OMG you had to have voted for Obama, Hillary. Then Biden.No.
As a country, we should be spending far less on the military.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OMG you had to have voted for Obama, Hillary. Then Biden.No.
As a country, we should be spending far less on the military.
OMG you had to have voted for Obama, Hillary. Then Biden.
Work out a public service plan then. That is not the mission of America's Armed Forces.Active for the past 26 years and I say no. Introduces a morale issue we just don’t need.
But I can get behind the idea of National compulsory service where 18 year olds have a range of options to serve their country including military service, infrastructure projects, rebuilding national parks etc
OMG you had to have voted for Obama, Hillary. Then Biden.
Totally agree.. most other countries have a much more unified population as well.. the US has turned into such a mix of citizens and illegals, there is little loyalty to the old system anyways... it's a shame too, as this country was once worth fighting for.. and maybe still, but I feel like we can't trust anyone or anything. A civil war is possible too.I know some countries do something like this, but I don't think you could implement this in the States and expect good results. Way to many lazy kids who have had zero expectations placed on them up to that point who would absolutely hate being there and would be as disruptive as possible to try amd get out.
Work out a public service plan then. That is not the mission of America's Armed Forces.
Civil warFor what purpose at this point in time? I hope we're not planning to go to war.
We have thousands lining up in vehicles for food and but yet we can't cut some of the $698 billion spent on the military? Good use of resources.
I prefer a military that has voluntary participants. Can you imagine how big it would have to be to make room for every 18-20 year old. Heck most wouldn't last a day of boot camp
Yay. Having been appointed to West Point, then flunked the physical, only to be drafted and passed the same hurdle during Vietnam and served there in '68-69, I come at this differently than youngsters.
First, nothing puts a damper on warmongering than a citizen army. Politicians are loathed to spill blood of their benefactor sons and daughters.
Second, military service provides an important and meaningful bridge between college and career. It's when I matured, met and worked with a diversity of people never dreamed of otherwise, and made me so appreciate civilian life.
And finally, serving in the military gave me a new perspective on life, government, and the purpose of war. Biden, Trump, BHO, Clinton, none of them served. And that wasn't to our advantage as citizens.
Our military fighting force at this point can be pretty minimal. Its all about jets, bombs, and computers. Soldiers for the most part should just be in the reserves, where they can spend most of their time doing things other than just being soldiers. If we want to police the rest of the world we don't need a bunch of guys sitting at an airbase in Kabul or South Korea, we just need a handful sitting behind a computer on an aircraft carrier operating drones. Welcome to the 21st century
I could see a choice between 6 months active duty and 2 years National Guard service. Could it be that time spent in the military might change the lives of low income kids? I think so. 2 years compulsory IMO in non-war times is too much.
IF you had compulsory service you could probably cut dramatically the money you spent on recruiting. Having a couple of guys sitting in office space all over the country for days on end isn't cheap and you're probably not going to have that many more people in the service at any one time. We're also spending millions in advertising that maybe we wouldn't need to do.I also think time in service would benefit the poor disproportionately. Lots of kids in bad situations that need structure and role models and guidance, or just to get out of the area and establish themselves in life.
But again. All this money we are going to spend to turn every American into a vet is still more money than we have. I get there's a difference between Bernie just handing out Free Stuff and carrying a rifle for The State for a year or so to get the same Free Stuff, but it all comes out of the real economy whether we view it as flag draped heroism or not.
IF you had compulsory service you could probably cut dramatically the money you spent on recruiting. Having a couple of guys sitting in office space all over the country for days on end isn't cheap and you're probably not going to have that many more people in the service at any one time. We're also spending millions in advertising that maybe we wouldn't need to do.
The thing I think you have to consider is the benefit it might be to our society to maybe take some kids out of bad situations and show them that there's another way to live. That money might be very well spent and provide cost savings in the long run to society. That said, I don't know how you make some inner city kids serve though when you can't even get them to show up for school.The benefit of the military system is that it costs Uncle Sam no more to have a military recruiter than it does to have that same dude on the front line or hand out basketballs at the base gym. An E5 is an E5. We do spend a fair bit in recruiting, but if we view free college for the sake of free college too expensive (some hundreds of billions), its almost certainly too expensive to wrap it up with a salary and boot camp and all the other things we'd be providing as well. The millions (probably even hundreds of millions) we save in advertising and running recruitment centers probably wouldn't cover it.
No one is actually worried about Gravy Seal militia wannabesCivil war
The thing I think you have to consider is the benefit it might be to our society to maybe take some kids out of bad situations and show them that there's another way to live. That money might be very well spent and provide cost savings in the long run to society. That said, I don't know how you make some inner city kids serve though when you can't even get them to show up for school.
hmmm. I guess I would rather pay for sponsored parenting in the military than jail cells and decades of welfare benefits.My world view aligns mostly along conservative lines. I work hard, I earn my keep, and I keep on keeping on. I'm probably more moderate than most here though.
I'm game for a bunch of these benefits to society. In strict dollars and sense I think its a loss but it would help moderate out some stuff and help us work better together.
But I would be remiss to point out what this system really is, its basically state sponsored parenting and redistribution of income wrapped up in a military container.
hmmm. I guess I would rather pay for sponsored parenting in the military than jail cells and decades of welfare benefits.
Where do we need to have troops stationed at this point, and for what purpose? That's an honest question.No disrespect, but you have no idea what you are talking about logistics wise, and what it actually takes to run a "small, remote" war in enemy territory. Shooting the bad guy is the easy 5 minute part. And sometimes not even that is easy.
It might be easier to say where we don't need troops stationed. The world is a very dangerous place and we need to have people within a few hours of some key spots across the world.Where do we need to have troops stationed at this point, and for what purpose? That's an honest question.
Lots of new expensive cars pictured in that tweet, maybe just maybe they should reconsider their spending habits? Just saying.
We have thousands lining up in vehicles for food and but yet we can't cut some of the $698 billion spent on the military? Good use of resources.
Lots of new expensive cars pictured in that tweet, maybe just maybe they should reconsider their spending habits? Just saying.
this is so true.. today I read something in my feed about warlords in Africa are using drones purchased from the Middle East to shoot and bomb rival warlords.. so this idea of a human soldier, seems so 'last century'.Our military fighting force at this point can be pretty minimal. Its all about jets, bombs, and computers. Soldiers for the most part should just be in the reserves, where they can spend most of their time doing things other than just being soldiers. If we want to police the rest of the world we don't need a bunch of guys sitting at an airbase in Kabul or South Korea, we just need a handful sitting behind a computer on an aircraft carrier operating drones. Welcome to the 21st century
There will always be a role for soldiers, and we do need to have a fairly large trained force, but we don't need a whole bunch of guys stationed all over the world when we can get them wherever we need them in a matter of hours.this is so true.. today I read something in my feed about warlords in Africa are using drones purchased from the Middle East to shoot and bomb rival warlords.. so this idea of a human soldier, seems so 'last century'.
It wouldn't be full unless we were in a war. The Army would be both professional and drafted just as it was when I was in Vietnam. It worked fine.I prefer a military that has voluntary participants. Can you imagine how big it would have to be to make room for every 18-20 year old. Heck most wouldn't last a day of boot camp
Getting humans where we need them can happen pretty quickly but the "stuff" that goes with them is tougher. It took us weeks to get enough "stuff" to Saudi Arabia to prosecute the Gulf War. We need enough people stationed around the world to be able to mount a response within a matter of a couple of hours if need be. I think you underestimate the size of force needed overseas as a deterrent as well. Launching missiles from ships is not an effective strategy. IF you can't take the land (Pakistan border region) you can't win the war. It goes on forever.There will always be a role for soldiers, and we do need to have a fairly large trained force, but we don't need a whole bunch of guys stationed all over the world when we can get them wherever we need them in a matter of hours.
Somewhat agree. But the military is basically run like a jobs program for a lot of people. Helps lift people up socioeconomically and in war times you want as many men as you can get.No.
As a country, we should be spending far less on the military.
Hell no.Every college-aged kid does a 2-year stint.
Yay or Nay?