Military Enlistment Processing Command(MEPC) is insane.

SpasticSage · Post by **SpasticSage** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:59 pm

Moo Cow wrote:Question... if hypothetically there were a draft, and someone gay were drafted, could they just say "hey, i'm gay" and get out? or would the officer stick their fingers in their ear and go "la la la i can't hear you!!!" Or would they make the person prove it?

Not being a military-type I don't know.

But it would give straight pacifists an interesting choice.

UgghTheCaveman · Post by **UgghTheCaveman** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:24 pm

Moo Cow wrote:*nods* I think it's an improvement, sure.... we've still got a ways to go though.

Question... if hypothetically there were a draft, and someone gay were drafted, could they just say "hey, i'm gay" and get out? or would the officer stick their fingers in their ear and go "la la la i can't hear you!!!" Or would they make the person prove it?

~SDara

My understanding is that the draft officer running the station has the option of demanding you "prove" it (give some sort of evidence, even if it's simply medical evidence of having experienced recieving anal sex (for a guy...no clue how a lesbian could "prove" anything other than tuna diving on film or in front of witnesses acceptable to the officer in question)), and be found "unfit" for enlistment, even under draft conditions.

However, since that hasn't ever been put to any sort of test to provide for precedent to adhere to, since re-relaxing the UCMJ standards on homosexual behavior, I would guess that if ciurcumstances were severe enough to cause a draft law to pass Congress successfully, that the GAL rights groups' collective influence over politics has been sufficient that it probably wouldn't work out that way.

What I mean is the GAL equality charge has been lead so successfully, that IF a draft were instituted, I suspect that the first time such a case made it into ANY court, for whatever reason, equal rights legislation and precedent would be interpereted in such a way that outing onesself would no longer be an efective way, even WITH the most blatant "proof" one could provide, to disqualify a draftee.

Which means dodgers would have to resort to the old "use a Q tip too roughly" routine, or similar physical disqualifiers.

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:20 pm

Long ago when I registered for the draft-we-don't-have a few friends and I were talking about what to do in case there were conscription. One thought was that we should go to the draft board in pairs and kiss passionately.

A friend who's now a pharmacist in the Navy said "Don't do that. Next war they'll have special units for you guys. You'll even be in front of the Blacks."

"And if two of you walk in there, sing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walk out they'll think you're queer, and they won't take either of you."

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:12 am

Back in the old days cowards usually just had parties where they'd each take turns shooting themselves in the foot.

I think Robert Heinlan said it best, If a country can't find enough people willing to voluntarily fight for it, that country doesn't deserve to survive.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:16 pm

That's a good way to put it, but nonetheless I think in times of war conscription is perfectly fine. It prevents the burden of war from falling entirely on the poor.

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:01 pm

Actually, there used to be a time where you could buy your way out of the draft.

if you think that the poor are the only ones who have enough patriotic fortitude to serve their country, remember this; all of our officers are college educated, all of our generals have a masters.

it shouldn't be an economic thing. you should serve your country for no other reason than your your love for it.

the draft only provides more bodies.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:03 pm

Sometimes bodies are all we need, just people who will shoot at stuff. But, as it is right now, our military seems to work just fine.

Nithos · Post by **Nithos** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:47 pm

That's definatly one of Heinlein's best lines ever.

The draft only provides bodies, but bodies carry rifles; you can't occupy territory with bombs.

And it's a nice idea, people only joining the military for love of country, but a hell of a lot of soldiers are simply mercenaries-on-retainer. Who else is going to take someone with no chance at higher education and offer them a job with insurance, money for college, and a pension? Hell, who else is offering a pension? The military's one of the few good shots at economic mobility I can think of, and that's reason enough to take a bullet in my mind.

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:56 pm

Nithos wrote:That's definatly one of Heinlein's best lines ever.

The draft only provides bodies, but bodies carry rifles; you can't occupy territory with bombs.

And it's a nice idea, people only joining the military for love of country, but a hell of a lot of soldiers are simply mercenaries-on-retainer. Who else is going to take someone with no chance at higher education and offer them a job with insurance, money for college, and a pension? Hell, who else is offering a pension? The military's one of the few good shots at economic mobility I can think of, and that's reason enough to take a bullet in my mind.

I'm not saying that what we do now should be discontinued, just that the main reason should be your duity as a citizen. Hell, I choes the six year contract just so the Army has to pay for my colledge expenses. but that's not the reason i origionally chose to enlist. which is to serve my country like every other member of my family that came before me. The benefits are just icing on the cake, and the cherry on top of that.

You can hold an intersection just as well with five dedicated and professional soldiers as you can with ten conscripts.

UgghTheCaveman · Post by **UgghTheCaveman** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:43 pm

Make that two, sleeping in shifts.

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:42 pm

Yeah, at least you cant' buy your way out of a draft now... theoretically.

Foot shooting parties must have been a blast.

Gaykissing in front of drafting officials would be amusing but prollly futile

And as for Alice's restaurant... well that speaks for itself. I know I would say... "I wanna keel! I wanna eat dead burnt bodies! I wanna see veins in mah teeth! I wann keel keel keel1!!!!!" I listen to that song every year.

~Sara

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:07 pm

Heh... I can imagine the fun the kissing could give.

"Look, we're gay!" *kiss*

" Hmmm... I'm note sure... you didn't seem to enjoy it that much. i think you're faking it."

"WHAT? Oh... and what about THIS then?" *snog*

"Oh please... your hands aren't even going under the belt.

"Well... I WAS going to be non-offensive but..." *snogs and gropes and rubs*

"Hmmmm... maybe you are... a BIT gay... but you look like you could keep yourself from molesting commanding officers."

"I CAN'T! Look, I'm unable to resist this guy's manly charms right now!" *falls on the floor, clothes start to come off.*

"Hmmm.... your arguments ARE compelling, but I hesitate..."

"Hey... is that a webcam?"

"Euh... no?"

And that's the story of how the US army made millions with gay porn.

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:43 pm

Major Maxillary wrote:Actually, there used to be a time where you could buy your way out of the draft.

There was, and during the Civil War it caused rioting and protests that could have brought down Lincoln's government.

f you think that the poor are the only ones who have enough patriotic fortitude to serve their country, remember this; all of our officers are college educated, all of our generals have a masters.

it shouldn't be an economic thing. you should serve your country for no other reason than your your love for it.

Shouldn't be, but frequently is. The rich are much less likely to serve than the working and middle class. The only period where I ever seriously studied the issue Congressmen and Senators just plain didn't have children or grandchildren in combat arms of the service. Their offspring were safely kept in the back lines.

Again, during Vietnam there was an explicit program of drafting poor, uneducated men who did not meet the DoD's minimum standards for intelligence. They were all leg infantry toting rifles. Friends who were DIs and who taught other skills in Basic said it didn't surprise them. They got whole cohorts who were, in their considered opinion, not mentally or emotionally fit for service let alone combat.

Officers are supposed to be educated gentlemen and ladies. The college requirement is fairly recent. Again, for many the ROTC is their way through college. Many have been the first in their families to get higher education. Even the ring-knockers are often from modest backgrounds and get through on the government's nickel.

the draft only provides more bodies.

In the two World Wars it served to organize the bodies as much as anything else. There was no shortage of volunteers. During Vietnam it was used to provide bodies for a war which was not popular enough to generate sufficient meat for the grinder.

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:15 am

Rand Al'tor wrote:And that's the story of how the US army made millions with gay porn.

Wow. THat's awesome.

~Sara

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:21 am

Rand Al'tor wrote:And that's the story of how the US army made millions with gay porn.

*applause*

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:12 am

Nobody really cares about sexuality anymore. as long as you aren't boning your superiors, and you don't get any "products" of your activities, the command could give a rat's ass.

case in point; Tho of the Commanding Officers in my Dad's old unit were gay. saw 'em making out int a stair well. nothing happend to them.

And again, I remain unchanged in my oppinion that the draft is unjust, and should never be reinstated.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:53 am

We really don't need it with today's techonology. In the world wars it was necassary because of the sheef amount of fodder we needed on the battlefield.

UgghTheCaveman · Post by **UgghTheCaveman** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:08 am

I agree with you, about the draft, Major Maxillary, but for what I think are basically different reasons.

Some of the reasons closely align (for instance, I basically agree that any nation that can't get enough people to support it's policies by volunteering doesn't deserve to be able to enforce them), some apparantly don't (I don't want to share a foxhole with a guy who doesn't believe in what he's doing, doesn't want to achieve the objectives, doesn't care about his fellow soldiers).

IMO, a draft is NOT a good thing, EXCEPT where it's instituted to help control placement and numbers...a "voluntary draft", so to speak...or a policy where volunteers can violunteer for specific branches and duties, and even make their dominant desires known, but agree, by volunteering, to be placed in the service and MOS they best qualify for that's most needed at the time.

We have amny shortcomings in this country's military standards, at this time, including placement...

A few things I'd like to see done:

do away with the "no violent felonies or drug convictions to enlist" rule
- require that an enlistee with drug offenses on record take six months to enlist, proving consistantly through that period that they aren't doping anymore
- require violent felons who try to enlist go through a year's "probation" before joining, reporting to an enlistment officer, taking drug tests, going through military supplied counselling, etcetera, and stayign out of trouble, BEFORE joining, then being on "probation" for the first two years of their enlistment, where failure to be a respectable soldier results in completing their term in a military prison, THEN being tried for any charges they may have amassed as a soldier, and serving THAT time (if they want the advantages, they need to take the risks...risk big to win big)
do away with the minimum educational requirements...provide a scrap of the federal education budget for literacy and basic math skills classes for enlistees...they join, are found "wanting" in education, and are given a similar TDY seperation to that of soldiers taking a LOA to attend college...basically, if you join for four years, pass the physical, pass basic training, but are lacking in GED/diploma, or are under standard in literacy or basic math skills, you're "detatched from duty" from your normal assignment BEFORE attending AIT (which is before your family is allowed to join you), housed in barracks and fed, the way any basic/AIT soldier is, but your "duty day" is to attend classes designed to correct the educational shortvcomings, BEFORE you can continue on to AIT in your assigned/chosen MOS...but this time does NOT count towards your "enlistment term"...if you enlisted for four years, and needed to take a year in these conditions, to meet educational standards (or because you chose to spend a year going after a real diploma, rather than 6 weeks in the GED course), then you end up serving FIVE years instead of four
COmplete abolishion of the homophobic blue laws, and even enforcement of ALL of them...basically make it so it don't matter if you're gay or straight, so long as you're not screwing on duty, having relations with subordinates, not engaging in "immorral" behavior on military time (on off duty time, fuck who and how you want, so long's it's consentual, and doesn't violate OTHER military laws, such as "fraternization" rules), etcetera...who cares if your squadmate's "wife" needs to shave more often than his commander, and has a deeper voice? IME, that's the case anyhow, quite often, with military wives of a heterosexual nature (what IS it with these skinny little soldier groupies who get married, and six months later, gain 95 pounds, grow a Fu Manchu that they poorly bleach, and develop into incipiant Jerry Springer guest material? Must be somethign they put in the military quality "neutrals" used for innoculation suspensions, or something...my ex was GORGEOUS, from a good family, intelligent, and all that when I met her, while I was in, six months later, I would watch Maury in the dayroom, and ENVY some of the guys on it for having such sophisticated and attractive girlfriends!)

There are many more changes I'd make, but THOSE would be a good start...after all, if someone's going to volunteer to lay their life down for this country, on orders, regardless of whether they are actually defending our borders or not, then the country should damned well do ITS best by THEM, as well.

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 pm

You've got some good points, Caveman.....

~Sara

Nithos · Post by **Nithos** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:09 pm

Private Max wrote:Nobody really cares about sexuality anymore. as long as you aren't boning your superiors, and you don't get any "products" of your activities, the command could give a rat's ass.

case in point; Tho of the Commanding Officers in my Dad's old unit were gay. saw 'em making out int a stair well. nothing happend to them.

Unfortunatly, that's really variable by unit. There's at least one person in my unit who's not telling, and a few people know. Hell, I think even chief knows, but he's cool. The problem is the regulations still exist to drive someone out if someone chooses to enforce them, one irritating bigot and a career is ruined. Her partner's military, too, so they've got double the risk.

swordsman3003 wrote:We really don't need it with today's techonology. In the world wars it was necassary because of the sheef amount of fodder we needed on the battlefield.

As I said before, bombs don't secure territory. One soldier may be able to handle more due to better equipment, but if only for their eyes and ears, sheer numbers can't be beat (in terms of utility, I don't mean sheer numbers can't be blown to hell with a MOAB). What's more important is the kinds of wars being fought more so than the tools being used. Most nations get by on much smaller militaries per capita because they don't unilaterally hold territory, they're just defensive forces and an occassional UN intervention; in both cases a few people with really big weapons work great, and with the UN you've got enough nations pooling together to get the sheer numbers needed. The US has issues with force strength in Iraq and Afghanistan because we're trying to control nations, not just blow them up.

And you might want to make that bit about the world wars singular... world war one was a fuckin' farce*. Insane numbers of people thrown in to meat grinders for no other reason than generals who liked seeing sausage being made. They could have reinacted that war with a skeleton crew manning the machine guns and artillery, and just told everyone else to go home and wait for the invention of tanks and planes so the lines would start moving.

*See the finest work on the subject "Black Adder Goes Fourth"