Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Efficiency

In response to NO Winners--ONLY Losers posted by pink101:

Pink, yes, we want a military that is representative of America. I understand that. BUT...we also want a military that is EFFECTIVE - and that means efficient.

We want a military with the best trained personnel, with the best technology, with the best equipment, etc., etc., etc. And that means you have to have continuity in the ranks and in the officer corps.

Yes, there can be (and will be) some turnover - but not MASSIVE turnover each and every year which would be the case if we adopt your 1-year conscription proposal.

» pink101 - Efficiency

In response to Efficiency posted by BrianTubbs:
.
A conscripted (drafted) part of a military makes up the major manpower of an army prepared to defend our country.
.
There must ALWAYS be a solid core of professional men and women--commonly called Career Personnel. These are the ones who turn an otherwise disorganized military into a machine like system that runs like clockwork--the management teams.
.
The idea that our national defense needs would suddenly require our military to expand to millions on short notice proves your idea is wrong.
.
With every able bodied person that reaches a certain age having been trained for one year to enter into any particular military occupation, the expansion of the organization to meet any demand would be much more efficient that what we now have.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - U.S. Social Forum This Weekend

.
Check this one out.
.
https://www.ussf2007.org/en/node/38
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - A Draft Proposal

In response to Efficiency posted by pink101:
.
I would make a proposal for a prepared military force in which every able bodied American citizen would be drafted at age 18 or upon graduating from high school. They would serve from 9 to 12 months and be enlisted in an inactive military reserve for 7 years--a stand by system that could be called up during a time of national emergency.
.
There are experts that could work out the details; but, it would be good for high school graduates to get into their military service before they enter into the job market or go on to a higher educational program.
.
The training would consist of (# 1) a regular boot camp program of approximately three months which would be mostly about military discipline; (# 2) an additional three to six months service in an advanced training program during which they would learn a military occupation to gain some proficiency in some work as a soldier; (# 3) a one month vacation; (# 4) upon return, placement in some duty where they could practice other necessary service related behaviors. An additional benefit would be that individuals would learn certain person behavior skills that seem to be lacking in many of our young people today.
.
These "one year" soldiers would be paid a much lower salary than the career professionals; but, they would be given opportunities to extend their one year service to a career enlistment status.
.
Of course there a many details too complicated to be covered here; but, I think this would be the best way for us to build the most efficient military force possible.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - A Draft Proposal

In response to A Draft Proposal posted by pink101:
.
I would make a proposal for a prepared military force in which every able bodied American citizen would be drafted at age 18 or upon graduating from high school.
.
Nope. I'd oppose this with every ounce of strength I have. I'd move to a foreign country before I'd see my kids forced into military servitude and be exposed to the nationalistic brain-washing that accompanies it.
.
In addition, it's economic suicide for this country to conscript EVERY youngster and pay wages and benefits to EACH. We can hardly afford to train, feed, and equip the forces we have now.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - A Draft Proposal

In response to A Draft Proposal posted by Migisi:
.
I respect your response; but, you seem to be basing it on some false foundation according to the way I see things.
.
There is a vast difference between a conscripted military and one in which all the members volunteer. The Iraq War is an example. You can be sure a drafted military would not lay down to its management for long.
.
The minds that have created our present military are fully aware of that and they are exceptionally happy that we do not draft civilians into their branches today. In fact, the management of the professional military does not want a return to the draft. The military--itself--is the major reason why we do not have a draft.
.
There was something quite interesting about the militiamen during the American War for Independence. They believed in a democratic military. General Washington, thinking if they were an help or a hindrance to the American cause, considered them to be more of the later. Washington was strong on discipline as you most likely know. The militia men elected their officers so that the privates were in charge of the men the elected to follow. Mutiny was common.
.
The idea of a universal draft is an issue about which America is in need of a national discussion.
.
It is an issue about which we need to enter into with open minds.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - A Draft Proposal

In response to A Draft Proposal posted by pink101:

.
The military doesn't need to draft civilians anymore. The DOD hires merchants and corporations now, and their civilian employees provide 'security' and 'supplies'. It's the 'new' corporate military, dontcha know.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Not A Mockracy

In response to A Draft Proposal posted by Migisi:
.
That's my point.
.
It is not what the military needs. It is ALL about
what America needs.
.
The idea that the members of various branches and departments of government--both local and national--think of themselves as a people set apart from the rest of us is a serious problem in America. As a retired police officer, you know exactly what I mean. Police across our nation have come to think of themselves as being separate from the public--when they speak of each other they use the basic term, our own.
.
We are all in it together if we are a democracy and not a mockracy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Not A Mockracy

In response to Not A Mockracy posted by pink101:

.
We are all in it together if we are a democracy and not a mockracy.
.
"We are all in it together..." is a nice sentiment, but it's not reality. Politicians are only 'in it' for themselves - always. I've had many occasions to deal with local and state politicians - from election commissioners, appointed department heads, to governors. They're always wheeling and dealing, planning strategy for the next election, back-slapping the influentials and wealthy, stroking the media, and outright lying to their constituency. They don't give a rat's behind about the 'people' and their troubles - as long as those troubles don't cause trouble for the politician. They intentionally separate themselves from the people - arrogantly believing they're better than the lowlies who elected them.
.
I've got a little sign hanging which reads "Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed." Ain't it the truth!

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - "Nationalistic Brain-washing"

In response to A Draft Proposal posted by Migisi:

To teach and encourage our men and women in the armed services to love their country and be willing (if need be) to fight and die for our country is not "nationalistic brain-washing." It's precisely what we should do. In fact, that's what we should encourage and teach across the board.