Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (115825)	9/28/2003 1:48:45 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<If we don't get engaged in unpopular wars, we ought to be able to achieve that, without bringing back the draft.> There's no need for force to be applied to get somebody to do a job. Offer money. That's the freedom-loving capitalist way. Those who think the risk and the cash and their talents suitable for the job will offer their services. Defending freedom by forcing people to die against their will is the most absurd piece of military intelligence. I'm surprised to see you even consider the possibility of sending people against their will to serve the personal interests of a bunch of chicken hawks or even to back a "popular" war. If it's so popular, let those voting for it offer their services to conduct operations. Press-ganging is what the likes of Saddam does. That's what dictators do. Their populations are for the personal use and interests of those in power. That's what used to happen in the British Empire too. Conscription was even part of New Zealand culture up to the 1970s. Serfdom psychology is a long time dying. Mqurice

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (115825)	9/28/2003 9:53:22 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If each of them spends one year in three in Iraq, that's 655K/3 = 218K, which is approximately what we have now, in Iraq (plus support for Iraq in nearby areas). Yep.. that's the problem.. And it leaves precious little available (outside of massive retaliation) to fend off other potential regional threats (like N. Korea).. However, the greatest contribution the US would provide to Korea would be air and naval power, with S. Korean troops providing the majority of "boots on the ground". The 82nd Airborne, 1st Cav, 25th Infantry, and 1st Infantry would likely be the organizations that would initially deploy to reinforce the 2nd ID and hold the line, while reserve armored and mechanized divisions are activated, trained, and deployed for any counter-attack. I am reluctantly brought to the conclusion, that, since we are now in a non-short and non-small shooting war Not to sound callous, but Iraq IS a "small" shooting war, when compared to previous conflicts such as Vietnam. Combat actions have essentially declined to small unit "search and destroy", and "snatch and grab" missions, on the offensive, while the remainder are involved in stabilization and security operations (quickly being turned over to Iraqi forces). not have any permanent large garrisons overseas. Depends on where the garrison is.. I know many folks who joined up so they could be stationed in Germany in order to partake of the travel opportunities there (as well as Oktoberfest.. :0).. Obviously Iraq is going to be less attractive for recruitment purposes, but there's still the concept that soldiers are fighting on the front lines to defeat Islamic militancy (payback for 9/11). Japan remains somewhat attractive, as does Guam, Italy, and few other select locales. For conventional warfare, there is no good reason they cannot 100% defend themselves. I concur.. Which is why I've suggested US forces pull out of the peninsula and maintain such pre-positioned depots to enable rapid reinforcement. But the political consequences might actually prompt Kim Jong Il to "miscalculate" and launch an attack. but I thought all soldiers were trained to fight, basic infantry skills, how to march and shoot a rifle. Nope.. Infantry is a separate MOS, which involves more advanced training. Basic training is not sufficient to create the necessary individual and unit skills necessary. Every army soldier is supposed to requalify every year with their personal weapon (rifle/pistol) but it doesn't include any infantry drills. The Marines are definitely "one-up" on drilling in advanced infantry skills. Not to teach the soldiers to vote Republican (ng). Rather, there should be a dedicated cadre, to monitor the interaction between our troops and the locals. No.. I think what you mean to say is for Civil Affairs personnel to be attached to every combat formation to advise the commander and local units as to how to handle "delicate" situations. But there is a shortage of Civil Affairs personnel, and most that do now exist have previously been combat arms personnel, with a far different perspective to "cultural sensitivities" and diplomacy.. Hawk