[excon]

#1: Tillman wasn't fragged. He was hit by friendly fire. Fragging is when a lower-ranking soldier DELIBERATELY kills an officer in revenge for some real or imagined offense.

Hello El:

We shall see about that, shant we?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Here's my take on the idea of a draft or compulsory service.

I am against it.

There are places where it works. Israel is the most notable. Every kid in Israel must do copulaory government service from the ages of 18-21. Males are almost all in the military, and females can either do military service or some other form of government service. But compulsory service is required and the system works well there.

But there is a different mentality in Israel than in the USA. First of all, Israel is a much smaller country with a much smaller population. They need every single body they can get for military service. Every single soldier is vital, and they all know it. They know their own survival and the survival of their families is dependent on their individual service. And so, every young recruit knows that he is a necessary part of the whole machine. That makes him feel as if he is a part of the machine, rather than just some useless spare part.

In the USA, we have a military that is 1.4 million strong just with volunteers. If someone here were forced to do service, he really would see himself as just a spare part. As far as he is concerned, he has no real purpose in the military... he's just biding his time until he gets out. If he can just keep his head down and survive, he'll be able to get out in a couple of years and move on with his life. He will deliberately avoid any risks, and if possible, any serious work. The attitude becomes one of avoidance of as much responsibility as possible. He has no real stake in the system, since neither his personal survival, nor the survival of his family, have any real reliance on him doing his job. Thus, he grows to see his military service as an interruption of his life, possibly a danger that he never wanted or wished for, a disciplinary system that he never volunteered for and does not want to follow, and his moral falls. So does the moral of his peers.

The mindset between Israel and the USA in terms of compulsory military service is different because the countries face different situations in terms of size, military risk, economies, and general outlook. So what works well for Israel, in terms of compulsory service, would not work well in the USA. And even ISrael has problems with moral of its soldiers that have to be dealt with.

Let's put this another way: which would you prefer to have protecting you? A soldier who volunteered to be where he is, loves his country enough to give up a portion of his life to serve that country, and is politically or personally motivated to do his best on the job? Or the guy who is there because he's forced to be there, doesn't really want to be there, doesn't give a damn about doing his job, and wishes to avoid as much work and danger as possible until his compulsory service is complete, and whose moral is down the tubes?

I'd choose the first. But perhaps others would make a different choice.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again, El:

You make two assumptions. One I agree with. The other I don't. Let's start with the latter. You assume that conscripts don't fight. Our own revolutionary war was fought entirely with conscripts. I think we won.

You suggest that young Israeli's must do copulatory service. I wholeheartedly agree. They do. They surly do.

excon

[tomder55]

Our own revolutionary war was fought entirely with conscripts

. No it wasn't . There was a professional force led by Washington supplemented by militias .
Our history beyond WWII where there was universal acceptance to the need for conscription shows that the country generally opposes the draft. Lincoln as an example had to send troops into NYC in the middle of the civil war to quell a very violent anti-draft riot.

[ETWolverine]

excon,

What are you talking about? Which part of our forces in the Revolutionary War were conscripts? Was it the Minutemen, who were all volunteers? Or was it the "professional" army led by Washington, which was made up of volunteers. Those who didn't wish to fight, didn't. And those who were British loyalists certainly didn't. What the heck are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that the Revolutionary war was fought by conscripts?

And you clearly didn't read my post about Israel's compulsory service and WHY IT WORKS THERE and WHY IT WOULD NOT WORK HERE.

Furthermore, do you think that Israel's system is really a "representative military"? Are all the Israeli Arabs serving in the military? Are all the Neturei Karta serving? Think again.

Elliot

[iAMfromHuntersBar]

I think the problem with conscription is that most people don't care about what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan, they just want to get on with their lives, grow old and die happy!

The difference with the World Wars and places like Isreal is that the war is on your doorstep. There is a very real cause for you to fight for.

Plus, propaganda doesn't work as well as it used to... people know that there is a high chance they will die when they get shipped off to the far reaches of the world... and for what? Their country? Freedom? Speak to most 18 year olds about that choice and they'll express their views quite openly!

And the others, they'll join up and fight for what they believe in!

I've seen conscription forces in action, they're not great! The one's that want to be there work hard, the others that don't... well... don't!

Let me put it this way, if you were forced to do a job you hated but knew in 2 years you were going to be able to leave, how much effort would you put in?

[Dark_crow]

God forbid the offspring of elected officials and intellectuals to have to fight a war

[ETWolverine]

DC,

As a percentage, children of elected officials who serve in the military are approximately twice the national averages: 4% for elected officials' children as opposed to 2% of the rest of the population.

Something to think about.

Elliot

[CaptainRich]

And as pointed out earlier, not everybody is just going to be "a guy with a gun." There is far too much happening behind the scenes to list here. Besides reluctantly paying taxes, is there nothing else to be done to support your country without thinking you're compelled to be part of a killing machine?

The USCG has oceanographic research vessles and buoy tenders, looking out for seaotters and errant boaters.

The American or International Red Cross is always looking for more hands to help. Don't think your contribution can't be of value to others.

Many tend to think of these things are a given, but people serve many ways. We need to open your eyes and your minds.

[BABRAM]

DC,

As a percentage, children of elected officials who serve in the military are approximately twice the national averages

Something to think about.

Elliot

True. But with only about 1/10 of a percent actually in Iraq.


Bobby

[iamgrowler]

True. But with only about 1/10 of a percent actually in Iraq.

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.

[Dark_crow]

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.

What can be asserted by ETWolverine with-out evidence is fine, but not by BABRAM; what’s the matter with this picture.

Nevertheless, his reply was unanswered by me because it is moot to my assertion.

[iamgrowler]

What can be asserted by ETWolverine with-out evidence is fine, but not by BABRAM; what’s the matter with this picture.

Laziness, actually.

Who has time to wade through every post in the thread?

If Wolfy made an assertion and didn't back it up with a citation -- Then hammer him until he does.

[Dark_crow]

Laziness, actually.

Who has time to wade through every post in the thread?

If Wolfy made an assertion and didn't back it up with a citation -- Then hammer him until he does.

OK, I can relate to that.:D

[ETWolverine]

Let's see:

Rep. Marylyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R- SC)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

The above politicians per FoxNews.com and other publicly available information, currently have or had children in the military, mostly serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's 9 of 535 members of Congress, or roughly 2%, who have children in the military. Several of them have multiple children in the military. I believe that the total number of Congressional children in the military is 14, which brings the number to roughly 2.6%.

The US military is made up of approximately 1.4 million, per various DOD manpower records. There are roughly 300 million Americans per the national census bureau. Thus the percentage of people with children in the military is roughly 0.6%, rough guesstimate.

Thus the percentage of congressional kids serving in the military is more than twice the percentage of the general population.

I had said, off the top of my head, that the numbers were 4% and 2%. They are actually 2.6% and 0.6%. Sorry for the mixup in the numbers. I was working off memory rather than going back to the source information.

Is that sufficient citation? If not, let me know.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Let's see:

Rep. Marylyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R- SC)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

The above politicians per FoxNews.com and other publicly available information, currently have or had children in the military, mostly serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's 9 of 535 members of Congress, or roughly 2%, who have children in the military. Several of them have multiple children in the military. I believe that the total number of Congressional children in the military is 14, which brings the number to roughly 2.6%.

The US military is made up of approximately 1.4 million, per various DOD manpower records. There are roughly 300 million Americans per the national census bureau. Thus the percentage of people with children in the military is roughly 0.6%, rough guesstimate.

Thus the percentage of congressional kids serving in the military is more than twice the percentage of the general population.

I had said, off the top of my head, that the numbers were 4% and 2%. They are actually 2.6% and 0.6%. Sorry for the mixup in the numbers. I was working off of memory rather than going back to the source information.

Is that sufficient citation? If not, let me know.

Elliot

Darn-it Elliot you just don’t get it…the offhanded remark, not a constructed argument, I made pertained to the elite in this country, not just elected offices of Congress.

[ETWolverine]

DC,

I don't see what it is that is disturbing you.

You made the assertion that I had given data about politicians with children in the military without a citation. So I cited the information.

Now you are arguing that you meant "all elites", not just politicians. Sorry, that isn't true either.

The Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation released a report in November 2005 called "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11". This report shows that the number of recruits that are from the richest quintile of the population are actually 22% of the total recruit population as of 2003. Here is the income demographic information:

-------------------1999 recruits-------------2003 recruits------General Pop
Poorest quintile------------18%--------------------15%------------20%
Quintile 2------------------21%--------------------20%------------20%
Quintile 3------------------21%--------------------21%------------20%
Quintile 4------------------21%--------------------23%------------20%
Richest quintile-------------19%--------------------22%------------20%

And in terms of actual family incomes:

$0-$29.375-----------------18%------------------15%--------------20%
$29,382-$35,462------------21%------------------20%--------------20%
$35,462-$41,685------------21%------------------21%--------------20%
$41,688-$52,068------------21%------------------23%--------------20%
$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

So, as you can see, the "elite" (defined by me as the "top 20% of the nation in annual earnings") of this country still represent military recruitment in excess of their actual percentage of the population.

So... the percentage children of national-level politicians in the military is higher than the general population, and the highest income families are also "overrepresented" in the military.

So where does the idea that the "elites" aren't represented in the military come from?

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

DC,

I don't see what it is that is disturbing you.

You made the assertion that I had given data about politicians with children in the military without a citation. So I cited the information.

Now you are arguing that you meant "all elites", not just politicians. Sorry, that isn't true either.

The Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation released a report in November 2005 called "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11". This report shows that the number of recruits that are from the richest quintile of the population are actually 22% of the total recruit population as of 2003. Here is the income demographic information:

-------------------1999 recruits-------------2003 recruits------General Pop
Poorest quintile------------18%--------------------15%------------20%
Quintile 2------------------21%--------------------20%------------20%
Quintile 3------------------21%--------------------21%------------20%
Quintile 4------------------21%--------------------23%------------20%
Richest quintile-------------19%--------------------22%------------20%

And in terms of actual family incomes:

$0-$29.375-----------------18%------------------15%--------------20%
$29,382-$35,462------------21%------------------20%--------------20%
$35,462-$41,685------------21%------------------21%--------------20%
$41,688-$52,068------------21%------------------23%--------------20%
$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

So, as you can see, the "elite" (defined by me as the "top 20% of the nation in annual earnings") of this country still represent military recruitment in excess of their actual percentage of the population.

So... the percentage children of national-level politicians in the military is higher than the general population, and the highest income families are also "overrepresented" in the military.

So where does the idea that the "elites" aren't represented in the military come from?

Elliot

$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

You miss the essence, with your statistics. You mistake the Entente for the elite, what a joke-they are who support the elite. And those figures do not represent the ones dying and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq either. I can't help but wonder how many of those went to combat assignments and how mant to the Diplomatic Corp.

[BABRAM]

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.

You have a valid point. The last stats I read were in 2005 that there were 5 legislators... 4 being Republican and 1 being Democrat that had children at that time that were currently serving in Iraq. I don't know that the percentage is exactly 1/10 of a percent, but it has to be very low. Maybe 1/4 of a percent at best? Since then I recognize the possibility the number could be up. Elliot's original stats were based on percentages of those serving in the military in general. My post was an addendum to those specifically serving in Iraq. Another issue would be what exactly those few are permitted to do in their military occupations of service.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

You miss the essence, with your statistics. You mistake the Entente for the elite, what a joke-they are who support the elite. And those figures do not represent the ones dying and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq either. I can't help but wonder how many of those went to combat assignments and how mant to the Diplomatic Corp.

DC, This is a typical "the statistics don't really say what they say" argument. If you have evidence that the information is incorrect, please present it. So far, I have only your opinion that the "elites" are under-represented in the US military, which is contradicted by the statistics I have given you. If you have information that says otherwise, please present it.

Furthermore, of the politiians that I mentioned in my prior post, all of them had children who are active duty soldiers in combat or combat support units in Iraq or Afghanistan. None of them are in the "diplomatic corp". Most of them are NCOs, Lts. And Captains, which are the groups that, statistically speaking, take the heaviest casualties.

(The statistics from cobat units show that NCOs and low-level officers and brand-new personnel just out of boot-camp have the highest levels of combat casualties. The newbies because of their lack of experience, and the low-level officers and NCOs because of the leadership nature of their jobs that requires them to take risks in order to manage small-unit combat. I don't have the exact statistics in font of me, but the information can be found in any reasonably good military science/small unit combat tactical text.)

Elliot