Eccie members that have served in the military

I absolutely disagree with Jackie S and find it offensive to call our military members "mercenaries". They can make more money working outside the military and do it safer as well. We have an obligation to compensate our military members for their service and to realize that they don't have a 9 to 5 job. When a soldier wakes up in the morning he does not know where he will put his head down that night or the next night. Tell me another profession like that that does not get paid in the six figure range. When I volunteered at the age of 17 it was not about money, job, or free education. I wanted to serve my country. I could find a job, I had a scholarship, and I never cared much about money. I could only serve my country in the armed forces and I was not alone.

I mean no disrespect, to those who volunteer into the military...but I totally agree with Jackie S, in terms of
that for the majority of Citzens, saying "We support are troops" (which we do) but then have very little on the line, because our son, daughter, brother, sister, father, or ourselves, etc. are not in the military...and then being more interested in the NFL scoreboard.

i know that re-instating the draft, is probably never going to happen. But if it were in place...and we all shared the risk of being involved in fighting, perhaps we as a society would be far less likely to support wars unless they truly effect our national security.

Sadly, it is far easier to send young men and women to war, that we have no direct connection with...than risk the blood of our faimily and friends

I'm not trashing those who currently serve. I just wonder how our nation would be far more prone to question our politicans (on both sides) when they start beating the war drums. Originally Posted by vkmaster

It may be an unpopular view in this forum, but I believe we should expect the president and congress to impose a surtax dedicated to financing the costs of any war. It should fall on everyone -- wealthy and middle class alike (of course, it could be progressive, as it likely would be if assessed as a percentage of income taxes paid).

In order to rally support for the surtax, you'd obviously have to convince the public that the war is justified and necessary. In the case of something like World War II, of course, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Korea, Vietnam or the second Iraq war? Well, not quite so much.

But then, I hold the quaint, old-fashioned view that we should run balanced budgets, at least in non-recessionary times.

Nobody seems to believe in that nowadays, either.

BigTex, one of the problems with the All Volunteer Army is we now have in reality, a Mercenary Army. In short, we pay those who are willing to do our fighting for us so we are bothered as little as possible by the entire senario. God help us if we should miss an episode of Keeping Up With The Kardasheans.

The last two wars have been perfect examples. Aside from perhaps knowing someone in the Service,, or having a familly member who has been killed or injured, the only way that the vast majority of Citizens even know there is a war going on is what they see on the news. Every one of us, if honest, can ask ourselves, have we missed ANYTHING during the past 15 years that we have been in real live shooting wars.

We are nothing special in this. Most great civilizations of the past ended up doing the same thing, The Romans being the prime example. They started out lean and hungry, even had rules stating that only Romans of Property could serve in the Legions.In the end, if you could fog a mirror, they signed you up.

I am no big proponent of the draft. I was drafted, and we were not really good soldiers. Of course, my war, Vietnam, was a bad war. It's difficult enough instilling into a bunch of 19 year olds the concept of honor and duty when nobody could even tell what the hell we were doing there in the first place. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and the post-war draft gave men -- of all races -- a touch stone experience shared more or less equally by all men in any peer group. That sense of shared experience borne of common service is today absent in society and in politics.

Was trying to complement you as you were the company clerk... Originally Posted by ekim008

This should come as no surprise to you, Ekim, since you are used to it. You were wrong the first time, and you are still wrong.

I absolutely disagree with Jackie S and find it offensive to call our military members "mercenaries". They can make more money working outside the military and do it safer as well. We have an obligation to compensate our military members for their service and to realize that they don't have a 9 to 5 job. When a soldier wakes up in the morning he does not know where he will put his head down that night or the next night. Tell me another profession like that that does not get paid in the six figure range. When I volunteered at the age of 17 it was not about money, job, or free education. I wanted to serve my country. I could find a job, I had a scholarship, and I never cared much about money. I could only serve my country in the armed forces and I was not alone. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not to disrespect you anymore than I already do, but when you volunteered, what were your options and were we at war?

I absolutely disagree with Jackie S and find it offensive to call our military members "mercenaries". They can make more money working outside the military and do it safer as well. We have an obligation to compensate our military members for their service and to realize that they don't have a 9 to 5 job. When a soldier wakes up in the morning he does not know where he will put his head down that night or the next night. Tell me another profession like that that does not get paid in the six figure range. When I volunteered at the age of 17 it was not about money, job, or free education. I wanted to serve my country. I could find a job, I had a scholarship, and I never cared much about money. I could only serve my country in the armed forces and I was not alone. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, you missed the point. Our soldires are not mercenaries from their viewpoint, they are mercenaries from our viewpoint.
We are paying young men and women to fight our wars so we will not be bothered. That's the cold hard facts, whether you agree with it or not.

We now use our military as cannon fodder to protect the 1%'s investments overseas. They are not used to defend national security. It is an abomination. If the government truly respected our military, we wouldn't be involved in so many areas that don't concern us.

Well dip me in shit and roll me in cornflakes. I agree with the Whineman on this.

Enlisted 1977-1981 E-5, 12b1 (Combat Engineer), Airborne, Air Assault
ROTC, 1981-1985, commissioned Dec. 1985. USAR.
Active Reserve, 1985-1989.

We now use our military as cannon fodder to protect the 1%'s investments overseas. They are not used to defend national security. It is an abomination. If the government truly respected our military, we wouldn't be involved in so many areas that don't concern us. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I totally agree with this...with the exception of the initail invasion into Afgan, directly after 9/11, the US has engaged in wars, where our national security was not at risk for many years.

I remember in the early stages of Iraq war, many folks said to those oversea...well you join the military (esp Nat'l Guard) so you knew this was a possibilty. A very good friend of mine was sent over there. And his response to this type of chatter was...I join to protect and serve the US, not to fight in this type of stuff.

BTW...when I said there were portions of Jackie S's post that I agree with. I did not agree with his term of "mercenaries". To me, that is a disrespect to those young men and women who do in fact serve in our current military

EDIT: I see where Jackie S has added further depth to what he meant, in terms of "mercenaries"....so I now better understand and agree with him

I still don't agree. Mercenary is the designation for someone who fights solely for money on any side of a struggle.

As for my options, you don't read very well. Try again.

I mean no disrespect, to those who volunteer into the military...but I totally agree with Jackie S, in terms of
that for the majority of Citzens, saying "We support are troops" (which we do) but then have very little on the line, because our son, daughter, brother, sister, father, or ourselves, etc. are not in the military...and then being more interested in the NFL scoreboard.

i know that re-instating the draft, is probably never going to happen. But if it were in place...and we all shared the risk of being involved in fighting, perhaps we as a society would be far less likely to support wars unless they truly effect our national security.

Sadly, it is far easier to send young men and women to war, that we have no direct connection with...than risk the blood of our faimily and friends

I'm not trashing those who currently serve. I just wonder how our nation would be far more prone to question our politicans (on both sides) when they start beating the war drums. Originally Posted by vkmaster

Instead of sending people to war who do not volunteer via of a draft, why not have a volunteer service of people who choose to defend our freedoms. Do you really think that a draft were a government "leaders" children may have to fight in a war of their choosing would really change anything? How many politicians or politically connected peoples kids or selves were drafted into the army during Vietnam. Hell in the Civil war those with influence could send a paid servant or substitute in their place.

The answer is to not have a draft, it is to keep our fighting force volunteer and allow them the option to say no if they are asked to fight a war that does not uphold the values they swore to protect.

There were many reasons I choose to get out before I could retire, one of them was that we were in a state of war nearly the entire time I was in the service. None of which were ever declared wars by congress and none of which were against a country that would have a prayer of being a serious challenge to our national sovereignty.

When we trained for war games on the submarine; Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Libya were never our targets.

Move along.

It may be an unpopular view in this forum, but I believe we should expect the president and congress to impose a surtax dedicated to financing the costs of any war. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

"Generally speaking" we don't fight wars "on the budget," because the beginning of a war cannot be predicted that far in advance (and should not be any way to avoid alerting the "other side" that we intend to initiate a war against them). "Generally speaking" wars or financed with supplemental approvals from Congress, which are not "budgeted" in advance. Another reason for maintaining materiel and personnel readiness IN ADVANCE to avoid deficiencies and shortfalls when needed.*

Other countries have a pretty good idea of our current status of readiness to engage in expanded confrontations and IMO when we are downsized and not ready it creates the belief in some of those who wish us harm that we cannot respond to their incursions into other countries or their direct assaults on us. That is the price we pay for an "open society." IMO

we should maintain a "rooster" of able bodied prospective servicemembers and not necessarily fit them with a uniform, but determine if they are fit for a uniform.

Who posts on the perimeter of their homes:

"No guns. No phone service. No alarm.
Lots of cash and good stuff inside."?

As for an "all volunteer" military ... it does not "solve" much in the way of "attitude" when many of those "volunteering" were recruited on the basis of learning a skill and getting an education for a job ... or ... "See the world"!

My dad joined voluntarily in the late 1930's because he didn't have a job and he picked the "prettiest" uniform on the posters down at the post office. It was a pretty blue one with lots of gold cord and flashy embroidery all over it ...

he got a "blue" coat for the "yearbook" snap first day of boot, and got "his blues" for "graduation" at discharge six years later after Japan surrendered. In between he was a Gunny and never saw the pretty outfit on him, but he did see plenty of body parts, knee-deep brine and guts at lunch, and heard the screams of dying and suffering friends and fellow volunteers through numerous landings to "see the world" .... including Tarawa... (did you know that Eddie Albert was there also?).

He was fortunate, and so was I for the rest of his life.
He volunteered, and for those who don't know or won't know... that was the USMC band uniform on the poster.

He didn't talk about it, and he didn't complain. He was proud.

Things have changed in this country. Big time.

It is a philosophy, and for the most part it works:

If this country is ready, willing, and able to inflict unacceptable punishment on another country in response to that other country's actions against us (or our allies) then it is less likely that the "other" country will take the contemplated "action" against this country or our allies.

Overwhelming availabe force and the willingness to lavish it upon an opponent is a deterrent to others, save and except the most mentally disturbed, who would act regardless.

22yrs Army/Army Reserves. Thanks for all that served.

It's too bad the haters had to show up

because the beginning of a war cannot be predicted that far in advance (and should not be any way to avoid alerting the "other side" that we intend to initiate a war against them). Originally Posted by LexusLover

The spring of 2003 mistake made in Iraq shoots a mighty big hole in that theory!