djinwa
02-12-2011, 04:03 PM
I posted this thread on a site with a bunch of neocons after getting tired of hearing the BS. What do you think? I actually think if it was mandatory, we'd be much less inclined to get into needless wars, especially if older guys with the power had to take the risk:
Currently we rely on a volunteer force, but a couple problems with that. First, if we are as threatened as many say we are, defending the country, like paying taxes, shouldn’t be optional. Second, there simply aren’t enough troops to properly achieve the objectives we have.
As I’ve read here, there are many reasons we supposedly need to keep many millions more troops around the world:
Muslims and other terrorists all around the world are out to get us. They hate us because we are free. There are terrorists everywhere. We need to kill them in their country before they come here and kill us.
When we fight a war, we need to go all out – requiring millions of troops to occupy and fight a country like Afghanistan properly.
If we are not in every region of the world, other countries will fill the power vacuum.
We have to protect our vital interests, such as oil.
We have to provide defense for our allies.
We have to spread freedom and democracy and help with elections and training police and military to protect the leaders we want.
We have to liberate people from tyrants and dictators and abuse and genocide.
We have to rebuild countries after we bomb them.
We have to ensure that no country develops any weapons that could be used against us, especially WMD like we have.
The millions of troops require millions more of support personnel – logistics, transport, medical care, food/water, etc.
One idea: I say a mandatory 4 year service and training from age 18 to 22. Then spend a year every five years until age 70 going overseas. Spend half of that time in frontline combat/patrol time. The other half can be spent in support roles.
Some say we can’t have old people in combat. Why not? As long as you can walk, you could go forward in a mine field and clear it out. Better to not risk the younger guys – save them for fighting.
The older guys can also drive convoys and get hit by IEDs. Better to take out an old guy than a younger one. The young guys then require lifetime medical care, using up resources that could be better spent on ammunition, etc. As I learned in the military, the enemy would rather wound than kill because caring for the wounded takes resources away from the fighting.
Another year out of five can be spent stateside in support roles of the military. As in WW2, working in ammo factories, growing food for military, making uniforms and equipment, etc.
Also, after age 70, seniors can work at least part-time in military factories, or defend the borders as long as they are able.
Currently we rely on a volunteer force, but a couple problems with that. First, if we are as threatened as many say we are, defending the country, like paying taxes, shouldn’t be optional. Second, there simply aren’t enough troops to properly achieve the objectives we have.
As I’ve read here, there are many reasons we supposedly need to keep many millions more troops around the world:
Muslims and other terrorists all around the world are out to get us. They hate us because we are free. There are terrorists everywhere. We need to kill them in their country before they come here and kill us.
When we fight a war, we need to go all out – requiring millions of troops to occupy and fight a country like Afghanistan properly.
If we are not in every region of the world, other countries will fill the power vacuum.
We have to protect our vital interests, such as oil.
We have to provide defense for our allies.
We have to spread freedom and democracy and help with elections and training police and military to protect the leaders we want.
We have to liberate people from tyrants and dictators and abuse and genocide.
We have to rebuild countries after we bomb them.
We have to ensure that no country develops any weapons that could be used against us, especially WMD like we have.
The millions of troops require millions more of support personnel – logistics, transport, medical care, food/water, etc.
One idea: I say a mandatory 4 year service and training from age 18 to 22. Then spend a year every five years until age 70 going overseas. Spend half of that time in frontline combat/patrol time. The other half can be spent in support roles.
Some say we can’t have old people in combat. Why not? As long as you can walk, you could go forward in a mine field and clear it out. Better to not risk the younger guys – save them for fighting.
The older guys can also drive convoys and get hit by IEDs. Better to take out an old guy than a younger one. The young guys then require lifetime medical care, using up resources that could be better spent on ammunition, etc. As I learned in the military, the enemy would rather wound than kill because caring for the wounded takes resources away from the fighting.
Another year out of five can be spent stateside in support roles of the military. As in WW2, working in ammo factories, growing food for military, making uniforms and equipment, etc.
Also, after age 70, seniors can work at least part-time in military factories, or defend the borders as long as they are able.