PDA

View Full Version : What Form of Military Service Should We Support?



Taras Bulba
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 09:10 PM
What form of military service should we as Nationalists support?

Historically, Nationalists have always been on the side of universal military service. In fact the concepts of "People's War" and "People's Army" have origins in Nationalism, not Communism.

The terms were first used by Prussian strategists like Scharnhorst when they wanted to reorganize the Prussian military in order to defeat Napoleon(after their defeat at Jena in 1806).

I support the concept of universal military service and I believe military service should be considered the greatest honor to any nationalist. My views on this topic are influenced by Plato, Aristotle, Machivaelli, Rousseau*, Scharnhorst, among others.

I agree with Machiavelli and Rousseau* that military service should also be a school to promote nationalist pride and the study of national traditions. Ironically, we have a good example of this in the Israeli military, where instruction in Jewish traditions is mandatory and even courses in Hewbrew are offered for Jewish immigrants who don't speak it. I also agree with Machiavelli that military service teaches men how to be good citizens; in that it teaches them virtues such as courage and loyalty, which they need to be good citizens anyways.

You can talk about the specific conditions in your country. I, for example, am firmly opposed to Putin's plans for transforming the Russian military to a professional force. I believe this will only seek to weaken Russia militarily. Yes, the Russian military is in need of reforms, but conscription is not the answer to the problem. If anybody wants, I'll provide some articles that explain this issue from a Russian perspective.

What are other peoples' thoughts?



*By Rousseau, I'm largely refering to his "Considerations for the Government of Poland" (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/poland.htm), and the military system to which he proposed for them(which is largely based on the Swiss model).

Evolved
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 03:03 AM
No way should people be forced by a draft into military service. It is not for everyone, and you just can't make a soldier out of some people. Also, if someone is not suited for military life, it puts their life and that of others at risk.

When I got out of high school I wanted to join the Navy or Coast Guard but they told me I was not tall enough. The height requirement is 4'10" to 6'8" for females, so they were either lying to me or just didn't know. Or maybe they used it as an excuse after seeing my psychological record... :nut :jk

cosmocreator
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 03:08 AM
Personally I like the Universal idea. Armed citizens. The US may have a professional military but many of its citizens are armed as well and should remain that way.

Scáthach
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 10:21 PM
.

When I got out of high school I wanted to join the Navy or Coast Guard but they told me I was not tall enough. The height requirement is 4'10" to 6'8" for females, so they were either lying to me or just didn't know. Or maybe they used it as an excuse after seeing my psychological record... :nut :jk

So what height are you? I'm just wondering if they thought you looked under 4'10''! :D

I've always quite liked the idea of a compulsory year in service for men. I honestly don't think the army is the place for females though I had a brif interest in joining up myself - only for weapons training though I'm far too weak for anything else! :D

Awar
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:08 PM
We have mandatory military service which was gradually reduced to 8 months, and it's still a big strain on the economy, as well as being totally pointless.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 01:39 AM
I've always quite liked the idea of a compulsory year in service for men.


I'm more in favor of 2 years.



I honestly don't think the army is the place for females

I agree, women do not belong in the military, except maybe in support roles; but never actual combat.

Evolved
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 02:03 AM
I think women would make good snipers and firing squad executioners. We're not suited for hand-to-hand combat.

I have met a lot of emotionally frail men who probably couldn't handle killing a person. I'm a tough bitch when I need to be, I have never run away from a fight or lost one. :D I would only fight in a war if the cause was noble.

Ewergrin
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 06:02 AM
I think women would make good snipers and firing squad executioners. We're not suited for hand-to-hand combat.

I have met a lot of emotionally frail men who probably couldn't handle killing a person. I'm a tough bitch when I need to be, I have never run away from a fight or lost one. :D I would only fight in a war if the cause was noble.



The idea that a woman should have to fight in a war would mean that all nobility in the world was already lost.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 11:08 AM
The idea that a woman should have to fight in a war would mean that all nobility in the world was already lost.
Indeed. Although despite what some "experts" are saying, theres no evidence of women ever being in combat, or in any real significant combat.

Ewergrin
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 03:28 PM
Indeed. Although despite what some "experts" are saying, theres no evidence of women ever being in combat, or in any real significant combat.

True. In the US military, woman are allowed to join, but they are still not allowed to join in the "combat arms" branch of any military service. They are only allowed to go into the "Service and Support" branch, which is their place.

Scáthach
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 11:14 PM
That's the problem with people - as a soldier, you ARE a fighter, NOT a thinker, it's not upto you to decide whether or not the War is justified - you have to get out and fight immediatly. That's why it's often said that the less intelligent can make better combat soldiers...
There is no reason women should be in the 'combat area' of an army when there are still men around who can be conscripted - facts are facts, in 9 situations out of 10, men will be stronger, and armies for the most part are about strength with the intelligence and importance of military strategy being placed in the hands of the superior officers etc.
I believe a year or 2 in the army would strengthen a weak person's character aswell as their body, hopefully instilling a sense of pride and nationalism into them along the way.

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Personally I do not like how our military system works and how you get into one of the branches. First off the recruiters exaggerate or even somewhat lie telling you what job your going to get(the one you want). You have to score a certain amount on the ASVAB to get the job you want or they say to you you'll have to do this job and this job,etc. to get to that point. At the time I was going to join the Navy. I think it was 3 years ago now I got my job and everything but it was not what I wanted. They gave me a missle mechanic job and I wanted a linguistic job but if you see the tests they give to see if you can adapt to foreign languages well in my mind is irrealivant. It is some sort of code and I can learn foreign languages quite quickly if taught well. I know many European language pronounciations but do not speak some of the languages. Well it turns out I am denied to Navy anyway because I smoked pot like 2 days before.(no longer use it) and failed the drug test. You can only fail the drug test three times or you cannot join any branch of service. I also hate the fact if you are on meds,during bootcamp you cannot take them which I do not understand what so ever. Perhaps it is for safety reasons just in case people exchange them to others,etc. That is my thoughts on the military pretty much. If I were to join again I would probably join the marines though. All branches are identical pretty much. The training is somewhat similar and the only thing different really is the amount of time you stay at bootcamps with each branch.

Taras Bulba
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:16 AM
That's the problem with people - as a soldier, you ARE a fighter, NOT a thinker, it's not upto you to decide whether or not the War is justified - you have to get out and fight immediatly. That's why it's often said that the less intelligent can make better combat soldiers...

"Wise warriors are mightier than strong ones, and those who have knowledge than those who have strength; for by wise guidance you can wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory."
--Proverbs 24:5-6



There is no reason women should be in the 'combat area' of an army when there are still men around who can be conscripted - facts are facts, in 9 situations out of 10, men will be stronger, and armies for the most part are about strength with the intelligence and importance of military strategy being placed in the hands of the superior officers etc.

I agree. In fact there was a study done at West Point comparing Female and Male cadets. The female cadets were only able to suceed only if they had unequal standards. But if the standards were equal, the female cadets were far behind the male cadets. During a 3 mile run, the male cadets were so far ahead of the women they could barely see them.



I believe a year or 2 in the army would strengthen a weak person's character aswell as their body, hopefully instilling a sense of pride and nationalism into them along the way.

I 120% agree. Hey Scathach, you should read Book I of Machiavelli's "the Art of War", because he talks about how the importance of military service to concepts of citizenship. In fact in his mind, the citizen and soldier are inseperable!

Taras Bulba
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:28 AM
Personally I do not like how our military system works and how you get into one of the branches. First off the recruiters exaggerate or even somewhat lie telling you what job your going to get(the one you want). You have to score a certain amount on the ASVAB to get the job you want or they say to you you'll have to do this job and this job,etc. to get to that point. At the time I was going to join the Navy. I think it was 3 years ago now I got my job and everything but it was not what I wanted. They gave me a missle mechanic job and I wanted a linguistic job but if you see the tests they give to see if you can adapt to foreign languages well in my mind is irrealivant. It is some sort of code and I can learn foreign languages quite quickly if taught well. I know many European language pronounciations but do not speak some of the languages. Well it turns out I am denied to Navy anyway because I smoked pot like 2 days before.(no longer use it) and failed the drug test. You can only fail the drug test three times or you cannot join any branch of service. I also hate the fact if you are on meds,during bootcamp you cannot take them which I do not understand what so ever. Perhaps it is for safety reasons just in case people exchange them to others,etc. That is my thoughts on the military pretty much. If I were to join again I would probably join the marines though. All branches are identical pretty much. The training is somewhat similar and the only thing different really is the amount of time you stay at bootcamps with each branch.
I agree with this. The way the military is organized today is absolute nonsense!

Tryggvi
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Professional military service (male). Volunteers as reservists (male). Mobilisation of the general populace during impending crisis situations (male).

Continual arm, close combat, and self-defense training for all citizens (male and female), but this should be done in schools (with assistance of army and martial arts instructors). Much more emphasis on continual physical exercise in schools.

Only officers (three to four years military academy) and officers of the reserve (a year voluntarily & continual exercises) should be eligible to be enfranchised. As a minimum requirement.

Ederico
Tuesday, January 6th, 2004, 02:20 PM
I think I agree with Njord on this one, though a Universalistic service isn't such a bad thing.

Scáthach
Wednesday, January 7th, 2004, 07:12 PM
"Wise warriors are mightier than strong ones, and those who have knowledge than those who have strength; for by wise guidance you can wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory."
--Proverbs 24:5-6


If we have an army of wise soldiers, all weaker and smaller than women, in hand to hand combat with an army of sturdy, strong but not exactly well read soldiers, who do you think will win? ;)

I agree. In fact there was a study done at West Point comparing Female and Male cadets. The female cadets were only able to suceed only if they had unequal standards. But if the standards were equal, the female cadets were far behind the male cadets. During a 3 mile run, the male cadets were so far ahead of the women they could barely see them.

That really is no surprise. Physically, men and women are simply incomparable. It's a pity PC levels have risen so high as to allow uncapable [for the most part atleast] women into the army when they should obviously be at home watching, oh, say, spongebob squarepants? ;)

I 120% agree. Hey Scathach, you should read Book I of Machiavelli's "the Art of War", because he talks about how the importance of military service to concepts of citizenship. In fact in his mind, the citizen and soldier are inseperable!

I may do so when I have time, thanks!

Prince Eugen
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 09:43 PM
I support the first option with a combination of proffessional soldiers!
Military service is a nice experiance harded both body and spirit!
The idea of armed citizen of Sparta and Athena and the peasant soldier of 3rd Reich is the ideal forms of military service!

Slavictorious
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 11:40 PM
I like the idea of a civilian army ready to defend the home country in the cities and countryside. It would force people to attend a military training program(only with how to survive and use weapons) when they are 16. male and female. It would be organized as a civilian army, that in times of war would be activiated for defense.

Becuase, even IF the enemy manages to capture us, occupation will be too much of a bitch, and the invaders will leave due to almost 0 popular support for the invader, and constant guerilla tactics to oust them.

Therefore, the target country will win, no matter how grim it looks, the only way then for the enemy to win, is to eliminate the target countrie's population. Which probably wont happen.

In theory, I think we shouldn't have to conscript anyone. Women should also be allowed combat rolls too. All volunteer army. If we do good enough job instilling nationalism, that should not be a problem.

Slavictorious
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Also, conscripted troops fight worse than volunteer/proffessional troops.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Women should also be allowed combat rolls too. All volunteer army

No thats a good way to cause the decline of any fighting force.

“The other reason why women have traditionally been absent from the battlefield is, of course, their relative physical weakness. From the time humans first evolved males have been considerably larger and stronger than females; indeed some biologists believe that nature has made them stronger that they may fight. Over the last twenty years, studies have found that the average US female recruit was 12 centimeters shorter, 14.3 kilograms lighter, has 16.9 fewer kilograms if muscle, and 2.6 more kilograms of fat than the average male recruit. She only had 55 percent of the upper body strength and 72 percent of lower body strength of the average male. Since fat mass is inversely related to aerobic capacity and heat tolerance, women are also at a significant disadvantage when performing aerobic activities such as marching with heavy loads and working in the heat; as it happened, the very first woman ever admitted to the Citadel, a military school in South Carolina, soon dropped out because of heat exhaustion…. Finally, even when the experiments were controlled for height, women only had 80 percent of the strength of men. Overall, only the upper 20 percent of women can do as well, physically, as the lower 20 percent of men.….One biologist claims that, if the hundred strongest individuals were to be selected out of a random group consiting of one hundred men and one hundred women, then ninety three would be male and only seven female. Another has calculated that only the upper 5 percent of women are as strong as the median male.

Morphologically, too, women are less well adapted to war. Thinner skulls, lighter bone bridges and weaker jawbones provide them with less protection against blows. Many women develop large, pendulous breast that impede movement and require special protection…Shorter arms make it harder for women to draw from their scabbards, stab with them, and throw them; to say nothing of the possibility that a different brain structure renders them less adept at guiding or intercepting projectiles…..Given these limitations, very few women are able to participate equally in military training and combat: ‘to strike down an enemy, to mount guard….to endure winter’s cold and summer’s heat with equal patience to sleep on the bare ground and to work hard on an empty stomach,’ as Sallust, quoting Marius, puts it.”
---Martin Van Creveld Men, Women, and War: Do women belong in the front line? pg. 152-154

Fraxinus Excelsior
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 08:42 PM
All able-bodied males (who don't wish to join the Professional/Volunteer military) should perform mandatory non-military labor service, 2 years; would perform road repairs and other non-dangerous public-service work.

Mandatory military service should only be used in a Reserve/National Guard styled service, and only in a status of non-deployability to a combatzone.

Slavictorious
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Generals learned their lessons from Vietnam, (US) who dealt with conscripted soldiers. The results were defiant troops, scared troops, undertrained troops, and more of liabilities than actual help on the battlefield. Generals are against re-instating the draft in the US because of this lesson. A proffessional/volunteer Army is by far the best. You get better training, more motivated troops, etc.

Conscription should include all able boddied persons ages 18-25. male or female. Hopefuly only to be used in an emergency. All persons ages 16-18 would be conscripted into either industrial work, or defensive positions in home cities.

Conscription would only be used, if there was an attack on the home country's soil, and/or if there werent enough volunteers to deal with the enemy.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Generals learned their lessons from Vietnam, (US) who dealt with conscripted soldiers. The results were defiant troops, scared troops, undertrained troops, and more of liabilities than actual help on the battlefield.

Yeah what shame soldiers were not willing to die for a war that didnt concern the US to begin with. With professional soldiers, they go wherever whenever because thats their job. Conscript soldiers are willing to fight when their nation is actually at risk and have no wish to needlessly die in petty wars. Whose to say they're wrong?

Rousseau was correct when he condemned professional soldiers as the "depopulators of Europe". Machiavelli also noted that professional soldiers can only make a living through war. Peace to them means being out of work. So they'll either dragg wars on or create new wars just to keep themselves in business. The US military is a perfect example of this.

A conscript on the other hand simply wants to do his duty and return to his normal life. This means hes going to want to waste time in pathetic wars that dont concern the actual interests on the nation. Also not only that, conscription often quiets war-mongers because they more often than not they'll be the ones who have to fight. Just remember people, often the biggest war-mongers are more often than not chicken-hawks, who want war yet dont want to fight it. This is especially the case in America with the Iraq war and even the war on terror. Everybody who wanted to "nuke Afghanistan" had absolutely no knowledge about the military and frankly were not even willing to go and fight it.

Contrary to popular view, more people did not sign up for the military after 9/11. In fact more people joined the military in September 2000 than in September 2001. Why? Well most people join because they have nowhere else to go or simply want free money for college(how about that....you need to bribe people to make them serve their country, another pathetic element of professional armies). Well now with an actual war going on, those people didnt join up. With the war in Iraq going badly, army recruiters are having even more trouble trying to find people to join.



Generals are against re-instating the draft in the US because of this lesson. A proffessional/volunteer Army is by far the best. You get better training, more motivated troops, etc.

Thats not true. Most people who join professional armies are social losers because they have nowhere else to go. This has been the case since ancient Rome. As the old British saying used to go "A dog before a soldier". Societies with conscripted armies often show more respect towards their soldiers while those with professional armies look down upon them. This is even true in America even after 9/11.

A professional army is go nowhere solution to nothing. A citizen willing to sacrifice his most important duty to a mercenary(which basically a professional soldier is plain and simple) is a citizen willing to sacrifice their other freedoms.

green nationalist
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 01:22 AM
Universal compulsary military service is my vote, although women should be deployed in service and support. Also aptitude tests etc can determine that the more intelligent or talented individuals can go into engineer corps etc.

Its a good opurtunity to get the country educated and trained, we have a nurse shortage in ireland at the moment, girls can be trained quite effectivly in the army as Nurses for example.

Also a big army is essential in defending nuetrality which ireland is having difficulty with at the moment.

xakep
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 06:27 AM
All males should be required to go through basic training at age of 16 years old, right after high school diploma. There should be a recurring training afterwards to keep the participants in shape. However, in case there is a conflict only those who volunteer should go into active duty. This way many young people will be forced to stay in shape and learn self-discipline or organization at an early age.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 06:31 AM
I like the concept of the Michigan Militia myself. I hope to get training from Mark Kornke as well as training in Aryan self-defence, Klima (not climate), from Greg Rowe.

SiegUmJedenPreis
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 05:08 PM
I can only speak from a South African view point. I believe conscription is one of the best things that ever came along.

It help kick out all those Liberal hippy ideas out of our young people back in the 1960's, and equipt them with discipline and self respect.(not to mention, we've got a military trained generation of white adults the blacks are shit scared of!)

Jack
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Professional military service (male). Volunteers as reservists (male). Mobilisation of the general populace during impending crisis situations (male).

Continual arm, close combat, and self-defense training for all citizens (male and female), but this should be done in schools (with assistance of army and martial arts instructors). Much more emphasis on continual physical exercise in schools.

Only officers (three to four years military academy) and officers of the reserve (a year voluntarily & continual exercises) should be eligible to be enfranchised. As a minimum requirement.
I'm in total agreement.

Awar
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 03:14 AM
Hey, I live in a country where the military is like a cancer on the tissue of the economy.
It degenerated slowly, and has become a burden instead of an engine.
Having mandatory military service of around 1 year is pointless.

I like the idea of continual physical excercises from the earliest days.
The state should produce fit persons.

For an unskilled guy who 'never lifted a thing heavier than a spoon', spending 1 year
in training is torture.

For a guy who has been fit all his life, and taught bits and pieces of skills needed
for the military all his life, ( which have almost become an instinct ), a month in the military would be enough.

The way our soldiers were trained, it was obvious that their role was to be cannon-fodder. :mad

Tommy Vercetti
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004, 01:32 AM
Hey, I live in a country where the military is like a cancer on the tissue of the economy.
It degenerated slowly, and has become a burden instead of an engine.
Having mandatory military service of around 1 year is pointless.

I like the idea of continual physical excercises from the earliest days.
The state should produce fit persons.

For an unskilled guy who 'never lifted a thing heavier than a spoon', spending 1 year
in training is torture.

For a guy who has been fit all his life, and taught bits and pieces of skills needed
for the military all his life, ( which have almost become an instinct ), a month in the military would be enough.

The way our soldiers were trained, it was obvious that their role was to be cannon-fodder. :mad

Have you been soldier in serbian army?

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 03:36 AM
Generals learned their lessons from Vietnam, (US) who dealt with conscripted soldiers. The results were defiant troops, scared troops, undertrained troops, and more of liabilities than actual help on the battlefield. Generals are against re-instating the draft in the US because of this lesson. A proffessional/volunteer Army is by far the best. You get better training, more motivated troops, etc.

Conscription should include all able boddied persons ages 18-25. male or female. Hopefuly only to be used in an emergency. All persons ages 16-18 would be conscripted into either industrial work, or defensive positions in home cities.

Conscription would only be used, if there was an attack on the home country's soil, and/or if there werent enough volunteers to deal with the enemy.

Absolutely true! I think the armed services should be staffed by people 35-55 years old not 18 year olds. If older people ran the armed services we would have far fewer wars. This goes double from bullshit wars like the one in Iraq.

Archivist
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 05:56 AM
That is a hard question to answer. In the past, I would have said, general conscription; however, now with the Iraq adventurism, I REALLY don't know.

I volunteered for six years in the Air Force. I had a great time, grew up and learned a lot. But I just don't trust the political structure in the U.S. any longer. I REALLY don't want my son going to fight in Iraq. What would he be fighting for? Freedom, democracy and the American Way? Give me a break.
Respectfully,

the_tsar_21
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 08:34 AM
A few comments about this whole thing...


I support the concept of universal military service and I believe military service should be considered the greatest honor to any nationalist. My views on this topic are influenced by Plato, Aristotle, Machivaelli, Rousseau*, Scharnhorst, among others.

I agree with Machiavelli and Rousseau* that military service should also be a school to promote nationalist pride and the study of national traditions. Ironically, we have a good example of this in the Israeli military, where instruction in Jewish traditions is mandatory and even courses in Hewbrew are offered for Jewish immigrants who don't speak it. I also agree with Machiavelli that military service teaches men how to be good citizens; in that it teaches them virtues such as courage and loyalty, which they need to be good citizens anyways.

You can talk about the specific conditions in your country. I, for example, am firmly opposed to Putin's plans for transforming the Russian military to a professional force. I believe this will only seek to weaken Russia militarily. Yes, the Russian military is in need of reforms, but conscription is not the answer to the problem. If anybody wants, I'll provide some articles that explain this issue from a Russian perspective.I do believe that military service does promote national pride, but I am opposed to universal military service. I support requiring people to do two years of national service (which may not necessarily be military) in order to vote. If you refuse to serve, you should not be allowed to vote. If you serve four years in the military, I think you should not only get the right to vote, but also get your college tuition taken care of (which we do now). I do not believe that democratic republicanism can function without some kind of service requirement.

However, the idea that professionalizing the military will somehow "weaken" it is absurd. The finest militaries in the world today are volunteer militaries and the crappiest ones are all conscript militaries. Volunteer militaries are far more motivated, better trained, and perform far better in combat as a result of the fact that those who serve are professionals and dedicate their lives to nothing but becoming better soldiers, airmen, sailors, etc. This is an undeniable fact.

As far as Israel using military service to teach people the language and traditions and such, this is exactly why a short service requirement is a good thing. Many enlisted personnel in the US military are immigrants who serve so that they can become citizens. When they get out, they are pretty much Americanized. A few of my friends are like that. The military is a great tool for the assimilation of peoples.


No way should people be forced by a draft into military service. It is not for everyone, and you just can't make a soldier out of some people. Also, if someone is not suited for military life, it puts their life and that of others at risk.Yes, that is exactly the point. I sure as heck don't want somebody fighting next to me who is unmotivated or unfit for service. Some form of national service will suffice, but not exclusively military.


When I got out of high school I wanted to join the Navy or Coast Guard but they told me I was not tall enough. The height requirement is 4'10" to 6'8" for females, so they were either lying to me or just didn't know. Or maybe they used it as an excuse after seeing my psychological record...They got you on the height requirement and, yes, it does exist. We have minimum and maximum weight requirements, too. And a slew of other requirements.


Personally I like the Universal idea. Armed citizens. The US may have a professional military but many of its citizens are armed as well and should remain that way.I'm very pro-2nd Amendment. In fact, I believe that students should be taught in high school firearm safety, handling and how to properly use it. I think this would eliminate these silly myths and fears that exist about firearms in our culture.


I honestly don't think the army is the place for females though I had a brif interest in joining up myself - only for weapons training though I'm far too weak for anything else!I've actually begun to gradually support the concept of female militarism. Females are already allowed to be pilots in both aircraft and helicopters. The Navy is designing a special submarine to be manned completely by females since there is such a high demand for that sort of thing among them and since it doesn't really count as "combat arms." Those types of things I support. I might even support having female-only squads for certain combat arms related branches, such as artillery. I'm still considering the rest. Of course, they'd all still have to meet the same requirements as the men in these...


I agree, women do not belong in the military, except maybe in support roles; but never actual combat.Women already serve big time in support roles. Almost 20% of the Air Force are female.


I think women would make good snipers and firing squad executioners. Snipers would be fine, I suppose, although I'm not sure how well they'd do with crawling around all the time, for obvious reasons. And firing-squads? Give me a break.


The idea that a woman should have to fight in a war would mean that all nobility in the world was already lost.
Indeed. Although despite what some "experts" are saying, theres no evidence of women ever being in combat, or in any real significant combat.I don't see why this is the case if they can meet the requirements, which is fairly common. And quite frankly, the reason there is very little evidence of women serving in combat is because they've been banned from it for centuries! And don't forget, in pre-Christian Europe, it wasn't uncommon to find women among the "ranks" (if you can call it that) of men on the battlefield, and there has always been women doing types of logistical support.


In the US military, woman are allowed to join, but they are still not allowed to join in the "combat arms" branch of any military service. They are only allowed to go into the "Service and Support" branch, which is their place.There is no branch called "Service and Support." Most of the military branches are "service" or "support" or "logistics" oriented, and there are some combat arms branches that they are allowed in, as mentioned above.


That's the problem with people - as a soldier, you ARE a fighter, NOT a thinker, it's not upto you to decide whether or not the War is justified - you have to get out and fight immediatly. That's why it's often said that the less intelligent can make better combat soldiers...Ha ha ha! You obviously know little or nothing about the military, military history, or strategy. I have never heard it said that the "less intelligent can make better combat soldiers." You can (http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-Jun2004.htm#Military) look (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003114.html) this (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/army_and_race.htm) up and you will find that the average IQ in the services is higher than the national average. Heck, the basic military entry test, the ASVAB, is an IQ test!This is generally the case with most Western countries and East Asian ones.

And about soldiers not thinking, you should know that in this era where the motto is "centralized command, decentralized execution," the ability of units to the very lowest level of the chain of command to think rapidly and take the initiative in changing circumstances is increasingly emphasized. I suggest you look up Auftragstaktik. Especially read some of the stuff being written for Parameters (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/) and while you're at it, pick up some copies of MCDP 1, MCDP 6, AFDD 1, FM 3-0, etc.


Personally I do not like how our military system works and how you get into one of the branches. First off the recruiters exaggerate or even somewhat lie telling you what job your going to get(the one you want). You have to score a certain amount on the ASVAB to get the job you want or they say to you you'll have to do this job and this job,etc. to get to that point.Somebody has a low IQ... sorry, it's "be all you can be," not "be anything you want to be."


They gave me a missle mechanic job and I wanted a linguistic job but if you see the tests they give to see if you can adapt to foreign languages well in my mind is irrealivant. It is some sort of code and I can learn foreign languages quite quickly if taught well.If "taught well." Sorry buddy, it's not up to the military to teach you according to how you want to be taught (although their language programs at DLI are some of the finest in the world). That's up to you and, no, it isn't "some sort of code."


Well it turns out I am denied to Navy anyway because I smoked pot like 2 days before.(no longer use it) and failed the drug test.Hmmm, need I say anything more? Real smart! :P


I also hate the fact if you are on meds,during bootcamp you cannot take them which I do not understand what so ever. Perhaps it is for safety reasons just in case people exchange them to others,etc. That is my thoughts on the military pretty much. If I were to join again I would probably join the marines though. All branches are identical pretty much. The training is somewhat similar and the only thing different really is the amount of time you stay at bootcamps with each branch.You're allowed to take your required meds at "boot camp," just you aren't allowed to keep them on you, that's all.

And about the services being the same... ooooookkkkkk... if only they were more like each other, we'd be able to conduct joint operations a bit more easily. Oh well.


"Wise warriors are mightier than strong ones, and those who have knowledge than those who have strength; for by wise guidance you can wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory."
--Proverbs 24:5-6
Great quote!


I support the first option with a combination of proffessional soldiers!
Military service is a nice experiance harded both body and spirit!
The idea of armed citizen of Sparta and Athena and the peasant soldier of 3rd Reich is the ideal forms of military service!What the "ideal" form of military service is is irrelevant. What matters is what is the most efficient and most effective model. In this technological age, you can't go focusing your entire economy on the military like in Sparta because that drains resources that are needed in the economy in order for it to maintain it's competitiveness and the innovation necessary to stay ahead of those who would oppose you.


I like the idea of a civilian army ready to defend the home country in the cities and countryside. It would force people to attend a military training program(only with how to survive and use weapons) when they are 16. male and female. It would be organized as a civilian army, that in times of war would be activiated for defense.

Becuase, even IF the enemy manages to capture us, occupation will be too much of a bitch, and the invaders will leave due to almost 0 popular support for the invader, and constant guerilla tactics to oust them.This is the defensive foreign policy model. I generally oppose this. Once the enemy attacks, we should move immediately to kick the enemy out of our lands and move to smash it wherever it originated from. You can go and have your idealistic "people's war" or guerrilla war on your own turf, if you so want. But I guess you are willing to accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of your own countrymen in order to kick them off the continent. At that point, what would you do, demobilize? The enemy will just come back stronger or more ruthless than before, and more will die. No, you must go on the offense, and an active military must always be maintained to serve as a deterrant to those who might consider attacking you.


Also, conscripted troops fight worse than volunteer/proffessional troops.YES! So very true!


All able-bodied males (who don't wish to join the Professional/Volunteer military) should perform mandatory non-military labor service, 2 years; would perform road repairs and other non-dangerous public-service work.Why have normal people do hard labor involving road work and such? Lets leave that work to the prison population, shall we?


Mandatory military service should only be used in a Reserve/National Guard styled service, and only in a status of non-deployability to a combatzone.Yes, if you absolutely positively have to have mandatory military service instead of just some kind of national service for everyone for some bizarre ideological reason, then I would agree with this completely.


No[, having women in the military is] a good way to cause the decline of any fighting force.Having women in services and support and some combat arms (that is, if they can meet the requirements of their male counterparts) does not cause any decline in the quality of the military. You can't just go and slap all women into one category and say "you can't do this because you're a woman." There are a slew of women out there that I'm sure would perform well in combat arms and there are already a lot of women who perform well as pilots. Requirements for each branch should be merit-based, not gender-based. If they can meet the same requirements for that branch, then there is no reason not to let them in some manner.


Generals learned their lessons from Vietnam, (US) who dealt with conscripted soldiers. The results were defiant troops, scared troops, undertrained troops, and more of liabilities than actual help on the battlefield. Generals are against re-instating the draft in the US because of this lesson. A proffessional/volunteer Army is by far the best. You get better training, more motivated troops, etc.DEAD ON! :D


Rousseau was correct when he condemned professional soldiers as the "depopulators of Europe". Machiavelli also noted that professional soldiers can only make a living through war. Peace to them means being out of work. So they'll either dragg wars on or create new wars just to keep themselves in business. The US military is a perfect example of this.You need to read less philosophy and read more history. Soldiers don't start wars; politicians do. Professional soldiers do not "drag wars on or create new wars" to "keep themselves in business." You seem to have mercenaries confused with a professional active duty military. And perhaps you can tell us how the US military is a "perfect example" of soldiers starting wars and intentionally dragging them on?


A conscript on the other hand simply wants to do his duty and return to his normal life.No, a conscript can't continue on to his normal life because he was forced to leave his normal life in the first place! He won't do his duty. If all he cares about is "return[ing] to his normal life," then they will be unmotivated, as demonstrated by history. Professional soldiers, on the other hand, dedicate their lives to doing nothing but learning, training, and fighting so that others can go on with their merry little lives...


Also not only that, conscription often quiets war-mongers because they more often than not they'll be the ones who have to fight. Just remember people, often the biggest war-mongers are more often than not chicken-hawks, who want war yet dont want to fight it. This is especially the case in America with the Iraq war and even the war on terror. Everybody who wanted to "nuke Afghanistan" had absolutely no knowledge about the military and frankly were not even willing to go and fight it.Some of the biggest warmongers are those who have served in the military, in case you've forgotten. There are all kinds of warmongers. Quite frankly, for the rest of your comments, I will simply say that it is obvious that you know very little about the military, especially the part about "social losers with nowhere else to go." Speaking of social losers, looked in the mirror lately?


Absolutely true! I think the armed services should be staffed by people 35-55 years old not 18 year olds. If older people ran the armed services we would have far fewer wars. This goes double from bullshit wars like the one in Iraq.The military does not start wars. It's the 35-55 year old politicians in Washington DC that are starting all the wars.


I volunteered for six years in the Air Force. I had a great time, grew up and learned a lot.Good for you! :)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 01:30 PM
:rotfl I will address Tsar_21's arguments later today.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 08:38 PM
However, the idea that professionalizing the military will somehow "weaken" it is absurd.

Not if you look at the facts.




The finest militaries in the world today are volunteer militaries and the crappiest ones are all conscript militaries.

No. Israel's military is considered one of the best in the world; yet it relies on conscription. The Swiss are considered among the best, yet they rely on conscription.

The Canadian military is volunteer, yet since when has it fought major combat? So basically this whole paradigm you have can only be based on the American and British militaries; and even that falls apart when one digs deeper.



Volunteer militaries are far more motivated, better trained, and perform far better in combat as a result of the fact that those who serve are professionals and dedicate their lives to nothing but becoming better soldiers, airmen, sailors, etc. This is an undeniable fact.

How is it undeniable fact? There are plenty of times in history that professional soldiers got their asses kicked by conscripts. Napoleon's victory over the Prussians is a very good example of this.

Now since WW2 there have been no real major conflicts between conscript and volunteer armies. And if you wish to use the recent conflicts between US/UK and Iraq(as many are now doing) I direct you to this:


http://www.g2mil.com/May2003.htm

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman provided the best summary as to why America easily crushed Iraq when he wrote: "I am not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent US military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion." Actually, the USA spends almost $500 billion a year when you count spending kept off the Defense Department books, like the Veterans Department, the Department of Energy (whose main task is to build nuclear weapons), the secret "Black Budget", and the now annual "Supplemental" spending. Experts have already begun writing about "lessons learned" and concluded that everything worked great. This is like the Oakland Raiders defeating a junior college football team (whose coaching staff left at half time) and then gloating about their brilliant game plan.


This is exactly what the US military and many proponents of all-volunteer armies are doing. If the US military took on the conscript militaries of say either Russia or China in an "shock and awe" campaign you'd have a better argument.



Many enlisted personnel in the US military are immigrants who serve so that they can become citizens. When they get out, they are pretty much Americanized. A few of my friends are like that. The military is a great tool for the assimilation of peoples.

Which is exactly what happened in the Roman Imperial legions; the Emperors would prefer to arm foreigners than rely on its own citizens.....pathetic.



Of course, they'd all still have to meet the same requirements as the men in these...

Which time and time they cannot....its only by heavily biasing the standards towards a female's favor do they succeed.



Women already serve big time in support roles.

Which has done much to reduce morale within the military.



Almost 20% of the Air Force are female.

So fucking what? Martin Van Creveld noted that one major reason why women are even allowed en-mass and in many roles within the military is largely because those military are fighting for the very existance of the state they're protecting. Often they're fighting minor enemies that could never possibly destroy that nation. America is a perfect example, since none of the enemies we face would ever possibly invade or even occupy the United States. Contrast with societies were warfare is part of everyday life and where even the smallest defeat can lead to the wiping out of your community; there are no women anywhere near the battlefield. Interesting conicindence.



And quite frankly, the reason there is very little evidence of women serving in combat is because they've been banned from it for centuries!

Or maybe because women are not physically suited for combat as I posted above.

“Historically speaking, it is true that not all men who engaged in fighting were physically among the strongest. On the other hand, no other activity puts those who are physically not strong at so great a disadvantage as does fighting where the penalty for failure is both immediate and terminal. Thus exposing women to combat was little short of criminal even if, owning to the need for close co-operation with others usually standing shoulder to shoulder, it had not been counter-productive. Since armed forces neither recognized the distinction between “front” and “rear” nor included numerous non-combatants, there were few other positions that women could fill. During most of history up until the late twentieth century, so obvious were these considerations that the experiment was not even tried.”
-- Martin Van Creveld Men, Women, and War: Do women belong in the front line?pg. 160




And don't forget, in pre-Christian Europe, it wasn't uncommon to find women among the "ranks" (if you can call it that) of men on the battlefield

LOL yeah except in isolated areas and only under certain circumstances(like women fighting other women, which would require such warfare to be very ritualized); but women have never made any major contribution to warfare, thus their abscence on the battlefield is no big lost.



There are a slew of women out there that I'm sure would perform well in combat arms

Yeah too bad the actual evidence points to the opposite.



and there are already a lot of women who perform well as pilots.

Have these women actually flown in combat?



Requirements for each branch should be merit-based, not gender-based. If they can meet the same requirements for that branch, then there is no reason not to let them in some manner.

:eyes Thats the point, women have no been able to peform as well as men in merit. Its only when the standards are unequal that women are even able to "succeed".




You need to read less philosophy and read more history.

Philosophy is very closely related to military affairs. Clausewitz was heavily influenced by Kant, Sun Tzu by Lao Tzu(the founder of Taoism), Machiavelli by Renaisance thinking. Military strategic thinking is almost always influenced by philosophical trends.

The military is not some isolated institution from the rest of the people as Frederick the Great and many military officials today think it is. It reflects the philosophy that governs the society its supposed to protect. For example: those with more communitarian ideals will be more in favor of conscription while those with more individualist ideals will support all-volunteer.

And I am well aquainted with military history thank you very much.



Soldiers don't start wars; politicians do.

Yet politicians often follow the advice of the higher ranking military men.




Professional soldiers do not "drag wars on or create new wars" to "keep themselves in business."

Sure they do......please explain to me why the Pentagon still wants more money(when it has the biggest military budget in the world already) to continue building bases in Korea, when N. Korea is more than contained and the Cold War is over?



You seem to have mercenaries confused with a professional active duty military.

A professional soldier is a mercenary.



No, a conscript can't continue on to his normal life because he was forced to leave his normal life in the first place! He won't do his duty.

He has a very simple choice, do his duty or get killed in battle. Or maybe the conscript doesnt do his duty because he feels what hes doing is not in the nation's interest. Like Vietnam, the soldiers questioned why they were involved in somebody's else's civil war. Wow, a soldier with a conscience!




If all he cares about is "return[ing] to his normal life," then they will be unmotivated, as demonstrated by history.

Actually they'll be motivated to get things done earlier rather than dragg things out.



Professional soldiers, on the other hand, dedicate their lives to doing nothing but learning, training, and fighting so that others can go on with their merry little lives...




Some of the biggest warmongers are those who have served in the military, in case you've forgotten.

Like who? Shall I get a list of the war-mongers who tried to push us into war in Iraq? Almost all of them never served in the military.



I will simply say that it is obvious that you know very little about the military,

Actually I know quite alot about the military; its' obviously you who doesnt know shit about it!



Speaking of social losers, looked in the mirror lately?

Pathetic attempts at ad hominems doesnt help your weak-ass case. :eyes



The military does not start wars. It's the 35-55 year old politicians in Washington DC that are starting all the wars.

Often at the urging of military men.

SiegUmJedenPreis
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 09:26 PM
"I support requiring people to do two years of national service (which may not necessarily be military) in order to vote. If you refuse to serve, you should not be allowed to vote. If you serve four years in the military, I think you should not only get the right to vote, but also get your college tuition taken care of (which we do now). I do not believe that democratic republicanism can function without some kind of service requirement."

Very true.

The finest militaries in the world today are volunteer militaries and the crappiest ones are all conscript militaries.


Actually, according to experience and facts, you have it the other way around.

I sure as heck don't want somebody fighting next to me who is unmotivated or unfit for service.

In National Service, that won't be the case(Since there is a abundance of manpower). In history the only times when that has been the case, was when a country was in a state of total war.

I'm very pro-2nd Amendment. In fact, I believe that students should be taught in high school firearm safety, handling and how to properly use it. I think this would eliminate these silly myths and fears that exist about firearms in our culture.

Excellent suggestion!


Women already serve big time in support roles. Almost 20% of the Air Force are female.

Which is irrelavant because of affirmative action.


Ha ha ha! You obviously know little or nothing about the military, military history, or strategy.

Actually I might ask you whether you've been in the military, you sound more like a military buf, than a actual former/present service men.

What the "ideal" form of military service is is irrelevant. What matters is what is the most efficient and most effective model. In this technological age, you can't go focusing your entire economy on the military like in Sparta because that drains resources that are needed in the economy in order for it to maintain it's competitiveness and the innovation necessary to stay ahead of those who would oppose you.

I totally agree. I must point out that it differs from nation to nation.

This is the defensive foreign policy model. I generally oppose this. Once the enemy attacks, we should move immediately to kick the enemy out of our lands and move to smash it wherever it originated from.

I have a better strategy. Focus a greater amount of your resources into intellegence and preventive strikes.


Why have normal people do hard labor involving road work and such? Lets leave that work to the prison population, shall we?

I agree.

Having women in services and support and some combat arms (that is, if they can meet the requirements of their male counterparts) does not cause any decline in the quality of the military. You can't just go and slap all women into one category and say "you can't do this because you're a woman." There are a slew of women out there that I'm sure would perform well in combat arms and there are already a lot of women who perform well as pilots. Requirements for each branch should be merit-based, not gender-based. If they can meet the same requirements for that branch, then there is no reason not to let them in some manner.

Agreed.

Some of the biggest warmongers are those who have served in the military, in case you've forgotten.

Yes. In a way thats true. but the majority of the times, the military is responsible for getting more young people cleaned up, than any other institution(I can witness to that).

The military does not start wars. It's the 35-55 year old politicians in Washington DC that are starting all the wars.

Spot on. Its however 40 - 60 year old politicians.

the_tsar_21
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 03:52 AM
No. Israel's military is considered one of the best in the world; yet it relies on conscription. The Swiss are considered among the best, yet they rely on conscription.
Yes, Israel's military is one of the best, and no, it does not rely on conscription. All citizens are required to serve for two years in the military, at which point they can leave or stay and it becomes a volunteer military. That is not a conscript military.


The Canadian military is volunteer, yet since when has it fought major combat? So basically this whole paradigm you have can only be based on the American and British militaries; and even that falls apart when one digs deeper.
Use the Canadian example! Hilarious! They Canadians are one of the best militaries in the world, but they are underfunded. The Canadians currently in Afghanistan and the Balkans are performing superbly, equal to their British peers in most respects. And guess what? The Waffen-SS was a volunteer army... you want to tell me that they were crappy fighters? The allies would disagree!


How is it undeniable fact? There are plenty of times in history that professional soldiers got their asses kicked by conscripts. Napoleon's victory over the Prussians is a very good example of this.
We're discussing modern militaries here. If you want to discuss the Napoleonic era, you should know that the Prussian and French militaries were both conscripted. Prussia was literally an "army with a state." Don't dig yourself a hole...


Now since WW2 there have been no real major conflicts between conscript and volunteer armies. And if you wish to use the recent conflicts between US/UK and Iraq(as many are now doing) I direct you to this:
WHAT!!!??? Since you're so fond of using examples extremely selectively, allow me to use some selective samples... USSR conscripts vs. Afghan volunteers, Russian conscripts vs. Chechen volunteers, etc. etc. etc. USA volunteers vs. Iraqi conscripts (multiple times). Kurdish volunteers vs. Iraqi conscripts. Etc. ctc. etc.

Quoting the New York Times and Paul Krugman. :rotfl I didn't realize you were a fan of the left-wing press.


Which is exactly what happened in the Roman Imperial legions; the Emperors would prefer to arm foreigners than rely on its own citizens.....pathetic.
Roman Imperial legions = conscript armies. Rome later used mercenaries. A very small fraction of the US military are immigrants, and they have to meet the exact same requirements as the Americans, but aren't allowed to do the same jobs or have the same clearances until they get their citizenship.


Which time and time they cannot....its only by heavily biasing the standards towards a female's favor do they succeed.
Time and time, they can! Of course, on average, men are far better suited for such jobs than women, however, as I said, if individual women can meet the same requirements as the men, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. You need to quit grouping people together...


Which has done much to reduce morale within the military.
Proof of that, please? I'm in the military and I've seen no sign of that. I'm also a political science major and I have seen no studies showing anything like that. If anything reduces morale in the military, it's conscription! And that has been proven time and again!


So fucking what? Martin Van Creveld noted that one major reason why women are even allowed en-mass and in many roles within the military is largely because those military are fighting for the very existance of the state they're protecting. Often they're fighting minor enemies that could never possibly destroy that nation. America is a perfect example, since none of the enemies we face would ever possibly invade or even occupy the United States. Contrast with societies were warfare is part of everyday life and where even the smallest defeat can lead to the wiping out of your community; there are no women anywhere near the battlefield. Interesting conicindence.
No enemy can invade or even occupy the United States because we have the best military in the world! Nothing wrong with that. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, philosophy man.


Or maybe because women are not physically suited for combat as I posted above.
No, it's because women have not been allowed to serve. That's a fact. No maybe's there.


LOL yeah except in isolated areas and only under certain circumstances(like women fighting other women, which would require such warfare to be very ritualized); but women have never made any major contribution to warfare, thus their abscence on the battlefield is no big lost.
Women make no contribution to warfare? Even in wars where women are not allowed to serve, they do much to help the soldiers and their husbands who are fighting. And the Celts used women, as did the Mongols, as did the Huns, as did a whole slew of Germanic tribes, in warfare. I think your opposition to having women serve has more to do with personal prejudices against women than about historical fact, of which it is obvious you care little about since you just brush it aside when it doesn't suit you or you use it when it does. HINT HINT, this is year 2004, not 1804.


Yeah too bad the actual evidence points to the opposite.
More personal prejudice. You seem to think that each and every female is exactly the same! Pathetic!


Have these women actually flown in combat?
Yes, thousands of times.


Thats the point, women have no been able to peform as well as men in merit. Its only when the standards are unequal that women are even able to "succeed".
And what did I say? "If they can meet the same requirements as the men do."


Philosophy is very closely related to military affairs. Clausewitz was heavily influenced by Kant, Sun Tzu by Lao Tzu(the founder of Taoism), Machiavelli by Renaisance thinking. Military strategic thinking is almost always influenced by philosophical trends.
Machiavelli is used very little anymore as far as military affairs are concerned. Clausewitz is by far the most dominant and influential military theorist in the Western canon. As yes, philosophy matters, but knowing lots of philosophy won't win you wars.


The military is not some isolated institution from the rest of the people as Frederick the Great and many military officials today think it is. It reflects the philosophy that governs the society its supposed to protect. For example: those with more communitarian ideals will be more in favor of conscription while those with more individualist ideals will support all-volunteer.
The US military is extremely "communitarian," however it's a volunteer military because volunteer militaries are the best. The US military is far more "communitarian" than society-at-large, and the US military increasingly finds itself more and more isolated from society because of that.


And I am well aquainted with military history thank you very much.
As am I, plus I'm in the military.


Yet politicians often follow the advice of the higher ranking military men.
Of course! You want a bunch of people who know nothing about the military telling them how to fight wars and planning out the strategy? Come on, have some sense. Politicians start wars, not the military.


A professional soldier is a mercenary.
No, a professional soldier is a volunteer who dedicates his life to government military service. Mercenaries are mercenaries. The US military is a professional military, as are most Western militaries.


Sure they do......please explain to me why the Pentagon still wants more money(when it has the biggest military budget in the world already) to continue building bases in Korea, when N. Korea is more than contained and the Cold War is over?
I thought you read the New York Times... guess not! That's a discussion for another thread, but it's not the generals or the military who decides whether or not we should be there.


He has a very simple choice, do his duty or get killed in battle. Or maybe the conscript doesnt do his duty because he feels what hes doing is not in the nation's interest. Like Vietnam, the soldiers questioned why they were involved in somebody's else's civil war. Wow, a soldier with a conscience!
Again, Vietnam = another thread. But if you don't see this as obvious, a soldier who volunteers to serve his nation is going to be far more motivated than an individual who was forced to serve his nation when he did not want to. Plain and simple. And I guess you oppose having a disciplined military? Seems that way to me...


Actually they'll be motivated to get things done earlier rather than dragg things out.
Tell me where a professional army (that is, a volunteer military) is out dragging out wars intentionally without any interference from politicians...


Like who? Shall I get a list of the war-mongers who tried to push us into war in Iraq? Almost all of them never served in the military.
Napoleon was certainly a warmonger! General Patton wanted the US military to go into Russia after we finished with Germany! General LeMay wanted to invade the USSR! General Goldwater wanted the same... General Clark most recently wanted to kick the Russians out of the Balkans. There are warmongers in both the military and in civil life.


Actually I know quite alot about the military; its' obviously you who doesnt know shit about it!
Ah, so we start cussing now. I see how this works. Have you ever served in the military, other than for perhaps the required time for some national service program that exists?


Pathetic attempts at ad hominems doesnt help your weak-ass case.
Glad to see you're still watching your language. To be blunt, you're a complete and utter moron who should be off reading books instead of commenting on military affairs. I doubt you have a sufficiently high enough IQ to serve in the US military, much less pass the physical requirements.


Often at the urging of military men.
Give me a modern example.


Which is irrelavant because of affirmative action.
There is no affirmative action in the US military.