Military Enlistment Processing Command(MEPC) is insane.

[Squidflakes]

Cave, you ain't kiddin about them military wimmin.

I've lived within spitting distance from some sort of base or another for the last 20 years, and like the damn Thunderdome two hotties enter, one trailer skank leaves.

Maybe its the soul-crushing uniformity of base housing, maybe its the marginilizing effect of "social" life on the base, or maybe its all the cheap ass food at the BX/PX/mess hall.

I mean Jesus Fuck, 35 CENTS for a damn double bacon cheeseburger? Two burgers, fries, a milkshake, a coke, and an order of jalapeno poppers for $1.25? I think THAT is the primary reason for Base Bitch Booty.

[UgghTheCaveman]

You might just have hit upon the reason for the chubby factor, there, Squiddy, but how do you explain the onset of "trailerparkitis of the brain" that causes the loss of sophistication, manners, intelligence, common sense, and such?


Moo Cow, my basic theory is that IF the military is going to be maintained at more than the "core cadre" level that our founding fathers envisioned (the reason for the second amendment being worded the way it is is that our standing military was supposed to be smaller, per capita, than Canada's modern military, to maintain and train PROFESSIONAL soldiers who would then act as our fast reaction forces and the training command and officer/NCO cadre for an all volunteer military that would volunteer to serve in times of crisis, and be discharged when the state of emergency was over. This is WHY we have a proitected right to kep and bear arms, as a "well regulated militia"...because, reality being what it is, our forefathers KNEW that supplying a huge influx of volunteer soldiers overnight was an impossibility, and if everyone brought their own squirrel guns, at least they'd have SOMETHING to shoot back at the opposing military, while waiting for supplies of more modern equipment to make it through production and channels to fill unit's needs.../end digression), then it shoudl definately fulfill part of the need to provide for the social/educational/economic mobility that the ideals of this nation "promise" to the citizens...its peacetime roll should be to IMPROVE the general situation of the citizenry, through providing educational, employment, and training oppertunities, in return for service.




Basically, I think we shouldn't be so "soft" and "PC" with our inductees and trainees...combat training SHOULD result in a fairly regular and signifigant number of "training related deaths" and injuries...and those who become victims of such should recieve full benefits, as if it had happened in actual combat...because the only way to turn out a "field ready" soldier who you can TRULY anticipate how well he'll perform in the field, is to subject him/her to those conditions as part of the training to begin with. But in return for taking that kind of risk, and for making the gesture of willingness to die for the country, if necessary, whether it's in direct defense of our borders, as part of training, or because we got into a political situation elsewhere that we couldn't solve WITHOUT application of force, whether they personally agree with the decisions, or not, we owe our soldiers a HELL of alot more than they get. Guarenteeing that they will get training in fields of their choice that they can put to use in the civilian world later, instead of just making such training available, IF they happen to get into the MOS they choose, would be a good step. The GI Bill and college bill are great things, goign in the right direction. BUT, guarenteeing to provide at LEAST a basic education, training in the field of choice for civilian employment (so long as the military HAS a specialty in such field), and offering the undereducated, or those who made mistakes, got those mistakes on a record thatw oudl otherwise follow them for life, quite possibly actively PREEVTING them from pursuing true upward mobility otherwise, a chance to "clean their record" and learn saleable and valuable skills they can apply in the civilian world, IF they don't decide to go carreer military BECAUSE the military was the first group ever to "cut them a break", and make it possible to live successfully WITHOUT violating laws, and so on, would be just the right thing to do, IMO.


Basically, pay back the volunteers who serve us by providing them the VERY BASIC services that will make it possible for them to better themselves legitimately. Give them an option.

[Lowky]

Personally i like the way some of the European countries handle it. Mandatory Conscription for all, though there is the choice of peace corp/Military. Make the citizanry give back something to their country for the things the government provides. Hell even if only 2 years, it ought to work better than "selective service". Of course one of my chief complaints with selective service is why is it only the men that have to sign up for it. Women now hold the same positions as men in the military. They aren't confined to sitting behind a secretarial desk or being a nurse.

[UgghTheCaveman]

My problem with that is that "mandatory service" is just as much conscription as any other kind of draft...it doesn't take the participant's choice into account, they are REQUIRED to serve, regardless of if they wish to, or not.

IMO, it's dangerous to FORCE someone to do something that they may not want to do, train them DELIEBRATELY in ways and means of being potentially deadly, and then handing them military grade weapons.

[Squidflakes]

You might just have hit upon the reason for the chubby factor, there, Squiddy, but how do you explain the onset of "trailerparkitis of the brain" that causes the loss of sophistication, manners, intelligence, common sense, and such?

Same reason BRAT girls are either dumb as fucking posts, or just seem that way till they get applied linear analysis on your slack jawed Algebra I ass.

The standard military social model is for girls to be young, dumb, and pretty until they hit that special age where hormones, egg follicles, and local age of consent statutes conspire to make them walking baby factories. Of course, their legs have been spreading faster than JP4 across hot tarmac for every Pvt. Studley that gives them the tinglepanties since they were old enough to have the tinglepanties.

The actually dumb ones follow this model to the letter and wouldn't be caught reading anything more challenging than the back of a business card. These are the ones you need to watch out for, because their chief weapons are puffy eyes and Monroe hips and as much as your rational mind tries to stop you, you're suddenly paying their tab at the Waffle House. You don't know you're trapped until your zipper is waving goodbye to your Y-fonts and 21 years of bubble-gum chewing and pouting baby-pink are suddenly wrapped around your cock, and THAT.. .. that is when the door flies open and Sgt. Shitkicker comes striding through the door, fresh off a jag as an AIT DI, nose full of meth, and hand full of .45.

The actually smart ones go completely out of their way to hide the fact that they have either bodies or brains until they join up and lick more snatch than Honor at an all-night pussy pile, or get the fuck out of dodge and never look back. These are the ones you need to watch out for, because they've been hiding behind that bulky sweater and brittle vapid mask for years, and they go off like god damn Fuck-tomic bomb. Up until this point you thought you were pretty damn kinky too, but the look on your face when you realize that the term "experimental" doesn't even begin to cover her is absolutely priceless, and her theoretical physics prof. reminds you of this ever time you see him in the hall. That on top of you being such a dumb son of a bitch that you actually said "I'd rather get a blowjob because I want my dick closer to your brain" because you thought it was a compliment.

So yea, to answer your question.. man, I don't have any fucking clue.

[UgghTheCaveman]

LOL...well, you kind of explained the success I had as a lothario, back in the pre-marriage portion of my enlistment, at any rate.

But I was generally the one that ended up blowing minds with the "experimental" phase...then again, I also wasn't the stereotypical "cannon fodder" grunt, no matter how hard I tried to act it, and fit in...my spelling and typing are atrocious, thanks to lysdexia and one hand being short a couple fingers since '94, but, for some reason, I was one of the "smart idiots" who throw the GT score curve off for the grunts...


I knida miss the life I had the first couple years of my enlistment, buit after "The Beast" sank her claws into me, I had a REALLY bad handful of years, before I managed to get loose...eventually found myself a smart, cute, and intelligent gal with a thing for cocky asses with too much in the way of "useless trivia" packed into their heads, and not enough common sense to look at a given situation, think "that looks dnagerous as hell", and decide NOT to try it anyhow.

[Swordsman3003]

Military life seems rather...interesting.

[Moo Cow]

Basically, I think we shouldn't be so "soft" and "PC" with our inductees and trainees...combat training SHOULD result in a fairly regular and signifigant number of "training related deaths" and injuries...and those who become victims of such should recieve full benefits, as if it had happened in actual combat...because the only way to turn out a "field ready" soldier who you can TRULY anticipate how well he'll perform in the field, is to subject him/her to those conditions as part of the training to begin with.

See, i can't help but let that creep me the fuck out.

~Sara

[UgghTheCaveman]

Rightfully, it SHOULD "creep you the fuck out", Moo Cow, but that doesn't, in the least, invalidate it.

When I went through Basic/OSUT back in '88, Drills weren't allowed to lay a hand on you, except during hand to hand combat training, for any purpose OTHER than breaking up a fight, and they CERTAINLY couldn't hit or restrain an enlistee...this wasn't true in Dad's day, or Grandad's.

The result was, since we didn't have anything to fear other than getting screamed at, or doing some pushups or other "exhaustion exercizes", lots of guys "dozed" through "uninteresting" classes, such as the NBC (nuke/bio/chem) lecture, and the lectures on silhouette recognition for vehicles from different militaries.

The result was that "friendly fire" incidents were 3500 times more common, per capita, than during 'Nam, with many soldiers using MAGNIFYING, ELECTONICALLY ASSISTED sighting systems failing to recognize vehicles from their OWN BLOODY SERVICE AND COUNTRY in borad daylight...Tankers shooting Bradleys, and HIMITZ tankers, and MLRS vehicles, and so on, after callign them in as Russian made vehicles they didn't resemble in the least. AT least, during 'Nam, alot of the "friendly fire" incidents were DELIBERATE ("fragging"), and most of the rets could be blamed on lack of clear sight in a dense jungle...but in Shield/Storm, you could see humans on foot 2 miles away clearly enough to identify them as dismounted soldiers, by naked eye (you could even tell which side they were on, and basically how they were set up, whether they were soldiers or civilians, for the most part, so long as the sun wasn't behind them)



In today's MARINES (who supposedly have the toughest basic training system), soldiers are given 6 "red cards" per day they can use at any given time...when they use one of these cards, they are given a five minute "time out" from whatever is going on, that their instructor is FORBIDDEN to "make up", or to discipline them later for using.

Under these circumstances, how do you think these pampered little boys are goign to react the first time someone honestly trying to KILL them are going to react? How are they going to stack up against someone who grew up in a war zone, dodging bullets, and avoiding improvised explosive (like car bombs) who is armed with equivalent weapons, is USED ot having to duck and cover to preserve his life, rather than having had it halfassed trained into him as if it were just a rather intense game that the "coach" REALLY wanted to win?




A soldier's job, if he ever hits a combat zone, is an ugly thing...a dehumanizing and brutal thing. This is why it damages their psyche so often, and why so many have "issues" with adjusting BACK to "civilized society". BUT, if you want him to come back, he has to KNOW this before he GETS there...because if he doesn't learn it UNTIL he gets there, those that DO learn this ONLY learn it by watching the unfortunate ones die...and the ones fortunate enough to survive the FIRST lesson, but slow to learn, usually don't survive the second or third lesson (this is why, In Viet Nam, it was commonly said by soldiers, that if you survived your first month in the field, you were likely to be one of the ones who would make it home). It's NOT pretty, or civilized, or nice to contemplate...but neither are many aspects of reality (such as contemplating just how that gorgeous wolf survives, or exactly how the American Cougar is making such a nice comeback in the Cascades and Rockies, through having discovered that, though deer are less populous, and hunting farmland isn't really safe, if they don't want to be hunted by an even better predator, man, but stray dogs and cats, and housepets out in yards are EASY prey). That's just the way it is, sorry.

And that BEING the way it is, I'm of the opinion that the BEST thing we can do to minimize casulties and deaths (aside from not getting into armed conflicts to begin with) is to, as Heinlein said in Starship Troopers (the book, not the horseshit adaptation made into a movie), "Made as hard as possible, on purpose, in order to save the lives of the soldiers when they got into the field"

[Swordsman3003]

Very persuasive.

[UgghTheCaveman]

Re-reading it, it's hardly a masterpiece of organized linear thought, but thanks

It IS, however, something I feel quite strongly about...I think we mistreat and mistrain our soldiers on many different levels, and could PROBABLY make a hell of a good thing out of our military, if we chose to do so, assuming we're going to continue to insist on putting the percentage of our national budget we do into maintaining a large active and active reserve military.


OTOH, though, I can't say if I've ever come to a solid conclusion as to whether we SHOULD maintain such a large military...it's not only against the stated intentions of the founders of our country (as are so many other things we've legislated our way into, or allowed to become "the way things are done"), but it's also neither the most cost-efficient or effective way to run a military.


I've had some interesting discussions with soldiers from other countries, over the years, and had many oppertunities to cross-train with "fast reaction forces" or "special mission profile" groups from other countries, and it opened my eyes to a few things.


One thing that wryly amuses me is how pervasive the confidence in our military strength and superiority remains, when it's demonstrable that our strength relies PURELY on massive numbers (an expensive and ineffectual way of doing things, in many circumstances)...our infantymen, tankers, and field artillery people (the BASIC "on the ground" field soldiers tasked with combat missions) are far less trained (and less effectively trained) than those from other first and second world nations with a similar economic and technological capability, per capita...honestly speaking, you could put a U.S. infantry company up against a FRENCH infantry company for tactical exercizes (and we have), and, if numbers of soldiers were equivalent, and all other advantages were equivalent, the Frogs would (and have regularly proved this) have a distinct advantage when it came to the actual fight...this boils down to QUALITY of soldier, which boils down to quality of training...our grunts are taught to handle their weapons, and follow orders...they're treated almost as "temporary labor" until they hit the point in their carreers where they MIGHT be considering leadership positions, and THEN, and only then, are they required to start aquiring a base education in tacticianship, military theory, and so on.

Comparitavely, a Brit or Canadian infantryman comes out of his AIT with more education in military history, theory of military tactics, and other military sciences than is required of an officer commissioned after four years of college ROTC (they require such classes in the Acadamies, but not for NCOs, and not for ALL officers...just for students at the Military Colleges, here)...armed with that little bit of knowledge, this means a brit or Canadian infantryman can be expected to understand more about WHY certain tactics work in certain conditions than the average Yank grunt...which means he doesn't have to be given as many orders, passed down the chain, by more educated officers...IF he gets such an order, chances are he was ALREADY DOING IT...this isn't true of OUR boys. WE win, when we do, almost purely on a basis of superior numbers and/or technology, compared to our opponents (in training AND real combat).

This shows...in VietNam, in Panama, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Lebanon, and in Bosnia...undernourished, undertrained, underequipped opponents are a massive headache for us, and regardless of what the "official numbers" say, until we bring MASSIVE "area of effect" tactics and equipment to bear, they have outrageous "ratios of effectiveness" against us, DESPITE the APPARANT superiority of our troops.


And, to make it worse, our special forces, except for the cream of the crop teams like Delta Force, SEAL Team 6 (the CT tasked unit of the SEALS), and their equivalents, are JOKES compared to their "equivalent" units like Brit SAS/SBS, Canadian Special Services, ANZAC "Commandos", and so on (in one training mission I was in, in 1989, with our 3rd Rangers, we were tasked to do a fast reaction "hit" on an urban environment setting with a heavy Brit SAS team playing opposition forces...they had 12 guys in a "hardened" complex, resisting 2 companies of Rangers (120+ men)...they had 6 "effectives", 3 "dead", and 3 "injured-able" by the time they'd killed, disabled, captured, or evaded long enough for our timne limit to run out...at the "time stop" for the exercize, we "high speed" boys had a total casulty list that left us at about 1/3 strength, and less than half our "heavy gear"...this was using Simmunition for small arms, and "laser painting" for vehicle kills.


Dissappointingly, this "superiority through numbers, not individual effectiveness" is pervasive in American philosophy...

We COULD take a page from the rest of the "civilized world"'s books, and start seriously training our soldiers to be "masters of their trade", reducing the numbers required for any particular mission, increasing their effectiveness and professionalism, making them MORE valuable to the work force when they got out, but it's seen as easier and cheaper to "mass produce" cannon fodder.

We COULD use our peacetime military as what it is used for by enlistees, anyhow, and do so more effectively, by "recognizing" that peacetime enlistees enlist to further their education, pick up job training while being paid, and fund their educations, for later civilian life. If it's going to be used as a means of getting a "hand up" on the sacro-sanct "social mobility path", then let's start incorperating things that make that WORK better...take our carreer petty criminals, who supposedly get into such a lifestyle because it pays better than any "real job" they can aquire with their education and background, allow them to join, and let them EARN the education and background that will let them earn more LEGITIMATELY...remove the excuses of the young, undereducated economic underclasses who "can't afford the education and training to be successful in the real world"


We COULD reflect a bit on just what chance anyone who enlists is taking, and "pay them back" for taking that risk, by opening oppertunities to them to VOLUNTARILY take advantage of, as part of an enlistment that will equip them with everything they need to later be not just "productive" members of society, but to be leaders...make classes in economics, in social theory, history, law, and philosophy available to ANY soldier, on top of INSISTING that they meet the basic education requirements of the nation as part of their enlistment (and accepting them AS enlistees, and correcting any shortcomings in this area, if they don't)...in other words, make the tools of leadership, and the knowledge with which one is equipped to understand WHY one should behave "morally" and "rightly", and to figure out what "moral" and "right" action IS, in their opinion, based off of something more than "I did this successfully in the past, without being punished, and it felt good".


IMO, there's no reason a "peacetime" military shouldn't DELIBERATELY fulfill as many social reasons for being as possible, and in wartime, such "causes" are the LEAST we could do in return for those representatives of our country putting their lives, sanity, and bodies on the line to achieve our goals by force when professional diplomacy and politics have failed.

[Swordsman3003]

Lengthy, but good. Does anyone else here feel the same way about our military? If you can give me some facts, I'd like to point this out to some people.

[Major Maxillary]

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.

If you volunteer to sighne up in a draft so that when they need you they'll call you... why not just join the National Guard? You'll be al ready for service should they need you, but you can still live and work in your community.

If people wants to serve their country, why don't they just joint up right now instead of waiting to be called on?

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

I don't really want a violent felon watching my back...

THe National Guard has this thing where they can actually help you get your GED while in Basic and AIT.

If you sighn up for six years you qualify for the Mongomery G.I. bill, in which the Army will pay for your college. books, tuition, ect.

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.

I concur.

[UgghTheCaveman]

Several good questions.

But first...the G.I. Bill is available to ANY enlistee...two year enlistees can still get it (granted, there aren't many two year slots offered anymore, mostly infantry).


As for "why not join the National Guard?" The National Guard is a state/federal combination ACTIVE militia...only so many training and duty slots available. Voluntary enrollment in a draft is saying "if you need me, I'm ready and willing, and volunteering in advance, but you needn't make provisions in the budget for training me, and providing duties for me UNTIL I am needed."


As for the "I wouldn't want a violent felon watching my back" Why the hell WOULDN'T you want a FORMER felon who's trying to improve his life and make amends covering you? You KNOW this guy has the capacities necessary to field conditions, in one respect, and by volunteering, he's demonstrated a willingness to develop the OTHER qualities. I'm not talking rapists and murderers here...if someone's convicted of THOSE crimes, they should be in jail too long to be able to enlist. What I'm talking about are assaults, armed or brute force robbers, etctetera. And frankly, I'm not overly concerned about having people who are a bit...shall we say "over eager" to employ violence to solve problems enlisted as troops, so long as those giving the orders are, themselves, a bit less eager to do so...violence IS, after all, a soldier's stock in trade, though it is supposed to be CONTROLLED violence...it's up to NCOs and bras to PROVIDE that control, and always has been.

[Squidflakes]

it's up to... bras to PROVIDE that control, and always has been.

And also lift and separate

[UgghTheCaveman]

typo...lol...a GOOD typo, but nonetheless, a typo

BRASS*

[Major Maxillary]

Some people can be completely unfit for service while still meeting the physical requirements.

the draft is not a good thing. at all. period.

if you want to serve, enlist in the sevice of your choice, but the government has no right to volunteer you for anything of the scale of military service.


Volunteers are always better than conscripts. all the time. always.

[Nithos]

Somehow I have a hard time taking officers, as a group, seriously. The officer/enlisted split is just an old throwback to the days of officers being gentleman who buy their way in to their rank, and has no place in the modern military; command positions should only be available to people promoted from withen. If I were to make any consession on that point it'd be it might be wise to have a fast track program for people looking for those jobs specifically, but a fuckup butter bar is just an overpaid private, and yet respecting them is still mandated. The Army's going the wrong way, cutting back on warrent officers (ok, this is based on hearsay, I don't know for sure that the army's doing this, I've just heard there's a general trend toward using commisioned officers in place of warrents more often) and specialist ranks, we'd do better to cut out the commisioned officer system and go all warrent, or just one continous chain of rank, and open up specialist ranks for people with no command ambition (or skill, for that matter), but high degrees of technical skill.

[UgghTheCaveman]

??

Major Max, if that was aimed at me, I think you're missing what I've been consistantly saying. If not, I apologise for the confusion.

WHat I've been saying is any "draft registration" should be strictly voluntary...as in VOLUNTEERING for service on an "if and when needed" basis.

I object HEAVILY to the idea of conscript troops, on SO many levels...it's just a bad idea...and immoral, to boot.

What I DO support, however, is IF we're going to expend the budget we historically have been on our military (active, active reserve, and Nat'l Guard [and other services' analogs]), then we ought to be trying to serve some OTHER purpose than simply than maintaining a huge and wasteful military machine as a "peacetime military", and we CERTAINLY ought to provide certain things to those who serve in a NON-peacetime military, as a minimal "thanks" for their putting their lives on the line ON ORDER in circumstances they don't always fully agree with, circumstances that RARELY have to do with protecting Americans IN America, etcetera etcetera.



And what I'm talking about, in that vein, is opening the military to the "undereducated" and "socially/economically disadvantaged" far more than we do.

Currently, there are very few slots available, and only at limited times, in the regular services and their active reserves, for those without a high school diploma. In the Reserves and Nat'l Guard, you CAN do DEP, and get help qualifying (getting that GED) in time to be qualified for one of those limited slots...not in the regular services, so far as I've been able to ascertain. Criminal background...ANY drug charges or felony charges, disqualifies someone from joining.

Yet our social services professionals and liberal politicians claim that many of those who go into "criminal lifestyle" do so BECAUSE they don't have the education or background to allow them to aquire a decent lifestyle otherwise...which I believe is true, in many cases. I mean, you grow up in a ghetto, with NO ability to get even the standard teenage jobs, because they're too heavily competed for in your area, and outside your area, the non-ghetto kids can put themselves across as a "better choice as a new hire" fairly easily...so, in frustration, you start doing some petty bull that you know you shouldn't, but see no other option, if you want to have a bit of pocket cash...you get caught, and now you won't get a decent job, will be refused from many colleges, etcetera...so why even finish high school? NOTHING that leads to a decent lifestyle lets you get into it with JUST a H.S. diploma from an underfunded school that barely meets standards and DOESN'T bust you out automatically if you have a record, except stuff that doesn't require diploma OR GED, such as working your way up the construction employment ladder...which pays squat to begin with, requires you have wheels, in most places, and often wants you to have your own tools BEFORE they hire you.


I can see how someone from such a background would get "off track" a few times, and make decisions that seem to "screw their life", and think they CAN'T fix it.

So let's use our peacetime military to offer them a legit option, IF they volunteer, and are willing to "jump through the hoops" required for them to overcome their mistakes. Let's use our military IN FULL to reward the risk and sacrifice by making available to anyone enlisted who seeks them, the most basic tools of "real success"...understanding of money, economics, social interaction, HOW to determine what IS moral in any given situation, and basic leadership skills. With such tools, ANYONE can be "unusually successful", MOST people who even aquire two or three pieces of that list manage to be unusually successful in our society, however it is THEY rate "successful".

BEYOND that, if they take advantage of THOSE options, they then have access to the options NOW available to soldiers...the G.I. Bill and college fund, delayed reenlistment with a LOA for pursuit of a degree. WHat could be more "right" than tellign someone who thought the "American Dream" had completely passed them by due to a couple "little" mistakes on their part, as kids "Hey, dude, check this out! You join for four years...might take you five to finish, 'cause of school time, but we'll help you get your diploma, WHILE paying you to work a decent job, train you in somethign that will give you options in the civilian world, and, if you decide to do it, we'll even help you pay your way through college, AND we'll wipe those petty ass charges off the slate permenantly, if you stay out of trouble when doing all this...but you'll have to work for it. SO you end up a few years behind the white-bread kids who went straight from high school to college? SO what? YOU were thinking you'd NEVER be able to land a decent job, because of your record and lack of a diploma...here's your shot!"

[Major Maxillary]

??

Major Max, if that was aimed at me, I think you're missing what I've been consistantly saying. If not, I apologise for the confusion.

WHat I've been saying is any "draft registration" should be strictly voluntary...as in VOLUNTEERING for service on an "if and when needed" basis.

I understand perfectly. But if it's voluntary then it isn't the draft. if you want to sighn up to be called upon when Your nation needs you, Why not just volunteer for the National Guard so you'll be ready to fight when they do? or why not just join the regulars right off the bat? the "Voluntary Draft" you're talking about just acts as a crazy middleman. Completely superfluous.