RE: New enlistment age

RE: New enlistment age (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Graycompany -> RE: New enlistment age (7/27/2005 10:46:29 PM)
Now thats funny, I dont care who you are. We had a Cpl that looked like a barrel, always had trouble with the test. was a great marine, and was not fat by any means.

sfbaytf -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 12:37:09 AM)
If you ask most professional military people they do not want to go back to a conscripted military. Yes they would like to see more people enlist, but not at the expense of quality. As for war not being glorious, I couldn't agree more. My father served during the Korean war and never had great things to say about it. A couple of his co-wokers and close family friends served during World War 2. I had some interesting conversations about their experiences. 2 of them were in the Marines. One was at Pelieu. The other one at Iwo Jima. To this day the wife of the one who was at Pelieu says it was an unnecessary operation and thousands of young Marines were butchered. I still have his WW2 medals he gave to me as well as his MACV stuff. While all are proud to have served, none ever wanted myself or anyone for that matter to experience what they endured. As for our on-going war in the Middle East, I have no illusions about any quick end or resolution to the conflict. During the late 70's we moved to the Middle East and lived amongst the people. As many are now discovering the enemy we face don't play by our rules, have nothing to lose and think nothing of death. You have a western anglo-christian army in a largely muslim country with 3 factions that don't like one another and lots of people with nothing better to do willing to migrate to Iraq to take potshots at Coalition forces. Not a good situation. Putting your hope in the iraqis to take over and do the job is dicey, but that's just my opinion, based on my personal observations of the chareteristics of the people who inhabit the region. The sad part is that many in the know, including many fine professional military people who knew better warned about the long term dangers of invading and occupying Iraq, but were ignored by the current administration. Regardless of the past we will now have to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. Hopefully those responsible have learned something from their mistakes. IMHO this war will last generations and we don't have unlimited time. We're running huge account deficits-the current deficit projections don't include the cost of the ongoing operations in the middle east, so they are alot worse than the are. The economy could easily go into recession in 1-3 years. If the current housing boom is indeed a bubble and bursts, then we will almost certainly go into a recession and once that happens the center of gravity-the American people could turn against the war in Iraq. We also have the runup in oil prices,driven in large part by increased demand by the Chinese (who are holding a large portion of our debts in the form of US tresuries and bonds) and India, both of which are growing rapidly and will require large amounts of oil to fuel their eonomies. As for me enlisting? Personally I wouldn't for the simple reason I don't have confidence in the current administration running the country. I voted for them in 2000, but not in 2004-no I didn't vote for Kerry either. I wouldn't put my life on the line for leaders I don't trust, respect or admire. I don't think it's way off the mark to also say that many in the Army don't like Rumsfelt. In any event the current situation is going to be something that others will have to deal with long after the one's who put us in the situation are gone...

Terminus -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 12:58:43 AM)
Well put! [&o]

usersatch -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 5:40:19 AM)
I think a draft would be a good idea. Maybe people would think twice about going to war, if they knew their kid was going to be there. Having been in combat myself, it is indeed the ugliest thing about human-kind. Although it is often necessary to wage war, it, by no means, is glorious. I kind of chuckled when I read that the war-mongering Senator(?) from North Carolina changed his mind about our boys in Iraq after he went to a military funeral. Maybe if more people had the taste, the sounds, the smells, and the memories ingrained in their minds for the rest of their life, we could solve things more peacefully. Maybe?

Graycompany -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 5:47:10 AM)
In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." -- (George) Orson Welles

Oldsweat -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 8:09:55 PM)
I suspect that the whole idea behind raising the enlistment age is to recoup some of the folks that got rolled out during the force reductions during the 90s. I attended round 1 of the current dust up and would go back if they had something productive for me to do, although I imagine most of my expertise is not terribly in demand just now.

velkro -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:27:19 PM)
I have a funny feeling that no one alive can think of a peaceful means of preventing the bad folk in this world from killing... As for sfbaytf's take of, "...As for me enlisting? Personally I wouldn't for the simple reason I don't have confidence in the current administration running the country...." Yea, right. Moral relativism at its finest. That's just one of thousands of different versions of the simple message, "It ain't for me." Justifications abound aplenty in our free society, thanks to freedom of speech. Big words and intellectual vision will always fail to mask this message. Why not just use the four simple words?

velkro -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:31:03 PM)
The reason behind the raising of the enlistment age is that it's awful hard to recruit an all-volunteer military during a time of sustained hostilities. This is the first time in our country's history that we've done this. In every major contingency, there's always been the draft (along with moral fortitude among the populace to finish the fight). We'll win this thing, just be patient and glad you're not a terrorist...

Brausepaul -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velkro ...Yea, right. Moral relativism at its finest. That's just one of thousands of different versions of the simple message, "It ain't for me." Justifications abound aplenty in our free society, thanks to freedom of speech. Big words and intellectual vision will always fail to mask this message. Why not just use the four simple words? One of the worst things to appear in the recent time is the disgusting disapproval of a different opinion.

velkro -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:51:27 PM)
I'm not going to serve the state because I have no confidence in the state. I will take from the state, I will enjoy the state, I will raise my family safely in the state, I will play wargames in the state, I will partake of the fruits of the state's roads, aqueducts, and natural resources, but like I said, I have no confidence in the state. The state gives me no confidence. The state's the best in the world, but it gives me no confidence... Joey, I'm being facetious...this is a position that many Americans have but it's a self-contradicting argument; some "fluff" for their inability to 'nad up and do something in the face of terrorism.

velkro -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:52:26 PM)
You disapprove of my opinion?

Brausepaul -> RE: New enlistment age (7/28/2005 11:59:18 PM)
He said he has no confidence in the current government, not in the countries resources or aqueducts. But apparently one isn't allowed to contradict the government anymore.

joey -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 12:10:13 AM)
Velkro, I guess you could save I served the state. I served the state for many years. Or maybe I served myself. Confindence in the state? I am not sure that matters. The state is made up of men and women. They have adgendas and are falable, as I am I. We all do what we can. Does that mean we have no confidence in any of us? To have no confidence in the state, any state, does not lead to improvement only bitterness.

mogami -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 12:46:41 AM)
Hi, It might be funny to some people but the entire time I was serving in the military I never bothered to worry about who was in charge or why I was being sent. I just could not stand to stay at home while other people were sent. That remains true today. I would not start something so I could go but if we are there I want to be there too. I never worried about why I just want to be there along with the other people serving in the military. I have always liked and admired those I served with and my only worry was not to be with them.

Graycompany -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 12:47:14 AM)
You may argue, on both sides, that the current war in Iraq is just, or unjust. That the war was for WMD or for future protection of WMD. You may argue that it is against terrorism, or that it is against a tyrant that to long walked this earth, and brought nothing to his people but sorrow and inhumanity. You may say it is for Oil, or power, or that the Administration is unjust. No matter what reason you believe, for or against this war, one thing stands out. That the people of Iraq will have a chance to have true freedom, something people in the west tend to take for granted, for most born into freedom, and those that have known nothing but freedom, often take it for granted. As for me, I pray, that freedom takes a hold in the middle east, and that the people of Iraq never take for granted the freedom that cost men and women life itself.

sfbaytf -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 12:53:42 AM)
Has nothing to do with Moral relativism. As for your preaching about moral fortitude to finish the fight. Perhaps you should enlist if you're not already serving. When you see all of the conservative talking heads on TV and talk radio spouting their mouths off and calling others who may not agree with their point of view cowards, moral weakings and what have you, it amazes me how those who are screaming the loudest for war have never served, nor intend to. Many actually had the gaul to disparage members of the military who spoke out against the war and spoke the truth about the risks and potential costs of the war. This is exactly the reason why I want nothing to do with them. At least when we had conservatives who had honor and character I could support them. President Reagan was man enough to go in national TV and accept full responsibility for the Iran/Contra affair. As he put it "the buck stops here". The first President Bush had integrity and was wise enough to listen to the military when it came to foreign affairs and war. Unfortunately I can't say this about those who are leading this country today. So put on your flak jacket and go kill some of the bad guys for us...

mogami -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 12:56:36 AM)
Hi, After WWII when did terrorism in Germany end? Not 1945 or 46 or 47 or 48 it was 1949 before the bombings and murders ceased. However the Germans did not target Americans for the most part they targeted other Germans. It did not matter that Germany overall was better off (human rights wise) after 1945.

Mike Solli -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 1:02:07 AM)
I've been in the military for the past 17 years. I came back from a deployment this past spring. Being away from home sucked, but being away from my army buddies would have hurt more. I just volunteered to go to Iraq next year. Why? I don't want to leave my family for 16-18 months but I'm going to command a company I spent 14 years in. I can't bear to see them go and stay home. My wife understands it and agrees with me. Does it have anything to do with the current administration? Of course not. For me, it's being with my army brothers.

mogami -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 1:03:15 AM)
Hi, OK Mike I will get my BP down and go with you.

sfbaytf -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 1:14:37 AM)
I can respect that and support what you're doing. I just never thought that Iraq was the right place or the right war. I did not believe it was going to the cakewalk as advertised. I really believed we should have focused on Afghanstan and not opened another front in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even many in the Army have said basically the same thing. Now that we are in Iraq we need to do our best to finish it, but I would be lying if I didn't say I believe that it will continue to be a festering problem, that in the end may be more trouble than its worth. If indeed the war against terrorists is going to last generations, as I believe it will, then you better pick your fights carefully. No country, even a rich and powerful one like ours can afford to engage in open ended hostilities.

mogami -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 1:19:45 AM)
Hi, Maybe we should move this up to the General area I think we have wandered far enough from WITP. Keep it going just relocate it. (I don't have the know how or the power to move this thread)

velkro -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 1:25:14 AM)
Flashback, 1941... I have no confidence in the Roosevelt administration...I ain't serving...FDR led us on this path and lied about Lend-Lease...this is the wrong war for the wrong reasons...the Germans aren't so bad...I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor...

timtom -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 2:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velkro Flashback, 1941... I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor... Well, some people did entertain the idea that the planes had to be piloted by Germans [:)]

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 4:02:02 AM)
You hit the nail on the head with the "mission box", "goal"-telephone prospecting, cold calls, Highschool list(LRL's), home appointments, appts. made, conducted and all of the sales and processing steps required just too get one applicant too the floor and the list goes on..........................[:D] quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Actually, I think universal service,no exceptions no exemptions for atleast a 1 year stint so "everyone" is basically trained and familiar with methods and equitment would be a smart idea. After all we are all in this together. This isn't cosmetic,or lip service but a way to show every citizen we all have responsabilities. The left should love it,rich boys as well as opinionated loudmouths are treated the same! While I agree in principle, the reality is that it just wouldn't work, at least not for the regular services. It may be of some benefit to the Guard or Reserves. But a one year stint wouldn't provide the individual any meaningful training. With military technology changing as fast as it is, any individual would need retraining if he were called up unless it was a reserve-type program with training periods every year. And the military just can't afford to send everyone to bootcamp and provide specialty training. The budget would have to increase by at least 50% and they would want some return for their dollars I ran a 7-man recruiting station in Yakima, Washington for 4 years and Graycompany hit the nail on the head. The majority of rejections are due to being overweight. The rest of the rejects are normally due to a lack of a HS diploma or law violations (I could not believe how many kids have juvenile records!!!). TitanWarrior89 mentioned the stress of recruiting. I actually enjoyed getting out there and talking with the kids. What I hated was having to call my zone supervisor everyday and reporting how many phone calls were made, how many phone calls resulted in appoinments, how many appoinments resulted in interviews, how many interviews resulted in physicals and how many physicals resulted in DEPs. It's all a numbers game to career recruiters. If the station failed to make goal, the zone supe would be down to find out why. Miss it two months in a row and the district trainer would pay a visit. Miss it 3 months in a row and you got to pay a visit to the commanding officer. Missing goal was unacceptable, didn't matter that you made 200% of goal last month... Hero to Zero in a heartbeat!!! Chez

ilovestrategy -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 4:50:14 AM)
man, I was 125 lbs when i joined the marines in 85'. today im 200 [X(]

ZekeNY -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 6:32:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timtom quote: ORIGINAL: velkro Flashback, 1941... I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor... Well, some people did entertain the idea that the planes had to be piloted by Germans [:)] Forget it, he's rolling.

Twotribes -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 3:17:11 PM)
Why is it, when the anti Bush crowd speaks in these threads it is just another post and gets "right on" or "well said" but when the people that disagree with that sentiment respond ( notice they didnt start it, simply responded to an inappropriate post) it is " ohh no, we are doomed cause people like you disagree" and "ok, its time to move the thread or delete it"? I have an idea, all you people so dissastisfied with Bush and company ( the right) come to Madcows Steak house where such conversations are acceptable, and where proper responses can be provided without the call to delete or move the thread. I realize most of you wont come because at Madcows the other side isnt prevented from responding and you cant make your cheap shot and then count on the moderators to protect you.

mogami -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 3:37:23 PM)
Hi, How is moving the thread censoring it? It has nothing to do with WITP and so should be moved up to general topic. (Still Matrix forums) Anyone who can post here can still post there. But I agree it might even be better at Mad Cows. (I suggested moving it because it was not WITP not because of anything contained in any post. I don't care a hoot what anyone posts as long as it is not obscene or personal attack against another poster. )

usersatch -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 4:06:09 PM)
Exactly where in this thread is the "pro-Bush" camp being shut out? I think the majority of people who posted to this thread happen to be VERY "pro military" and patriotic. However, some, maybe a lot, also agree that the reasons for the war in the Middle East are suspect at best. I also think most people on this board are open-minded to discussion/debate with people who do not share their exact views (there are a few exceptions, like with everything). In the case of the Iraq War, my personal feelings are that we, as a country, were whitewashed about the facts. We have no one to blame but ourselves for that. I remember watching Colin Powell in front of the UN arguing his case. I also remeber thinking that Powell was a man of virtue and honor and wouldnt bend or stretch the truth to further an agenda. With that in my mind, I guess I was "pro-war". We all bought it hook, line, and sinker. Of course, everything he said turned out to be a bald-faced lie and Powell has retired with a lot less respect than he started with. No WMD, no mobile labs, no chem weapons ready to slime American troops, no concrete link to al Queda. No where in that speech was human rights mentioned as a motive to invade. It was only after it began looking like all those premises were wrong that the Administration started spinning the human rights issues. Alongside this, back at home, you were literally labelled a "unpatriotic" if you happened to disagree with the motives for the war. I was accused of it several times. It was only until I told them of my military experiences that they were pretty speechless. The press was censored to some degree as well. One Presidential candidate was labelled un-American and a flip-flopper because he saw the light about the real motives of the war. Hello, my name is Usersatch, and I am a flip-flopper as well...I bought the whole song and dance about the war, but as the truth became apparent, I changed my mind. Yes, the Iraqis enjoy some sort of freedom because of our military, but the MAIN point of or military is to ensure OUR freedoms. This war has restricted OUR freedoms. I often have to remind some of my active duty friends of that when they say "I wish those damn hollywood people would just shut the F up". My response is "You and I served to guarantee their right to say what they want." The great thing about a democracy is that we have the freedom to disagree with the "shouting heads" on the Fox news channel. While we squander lives, resources, and money in Iraq, the man who was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans is still running free. AND North Korea and Iran (who I believe are our true enemies) grow stronger and dont seem too worried about the US's ability to wage war against them. I think I would have a better "warm and fuzzy" about Iraq if the entire post-war thing was managed better. But the thing that probably angers me the most about the current administration is their arrogance that they feel no accountability to explain the miserable failures--why did our boys have to buy body armor? why are we still dicking around with un-armored vehicles? why did the NG troops have to use captured weapons? why doesnt the oil flow from Iraq (we were promised that oil profits would help rebuild and finance)? why cant Haliburton account for billions of dollars (when I get in trouble for not reporting a few hundred dollars on my taxes)? why are resources being diverted from our troops to the contractors? why are the seceret police of Iraq back on the streets torturing again (I thought we were there to stop that sort of thing)? When asked about these issues, the administration doesnt feel compelled in the slightest to claim responsiblity. So you must pardon my not-so-pro-Bush stance. I just dont like being lied to, seeing our boys get killed and maimed for non-existent WMDs, and knowing that bin Laden runs free. You are free to voice your opinions and I promise I wont squelch them out. I may not agree with them (or I might) but you will always have an open ear from me.

VicKevlar -> RE: New enlistment age (7/29/2005 5:05:51 PM)
Alrighty........once threads migrate to the political it's time to cease and move forward in another direction. Political threads/topics belong over at Mad Cow's. Game related forums are just that....for the games. The General Discussion forum is for gaming and military history. The ole AOW forum has migrated over to Vinny and Doggie's place. Head on over there and continue this discussion. Locking up.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5625