Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So what do you guys think the likely hood of me being drafted as of right now is?

Not to sound shallow or anything, but that's all I really want to know.

Slarg232 wrote:So what do you guys think the likely hood of me being drafted as of right now is?

Not to sound shallow or anything, but that's all I really want to know.

There's a bill in the house, sponsored by a leading Democrat, who wants you to get drafted.

That's all you really need to know.

So what do you guys think the likely hood of me being drafted as of right now is?

Not to sound shallow or anything, but that's all I really want to know.

That is not going to happen.

1. The American public has really had enough of these excursions in the name of global security. There is no way they would stand for a draft.

2. The people in charge of the US military like being a professional army. They have little to no interest in switching to conscripts.

You are safe.

Lord Harrab wrote:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know what it means - what do you think it means?

@Slarg - You won't be drafted. If the draft wasn't reinstated for Iraq II, then it's not going to be reinstated now. I would say the chances of Obama commiting ground troops to Libya are slim to none.

So remind me... are asassins Illegal or something?

Anyway... TBH I don't think our intervention is really improving the situation all that much... I hope I stand corrected on this.

Soladrin wrote:So remind me... are asassins Illegal or something?

In the U.S., yes. I assume other countries feel the same way. Something about avoiding retributive attacks.

Also, I don't even think they're trying to kill Ghadaffi, just take out his ability to strike the rebels/insurgents.

But no one's going to cry boo if we end up dropping a bomb on his head acidentally.

Andrew1975 wrote:Hey, look the Arab league is already grumbling that we are over reaching the mission goals. How long until they throw us under the bus?

Yeah, I noticed that - that's a bloody quick turnaround on their part!

How many Tomahawks has the US launched in this operation?

Not sure, but British warships were involved too...

Bloomberg wrote:Yesterday’s strike involved 124 U.S. and United Kingdom missiles against 20 targets; in contrast 288 Tomahawks were fired in the opening hours of the 1991 Gulf War.

In addition to the missile launches, the U.S. used 19 aircraft to strike Libyan targets, including three radar- eluding, bat-winged B-2 bombers, which flew from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

The arsenal also included four Boeing Co (BA).-made F-15E and eight Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT).-made F-16CJ Air Force fighter jets. The Navy flew Boeing-made EA-18G electronic attack jets and the Marines flew at least four AV-8B Harrier jets, from the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in the Mediterranean.

The U.K. deployed Tornado and BAE Systems Plc-made Eurofighter Typhoon jets.

Look even though the UN dragged the US into this "Action" it looks like the US is still going most of the work. Typical!

BBC wrote:UN Resolution 1973 - Votes

10 For - France, UK, Lebanon, US, South Africa, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria, Gabon

0 Against

5 Abstentions - China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany

The USA supported this action by voting for it - they were well within their rights to abstain, and could have opted out of military action had they wished. They weren't forced into anything. You need to drop the persecution complex, man. You'll give yourself an ulcer or something...

Alby, if this thread is so boring to you, why are you still posting in it?

In answer to some of your points, I would ask you not to make assumptions, but to initally assume that until such time that they make a obvious mistake that they may actually know something about which they are talking.

The Arab League has asked the same questions that some of us have asked here, the UN resolution is for a No-Fly zone above Libya to remove CG main advantage over the rebels. But it has moved beyond that to apparently attack prepositioned, stationary, army units. AFAIAM the resolution only allows us to attack units threatening/attacking civilians.

Lets look at the RAF. They have 7 GR4 Sqns, oops sorry, 2 have just been disbanded and 1 is a training sqn. So that leaves just 4 operational squadrons. 1 in Afghan, 1 in Iraq. The op tempo that the RAF is facing is going to cause fatigue errors and the planes themselves cannot maintain that level of flight readiness. If this continues for the forseeable future, then planes/crews will probably catastrophically fail.

Pilots under training have been made redundant, Numbers of RAF personnel have been cut, I believe the headline figures were app 1 in 8.

We have had to 'recover' scrapped aircraft for intelligence gathering, our main source of providing air support in the region would have been the Ark Royal with her Harriers, but we got rid of that as well.

Our armed forces are not in a position to maintain this. The hope was that the Arab nations would take over, but as you can see that is now in doubt.

Before you go ahead an decry what you see as a liberal attack on our armed forces actually read what has been said elsewhere. For example, not even our Government has come out and said that there has been no civilian casualties, just that they are not aware of any.

Dreading something happening, and saying so does not make you want it to happen.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:Alby, if this thread is so boring to you, why are you still posting in it?

I've asked myself the same question... 'can't sleep, beats facebook' is the closest I've come to an answer.

In answer to some of your points, I would ask you not to make assumptions, but to initally assume that until such time that they make a obvious mistake that they may actually know something about which they are talking.

The Arab League has asked the same questions that some of us have asked here, the UN resolution is for a No-Fly zone above Libya to remove CG main advantage over the rebels. But it has moved beyond that to apparently attack prepositioned, stationary, army units. AFAIAM the resolution only allows us to attack units threatening/attacking civilians.

UN Resolution 1979:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

The resolution permits attacks on ground forces in order to prevent them from massacring civilians, which was what was about to happen in Benghazi. Also, we don't yet know the specifics of the units that were targeted, outside of the tanks that the French malleted. The Tomahawk attacks were on Gadaffi's air defences and airbases, reportedly.

Lets look at the RAF. They have 7 GR4 Sqns, oops sorry, 2 have just been disbanded and 1 is a training sqn. So that leaves just 4 operational squadrons. 1 in Afghan, 1 in Iraq. The op tempo that the RAF is facing is going to cause fatigue errors and the planes themselves cannot maintain that level of flight readiness. If this continues for the forseeable future, then planes/crews will probably catastrophically fail.

Attempts to impress me with technical knowledge aside, there is a huge amount of speculation in your statements. What exactly do you know about the 'op-tempo the RAF is facing'? Do you work for the MOD? The RAF? Do you have insider knowledge of the mission? I doubt that is the case, considering you don't seem to be clear on the guidelines set out by the UN resolution.

And why do you insist on ending your posts the way you do? It's annoying.

Cheers

Albatross

Albatross wrote:

AndrewC wrote:Alby, if this thread is so boring to you, why are you still posting in it?

I've asked myself the same question... 'can't sleep, beats facebook' is the closest I've come to an answer.

Story of my life. ( )

biccat wrote:There's a bill in the house, sponsored by a leading Democrat, who wants you to get drafted.

That's all you really need to know.

That's all someone else needs to know, if you were intent on giving them a completely misleading impression in order to dissaude them from a supporting political party based on an incomplete half truth.

What's actually relevant is that the bill in question is sponsored by one Democrat, and is opposed by the rest of his party in both houses of congress, opposed by the White House, and opposed by all arms of the military. It has exactly zero chance of getting up. Just as importantly, the Democrat in question didn't write the bill because of troop shortages or anything else that might sensibly drive a return of the draft, he did it because he's concerned about the over-representation of poor minorities in the armed forces. That is to say it's an attention getting bill, designed to draw attention to the idea that poverty causes more minorities to go off and risk their lives in the armed forces.

At which point, a person is able to decide whether they want to support a party that includes members who write attention getting bills based around racial politics, as opposed to the nonsense you were trying to imply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:So remind me... are asassins Illegal or something?

Anyway... TBH I don't think our intervention is really improving the situation all that much... I hope I stand corrected on this.

Assassinations are illegal, but lots of illegal things get done in the name of national security and no-one really cares.

The point is that assassinations are almost always pointless, because as much as we like to simplify things and think Gadaffi is somehow responsible, the fact is that if we kill him then the rest of his government would still function, and someone else would step up into his role. The only way to change a government is to defeat that government entirely.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:There's a bill in the house, sponsored by a leading Democrat, who wants you to get drafted.

That's all you really need to know.

That's all someone else needs to know, if you were intent on giving them a completely misleading impression in order to dissaude [sic] them from a supporting political party based on an incomplete half truth.

You're absolutely right, no one ever impugns all Republicans based on the statements of one wacko.

The truth is that Democrats have a habit of attacking those who choose not to serve their country as "chickenhawks." They also play the class warfare angle of saying that the "rich" don't send their kids to fight.

Rangel is an oddity because he's honest.

So anyone else think the Arab League supporting the No-Fly Zone was in exchange for the U.N. (and more specifically, the U.S.) looking the other way to the brutal crackdown on Shia minorities in Bahrain?

evilsponge wrote:So anyone else think the Arab League supporting the No-Fly Zone was in exchange for the U.N. (and more specifically, the U.S.) looking the other way to the brutal crackdown on Shia minorities in Bahrain?

It isn't out of the question. Though I wonder how Iran feels about Libya at the moment?

Andrew1975 wrote:

So what do you guys think the likely hood of me being drafted as of right now is?

Not to sound shallow or anything, but that's all I really want to know.

That is not going to happen.

1. The American public has really had enough of these excursions in the name of global security. There is no way they would stand for a draft.

2. The people in charge of the US military like being a professional army. They have little to no interest in switching to conscripts.

You are safe.

Albatross wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know what it means - what do you think it means?

@Slarg - You won't be drafted. If the draft wasn't reinstated for Iraq II, then it's not going to be reinstated now. I would say the chances of Obama commiting ground troops to Libya are slim to none.

Sweet, one less thing to worry about this month.

biccat wrote:You're absolutely right, no one ever impugns all Republicans based on the statements of one wacko.

And when they do they're peddling the same disingenuous crap you are.

At least I'd hope they properly describe the actions of that guy.

The truth is that Democrats have a habit of attacking those who choose not to serve their country as "chickenhawks."

Umm, the Democrats attack people who didn't serve their country, but are keen to engage in overseas operations as chickenhawks. You have to be a hawk to be a chickenhawk, it's kind of in the name there, and is really obvious unless you're playing around with half truths to score political points... oh yeah, that's what you were doing to start this little conversation of ours.

Stop it. It's lame.

They also play the class warfare angle of saying that the "rich" don't send their kids to fight.

Rangel is an oddity because he's honest.

Umm, what? He's making a political argument about racial equality, and doing it by proposing a bill that has zero chance of getting up. There's nothing honest about it the practice.


Lastly, you edited the quoted section of my post to add [sic] to a typo? What the feth is wrong with you?

Ketara wrote:Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.

Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.

America can perfectly well ""order" other nations about" - as an order is an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate. Anyone can order anyone else around; America, being larger, stronger, and more capable of harming most other nations can do so with a reasonable likelihood of them obeying. Whether this was right or wrong, appropriate or not is up in the air - but nations can, will, have, and will continue to order others about.

...People here in the US really were worried about being drafted?

If they didn't reinstate the draft after the invasion of Iraq--it won't be reinstated.

Kanluwen wrote:...People here in the US really were worried about being drafted?

If they didn't reinstate the draft after the invasion of Iraq--it won't be reinstated.

More to the point, the army doesn't want it. They'd rather dedicate their equipment and training resources to troops who want to be there, who have made a commitment to serve their country. Having to supply and train all these kids who got drafted and don't want to be there is a net drain on resources.

they're peddling the same disingenuous crap you are.

Comments like this don't really contribute to a discussion and really do nothing to facilitate a dialogue, can users please strive to be a bit more polite to each other. Ta.

I don't understand why people are against intervening in Libyia. Would you rather he murdered his people and let the violence spill onto other countries; where it can potentially harm us? Or will it take another Lockerbie to finally wake people up?

My opinion on the subject? drown the region in missiles if its required. Gaddafi must be brought down.

Order may be a strong word but I do think it's the right one. The taliban were "asked" to turn over Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi was "asked" to stop bombing civies. Had both complied things may well be very different in the world today. We like to use the word "Warned" but I don't like prancing around terms like a saytr around a maypole. "Don't bomb your civies", or "hand over Bin ladin", isn't a piece of notebook paper in the suggestion box. You damn well better believe we mean business.

@Alby, I would have thought that the info contained, in the first part, would have at least answered your second part.

The resolution isn't clear, it is an open ended document that allows any action under the heading of "all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"

What the hell does that mean? Apparently whatever you want. Your understanding is not my understanding, and apprently not Russias or the Arab States.

@Mr Hyena, my fear is that Gaddafi cannot win using conventional warfare and will move to unconventional warfare. And while some of the posters here do not remember the bad old days of the IRA, I do. Gaddafi contained within his own country not bothering us, callous I know, is better than him handing out Semtex to the PIRA, for example, like Jelly Babies.

@hero, if there was one single way to ensure that the Taliban refused to do something it was for the US to demand something from them. Gaddafi is/was/may still be continuing in his mentality of defying the US as he was at the time of Lockerbie.

Cheers

Andrew

Soladrin wrote:So remind me... are asassins Illegal or something?

..............snip........................

If you look for the term "targetted killing" you will probably find asassination is still a very popular choice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12784129

It just a bit more awesome these days what with drones and hellfire missiles, more hollywood if you like. Nothing as backwards as a knife in the throat or a bullet.

Edit: holygak how do i get out of this box?

AndrewC wrote:@Alby, I would have thought that the info contained, in the first part, would have at least answered your second part.

The resolution isn't clear, it is an open ended document that allows any action under the heading of "all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"

What the hell does that mean? Apparently whatever you want.

Not really, it states that coalition forces are allowed to step in and neutralise military threats (subject to the resolution - i.e. Gadaffi's armed forces and mercenaries) to the civilian population, short of arming the rebels (that's paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 - it deals with the arms embargo on Libya which applies to both parties to the conflict). The resolution also specifically prohibits the use of occupying ground troops by the coalition. It's all there in black and white if you care to read it. Have you read the resolution? Has anyone one here done so, incidentally? I'm betting one or two may have, but I'm more certain that the overwhelming majority will not.

Here it is:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution
Now there's no excuse.

Your understanding is not my understanding, and apprently not Russias or the Arab States.

Yeah, those peace-loving hippies.... They're just too busy smoking pot and engaging in free love to get caught up in this sort of thing.

Cheers

Andrew

Gah! Stop it!

I don't understand why people are against intervening in Libyia. Would you rather he murdered his people and let the violence spill onto other countries; where it can potentially harm us? Or will it take another Lockerbie to finally wake people up?

My opinion on the subject? drown the region in missiles if its required. Gaddafi must be brought down.

What happens in Libya would honestly have little to no effect on the US or the world for the most part. Leaders kill their people all the time in revolutions, but you know as a Sovereign Nation you kind of have that right. While I don't like to see people getting killed, its' really none of our business.

It could be said that that previous intervention is exactly what made the west targets of attacks in the first place. Lockerbie was retaliation to both western support of Israel and US intervention in the Gulf of Sidra. 911 was a response to Western troops being in the Gulf.

I'll say it again. People don't like to be messed with. I'm not saying all intervention is bad (most of it has been though), but constant meddling has made the west a target and for the most part has only made the regions worse and more unstable.

If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?

For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?

For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.

They are doing that now actually.

Frazzled wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?

For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.

They are doing that now actually.

Are they?

I hadn't read anywhere?

I know that the arms embargo covers both government and non government forces and wasn't that Mirage shot down a rebel flown one? I couldn't see how this resolution could be even handed.