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.

Asherian Command wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.

Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...

Behold the death of freedom.

NOI, ridiculous macho bs followed by a needless "man in the arena" quote.

Your entire post was satire right? Made me lol. Well done.

And who goes into shock when they get tea bagged?

CptJake wrote:Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.

A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.

In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.





And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.

Those charts are bs in several ways.

Macho bs indeed. Women do serve in the army but aren't shagging all the men and destroying unit cohesion. Gay men in the British and other armies don't shag the other men and destroy unit cohesion.

Boasting that you've spent 22 years killing people doesn't rationalise why it's immoral to be gay. Notice that in his page of blather he didn't address that once.

even calling someone homosexual is bad, we have to use the word gay, why is that?

No, there's nothing wrong with the term. I tend to use gay because it just sounds a bit less clinical. Either is fine.


Anyway, there's something I find a bit difficult to believe that you show your gay boss that you spend time at work on a wargames online forum saying that gay people like them are immoral, and the response is to laugh along with you. They probably pity you.

Melissia wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.

Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...

Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big? Equipping and training, benefits... The military is NOT a fricking jobs program and should not be used as such. Way, WAY too expensive, and my taxes are high enough.

Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

CptJake wrote:Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.

A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.

In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.





And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.

Those charts are bs in several ways.

So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?

Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...

CptJake wrote:

Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military.

I don't buy this, have you seen how many fething idiots serve in the military?

SEAL Team Six are tough guys, SF operational detachment delta are tough guys, but for every AFCC or Ranger or force recon operative you have 200 regular soldiers, sailors and airmen, and normal people can and do fill these roles adequately. Not everyone can serve in elite formations, but almost everyone can serve in something of great usefulness.

Sure 99% of people cant serve in SF or Spec ops or even regular infantry (although frankly Ive little admiration for them, I met very few regular army infantry or USMC that impressed me, as the best usually end up applying for more elite branches) but almost everyone could work as a clerk, driver, radio operator, chef, storeman, armourer, engineer, medic etc etc

Im undecided on the whole national service argument, but I certainly wouldn't write it off for the reasons you stated.

Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?

whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?

Considering 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian, it seems relevant. We have a voluntary military. If you make the military an environment that is not amenable to Christians, you're cutting out a large percentage of potential service members.

mattyrm wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military.

I don't buy this, have you seen how many fething idiots serve in the military?

SEAL Team Six are tough guys, SF operational detachment delta are tough guys, but for every AFCC or Ranger or force recon operative you have 200 regular soldiers, sailors and airmen, and normal people can and do fill these roles adequately. Not everyone can serve in elite formations, but almost everyone can serve in something of great usefulness.

Sure 99% of people cant serve in SF or Spec ops or even regular infantry (although frankly Ive little admiration for them, I met very few regular army infantry or USMC that impressed me, as the best usually end up applying for more elite branches) but almost everyone could work as a clerk, driver, radio operator, chef, storeman, armourer, engineer, medic etc etc

Im undecided on the whole national service argument, but I certainly wouldn't write it off for the reasons you stated.

Disagree all you want. But then show facts or figure to prove me wrong. I can show studies backing up my point.

Our organization recently released a report citing Department of Defense data indicating that an alarming 75 percent of all young Americans 17 to 24 years of age are unable to join the military because they failed to graduate from high school, have criminal records, or are physically unfit.

From: http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_Fat_to_Fight-1.pdf

And: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,90736,00.html which rips the stats a little, but cannot refute them, and gives some detail into numbers of kids who do not meet current standards to enlist. Including:

the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

-a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

-a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

So, again, you can 'feel' that I am wrong. Back it up. I NEVER stated everyone has to pass an Airborne/Ranger qualifying physical let alone the physical tests needed to get into elite units. I stated there are a LOT of people who clearly do not meet the current standards to enlist in the US Army. I think the facts will back me up. But please do post the studies that contradict all the ones I have seen.

Jake

whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?

Absolutely.

Ever heard about rockbeyondbelief.com ?

The US military looks almost like an enormous aggressive Christian organization, the stories ive read on that website are staggering, but basically the devout Christians are vocal, and the agnostics have to keep their mouth shut and not rock the boat. I always found the Jesus stuff annoying when I was living with the Americans in Kabul and its definitely a contributor as to why I left the military.

Is also why me and my American missus live here, there are several things that alarm me about the USA, and a possible addiction to Jesus juice is one of them.

biccat wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?

Considering 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian, it seems relevant. We have a voluntary military. If you make the military an environment that is not amenable to Christians, you're cutting out a large percentage of potential service members.

Not all christians are so adverse to homosexuals, just because you open the armed forces to gay people does not make them "not amenable to christians".

I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?

What about teaching some bloody tolerance instead of pandering to prejudice? There used to be a time when military units were racially segregated, now they aren't. I can't see this is different.

Howard A Treesong wrote: There used to be a time when military units were racially segregated, now they aren't. I can't see this is different.

It isnt.

CptJake wrote:Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big?

Ahem.

"National services should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces".

Not all of the proposed national service is in the military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...

It worked in the Great Depression to some extent.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?

Did I say that? No, actually I didn't.

I'm not taking a position on the issue of gays in the military because I don't think it's a civilian issue. Neither is race or sex integration. These are issues that the military needs to decide on in order to provide the best functioning military possible.

Lets assume a few things. 1) The military is religiously representative (~75% Christian). 2) Christians are representative of American thoughts on homosexuality (~50% don't find it socially acceptable).

If you allow homosexuals into the military, you're creating an environment that 37% of the population would not be interested in participating in (I suspect the number is higher). Is there going to be a surge of patriotism from gays and gay sympathizers to fill this void left by conservative Christians who will refuse to serve because of homosexuals in the military? I doubt it.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big?

Ahem.

"National services should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces".

Not all of the proposed national service is in the military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...

It worked in the Great Depression to some extent.

Ahem.

Since all branches of the military are at their allowed end strengths, and in the process of shedding personel as they downsize over the next few years, either the military will not work for your jobs program, or you intend to grow it.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?

Did I say that? No, actually I didn't.

Yes you did, in fact, your statement made AFTER this pretty much expands on saying exactly this.

As an aside, military research says that 73% of military personnel were okay with the presence of GBLT personnel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Since all branches of the military are at their allowed end strengths,

In case you weren't paying attention-- and you weren't, shame on you-- the proposed national service wasn't just a military service.

Melissia wrote:As an aside, military research says that 73% of military personnel were okay with the presence of GBLT personnel.

What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?

Melissia wrote:In case you weren't paying attention-- and you weren't, shame on you-- the proposed national service wasn't just a military service.

We could just hire people to dig holes and then have others fill them in. Or better yet, run through town breaking windows. It's the Paul Krugman theory of economic success.*

* If not successful, then it wasn't enough. Repeat with more broken windows.

biccat wrote:We could just hire people to dig holes and then have others fill them in.

That's basically how you make roads, except the ones filling it in are doing it with various forms of concrete and asphalt.

And there's plenty of places where public works such as sewage systems, water lines, storm overflow lines, etc need renovation or repair.

biccat wrote:What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?

The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.

Melissia wrote:The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.

I have no doubt that the military will discipline those who refuse to accept the change. And I agree that military discipline is going to overcome most of the vocal objections.

What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term? How many will take the option to retire early rather than stay and train the next generation of soldiers? How many people will simply refuse to serve because of the presence of gays in the military?

And that doesn't even start to address the issue of military culture that NeedleOfInquiry raised.

The military is not the place for social experiments. I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.

Ah, but your forgetting Biccat- the bonus in recruitment from people who previously didn't want to serve with a bunch of unreasonable homophobic biggots could easily bring numbers right back up!

Also the bonus of regaining likely a good portion of those lost skilled (IE, not basic grunts) soldiers who were discharged for DADT can't be discounted as well. Lots of Arabic and Farsi translators were lost in the last few years, much to the military's chagrin.

At class right now so I can hardly get back into the heated debate, lol.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?

The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.

Yeah she's right Bic, good soldiers can deal with gak they dont like. That's why the military works. You cant have a democracy when your dealing with large military formations, how would you expect to get anything done if you let individual soldiers deviate from the plan?

Take me for example.

There were a great many orders I didn't want to follow, but I still did. gak, the ROE alone used to do my fething nut in. They were harsh out in Afghanistan! First few weeks in Iraq were like the wild west, and then all of a sudden its "don't fire if they are running away from you" and all this gak. If it was down to me Id have happily set my minimi up outside the mosque on a Friday and brassed up everyone that attempted to leave.

The point is, If your a professional soldier and you hate gay people, you will get the job done anyway's. If your a sniper and it just happens that on weekends your spotter likes wearing ass-less chaps and a string vest, your going to do the job anyway. You might not share a shower with him afterwards, but gak. A jobs a job, and you would absolutely get it done. If you wouldn't, because you think "Ah maht catch AIDs offa them they're binoculars!" then you shouldn't be in the military.

Oh and for the civilians amongst you, I meant this minimi



Not this one.

Da Boss wrote:Ah, but your forgetting Biccat- the bonus in recruitment from people who previously didn't want to serve with a bunch of unreasonable homophobic biggots could easily bring numbers right back up!

Pardon the bias, but in my experience the activists who oppose programs like DADT (and most likely to be influenced by the change) don't seem to be the most outwardly patriotic or likely to serve in the armed forces.

I'm sure there will be some who choose to serve because of the DADT repeal, but it's unlikely to be a substantial number.

Also, I like how you assume anyone who doesn't accept your position is an "unreasonable homophobic biggot."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah she's right Bic, good soldiers can deal with gak they dont like. That's why the military works. You cant have a democracy when your dealing with large military formations, how would you expect to get anything done if you let individual soldiers deviate from the plan?

I agree. Which is why I think that the numbers of people who leave in protest will be minimal. But what about those who choose not to join or leave early?

mattyrm wrote:Take me for example.

Happily.

I always found the Jesus stuff annoying when I was living with the Americans in Kabul and its definitely a contributor as to why I left the military.

Do you think other people might feel the same way about homosexuality in the military?

You're far more likely to run into a religious nutjob than a gay pride nutjob, statistically speaking.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Take me for example.

Happily.

Aww.. I didnt mean it that way you big lug.

And your against gays in the military!?

mattyrm wrote:And your against gays in the military!?

We're not in the military

Melissia wrote:You're far more likely to run into a religious nutjob than a gay pride nutjob, statistically speaking.

Tragically that is indeed the case.

I'm not gay, but gay people don't annoy me for precisely that reason. If your a straight man, they don't harass you and force their "gayness" onto you. Gay people being gay doesn't affect my life a jot, so why dislike them? They can screw whoever they like, it has no bearing on me enjoying my life.

Now, do devoutly Religious people afford me that same luxury? No. They go on and on and on and on. They try and force their rules onto me, hence my militant atheism. Devout Muslims want to ban beer for feths sake!

Some Religious people even have the fething gall to knock on my bloody door when I am sat watching TV and minding my own business and they pester me with this gak! Gay people dont do it. There is no "prize" for "converting" people to being gay. Sadly, Religion doesnt work that way.

The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of "Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?" Is the day that I have disdain for gay people.

Ok im done now.

mattyrm wrote:[
The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of 'Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?'

I need to pay someone to march up to your house and do that now, just for the reaction.