you heard folks.it's official, kickboxer says no draft.so mei wenti.no problem...forget we mentioned it :D :cool:
Printable View
you heard folks.it's official, kickboxer says no draft.so mei wenti.no problem...forget we mentioned it :D :cool:
Mr. Norris, can you please speak english first? That would help a lot trying to understand you. :)
True there won't be any draft they will simply either:
1.) Re-assign more troops like from South Korea (lets see already sometime in South Korea already + 2yrs in Iraq and MAYBE back to South Korea after that).
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...051704,00.html
2.) Widen the Army stop-loss program even further(already soldiers are b@tching about that).Quote:
Kim, the South Korean official, said it was too early to speculate on whether the troops will return to South Korea after their Iraq mission.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...y-troops_x.htm
3.) Activate more reservists.
4.) Hope for more volunteers to sign up.
IMHO, even with UN approval and under UN control many countries will be reluctant to supply troops for duty in Iraq.
So far this thread has had much input and opinion, but so far nobody has come up with ideas on HOW to handle the current shortage of US troops. I think the current ratio is for every fighting soldier that are 3 non-fighting soldiers(Drivers, base staff, etc) in the forces, thus only a 1/4 of the deployed troops I think are fighting soldiers.
Draft is one option that can be used to overcome the shortage.
What are the others, are there even any?
Ok, lets discuss the possible solutions.
There are even die-hard conservatives (unwealthy ones of course) who are regretting the current occupation of Iraq, war has already been won.
Maintaining peace is harder, I am sure that is an old truism. So I'd assume it'll be against better judgment of any President this day and age to call upon mandatory drafting of US civillians for a pesky war and tough peace-keeping contract such as this.
Other options: press other countries for troops or lack of funding. :)
Kickboxer.
100% agree that peace-keeping is a tougher and more demanding job, hence my head off to the U.N. Troops that specialise in that field.
IMHO, peace-keeping also requires a completely different training and skill-set than the current US troops have got.
The way I see it the current Iraqi population is going to be wary of any non-iraqi soldiers stationed over there.
I also think that the coalition forces really dropped the ball when it came to getting the Iraqi security forces(police, etc) up and running so that they could take over on June 30 from the coalition troops.
This I think is a failing that the media & goverments so far have failed to adress.
Even? :confused: Judging by the publications of The Ludwig von Mises Institute and The American Conservative, the die-hard conservatives have been opposed to the war all along. While the advocates of these organizations are not as wealthy as the prominent Democrats, I don't think they're limited to the lower classes.Quote:
Originally posted by Kickboxer
There are even die-hard conservatives (unwealthy ones of course) who are regretting the current occupation of Iraq, war has already been won.
are most of them oil rich or fall in Donald Trumps category? What do you define lower class? By non-wealthy, I perceive people who make less than 100K a year. Now don't tell me, it was majorly liberals who were war-mongers. But Im sure, you'll manage to. Wealthy conservatives are like seasonal winds, quite opportunistic to be on the popular side.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this wealth issue at all. It seems like there's people from the full spectrum of SECs at all sides of the political spectrum. So, no, most advocates of TAC or the Mises Institute are not "oil rich" nor "fall in Donald Trump's category."
It was mostly the neoconservatives who were "warmongers" in this instance. Most of the liberals were very against the war. I thought this was well known? :confused:
I don't know that there is a more valid alternative on this one..the mission is what is and below the surface has deeper repercussive action neccessary to execute than wwe can really imagine.there-fore more troops will evntually be required ( short of pulling the illumanti plug, of which Bush has no intention).....consequentially resulting in requirement for troops.reserve or no.it's not enough.even taking into account allied forces...nth Korea for exapmle .when it comes to that.has over 2 or was it 200 million troops.how the hell do you deal with that..you create new treaties and get more allied forces to back you up and offer them some tradeship agreement to coax them their support..........the process is not pretty, but if I'm not mistaken, the ends WILL in fact justify the means..I suggest some good socks, stationary, up physical training and come home in one piece........
conservation touches all demographic and economic division of society..awareness is awareness and to realise the full capacity of the shape of our world and the trends that we are following and recreating daily is to understand. You can't not have an opinion or possible means of soloution.it's called education ..and that's the difference.not what's in your pocket or bank account........
Nothing much, but I find it rather irritating when you nit-pick people's personal comment and make it the focus of your speculation rather than what's said about this topic - DRAFT. Most of us here do not directly work for the government, so opinions including yours, are purely subjective and based on personal observation.Quote:
Originally posted by Christopher M
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this wealth issue at all. It seems like there's people from the full spectrum of SECs at all sides of the political spectrum. So, no, most advocates of TAC or the Mises Institute are not "oil rich" nor "fall in Donald Trump's category."
It was mostly the neoconservatives who were "warmongers" in this instance. Most of the liberals were very against the war. I thought this was well known? :confused:
I only replied to what you said. What would you prefer people do?
Albeit, I respect your input, but the real issue here was mandatory Draft, alluding to the rest of my context. The remark about conservatives are relative, I commented based on circle of people I know. It's only supplemental, not the focus of discussion.
However, I'd enjoy reading your reply based on Mr. Norris's rants. :)
There aren't too many competent Iraqi soldiers, the current ones will no doubt be chewed up by the terrorists.Quote:
Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Kickboxer.
100% agree that peace-keeping is a tougher and more demanding job, hence my head off to the U.N. Troops that specialise in that field.
IMHO, peace-keeping also requires a completely different training and skill-set than the current US troops have got.
The way I see it the current Iraqi population is going to be wary of any non-iraqi soldiers stationed over there.
I also think that the coalition forces really dropped the ball when it came to getting the Iraqi security forces(police, etc) up and running so that they could take over on June 30 from the coalition troops.
This I think is a failing that the media & goverments so far have failed to adress.
However, there are no such thing as peace-keeping soldiers or different sets of trainings. If something imposes a danger, shots are fired. Some soldiers are more jumpy than others.
The plausible solution to this is to import soldiers from countries that are pre-dominantly Islamic and are on Iraq's good side. But that is also improbable, none wants to be cooperative.
Best solution for us, bid farewell. Will it make them like us? Not by a long shot! :D
Illuminati? BL...........nevermind. :rolleyes:
What is Illuminati? Sounds like a cult of High Elders and Wisemen.