Fabilius, the only way the US could have done better in Vietnam is if we traded our politicians to the Argentinians for more leather for our boots, the US Military was containing the forces of NV. It could even be argued that we won, the North had signed a peace treaty recognising the souths exsistance,they agreed to stop fighting. That was the US's objective. That was 1973 in 1975 the North broke the treaty,invaded the South and occupied it,our politicians would not even provide air support to the South or send resupply. It is food for AH as to what would have happened had we done just those things, but we had achieved a peace accord with the North more or less on our terms so it could be considered a win. My own thoughts are that not one person or country that was involved from 1945 onward won in that place.I bet this would not have positive effect. Maybe USA does better in Vietnam, but I bet in the long run people won´t like this kinda drafts.
Especially people like me.
Fabilius, the only way the US could have done better in Vietnam is if we traded our politicians to the Argentinians for more leather for our boots, the US Military was containing the forces of NV. It could even be argued that we won, the North had signed a peace treaty recognising the souths exsistance,they agreed to stop fighting. That was the US's objective. That was 1973 in 1975 the North broke the treaty,invaded the South and occupied it,our politicians would not even provide air support to the South or send resupply. It is food for AH as to what would have happened had we done just those things, but we had achieved a peace accord with the North more or less on our terms so it could be considered a win. My own thoughts are that not one person or country that was involved from 1945 onward won in that place.
The US would obviously have a bigger class divide between the college boys/officers and the grunts
US adopts 'universal military training' scheme, on old Prussian-style
model, peacetime 1954. All able-bodied men must go i nto Army after hs,
spend two years, no exceptions. Consequences?
Germany still has conscription- although they've gone more lax, and allow civil service or international volunteer service form what I understand.
I think history (esp the war in Iraq) shows it is only less likely ...If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.
The US would obviously have a bigger class divide between the college boys/officers and the grunts
Straha, I would LOVE to be your drill sergeant. The thought is making me smile...
The same goes for all you young punks (under 20). Gotten fat and lazy as civilians, have you?
not exactly, the idea actually is EVERYBODY does it. The one year voluntary service for higher educated recruits as opposed to the normal 2years you might have in mind while posting this sentence seems to me have more of an levelling effect as just a degree or ROTC.
Straha; said:Sure the rich boys would hve to do it but they'd be officers due to high connections. I think flocc once mentioend in chat abotu how the elites got perks when doing their naitonal service in singapore.
Yeh, sure, we won; that's why the capital is called Ho Chi Minh City. Our "victory" consisted of a piece of paper. The North was never defeated in any real sense so the treaty was no more than an armistice, basically, they agreed to not take over right away, so we had time to go home.
Vietnam is a fine example of why you shouldn't have a draft, or any other kind of Universal Slavery. If you're maintaining a huge army, you'll tend to use it. Korea and Vietnam, major wars just ten years apart, were both fought with American conscript armies. If your soldiers are slaves, with a slave's mentality, then their own officers won't care about their lives, and neither will the politicians. If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.
IF you have the brains god gave a gnat, if you're a New England transplant West Texas williwaw, all bets are off
An Army should be a highly trained, well-equipped and well-motivated arm of Professional Diplomacy, whose mission is vital to the nation's survival. To treat it as some sort of compulsory two year summer camp for wayward youth insults our youth, denigrates our Army and endangers our country. The same maxim applies to any other function you might apply the Universal Slavery to. If its important enough for government to do it at all, it deserves better than slave labor to do it.
Vietnam is a fine example of why you shouldn't have a draft, or any other kind of Universal Slavery. If you're maintaining a huge army, you'll tend to use it. Korea and Vietnam, major wars just ten years apart, were both fought with American conscript armies. If your soldiers are slaves, with a slave's mentality, then their own officers won't care about their lives, and neither will the politicians. If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.
.