The Professional Military

[SilverEagle]

Interesting article. It doesn't address it in this article, but I've always thought that having a all-volunteer professional army might one day lead to a "Seven Days in May" scenario.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058576/

Here is the article......

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/05/4526127/some-fear-us-is-developing-a-warrior.html

[FirefightnRick]

That's one of the strangest articles I've ever read because it's all over the place.

Is it about a concern that we have to rely too much on military families to replenish our supply of manpower?

Is it about a concern that servicemen who grow up in a military family learn to simply exist to wage war and kill people and have little hope of ever returning to civilian life after their service period is over?

Or is it about a concern that the remainder of our civilian population doesn't fully appreciate the sacrifices our servicemen make to keep us safe, leaving those who have sacrificed to ponder and regret their service in the first place?

Rick

[DeepGreen]

Requiring military to pull multiple tours of duty overseas is simply a terrible thing to do. It tears apart families, puts the soldier at risk too many times, and many of those who make the multiple tour generally have mental and or physical issues.

I still believe a limited draft is necessary. First of all, it replenishes your military personnel. Secondly, two years in the military helps discipline those in the 18-21 year old range that need it most. I know this is not a popular option, and I don't want to come off as a war monger. But these are violent times across the globe. Some say, don't get into in conflicts across the globe and you won't need to send troops in harms way. Maybe so, but the fact is, we still need to protect our borders, protect our citizens from whomever may choose to inflict harm to the U.S.

I'm just really concerned about the multiple tours of duty into harms way that our volunteer soldiers are faced with. If there's a better way, I'm all ears.

[KRAM1]

Requiring military to pull multiple tours of duty overseas is simply a terrible thing to do. It tears apart families, puts the soldier at risk too many times, and many of those who make the multiple tour generally have mental and or physical issues.

I still believe a limited draft is necessary. First of all, it replenishes your military personnel. Secondly, two years in the military helps discipline those in the 18-21 year old range that need it most. I know this is not a popular option, and I don't want to come off as a war monger. But these are violent times across the globe. Some say, don't get into in conflicts across the globe and you won't need to send troops in harms way. Maybe so, but the fact is, we still need to protect our borders, protect our citizens from whomever may choose to inflict harm to the U.S.

I'm just really concerned about the multiple tours of duty into harms way that our volunteer soldiers are faced with. If there's a better way, I'm all ears.

I agree with most of what you say here, Deep. My nephew spent FOUR...count 'em FOUR tours abroad in this deal...one in Iraq and three in Afghanistan. But, I will remind everyone that during WWII you signed up "for the duration".....however long that might be...my Dad enlisted in the first year of the war and came home ONLY after it ended...that's a long time as well. He was one of the lucky ones...he came home alive and well. Many did not.

A limited draft has possibilities and might warrant serious consideration. Lots of possibilities.

But, to Silver's point about "Seven days in May"....not going to happen...pure fantasy. Too many checks and balances on the military here in the U.S. and hard to imagine the general public standing for such a thing. Never even been a hint of such thing and we have had a "professional military" ever since the Viet Nam era draft was stopped. That's been several years now in case you haven't noticed.

[DeepGreen]

Kram1 I agree, but WWII was totally different, in that it was a "declared war" and the military was fighting for our homeland.

[KRAM1]

Kram1 I agree, but WWII was totally different, in that it was a "declared war" and the military was fighting for our homeland.

Yes, Deep...wars are always different...North Viet Nam was not going to invade the US either, nor was North Korea...but, in fact, the attack on the trade towers was pretty much an attack on our homeland in my book. But, I see your point. All the same...bullets and bombs still kill and injure in any conflict, and that never changes!

[Coffee and TV]

The day you institute a draft in this country is the day when half the 18-25 year old population suddenly disappears.

[Mean Green Matt]

The day you institute a draft in this country is the day when half the 18-25 year old population suddenly disappears.

That might not be so bad...

[KRAM1]

The day you institute a draft in this country is the day when half the 18-25 year old population suddenly disappears.

Doubt it...did not happen for us during Vietnam Nam.

[KRAM1]

That might not be so bad...

You may have a very valid point, Matt. Plus one for you.

[Rudy]

Requiring military to pull multiple tours of duty overseas is simply a terrible thing to do. It tears apart families, puts the soldier at risk too many times, and many of those who make the multiple tour generally have mental and or physical issues.

I still believe a limited draft is necessary. First of all, it replenishes your military personnel. Secondly, two years in the military helps discipline those in the 18-21 year old range that need it most. I know this is not a popular option, and I don't want to come off as a war monger. But these are violent times across the globe. Some say, don't get into in conflicts across the globe and you won't need to send troops in harms way. Maybe so, but the fact is, we still need to protect our borders, protect our citizens from whomever may choose to inflict harm to the U.S.

I'm just really concerned about the multiple tours of duty into harms way that our volunteer soldiers are faced with. If there's a better way, I'm all ears.

I've been in favor of a "draft" of some sort for years. I think all kids should either sign up for military duty as a full time or a reserve, become a police explorer or junior fire fighter, volunteer at a hostpital, join the peace corp, habitiat for humanity, etc. for a couple of years. Some of those options would allow for kids to go to college or join the workforce while they complete their requirement. I think all of us need to learn that we should serve our fellow man.

[KRAM1]

The day you institute a draft in this country is the day when half the 18-25 year old population suddenly disappears.

Just a question....would you be leading the exodus?

[Censored by Laurie]

So long as organizations like the Peace Corps and Army Corps of Engineers are considered options and enrolled college students are exempt, I say draft away.

[emmitt01]

I wouldn't favor a "draft" into the military per se, but I'd be all the way on board with a "service" requirement on your 18th birthday. A year, a set amount of hours, something of the like required to be served in either the military (if that is your choice) or another service organization like Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, FEMA volunteers, etc. At the conclusion of your "service" either college would be paid for, a housing credit could be given or some other comparable tangible assistance could be provided (a childcare voucher, assistance with a vehicle purchase, etc.) Just no issuance of a blank check.

I just think it would benefit us a if we required 18 year olds to spend a period of time doing for others and then rewarded them with the means to do for themselves. Besides, when something like Katrina or Sandy Hook occurs, having a ready made assemblage of personnel would do wonders. This would hopefully satisfy those who'd want to label such a plan a "handout", as the govt (federal, state or local) would be getting labor on the front end.

Edited January 9, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNTLifer]

That might not be so bad...

[DeepGreen]

I wouldn't favor a "draft" into the military per se, but I'd be all the way on board with a "service" requirement on your 18th birthday. A year, a set amount of hours, something of the like required to be served in either the military (if that is your choice) or another service organization like Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, FEMA volunteers, etc. At the conclusion of your "service" either college would be paid for, a housing credit could be given or some other comparable tangible assistance could be provided (a childcare voucher, assistance with a vehicle purchase, etc.) Just no issuance of a blank check.

I just think it would benefit us a if we required 18 year olds to spend a period of time doing for others and then rewarded them with the means to do for themselves. Besides, when something like Katrina or Sandy Hook occurs, having a ready made assemblage of personnel would do wonders. This would hopefully satisfy those who'd want to label such a plan a "handout", as the govt (federal, state or local) would be getting labor on the front end.

Those are all great options for an 18 year old and those service organizations mentioned are so worthwhile to have young people helping. This idea still does not address the military requirement that eases the load on those brave men who sacrifice so for this country. Multiple tours of duty, even for a volunteer army, is tough on our troops.

[Coffee and TV]

Those are all great options for an 18 year old and those service organizations mentioned are so worthwhile to have young people helping. This idea still does not address the military requirement that eases the load on those brave men who sacrifice so for this country. Multiple tours of duty, even for a volunteer army, is tough on our troops.

We could stop our eternal cycle of endless wars on brown people, that might ease the number of tours. Sure would piss off the military industrial complex, pardon the cliche phrase.

[FirefightnRick]

We could stop our eternal cycle of endless wars on brown people,......

Or,........ we could start with the endless domestic slaughter of brown, babies.............first.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/09/planned-parenthood-sets-record-for-abortions-and-government-funding/

Planned Parenthood reported receiving record taxpayer funding last year, while also performing a record number of abortions, according to the organization’s new annual report released this week.

The nation’s largest abortion provider maintained its infamous title, performing 333,964 abortions—a record for the organization that received 45 percent of its revenues from taxpayer-funded government sources during the 2011–2012 fiscal year. According to analysis by the Susan B. Anthony List, Planned Parenthood has performed almost 1 million abortions in the past three years alone.

Despite the organization’s prominence—performing roughly one out of every four abortions in America—Planned Parenthood has ridden the waves of taxpayer funding to millions of dollars in annual surpluses. Last year, like many before it, Planned Parenthood saw a very comfortable income, reporting excess revenues exceeding $87 million and net assets of more than $1.2 billion.

In the face of large surpluses and increased abortions, supporters and activists are still quick to point to the provision of other services to justify continued and expanded federal funding of the organization. But a closer look at Planned Parenthood’s own report and actions still point to a strong emphasis on abortion procedures.

While Planned Parenthood affiliates performed a record number of abortions in 2011, the organization made only 2,300 adoption referrals and provided fewer than 30,000 prenatal services. Roughly 40 percent of the organization’s reported contraceptive services last year were the provision of more than 1.4 million emergency contraception kits, which many believe can cause an abortion in early pregnancy. To solidify its place as the top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood recently announced that all local affiliates would have to begin providing abortion services starting in 2013.

Despite the half-truths spread by leaders and supporters of Planned Parenthood—including President Obama during last year’s election—the organization does not and cannot provide mammograms. (It was over this fact, among other considerations, that leaders of the Susan G. Komen Foundation originally pulled grant funding from Planned Parenthood—before they were bullied back into supporting the abortion provider.)

Women can receive clinical breast exams at some Planned Parenthood affiliates, but women are referred to local health care providers for more comprehensive mammogram services. Planned Parenthood can use funds obtained from grant sources to pay for the referrals, but it acts merely as a go-between for women in need of screening. Moreover, as Alliance Defending Freedom’s (ADF) Casey Mattox explained following an ADF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, no Planned Parenthood affiliate even holds the licenses necessary under federal law to perform mammograms.

If Planned Parenthood’s lackluster offering of breast health support and single-minded provision of abortion services isn’t enough to question the continual stream of federal tax dollars, accusations of fraud and the group’s apparent willingness to abet the sex trafficking of minor girls should at least raise scrutiny of the organization’s federal funding.

Late last week, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” which would strip Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers of federal taxpayer support under Title X funding.

There has been longstanding consensus that federal dollars should not be used to fund abortions. Policymakers looking for organizations capable of self-funding more of their activities and wishing to put limited federal tax dollars for women’s health to more efficient and effective use would do well to view Planned Parenthood’s subsidies with a critical eye.

http://www.sba-list.org/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-reports-record-high-taxpayer-funding-abortions

• During fiscal year 2011-2012, Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. Taxpayer funding consists of 45% of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.
• Cancer screening & prevention services and contraceptive services provided by Planned Parenthood continue to drop. Contraceptive services have dropped by 12% since 2009, and cancer screening & prevention services have dropped by 29%.

Planned Parenthood's official online report.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm

Rick

Edited January 10, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[Coffee and TV]

Rick, Way to completely change the subject.

I'm not going to argue pro-choice vs pro-life, but you conservatives quickly forget that while planned parenthood might provide the largest number of abortions, they also prevent more abortions than any other organization. De-funding them will only increase the 'slaughter of brown babies' as you call it.

[KRAM1]

Rick, Way to completely change the subject.

I'm not going to argue pro-choice vs pro-life, but you conservatives quickly forget that while planned parenthood might provide the largest number of abortions, they also prevent more abortions than any other organization. De-funding them will only increase the 'slaughter of brown babies' as you call it.

Who are these "you conservaties" you talk about? Way to generalize. Not at all factual, but way to keep the stereotypes going. Well played...typical, but well played none the same.

[SilverEagle]

We could stop our eternal cycle of endless wars on brown people, that might ease the number of tours. Sure would piss off the military industrial complex, pardon the cliche phrase.

Well, I totally agree with that. And I would add "wars against brown people who pretty much hate us anyway, and invading their country only takes them to a higher level of fanaticism against us". And you can use that military-industrial cliche as much as you want. Especially since it was coined by our former President who was supreme commander over the European theater of WWII....Dwight D. Eisenhower. If anyone should know, it's him.

I also agree with Emmitts' idea. I seem to recall reading an article a long time ago that Israel does something very similar.

And Kram1, you think that Seven Days in May was pure fantasy? You honestly think that doing something like that has never crossed the minds of some very high level full-of-themselves military people at the pentagon?

[Coffee and TV]

Well, I totally agree with that. And I would add "wars against brown people who pretty much hate us anyway, and invading their country only takes them to a higher level of fanaticism against us". And you can use that military-industrial cliche as much as you want. Especially since it was coined by our former President who was supreme commander over the European theater of WWII....Dwight D. Eisenhower. If anyone should know, it's him.

Wait, what? So because Eisenhower had experience in winning a war, that disqualified him from warning the American people of defense contractors having too much lobbying influence in Washington? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Who are these "you conservaties" you talk about? Way to generalize. Not at all factual, but way to keep the stereotypes going. Well played...typical, but well played none the same.

The ones you and Rick keep voting for. The ones who will cut their noses off to spite their faces, IE planned parenthood funding.

[SilverEagle]

Wait, what? So because Eisenhower had experience in winning a war, that disqualified him from warning the American people of defense contractors having too much lobbying influence in Washington? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Not only defense contractors, but high level military people who never met a weapons system (even if it was totally useless and unproven) that they didn't want to buy.

[Coffee and TV]

Not only defense contractors, but high level military people who never met a weapons system (even if it was totally useless and unproven) that they didn't want to buy.

Still trying to figure out your point here.

I'm arguing that the defense lobby has too much power & therefore we need wars to keep them profitable. That has a negative influence on our politicians. Eisenhower was correct in making this statement, weather or not he lead us to victory in a completely necessary war 15 years prior.

[FirefightnRick]

Rick, Way to completely change the subject.

I'm not going to argue pro-choice vs pro-life, but you conservatives quickly forget that while planned parenthood might provide the largest number of abortions, they also prevent more abortions than any other organization. De-funding them will only increase the 'slaughter of brown babies' as you call it.

So it's justified in your opinion then.

As for the threat of an increase in deaths if defunded, I dont see how that could possibly happen, maybe you do? Their report stated and was pointed out that they didn't even give out 3,000 adoption referrals and their cancer screening dropped 29% since '09 and 12% last year alone. They are a conglomerate of liberal shills for the left making billions of dollars off of death, and could be compared to the military complex you hate and claim are shills for the right, who simply want to wage war and kill innocent people for profit...also. How does it make you feel knowing that your tax dollars go to killing the inncocent unborn child at such a devistating rate? You do pay taxes, correct?

And save your strength arguing with my boy Silver over the war against Islamo-naziism. Bless his heart I love him like a father, but like my father he's set in his ways,...worst than me...(if you can believe that),..and believes that it was George W. who somehow went back in time and actually caused the Islamo-Nazi's to hate the United States and Isreal and India and England and.....

...(you know I'm teasing you "B" ....

Rick

Edited January 10, 2013 by FirefightnRick