ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Military: considering 16 year old recruits
Prison Bitch 10:31 AM 07-21-2019
I guess nobody wants to die for Uncle Scam anymore





Military eyes 16-year-olds as ranks and candidates dwindle

By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 18, 2019



Last year, the Army fell short of its recruiting goal for the first time in a decade. The Army had set a goal of 76,500 recruits and pulled in just under 70,000, according to Defense Department figures.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...over-enlistme/


[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:57 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
There are a lot of illegal immigrants in the country who want a pathway to citizenship if we're having trouble meeting our recruitment numbers. It seems like a few years in the military would be a good assimilation enhancer.
That's already being done. When you have an army fighting for globalism, instead of America and her border, guess we'd have to build a sort of foreign legion. Not exactly the type of people that wouldn't refuse orders, if told to turn on the American people. Only Americans should serve if they're going to be used for defense.

VERY BAD IDEA! IMO. It's the sort of unAmerican and progressive thing I expect you to support tho.'

Outside of that digression—16 is too young even if they know. They're not even considered fully grown adults then. They want to attend some military hi school where they learn and practice military stuff then fine but they should not be in the military yet where they can be sent off to combat.
[Reply]
Coyote 04:02 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by vailpass:
This data appears relevant and possibly controlling.
“U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973. On the day in 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls.”

So for 46 years worth of data has a predictive quality to recruitment and your selected pool in particular.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 04:17 PM 07-21-2019
Here's another problem I have allowing 16 year olds to serve in the military. The next thing will be that they're old enough to fight but not for voting. So the voting age will be moved back. Bad idea all around, not just for the 16 year olds but for the country.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 04:19 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by Coyote:
“U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973. On the day in 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls.”

So for 46 years worth of data has a predictive quality to recruitment and your selected pool in particular.
Carter amnestied draft-dodgers of the Vietnam era, because the govt didn't want to see the selective service decided in a SC case. Another reason why there's been no draft calls. Too risky for the state.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 04:26 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
Patt, the first step they took on American soil or breath of American air they took was against the law. Their very first act in this country was illegal. We are not talking about doing 57 in a 55 here.

If I snuck into your house, would you think I respected you or your house? I'm betting not. I certainly wouldn't if it were reversed. As a matter of fact, I would show you the business end of my favorite rifle.
:-)
This is such a dumb comparison.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 04:27 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
When they cross the border illegally, they deserve to be sent back. Some of them are bad people, but not all. And it doesn't make them bad people or people who don't respect our country or our laws any more than it does when you or I break laws. Spare me the grandiose "first step" bullshit. It's more like walking through your pasture than breaking into your house. Are you going to gun down the tresspassing neighbor kids who just want to take a shortcut across the back 40?
After reading so many of your ridiculous posts, it's hard to remember that you are occasionally capable of a reasonable one like this.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 04:38 PM 07-21-2019
Nope. Not a good idea. I don't support this.
[Reply]
Prison Bitch 05:23 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
:-)
This is such a dumb comparison.
It’s a perfectly valid one, since they are immediately eligible for medical care and education at our expense. Think for once.
[Reply]
Coyote 05:34 PM 07-21-2019
Ford and the draft evaders amnesty

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...serters-815747

Carter and draft evaders amnesty. A campaign promise kept on first day in office:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/vietn...n-instructions

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...21-1977-346493
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/...21-1977-007974
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...-draft-dodgers

SC, Congress and Carter and Male Registration for the draft:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...ZO-453_US_57n3

Registration history:
https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/selective-service

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sele...Service_System

Future? I don’t see a draft. Registration? Maybe a relook is due by SC or Congress/ law. No interest on the horizon and as a contingency (for what? That’s why they’re called contingencies) it’s relatively cheap.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 05:46 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
It’s a perfectly valid one, since they are immediately eligible for medical care and education at our expense. Think for once.
Your endorsement of it is further evidence of its stupidity.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:18 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by Coyote:
Ford and the draft evaders amnesty

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...serters-815747

Carter and draft evaders amnesty. A campaign promise kept on first day in office:

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/vietn...n-instructions



https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...21-1977-346493
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/...21-1977-007974
Neither covers their reasons for doing away with the draft and I don't believe Ford's public reason either.

However, the best part is in this link:
Originally Posted by :
Although there is not currently a draft in the U.S., desertion and conscientious objection have remained pressing issues among the armed forces during the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From this link you used: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...-draft-dodgers

Originally Posted by :
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...-draft-dodgers

SC, Congress and Carter and Male Registration for the draft:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...ZO-453_US_57n3

Registration history:
https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/selective-service

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sele...Service_System

Future? I don’t see a draft. Registration? Maybe a relook is due by SC or Congress/ law. No interest on the horizon and as a contingency (for what? That’s why they’re called contingencies) it’s relatively cheap.
I don't see how a case regarding the issue of women being drafted for combat has to do with one for the SS specifically. Other clauses of the Constitution apply well, such as the "liberty" clause, where so many other cases have been brought which actually neutered federalism by over riding state laws. But especially the abolishment of "involuntary servitude" with the 13th Amendment—exactly what SS Registration is.

Ronald Reagan said it best:
"The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.
**** the opinion of some on the SC about Congress having broad authority to raise armies. For those who claim it's not patriotic America is not the US government.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle love the idea that citizens should serve the needs of the state whether it's fighting aggressive wars in Iraq or saving humanity in Dafur like the left wanted. This was not what raising an army was supposed to be about by our Framers.

I say:

Time to Abolish the Selective Service
[Reply]
Chief Pagan 11:03 PM 07-21-2019
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Here's another problem I have allowing 16 year olds to serve in the military. The next thing will be that they're old enough to fight but not for voting. So the voting age will be moved back. Bad idea all around, not just for the 16 year olds but for the country.
And if they are mature enough to join the military than it would seem to me that states shouldn't be allowed to have the age of consent be older.

Old enough to kill foreign enemies, old enough to sleep with who you want to.
[Reply]
J Diddy 11:09 PM 07-21-2019
my son is leaning heavily towards joining the army when he graduates. Maybe that’ll save them from drafting 16 year olds.
[Reply]
Prison Bitch 06:50 AM 07-22-2019
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
Your endorsement of it is further evidence of its stupidity

You’re a blue hive drone tho, so you don’t even have the capability of determining what is (and isn’t) stupid.
[Reply]
Coyote 07:49 AM 07-22-2019
“Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"
The common slogan used by proponents of lowering the voting age to 18

... On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. 26th Amendment

We raised the drinking age to 21 in the 90s. MADD and all that. Ironically, then folks starting driving to get off base to bars.
Still discussed at times:
https://www.militarytimes.com/opinio...e-21-to-drink/

Used to be able to drink on federal military installations, regardless of state laws at 18. Base clubs made $. Also used to be more public access so 18 year old women from off base would be guests. At most Marine bases enlisted club closing time was decided by the area duty officer based on rowdy level and the MPs would shut the club. In my youth as an x college bouncer (most football players were at my school after the season, part of the deal then) “rowdy” level for me was too high for my bosses.
Plus the guests and guys just shifted to the beach at Camp Pendleton so I’d have to close that too. I’d give em an hour.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Up