SecDef Gates Says "Too Few Bear Burdens of War"

[Guest]

In a speech at Duke University (via Military.com), Defense Secretary Robert Gates says most Americans see military service as "something for other people to do."

Sounds like a lot of bleeding hearts I know.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Andrewwhyte 1]

His chief complaint seems to be that the lack of volunteers has driven wages up too high. If more people want to serve the brass won't have to treat them so dammed well.
The truth is that the USA of 2010 cannot afford an armed forces that is as large and well equipped as it is today. I don't think that is going to change. Governments are going to have to chose between cuts to medicare (not going to happen), cuts to the military (inevitable) and tax hikes (also inevitable) in order to get control of the finances.

[billvon 3,114]

>Defense Secretary Robert Gates says most Americans see military
>service as "something for other people to do."

Yep. Which is fine. Some people see training the military as "something for other people to do." I'm fine with that, too.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In a speech at Duke University (via Military.com), Defense Secretary Robert Gates says most Americans see military service as "something for other people to do."

Sounds like a lot of bleeding hearts I know.

mh
.

It sounds like an awful lot of the last Administration.. too busy to serve their country in time of war. They have set such a great example that Young Republicans in droves have emulated their service to America. I guess that would be ok.. IF they were not the ones clamoring for more wars.. like those in the Bush Administration.

Personally.. I think if you are gung ho for a war.. by all means.. join up and GO... but do not expect others to do it for you.

Chickenhawks piss me off and always have going back 40+ years now

[skipbelt 0]

17 years of service, when my son graduated basic training at fort sill it was one of my proudest days. his CO asked the crowd present how many of them were parents who also served. more than half stood up. thanks for the resentment plug !

[wmw999 2,587]

Maybe not with all of the details, but I agree with his basic premise. We Americans want what we want when we want it, with as little inconvenience to ourselves as possible.

During WW2 we put up with rationing; but since then we've tried to contain our wars so that they don't actually impact the people at home, while they are impacting the people in other countries.

I"m not saying that we should start having armies here, but maybe if we're at war somewhere we, as a people, should be willing to make some sacrifice for it, whether it's greater recycling of metals or who knows what.

We pull together best when we have a common cause.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

A good start would be the finance the war directly, either through war bonds like in WW2, or by an additional yearly tax. This tax could be progressive, but it would need to apply to all wage earners - it would not be effective if less than half paid it.

Then The People can decide how important that war is to the nation.

[Skyrad 0]

What is your definition of 'bleeding hearts' Mark?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What is your definition of 'bleeding hearts' Mark?

He forgot to add the liberals part... skipbelt on the other hand would NEVER have made an omission such as that though

[billvon 3,114]

>A good start would be the finance the war directly . . . by an additional yearly tax.

That would be an excellent idea. I think a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew that, within six months, they'd get hit with a $1000 bill for it.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

What is your definition of 'bleeding hearts' Mark?

He forgot to add the liberals part... skipbelt on the other hand would NEVER have made an omission such as that though

God you're good !
and fun to debated with !

as i write this i am listening to
little fugue1 -epower biggs-

[kallend 2,147]

maybe we should reduce our inclination to enter into optional wars until it matches the number of people who want to fight wars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>A good start would be the finance the war directly . . . by an additional yearly tax.

That would be an excellent idea. I think a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew that, within six months, they'd get hit with a $1000 bill for it.

If we had mandatory conscription for both genders, with no deferments and absolutely minimal exemptions, and everyone had to be in and continually train and serve in the Reserves until, say, age 50, maybe a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew ther result would be that their own daughters would get deployed into the combat zone.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>A good start would be the finance the war directly . . . by an additional yearly tax.

That would be an excellent idea. I think a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew that, within six months, they'd get hit with a $1000 bill for it.

If we had mandatory conscription for both genders, with no deferments and absolutely minimal exemptions, and everyone had to be in and continually train and serve in the Reserves until, say, age 50, maybe a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew ther result would be that their own daughters would get deployed into the combat zone.

I have supported that for YEARS. I think EVERYONE should have to serve their country... I don't care who the hell your family is.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>A good start would be the finance the war directly . . . by an additional yearly tax.

That would be an excellent idea. I think a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew that, within six months, they'd get hit with a $1000 bill for it.

If we had mandatory conscription for both genders, with no deferments and absolutely minimal exemptions, and everyone had to be in and continually train and serve in the Reserves until, say, age 50, maybe a lot of people would think twice about supporting a war if they knew ther result would be that their own daughters would get deployed into the combat zone.

I have supported that for YEARS. I think EVERYONE should have to serve their country... I don't care who the hell your family is.

Yes.
At least go through basic training and serve two years after college, and immediately if you drop out of high school.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

I have supported that for YEARS. I think EVERYONE should have to serve their country... I don't care who the hell your family is.

I think it depends on what you mean by "serve their country."

Imagine if instead of it only meaning joining the military it also meant things like community service and working for the government in other ways. I could get behind that in a heart beat, but just off the top of my head it doesn't seem like mandatory military service would scale correctly. There would be too many people for the size of the military actually required.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I have supported that for YEARS. I think EVERYONE should have to serve their country... I don't care who the hell your family is.

I think it depends on what you mean by "serve their country."

Imagine if instead of it only meaning joining the military it also meant things like community service and working for the government in other ways. I could get behind that in a heart beat, but just off the top of my head it doesn't seem like mandatory military service would scale correctly. There would be too many people for the size of the military actually required.

It sure would teach SOME people the value of a dollar and the meaning of work.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I have supported that for YEARS. I think EVERYONE should have to serve their country... I don't care who the hell your family is.

I think it depends on what you mean by "serve their country."

Imagine if instead of it only meaning joining the military it also meant things like community service and working for the government in other ways. I could get behind that in a heart beat, but just off the top of my head it doesn't seem like mandatory military service would scale correctly. There would be too many people for the size of the military actually required.

Some people have the aptitude for the military... some have an aptitude for cleaning National Park Trails.

BUT everyone should have to serve in some capacity, and yes... BASIC for everyone.... even the fatbodies like Pvt Pyle

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Some people have the aptitude for the military... some have an aptitude for cleaning National Park Trails.

BUT everyone should have to serve in some capacity, and yes... BASIC for everyone.... even the fatbodies like Pvt Pyle

Too bad the fitness requirements are being (have been) lowered because there are too many "fatbodies".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20015281-10391704.html

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lurch 0]

Amazon: the opinion expressed by both yourself and Turtle is far scarier than any enemy this country will ever face. I do not expect you to understand why.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Amazon: the opinion expressed by both yourself and Turtle is far scarier than any enemy this country will ever face. I do not expect you to understand why.

So tell us ... why do you hate America so that you find serving your country so completely objectionable.

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

Some people have the aptitude for the military... some have an aptitude for cleaning National Park Trails.

BUT everyone should have to serve in some capacity, and yes... BASIC for everyone.... even the fatbodies like Pvt Pyle

I'm totally down with this, too. I would encourage them to include the vast majority of kids who would be considered disabled as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Some people have the aptitude for the military... some have an aptitude for cleaning National Park Trails.

BUT everyone should have to serve in some capacity, and yes... BASIC for everyone.... even the fatbodies like Pvt Pyle

I'm totally down with this, too. I would encourage them to include the vast majority of kids who would be considered disabled as well.

Wendy P.

Why not?

Everyone is capable of adding something to the good of this country. I for one am tired of those who feel the country owes them something for nothing. Being fortunate enough to be born here or to emmigrate here does not mean that we the people OWE each and every one of them a carefree life.

On the flip side... you give the country 2 years... and you GET two years in college or a trade school... the ultimate in GI Bill.

[skipbelt 0]

isreal does something very similar to what you describe !

[lurch 0]

Let me ask you another question that may answer yours, rather than step into the usual logical boobytraps people tend to set for each other in this forum. Such as the rather crude one you have attempted to lay for me here.

No offense, but I've been observing the behavior of individuals here for quite some time... including yours... and although some of the time I agree with your positions, you are no more immune to ideological fanaticism than anyone else here, Maam.

My question is this:

What makes you think you have the the right to dispose of the lives and time of any and all citizens as you see fit? To dictate, who and what they will serve? To decide, how several years of their lives should be spent? And to have it enforced for you, by politicians, at the point of a gun?

America, I love. People who claim the right to take control of the lives of others... to force them to serve the current reigning interests... not so much.

I told you. I do not expect you to understand why. I could continue to explain... but you still won't. However I can sum it up in one word...
Freedom.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.