If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hawaii News Now)   Austrians debate whether doing away with the draft will make it harder to fill jobs currently taken by conscientious objectors to avoid being drafted, like ambulance drivers, kangaroo herders, and retirement-home attendants   (hawaiinewsnow.com) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, ambulance driver, Austrian, KGMB, KHNL, Members of NATO, Austria, citizenships, retirement  
•       •       •

851 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jan 2013 at 2:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 05:44:53 PM  

Buffalo77: You have no farking clue about what you are talking about. But its a nice liberal manta which makes no sense.


"Hello? I forgot my manta."
 
2013-01-20 05:45:41 PM  

thamike: Buffalo77: You have no farking clue about what you are talking about. But its a nice liberal manta which makes no sense.

"Hello? I forgot my manta."


www.i-cant-believe-im-not-bitter.com

FTFM
 
2013-01-20 05:59:50 PM  

Buffalo77: MFAWG

BMulligan: MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.

The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees with absolutely no desire to be there.

Bullshiat.


You have no farking clue about what you are talking about. But its a nice liberal manta which makes no sense.


I have every farking clue what I'm talking about. I served with a fair number of those guys who 'Didn't Want To Be There'.

We called them things like 'Sergeant Major' and 'Sir'.

So how bout you drop and give me 20 and STFU about what I 'Know'.
 
2013-01-20 06:04:40 PM  

MFAWG: Buffalo77: MFAWG

BMulligan: MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.

The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees with absolutely no desire to be there.

Bullshiat.


You have no farking clue about what you are talking about. But its a nice liberal manta which makes no sense.

I have every farking clue what I'm talking about. I served with a fair number of those guys who 'Didn't Want To Be There'.

We called them things like 'Sergeant Major' and 'Sir'.

So how bout you drop and give me 20 and STFU about what I 'Know'.


i225.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-20 06:05:28 PM  

thamike: MFAWG: Buffalo77: MFAWG

BMulligan: MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.

The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees with absolutely no desire to be there.

Bullshiat.


You have no farking clue about what you are talking about. But its a nice liberal manta which makes no sense.

I have every farking clue what I'm talking about. I served with a fair number of those guys who 'Didn't Want To Be There'.

We called them things like 'Sergeant Major' and 'Sir'.

So how bout you drop and give me 20 and STFU about what I 'Know'.

[i225.photobucket.com image 314x360]


I think he used to be in the core
 
2013-01-20 06:06:47 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: I think he used to be in the core


His hot home schooled wife must be traveling.
 
2013-01-20 06:12:18 PM  

thamike: Doktor_Zhivago: I think he used to be in the core

His hot home schooled wife must be traveling.


yup. Clearly anybody who isn't a card carrying conservatard never served. Absolutely correctamundo.

Jackasses.
 
2013-01-20 06:21:56 PM  

MFAWG: thamike: Doktor_Zhivago: I think he used to be in the core

His hot home schooled wife must be traveling.

yup. Clearly anybody who isn't a card carrying conservatard never served. Absolutely correctamundo.

Jackasses.


I think you're taking us a little too seriously.
 
2013-01-20 06:22:44 PM  

MFAWG: thamike: Doktor_Zhivago: I think he used to be in the core

His hot home schooled wife must be traveling.

yup. Clearly anybody who isn't a card carrying conservatard never served. Absolutely correctamundo.

Jackasses.


The idea was for you to lighten up.
 
2013-01-20 06:31:39 PM  

MFAWG: thamike: Doktor_Zhivago: I think he used to be in the core

His hot home schooled wife must be traveling.

yup. Clearly anybody who isn't a card carrying conservatard never served. Absolutely correctamundo.

Jackasses.


Now if there was only something recreational you get around your home town . . .
 
2013-01-20 06:47:30 PM  

mrexcess: Talondel: A random draft would certainly make things more equitable. Your objection mostly revolves around the assumption that wealthy/connected people would be able to exploit loopholes in the drafting system to dodge it. Obviously we'd want to eliminate that possibility.


The idea that a draft will be subject to influence and political bias not an assumption. It's a fact based on the past american and human experience with the draft. You make the (mistaken) assumption that the possibility of abuse by those who are politically connected could or would be eliminated.

There is nothing any more 'fair' about a system based on randomness than one based on voluntary service. Is it 'fair' when a person who vocally opposes the countries involvement in a war gets drafted? Ask Clinton. Is it fair when a person with political connections can avoid the draft by getting assigned to a part of the service where they won't get deployed? Ask Bush.

Drafts artificially lower the cost of going to war for the government by allowing the government to pay conscripts less than they would in a system that was based on voluntary service. When you have a system based on voluntary service, the government has to provide enough benefits to those who will be fighting to make service an attractive option for enough people to have a fully staffed military. When they are allowed to conscript people through a draft, there's less incentive to provide adequate care and compensation because they will get the bodies they need whether the cost to compensate them is fair or not.
 
2013-01-20 07:01:02 PM  

BMulligan: Consider also that about 4 million Americans turn 18 each year, roughly double the current number of combined active duty and reserve personnel in all branches of the armed forces combined. Absorbing even a small fraction of those 18-year olds would necessitate a massive increase in defense spending AND would remove an equivalent number of taxpayers from the private sector. It would be a budget disaster.


That's partly assuming that you stick with draftees having a two-year obligation.  TFA says 60% of the Austrian army are "conscripts who serve for six months," and it sounds like their objectors would be spending 6 months at whatever other job.

Four million kids per year turning 18 isn't much of a problem if you give them terms like "okay,  if you aren't already doing something productive, we're going to give you training, followed by something productive to do, for a total of six months."  A lot will already have jobs - leave them in the workforce.  Teach the others how to handle a gun well enough to not shoot each other at gun shows, or teach them basic life support (First Aid/CPR/AED/EMR), or teach them whatever-the-heck.  Give them some skills and options going forward.
 
2013-01-20 07:09:07 PM  

dbirchall: BMulligan: Consider also that about 4 million Americans turn 18 each year, roughly double the current number of combined active duty and reserve personnel in all branches of the armed forces combined. Absorbing even a small fraction of those 18-year olds would necessitate a massive increase in defense spending AND would remove an equivalent number of taxpayers from the private sector. It would be a budget disaster.

That's partly assuming that you stick with draftees having a two-year obligation.  TFA says 60% of the Austrian army are "conscripts who serve for six months," and it sounds like their objectors would be spending 6 months at whatever other job.

Four million kids per year turning 18 isn't much of a problem if you give them terms like "okay,  if you aren't already doing something productive, we're going to give you training, followed by something productive to do, for a total of six months."  A lot will already have jobs - leave them in the workforce.  Teach the others how to handle a gun well enough to not shoot each other at gun shows, or teach them basic life support (First Aid/CPR/AED/EMR), or teach them whatever-the-heck.  Give them some skills and options going forward.


Finland, Germany and Switzerland (and others i'm sure) have similar systems. These countries are quite a bit smaller than the US and quite a bit closer to their traditional foes (i.e. Russia) so they have a system of training as many people as possible to be called up as reserves in the case of war. The 6 month draft isn't put in place to put bodies into service that right that second, its to put bodies into service in case of a national emergency (formerly the cold war getting hot, not that big of a risk of a massive nation state on nation state war in Europe anymore). Its not that bad of an idea really.
 
2013-01-20 07:48:10 PM  

mrexcess: Silverstaff: From a purely "quality of soldiers" aspect, you're right that a professional force is generally better than a conscripted one. However, that's a form of tunnel vision - answering the question of "how should the military be composed" should be about more than just efficiency. It gets into some really fundamental, basic questions of democracy, equity, and responsibility.

Particularly in a force that, as you admit, "works more on using skill and technology" rather than depending on the physical fitness and group cohesion of individual troops, it seems right to consider whether or not a more equitable, if somewhat less cohesive, force would be a better fit for our nation.


You think that relying more on skill and technology than on bulk manpower means a draft would be better? You realize that for that skill and technology you are talking about long training time.

The Austrian army works on 6 month conscriptions, the US Army back in Vietnam had 2 year conscriptions. That's a very short period for all those technical skills to get any kind of return on the investment.

Between Basic and AIT I spent 8 months in training before I was even qualified for my MOS. A lot of MOS's require at least 6 months of training, a few require up to a year. Yeah, you can produce an infantryman in about 14 weeks, but for every Eleven Bang Bang out there kicking down doors you need your commo guys, your intel guys, your supply and personnel clerks, not to mention your various mechanics and drivers, which all take longer to train (especially those commo and intel jobs, and some repair/mechanic jobs).

The entire system has been built for almost 40 years now on the idea that soldiers volunteer for the job, contract for 4 to 6 years of Active Duty (during some peacetime lulls when recruiting was tough, like the late '90's, they offered "two years plus training" contracts for some MOS's that had fairly short schools) and they can spend the time to train up and develop professional soldiers with a good skill base, at a high level of physical fitness and overall professionalism and experience, something you won't get from a conscript Army.

Also, I didn't say ANYTHING about the army not depending on physical fitness. The US Army has a pretty high standard of fitness required of every soldier, one that it's pretty safe to say is far beyond normal civilian levels. An average to marginal soldier is in very good shape by standards of the general civilian population.
 
2013-01-20 09:16:06 PM  
simplicimus
Service means citizenship?

Explicitly: no. I'm not advocating any mandatory conscription program in peacetime... the closest I'd come to that would be advocating for a program of national service (with military and non-military options) as a way to fund college education.

I just think that when we decide to go to war as a nation, we should equitably distribute the risk between all social classes. This whole idea of allowing poor kids to fight the wars for rich old men doesn't sit well with me.

Talondel
The idea that a draft will be subject to influence and political bias not an assumption. It's a fact based on the past american and human experience with the draft.

It is an assumption - you're assuming that any future draft structure would necessarily resemble that of the past. That's silly. We can change the way our government works, and have done so many times. The draft used to be subject to racism and sexism, too. Doesn't mean that it has to be.

There is nothing any more 'fair' about a system based on randomness than one based on voluntary service.

Of course there is. Voluntary service, particularly at the enlisted level, mostly means "people who need the money". That removes a major disincentive to war for the elite political class whose children tend not to ever be very hard up for cash.

Is it 'fair' when a person who vocally opposes the countries involvement in a war gets drafted? Ask Clinton.

That is fair, yes.

Is it fair when a person with political connections can avoid the draft by getting assigned to a part of the service where they won't get deployed? Ask Bush.

That is not fair, and could be addressed and prevented structurally.

Drafts artificially lower the cost of going to war for the government by allowing the government to pay conscripts less than they would in a system that was based on voluntary service.

That, too, is an assumption that could be addressed and prevented structurally.

When they are allowed to conscript people through a draft, there's less incentive to provide adequate care and compensation because they will get the bodies they need whether the cost to compensate them is fair or not.

Ehhh, that's not very convincing. Adequate care is still a huge problem today for our all-volunteer military, and your average enlisted person is not compensated at nearly the level they would be in the private sector.

Silverstaff
You think that relying more on skill and technology than on bulk manpower means a draft would be better? You realize that for that skill and technology you are talking about long training time.

Why do you believe that the average enlisted volunteer would have that much more capacity to be trained than the average American, generally?

The Austrian army works on 6 month conscriptions, the US Army back in Vietnam had 2 year conscriptions. That's a very short period for all those technical skills to get any kind of return on the investment.

Arguments about whether war-fighting should be looked upon as in investment aside, we could have 3 year conscription terms, like Israel.

Again, we're talking in this tunnel vision mode of military efficiency. My whole point is that there are other considerations which ought to play a role in the makeup of our military. We have to strike a balance between efficiency and socio-political considerations.
 
2013-01-20 09:51:31 PM  
ih3.redbubble.net
 
2013-01-20 10:59:43 PM  

mrexcess: That is not fair, and could be addressed and prevented structurally.


Really? How? Because no one has ever come up with a way to do it before. Any 'random' system you create will have exceptions (people who aren't physically or mentally fit, the young, the old, the infirm, those who are sole care givers for the young, old, and infirm). There will also be systems in place to decide who will serve where (infantry, artillary, communications, intelligence, etc) unless you think that you can just randomly assign people to the various services and still have a functioning military (and you can't, because some people will lack the physical or mental attributes necessary for various jobs). Those systems will have people enforcing those rules, and those people will by definition to enforce the rules within various level of discretion. That means people with connections or from politically preferred groups will get preferential treatment over those who don't. People who have the ability to hire lawyers to appeal the various decisions made by the various agencies will get better treatment than those who don't.

Basically, your entire argument suffers from a fairly common problem. You see the problems with the current system, and you imagine a solution that would work perfectly, forgetting that the system you picture in your mind actually has to be implemented in a real world by real people, and not just in your mind where you can wave a hand and say "that can be addressed".

As to your other handwaving assertion, its basic economics that when you have a pool of forced labor, that labor will be uncompensated compared to a voluntary labor force. See slavery, prison labor, and every conscript army ever raised for examples.

mrexcess: That, too, is an assumption that could be addressed and prevented structurally.


It must be nice to live in your world, where tremendously complicated problems like that can be dealt with by waving your magic 'deal with it structurally' wand, without having to actually perform the impossible task of describing that structure.
 
2013-01-20 11:10:08 PM  

JPINFV: Austria!=Australia

/I know... that's the joke.
//I'm really waiting for the Fark EMS Brigade to jump on the use of the term "ambulance driver."



You know who else was an ambulance driver in Europe during WWI?


/E. Hemingway
//though he didn't live long enough to stay in a retirement home  : (
 
2013-01-20 11:38:59 PM  
How is that glasnost thing working out for the USSA, subby?

Personally I think that Barack Barackovich Obama will do more to take your country towards freedom than Gorbachev or Yeltsin ever could have.

/lame meme is lame
 
2013-01-21 01:49:19 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.

Everytime someone says that phrase, even in jest, Jesus kills a kitten

*twitch*


You shouldn't skin kittens. It makes tigers mad.
 
2013-01-21 04:43:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Doktor_Zhivago: MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.

Everytime someone says that phrase, even in jest, Jesus kills a kitten

*twitch*

You shouldn't skin kittens. It makes tigers mad.


Why do you think I have to carry this rock around?
 
2013-01-21 06:18:58 AM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: BMulligan: The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees with absolutely no desire to be there.

This.

How exactly the military would handle people who didn't want to be there would be huge challenge.

They can't do more than yell at you (went through it at ft. benning)


It would be a great way to troll the career military types who have to train them. It would be the equivalent to Gomer Pyle meets Police Academy. I wonder how many would fail the fitness requirement?
 
2013-01-21 07:26:37 AM  
How will having more unemployed people make it harder to fill jobs?
 
2013-01-21 07:59:04 AM  
I find it very interesting how a majority can decide (constitutionally) what a minority (young men) must do. I see no uproar. Suppose that the parliament should decide women have a duty to give birth, now that would be cool.
 
2013-01-21 09:13:10 AM  

MFAWG: The US needs a draft, mostly so everybody will have skin in the game in the most meaningful way possible.


Doesn't work - we had a "draft" back in the Vietnam days - for poor assholes like me. The children of the rich were safe from it if they chose to be - and thus it ever was.
 
2013-01-21 09:18:43 AM  
Bottom line - as long as we let the rich and powerful drag our country into wars that only benfit them, they will arrange for those wars to be fought by your children and mine - not by their own. You can institute all the "drafts" in the world, and that won't change.
 
2013-01-21 09:20:56 AM  

BMulligan: The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees


Not that I approve of the draft, but in another thread mention was made that service people have been at war way too long, with their recovery times cut too short, etc. It sounds like the armed forces do need more people so they can discharge some of the people that have served, or at least give them more time to recover between deployments.
 
2013-01-21 09:24:58 AM  

pciszek: BMulligan: The last thing our armed forces need right now is a massive influx of unnecessary inductees

Not that I approve of the draft, but in another thread mention was made that service people have been at war way too long, with their recovery times cut too short, etc. It sounds like the armed forces do need more people so they can discharge some of the people that have served, or at least give them more time to recover between deployments.


Or - and I know this is a radical solution - we could endeavor to have fewer deployments.
 
2013-01-21 09:25:11 AM  

mrexcess: Your objection mostly revolves around the assumption that wealthy/connected people would be able to exploit loopholes in the drafting system to dodge it. Obviously we'd want to eliminate that possibility.


Um, who do you think writes the draft laws in the first place?
 
2013-01-21 09:34:18 AM  

simplicimus: Service means citizenship?


During the immigration debate, one proposal was to grant citizenship to resident aliens who have completed service in the armed forces, and I was shocked to find out that that was not already the case--there are guys who are facing deportation instead of demobilization when their hitch is up. Others whose wives and kids were deported while they were in Iraq. shiat like this cannot possibly help morale.
 
2013-01-21 09:37:58 AM  

MFAWG: yup. Clearly anybody who isn't a card carrying conservatard never served.


Most conservatards never served, and every year on Veteran's Day, veterans who oppose the current wars are not allowed to march in the parades.
 
2013-01-21 09:43:20 AM  

dbirchall: Four million kids per year turning 18 isn't much of a problem


Cut the number in half. Do you really think the US would draft girls?
 
2013-01-21 10:16:42 AM  

Silverstaff: mrexcess: Silverstaff: From a purely "quality of soldiers" aspect, you're right that a professional force is generally better than a conscripted one. However, that's a form of tunnel vision - answering the question of "how should the military be composed" should be about more than just efficiency. It gets into some really fundamental, basic questions of democracy, equity, and responsibility.

Particularly in a force that, as you admit, "works more on using skill and technology" rather than depending on the physical fitness and group cohesion of individual troops, it seems right to consider whether or not a more equitable, if somewhat less cohesive, force would be a better fit for our nation.

You think that relying more on skill and technology than on bulk manpower means a draft would be better? You realize that for that skill and technology you are talking about long training time.

The Austrian army works on 6 month conscriptions, the US Army back in Vietnam had 2 year conscriptions. That's a very short period for all those technical skills to get any kind of return on the investment.

Between Basic and AIT I spent 8 months in training before I was even qualified for my MOS. A lot of MOS's require at least 6 months of training, a few require up to a year. Yeah, you can produce an infantryman in about 14 weeks, but for every Eleven Bang Bang out there kicking down doors you need your commo guys, your intel guys, your supply and personnel clerks, not to mention your various mechanics and drivers, which all take longer to train (especially those commo and intel jobs, and some repair/mechanic jobs).

The entire system has been built for almost 40 years now on the idea that soldiers volunteer for the job, contract for 4 to 6 years of Active Duty (during some peacetime lulls when recruiting was tough, like the late '90's, they offered "two years plus training" contracts for some MOS's that had fairly short schools) and they can spend the time to train up and develop ...


Wonder how many of the 2+Training guys who signed up in 1998 were pissed when they got out and were still on IRR on 9/11.
 
2013-01-21 10:35:36 AM  
gender equality, as ever, not even part of the debate
 
2013-01-21 10:37:44 AM  

ColdFusion: Wonder how many of the 2+Training guys who signed up in 1998 were pissed when they got out and were still on IRR on 9/11.


At least back then you could get out of it by claiming to be gay.

The worst thing about bringing back the draft would be that the Max Klinger gambit doesn't work anymore.
 
2013-01-21 11:45:44 AM  
What's so wrong with being an ambulance driver they have to get C.O.s to do it?

That doesn't strike me as being a bad job-- hell of a lot better than, say, Wal-Mart.
 
2013-01-21 03:02:28 PM  
Riche
What's so wrong with being an ambulance driver they have to get C.O.s to do it?

You have to pay them more than 500 bucks per month?
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report