Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we went from what was the norm prior to 9/11, relaxing that norm, and we are back to the norm - calling it "selective". What once would keep you out of the military was waived in order to build up a military for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sounds about right.
Quote:
With the threat of military intervention with Syria, and all the "threats" coming out of other countries, and the US possibly having to face these threats, will they go back to relaxing the qualifications to the same level of recruits that they allowed to join while building up military personnel for Iraq and Afghanistan?
I doubt it. At least at the present time we don't have any new threats we didn't have last year, when the new requirements were instituted (or old requirements re-instituted, however you want to look at it). Even the most hardcore suggestions about involvement in Syria don't suggest the sort of tens of thousands of troops in-country longterm that we had with Iraq and Afghanistan. So I don't see why they'd need a troop buildup for that.
Quote:
Thinking about the possibilities as a result of US military intervention in Syria has me very concerned. How many countries can we invade and how many countries can we fight without a larger military? Will it get to the stage where the draft will be needed? If we keep going the way we've been, it may or may not be Obama's call to bring back the draft, but maybe the next president will have to?
If there's one thing recent history has taught us, it is that our politicians are more concerned about their own re-election than they are with anything else. The majority of people want out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and want us to tread lightly in Syria. Given public sentiment, the poll numbers on any politician who supported activating the draft would plummet. So I don't see any reason to worry about the draft coming back.
Quote:
Maybe we will be blessed with a president that pulls the US out of the mess it created for itself and the mess it created within countries in the ME? Wouldn't that be wonderful - having a president that can see that the war on terrorism has been a total and complete failure and that if we extract ourselves from these countries and stop invading these countries the threat of terrorism in the US would be diminished?
But the war on terror hasn't been a total and complete failure. There have been numerous terrorist plots foiled. Just because terrorism hasn't ended doesn't mean counterterrorism efforts have failed.
The problem with pulling out of places is that we leave a power vacuum when we go. The groups with the most power and the most will to achieve their goes are naturally the most radical groups, and they are the most likely ones to fill the vacuum.
The idea that terrorism is being created by America and that if we would just go home everything would be fine is quite simply wrong. Us going home will not stop them from wanting their international caliphate. It will not change the Koran which says infidels should be put to the sword.
Quote:
A president that believes that countries are entitled to form their own government or fight to change it without US intervention? A president that realizes that the US does not determine what is good or not good for other countries?
I know, wishful thinking on my part.
Yes, that's the right idea. Not to up and leave where we're already entangled. We have to finish what we've started. But we should have learned by now to not get entangled in the first place. Vietnam should have taught us that decades ago.
the reason NOT to have it is that it could increase an escalation in war mentality, and increase the likelihood that (mostly poor) people would have to fight in wars they didn't believe in, or go to jail.
the whole thing is a cluster**** and it is about time that we acknowledged it. It seems likely that the chemicals used in Syria were exported from Britain:
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will today be asked by MPs to explain why a British company was granted export licenses for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria’s civil war was raging and concern was rife that the regime could use chemical weapons on its own people. The disclosure of the licenses for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, which can both be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of nerve gas, came as the US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had evidence that sarin gas was used in last month’s atrocity in Damascus.
Mr Kerry announced that traces of the nerve agent, found in hair and blood samples taken from victims of the attack in the Syrian capital which claimed more than 1,400 lives, were part of a case being built by the Obama administration for military intervention as it launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria.
we don't need to be doing anything to escalate all this stupidity.
when leaders of the world have no common sense it makes no sense to draft citizens.
Doctors Without Borders reported 355 deaths with thousands seeking treatment. I'll rely on DWB for the numbers, not Kerry. I don't doubt that the Assad regime has chemical weapons, and I don't doubt that the rebels have chemical weapons, but "doubt", "convinced", "I believe" and assumptions are not enough reason to accuse one side, while the other side is in possession of the same chemical weapons. And so far there is no absolute proof who used them.
Cameron will be facing Parliament to answer for the precursor chemical sales. I wonder how the US will handle it if it is proven that the UK did a major screw up? Selling precursor chemicals in quantity is illegal.
as for Charlie, he is probably just trying to get everybody's mind off his always ongoing tax frauds: Charlie Rangel - ProPublica
i can't imagine anybody dumb enough to vote for this jerk.
All the congressmen would think twice before declaring war if there children were in the military, that was far from the case when we invaded Iraq. Very easy to talk tough when they have no skin in the game. During the Iraq invasion we were happy with less than 1% of the nation in the service and paying contractors excessive salaries to do a job that was performed by servicemen in the past.
If it's that important to our country then we should have a draft, we shouldn't be paying mercenaries to fight our battles.
From back in 2003:
Quote:
As one of 99 senators who voted on Thursday to commend President Bush for his leadership on Iraq, Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, wanted the troops to know that ''we are proud of our military, proud of their capability and confident that they will win this war.''
Mr. Johnson's pride, though, is tinged with a father's fear. He is the lone member of the Senate -- and possibly the only member of Congress -- whose child is helping in the fighting in Iraq.
Mr. Johnson's son Brooks, 31, is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, in a helicopter assault unit that, the last the senator knew, was stationed in Kuwait, awaiting orders. Last fall, the senator voted to give the president authority to wage war with Iraq, a decision that effectively put his son in the risky spot today.
....
Mark Shields, the television commentator, surveyed all 535 members of
Congress in the fall. He found that Senator Johnson was the only one who had a
son or daughter who had enlisted in the military.
Rangel makes a lot of sense, this should be the standard of any military conflict we decide to get involved. We should go to war as a nation, not the 1% along with some overpaid contractors.
If it's that much of a threat to our nation then start a draft, otherwise we do absolutely nothing.
Makes sense to me.... would we be so quick to go to war if men and women from the top 5% were drafted? I doubt it.
When have they ever been drafted? They are never going to be drafted. Look at all the exemptions that the Congress has granted for themselves with Obamacare. You don't think they will do the same here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much for being picky about who joins.