. They, too, should be well trained and know their job (And do not gain massive personal profit because the warfare!) so that unjustified wars aren't fought.

It is the governments job to decide where to send the troops, officers job to tell the troops what to do and the soldiers job to do that as well as he can.

Actually, you're part right. The draft requires an act of Congress to be reinstated, but the framework is still there--draft boards still exist (I applied to be on one when I lived in California), and men still have to register for the Selective Service at age 18, so it wouldn't take much, except the act of Congress (which is major, admittedly).
I see. Mind you, is there enough of a Democrat presence in Congress to block that happening if one of the chimp's cabal of handlers decided the war effort was unsustainable without a draft?

Exactly. The yabble-babble about soldiers refusing to obey dangerous orders is just inane. Armed forces can never work efficiently if that's the case. What they need to do is to make sure the officers are well trained and know their job. Just like those in charge of the nation. They, too, should be well trained and know their job (And do not gain massive personal profit because the warfare!) so that unjustified wars aren't fought.

It is the governments job to decide where to send the troops, officers job to tell the troops what to do and the soldiers job to do that as well as he can.
Some of this discussion does raise the subject of an army strike, which would be quite novel.

This wouldn't increase recruitment though. It would only make sure that no matter what kind of war we're fighting some or most of our troops won't show up. Very counter productive.

Then how about, and bear with me here, we simply don't go to war! Wouldn't that be somethin'? You'd be amazed at how well our soldiers can defend us if they're not busy building sand castles and looking for good oil reserves half a planet away.

I see. Mind you, is there enough of a Democrat presence in Congress to block that happening if one of the chimp's cabal of handlers decided the war effort was unsustainable without a draft?
Not only are their probably enough democrats, but republicans wouldn't supported a bill to reinstate the draft either. Its political suicide, anyone who voted in favor of the draft would probably never get re-elected, thats how low public support is for a draft.

Then how about, and bear with me here, we simply don't go to war! Wouldn't that be somethin'? You'd be amazed at how well our soldiers can defend us if they're not busy building sand castles and looking for good oil reserves half a planet away.
:rolleyes:

I'm going back to the sensible route and say that the military should do what any other employer would do if he couldn't find someone to fill the position, raise the perks associated, or simply start showing more respect and concern for soldiers.
So, yeah, offer more cash and you'll get more volunteers. Quit pissing around with stuff like body armour, and you'll get more volunteers. Quit using the military as your own personal play ground for handing out political favours and social experimentation and you'll get more volunteers.
Start a draft, and you'll get people who are going to run like Hell, or do the minimum possible to keep themselves personally alive.

Start a draft, and you'll get people who are going to run like Hell, or do the minimum possible to keep themselves personally alive.
Assuming they don't take off for Canada and never come back, of course...

Quit pissing around with life saving equipment, and you'll get more volunteers.

WTF?!

WTF?!
That is not a Fiddlebottoms quote! You have modified my erudite speech and ingeniously selected verbage! NOW YOU MUST DIE*!!!

*In 8 to 10 decades

... free blowjobs at brothels around the world would be an incentive.they already have that...rite?

Seriously, they need to pay soldiers more, provide better health benefits than the VA currently does, and make sure that mistakes like running short of body armor and armored vehicles don't happen again. That actually might help.
I heard that they (ie Zarqawi et al) use mean new bombs now, where they get a stable pipe, put explosives in it, and then but a little bowl-shaped bit of metal on it as a lid.
Then they aim it, it's triggered by a motion sensor or something, and the explosion reshapes the lid to look like some sort of bullet as it flies at the car, tank, whatever.

I heard those go straight through the HUMVEE armour...is that true?

I heard that they (ie Zarqawi et al) use mean new bombs now, where they get a stable pipe, put explosives in it, and then but a little bowl-shaped bit of metal on it as a lid.
Then they aim it, it's triggered by a motion sensor or something, and the explosion reshapes the lid to look like some sort of bullet as it flies at the car, tank, whatever.

I heard those go straight through the HUMVEE armour...is that true?I do not know but

"something" is going tru armor...and I am talking about the NEW better armor installed on new Humpvees.

I think he meant people who can fight! :D


J/K!

You'd be surprised how fast a gay man can claw your eyes off your face.

Our nails are short but surprisingly sharp and well-manicured.:p

It would be nice if they would make sure that soldiers are really getting their pay and benefits; Just promising them doesn't help.

Two words; Free Pie. :)

If you really want more recruits of the cannon fodder variety, 18-21 year olds, you are going to need to entice them with more cash and prizes. At that age, what matters more than having some money to spend? Okay, but the coupons for blow-jobs isn't going to be done.

Either that, or start the either jail-or-Army sentencing up again.

Other:

Not send soldiers to needlessly die in unnecessary wars with no grounds to initiate them.

I'm going "Other" as well.

Many people might not think Iraq was a good idea, so you lose a few potentials there.

Many might also be unconvinced that their safety is paramount - considering the stories about body armour.

And again others might not want to be scapegoats when things go wrong, because recently it seems like the US Government hasn't been very nice to soldiers at times.

This is taking a really wild stab in the dark here, but I'd say that their recruiting numbers are low because everyone knows that if you join the US army you'll probably be shiped off to some crappy middle eastern country for an unknown amount of time. Jobs tend to start losing their appeal that way.

Then how about, and bear with me here, we simply don't go to war! Wouldn't that be somethin'? You'd be amazed at how well our soldiers can defend us if they're not busy building sand castles and looking for good oil reserves half a planet away.

Is that a joke or something? Show me the nation that became a great successful world power by acting like a scared turtle.

It could stop kicking people out because of sexual orientation, for one.
Would you serve?

This is taking a really wild stab in the dark here, but I'd say that their recruiting numbers are low because everyone knows that if you join the US army you'll probably be shiped off to some crappy middle eastern country for an unknown amount of time. Jobs tend to start losing their appeal that way.
I'd say that's a fairly accurate assessment of the reasons for the US Army's recruitment problems. The British Army is also having similar recruitment problems. No matter how you feel about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq, one thing is undeniable - people are understandabley not keen on the idea of being sent to some hellhole thousands of miles away where they risk death. I'm not, that why I'm never joining the British Army. I don't wanna get myself killed in Iraq.

I really don't know...as a mediocre (not by skill level: I'm "Undermotivated" as my guidance counselor put it) highschool student out of a school which is on probation for its college accredation (sp?), the army seems like one of the only ways I can go.

Face it; the amount that they crush into our skulls that mediocrity is never acceptable is crazy. They act like if a person gets a single "C," they're doomed to flipping burgers and pumping gas (excuse the cliche') forever.

That being said, I have seriously considered the armed forces as an easier way out; school bores me. I'm a senior right now, and I swear to god I learned all of this stuff by eighth grade.

High School has been one giant review for me; the army offers a new path, even though there are risks, its something to do and a way to get away and not focus on what sucks around here, maybe even learn not to take it for granted.

How about drafting all homeless people? The ones who are disabled, make them clerks or something.

Transfer a thousand desk weenies to the front lines.

Make a deal with illegal immigrants: Join the army, serve for a year, get instant citizenship for you AND your family. Include free English classes. No documentation needed.

Say, that last one might actually work. Turn the immigration problem into THOUSANDS of soldiers.

Of course, the Mexicans won't like it when their northern provinces become depopulated.