Any ready-reservists here?
 

Hopefully, the majority of those called will be Bush supporters. Let
them share in the joys of Bush's nasty little war.


That's awful. Nobody should be drafted, Bush supporter or not.

If this weren't an election year, we'd be seeing a draft. Instead, we're
calling back
40 and 50-year old guys who have already been honorably discharged, may even
have a military pension, and who have certainly earned the right to live the
rest of their lives without excessive government intrusion. Businesses,
careers, families, etc all go on hold.

Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Don't even say "lberals
do....."
When we make a loud public announcement about having to send the press gang to
round up the toothless old grey hairs to continue the war in Iraq, that has to
encourage the hell out of the enemy. It sounds like we're running out of
manpower.

More of the same non-logic from our government. We can increase discretionary
government spending by 30% in 3 1/2 years *and* have a huge tax cut.
We can occupy a large country, say that doing so presents a credible threat to
other bad actors that we stand ready to invade their countries too, *and* cut
military benefits while avoiding mandatory enlistments (and apparently
scrambling to plug the holes in the front line with any available bodies).

If we hope to kill every Muslim on the planet, as many suggest, we are going to
need a lot more people than we have.
(I would say, eliminate the terrorist individuals instead of the "terrorist
race/religion", and we can do that without
expanding the war or imposing universal service).

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Hopefully, the majority of those called will be Bush supporters. Let
them share in the joys of Bush's nasty little war.


That's awful. Nobody should be drafted, Bush supporter or not.

Well, we differ. I think those who support Bush's insane warmongering
should be paying the price for it.





If this weren't an election year, we'd be seeing a draft. Instead, we're
calling back
40 and 50-year old guys who have already been honorably discharged, may even
have a military pension, and who have certainly earned the right to live the
rest of their lives without excessive government intrusion. Businesses,
careers, families, etc all go on hold.


Perhaps they'll consider all that when they're voting this fall...




Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Don't even say "lberals
do....."
When we make a loud public announcement about having to send the press gang to
round up the toothless old grey hairs to continue the war in Iraq, that has to
encourage the hell out of the enemy. It sounds like we're running out of
manpower.

The idiot in the White House has done more to encourage the growth of
Islamist terrorist than anyone else on the world stage. He probably is
on al Qaeda's recruiting posters.


If we hope to kill every Muslim on the planet, as many suggest, we are going to
need a lot more people than we have.

It would be easier to simply round up the neocons and conscript them
into the war they want so badly to fight.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

sailing_crete wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Well, we differ. I think those who support Bush's insane warmongering
should be paying the price for it.

Who is "we"? Do you speak for this entire group? Those who get called
up DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE, Dem. or Rep.. Here's a tip: Read the contract!

"We" are those who oppose Bush and his idiotic policies and decisions.
As for who is called up, why, you'd think the Republicans among the
"ready reserve" would step forward so they can be first in line to stop
a bullet for Dubya.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in It would be easier to
simply round up the neocons and conscript them
into the war they want so badly to fight.

That's right. Talk is cheap! Let the politicians and CEO's of the big arms
suppliers be the first to ship overseas.
Next send the rabid supporters of the war.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Don White wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in It would be easier to
simply round up the neocons and conscript them
into the war they want so badly to fight.

That's right. Talk is cheap! Let the politicians and CEO's of the big arms
suppliers be the first to ship overseas.
Next send the rabid supporters of the war.



I agree. Let them put their bodies where their mouths want us to go.
And Bush ought to sit on a horse overlooking a battlefield. Once he
learns how to sit on a horse!

El Bush still rides...

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Well, we differ. I think those who support Bush's insane warmongering
should be paying the price for it.

Who is "we"? Do you speak for this entire group? Those who get called
up DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE, Dem. or Rep.. Here's a tip: Read the contract!

The idiot in the White House has done more to encourage the growth of
Islamist terrorist than anyone else on the world stage. He probably is
on al Qaeda's recruiting posters.

I can see your doing your part to uplift the nation and I'm sure your
picture is right below his.

It would be easier to simply round up the neocons and conscript them
into the war they want so badly to fight.

Great one there!!! Are you on your way to Kosovo?

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Gould,

Whine, whine, whine. Those called up have a military OBLIGATION to serve
when called. Those are the rules under which they volunteered. They are
needed, hence they are called. Is there something wrong with that? Is a
deal a deal, or what?

There may be some retired reservisists among the recalled. But those who
have served over twenty of active service have no reserve obligation.
Retired regular officers are subject to recall until age 60 or 62 depending
upon rank when placed on the retired list.

It may surprise you to know that literally thousands of active duty retired
soldiers volunteered for retiree recall status after 09-11. We continue to
be prepared to serve if needed. I'm 64 and fully prepared to go whenever
and wherever the Army may want me. I remain in good fighting shape and can
score a maximum on the Army's phisical readiness test.

If the Army feels we are to old too serve in Irag or Afganistan we can serve
in the US or overseas and free up a younger soldier for service in the
combat zones.

You guys just don't have a clue as to how honored many professional soldiers
are just to be allowed to serve this magnificant country in some way. BTW,
any soldier today can rightfully be called a professional soldier.

Butch Davis
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Hopefully, the majority of those called will be Bush supporters. Let
them share in the joys of Bush's nasty little war.


That's awful. Nobody should be drafted, Bush supporter or not.

If this weren't an election year, we'd be seeing a draft. Instead, we're
calling back
40 and 50-year old guys who have already been honorably discharged, may
even
have a military pension, and who have certainly earned the right to live
the
rest of their lives without excessive government intrusion. Businesses,
careers, families, etc all go on hold.

Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Don't even say "lberals
do....."
When we make a loud public announcement about having to send the press
gang to
round up the toothless old grey hairs to continue the war in Iraq, that
has to
encourage the hell out of the enemy. It sounds like we're running out of
manpower.

More of the same non-logic from our government. We can increase
discretionary
government spending by 30% in 3 1/2 years *and* have a huge tax cut.
We can occupy a large country, say that doing so presents a credible
threat to
other bad actors that we stand ready to invade their countries too, *and*
cut
military benefits while avoiding mandatory enlistments (and apparently
scrambling to plug the holes in the front line with any available bodies).

If we hope to kill every Muslim on the planet, as many suggest, we are
going to
need a lot more people than we have.
(I would say, eliminate the terrorist individuals instead of the
"terrorist
race/religion", and we can do that without
expanding the war or imposing universal service).

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Gould,

Whine, whine, whine. Those called up have a military OBLIGATION to serve
when called. Those are the rules under which they volunteered. They are
needed, hence they are called. Is

Butch,

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Those eager to volunteer should do so.
If that includes you, then great.
Be proud of your patriotism and willingness to enforce our foreign policies.

Can't be any simpler than that.

When people are involuntarily forced to
serve against their will, that's not American. If you want to make it American,
you install Universal Service for
every young man and woman graduating from high school. They put in two years
of service either in the military or in one of a very few alternative choices
that provide legitimate public service. Then it's American because it is
democratic. Nobody gets a pass for being rich and signing up for college, etc.

(Following Universal Service, we give the kids a free ride at trade school or a
public college)

The current lack of a draft is making Bush's foreign policy a joke. The Bush
apologists say that because we have occupied Iraq, all the other little sand
flea countries over there are going to toe the mark so that we don't occupy
their countries too. With what? We're calling old guys in from retirement
and putting extended tours afer extended tours on the troops that are there
now. No way we can take on Jordan, or Saudi Arabia (!), or Iran
with the forces we have while we try to keep peace in Iraq.

Now,of course, if we had the diplomatic skill to build a (real and meaningful)
coalition of allies large enough to provide more than a couple of hundred
troops apiece before we.......oh, never mind, hindsight is 20/20.

You guys want to wage war all over hell?
Or be able to make a credible threat that you're ready to wage war all over
hell?
Want to able to say that we don't need NATO or the UN on our side and we'll
just do whatever we please, regardless?
Gonna need some troops.

Gonna need a draft.

Gonna need a leader who will put the strategic needs of the country above any
concerns about political fallout. Seen one lately? Alas, they're in very short
supply.

You can't have a militarist society without
a huge pool of manpower, even in this technological age. Those who believe that
militarism is the answer have no choice except to support a draft.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Any ready-reservists here?
 

So, Gould... what is it that you don't understand about the word
"volunteer". All those recalled vouunteered for service in our military
with an OBLIGATION to serve if needed.

You seem to accuse me of obfuscation? Where, when, how have I obfuscated.
What did I say that was untrue or confusing. We have an all volunteer
force, Gould. Got it... all volunteer.

Not to try to say that some of those recalled are far from thrilled about
it. That's not an issue. They were recalled in accordance with the laws of
this nation. They volunteered to serve for various reasons. Some out of
patriotisim, others for the opportunity to learn a trade, some for the
adventure. Regardless, they signed up to serve for reasons of their own.
But, they all signed up to get what they wanted in return for something
else... an obligation.

They didn't get drafted. They volunteered. Got it?

Butch Davis
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,

Whine, whine, whine. Those called up have a military OBLIGATION to
serve
when called. Those are the rules under which they volunteered. They
are
needed, hence they are called. Is

Butch,

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Those eager to volunteer should do so.
If that includes you, then great.
Be proud of your patriotism and willingness to enforce our foreign
policies.

Can't be any simpler than that.

When people are involuntarily forced to
serve against their will, that's not American. If you want to make it
American,
you install Universal Service for
every young man and woman graduating from high school. They put in two
years
of service either in the military or in one of a very few alternative
choices
that provide legitimate public service. Then it's American because it is
democratic. Nobody gets a pass for being rich and signing up for college,
etc.

(Following Universal Service, we give the kids a free ride at trade school
or a
public college)

The current lack of a draft is making Bush's foreign policy a joke. The
Bush
apologists say that because we have occupied Iraq, all the other little
sand
flea countries over there are going to toe the mark so that we don't
occupy
their countries too. With what? We're calling old guys in from
retirement
and putting extended tours afer extended tours on the troops that are
there
now. No way we can take on Jordan, or Saudi Arabia (!), or Iran
with the forces we have while we try to keep peace in Iraq.

Now,of course, if we had the diplomatic skill to build a (real and
meaningful)
coalition of allies large enough to provide more than a couple of hundred
troops apiece before we.......oh, never mind, hindsight is 20/20.

You guys want to wage war all over hell?
Or be able to make a credible threat that you're ready to wage war all
over
hell?
Want to able to say that we don't need NATO or the UN on our side and
we'll
just do whatever we please, regardless?
Gonna need some troops.

Gonna need a draft.

Gonna need a leader who will put the strategic needs of the country above
any
concerns about political fallout. Seen one lately? Alas, they're in very
short
supply.

You can't have a militarist society without
a huge pool of manpower, even in this technological age. Those who believe
that
militarism is the answer have no choice except to support a draft.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, Gould... what is it that you don't understand about the word
"volunteer". All those recalled vouunteered for service in our military
with an OBLIGATION to serve if needed.

You seem to accuse me of obfuscation? Where, when, how have I
obfuscated.
What did I say that was untrue or confusing. We have an all volunteer
force, Gould. Got it... all volunteer.

Not to try to say that some of those recalled are far from thrilled
about
it. That's not an issue. They were recalled in accordance with the
laws of
this nation. They volunteered to serve for various reasons. Some out
of
patriotisim, others for the opportunity to learn a trade, some for the
adventure. Regardless, they signed up to serve for reasons of their
own.
But, they all signed up to get what they wanted in return for something
else... an obligation.

They didn't get drafted. They volunteered. Got it?

Butch Davis
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,

Whine, whine, whine. Those called up have a military OBLIGATION to
serve
when called. Those are the rules under which they volunteered.
They
are
needed, hence they are called. Is

Butch,

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Those eager to volunteer should do so.
If that includes you, then great.
Be proud of your patriotism and willingness to enforce our foreign
policies.

Can't be any simpler than that.

When people are involuntarily forced to
serve against their will, that's not American. If you want to make it
American,
you install Universal Service for
every young man and woman graduating from high school. They put in two
years
of service either in the military or in one of a very few alternative
choices
that provide legitimate public service. Then it's American because it
is
democratic. Nobody gets a pass for being rich and signing up for
college,
etc.

(Following Universal Service, we give the kids a free ride at trade
school
or a
public college)

The current lack of a draft is making Bush's foreign policy a joke.
The
Bush
apologists say that because we have occupied Iraq, all the other
little
sand
flea countries over there are going to toe the mark so that we don't
occupy
their countries too. With what? We're calling old guys in from
retirement
and putting extended tours afer extended tours on the troops that are
there
now. No way we can take on Jordan, or Saudi Arabia (!), or Iran
with the forces we have while we try to keep peace in Iraq.

Now,of course, if we had the diplomatic skill to build a (real and
meaningful)
coalition of allies large enough to provide more than a couple of
hundred
troops apiece before we.......oh, never mind, hindsight is 20/20.

You guys want to wage war all over hell?
Or be able to make a credible threat that you're ready to wage war all
over
hell?
Want to able to say that we don't need NATO or the UN on our side and
we'll
just do whatever we please, regardless?
Gonna need some troops.

Gonna need a draft.

Gonna need a leader who will put the strategic needs of the country
above
any
concerns about political fallout. Seen one lately? Alas, they're in
very
short
supply.

You can't have a militarist society without
a huge pool of manpower, even in this technological age. Those who
believe
that
militarism is the answer have no choice except to support a draft.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Don't you morons have a better place to debate this ?

You both are such a pain in the a**.


"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in It would be easier to
simply round up the neocons and conscript them
into the war they want so badly to fight.

That's right. Talk is cheap! Let the politicians and CEO's of the big
arms
suppliers be the first to ship overseas.
Next send the rabid supporters of the war.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

There is nothing new here. Lots of discharged veterans found the fine print in
their enlistment contract allowed them to be called up for Truman's war.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,

Whine, whine, whine. Those called up have a military OBLIGATION to
serve
when called. Those are the rules under which they volunteered. They
are
needed, hence they are called. Is

Butch,

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Those eager to volunteer should do so.
If that includes you, then great.
Be proud of your patriotism and willingness to enforce our foreign
policies.

Can't be any simpler than that.

When people are involuntarily forced to
serve against their will, that's not American. If you want to make it
American,
you install Universal Service for
every young man and woman graduating from high school. They put in two
years
of service either in the military or in one of a very few alternative
choices
that provide legitimate public service. Then it's American because it is
democratic. Nobody gets a pass for being rich and signing up for college,
etc.

(Following Universal Service, we give the kids a free ride at trade school
or a
public college)

The current lack of a draft is making Bush's foreign policy a joke. The
Bush
apologists say that because we have occupied Iraq, all the other little
sand
flea countries over there are going to toe the mark so that we don't
occupy
their countries too. With what? We're calling old guys in from
retirement
and putting extended tours afer extended tours on the troops that are
there
now. No way we can take on Jordan, or Saudi Arabia (!), or Iran
with the forces we have while we try to keep peace in Iraq.

Now,of course, if we had the diplomatic skill to build a (real and
meaningful)
coalition of allies large enough to provide more than a couple of hundred
troops apiece before we.......oh, never mind, hindsight is 20/20.

You guys want to wage war all over hell?
Or be able to make a credible threat that you're ready to wage war all
over
hell?
Want to able to say that we don't need NATO or the UN on our side and
we'll
just do whatever we please, regardless?
Gonna need some troops.

Gonna need a draft.

Gonna need a leader who will put the strategic needs of the country above
any
concerns about political fallout. Seen one lately? Alas, they're in very
short
supply.

You can't have a militarist society without
a huge pool of manpower, even in this technological age. Those who believe
that
militarism is the answer have no choice except to support a draft.

Chuck you are a big pussy.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...
And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

And they will never have them again.

The left wants the return of the draft, with it they are guaranteed a large
percentage of angry, soldiers in any future conflict.
Plays right into their hands.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today? (Probably
doesn't compare very well to the six figure salaries that we're paying the
private "security contractors" hired by Kellog, Brown and Root at taxpayer's
ultimate expense. Wonder if KBR is having trouble recruiting?)

Calling out the geezer brigade, (some of whom "volunteered" maybe 15-20 plus
years ago and have been inactive for a very long time), isn't "technically" a
draft.....it's just yarding in a bunch of civilians who would really rather be
somewhere else and doing something else. People who have already served.

Maybe the military doesn't want conscripts, but if we are going to be taken
seriously with our implied threat to occupy any countries that give us too much
krap, we're going to need the manpower to pull that off.

Extending tours of duty, calling up the National Guard, activating the
Reserves, and recalling ex-military doesn't create an impression that we've got
any excess troop strength.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today?

...........Check this out........

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/20/pf/s...pay/table.html

There ought to be better pay for the troops.
These numbers are shameful. (Maybe if we paid commensurate with the skills
involved and commitment required there would be more volunteers).

Any ready-reservists here?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.

The problem I believe, from what I have read......is the retention of
specialized and experienced people.......medical, engineering etc......those
are the ones being recalled. I have not seen any reports of problems
recruiting at the lower ranks.

Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today?

No doubt......but on the other hand.....I would suspect that most of those
highly skilled/experienced people getting recalled received their education
through the military, and are obligated to serve because of it.


(Probably
doesn't compare very well to the six figure salaries that we're paying
the
private "security contractors" hired by Kellog, Brown and Root at
taxpayer's
ultimate expense. Wonder if KBR is having trouble recruiting?)

Calling out the geezer brigade, (some of whom "volunteered" maybe 15-20
plus
years ago and have been inactive for a very long time), isn't
"technically" a
draft.....it's just yarding in a bunch of civilians who would really
rather be
somewhere else and doing something else. People who have already served.

No, it is making them live up to the contracts they signed.



Maybe the military doesn't want conscripts, but if we are going to be
taken
seriously with our implied threat to occupy any countries that give us
too much
krap, we're going to need the manpower to pull that off.

Extending tours of duty, calling up the National Guard, activating the
Reserves, and recalling ex-military doesn't create an impression that
we've got
any excess troop strength.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Gould,

You just don't get it. Probably because you don't know anything about the
subjct at hand. Soldiers who left active duty 15-20 plus years ago no
longer have any reserve obligation. I think it's pretty unkind of you to
refer to seasoned professionals as the "geezer brigade". I don't know your
age but I seriously doubt you could begin to keep up with this 64 year old
geezer.

It's absolutely true that we have no excess troop strength. We are way
undermanned for the missions assigned regardless of what Donald Rumsfeld
says is true. The guy has been a disaster for our military by stating over
and over that we don't need more soldiers. Thank goodness the congress is
going to force the secretary to accept higher manning levels.

For guys like you the military is all about politics. What you fail to
understand is that for a soldier it's all about duty.

Butch Davis

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
snip Calling out the geezer brigade, (some of whom "volunteered" maybe
15-20 plus
years ago and have been inactive for a very long time), isn't
"technically" a
draft.....it's just yarding in a bunch of civilians who would really
rather be
somewhere else and doing something else. People who have already served.

Extending tours of duty, calling up the National Guard, activating the
Reserves, and recalling ex-military doesn't create an impression that
we've got
any excess troop strength.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

For guys like you the military is all about politics. What you fail to
understand is that for a soldier it's all about duty.

Butch Davis

Our soldiers are being asked to perform those duties by people who are
politically motivated.

I respect those who serve in the military.
One can do that without respecting the manner in which the military is used or
managed.

At a time when we have adopted an international posture that says, "Get in line
or we'll come and kick your ass" and "Bring it on!" we can't possibly hope to
be taken seriously when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan has taxed our abilities
almost to the breaking point.

If we had to send troops to North Korea, Libya, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia,
or even to just one or two of those countries, to continue our current
political objectives
where would they come from?

Maybe we can do like the British used to do and hire foreign mercenaries. If we
want US soldiers, we need to create a bunch in short order.

Or, we need to rethink the politics of militarism on a global scale.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

For guys like you the military is all about politics. What you fail to
understand is that for a soldier it's all about duty.


That's true... honor and duty are the highest ideals for any soldier... and they're
not too shabby for anybody else either.


Gould 0738 wrote:
Our soldiers are being asked to perform those duties by people who are
politically motivated.

Chuck, that's *always* the case. Military action whether a "war" or a "low
intensity conflict" or a "police action" or whatever, is the final way of enforcing
political decisions. That's all it is, that's all it has ever been.

One can evaluate the "justness" of any war by some fairly rigid standards. For
example, everybody likes to say that WW2 was a good war, meaning a war for a good
cause. Using the same standards, is the Iraq war "good?"




I respect those who serve in the military.
One can do that without respecting the manner in which the military is used or
managed.

I think what you're trying to say is that IYHO the war in Iraq is not just. It was
not waged as a last resort, it had no impact on the strategic interests of the
U.S., it was not planned in a way to win with minimum casualties, and the aftermath
was not planned at all. IMHO the whole thing was/is a boondoggle to funnel money
into certain pro-Bush/Cheney pockets, and into Dick Cheney's pocket specifically.

No soldier likes to think that he put his life on the line, and his buddies have
been killed, for the sake of enriching some fat old politicians & CEOs who were
draft dodgers back when they were young enough to go to war themselves; and whose
kids are all avoiding military service.



At a time when we have adopted an international posture that says, "Get in line
or we'll come and kick your ass" and "Bring it on!" we can't possibly hope to
be taken seriously when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan has taxed our abilities
almost to the breaking point.

And worse, those wars have put a tremendous debt obligation on the U.S. which will
not go away for many years, if ever. The money spent is gone gone gone, and it did
nothing to increase our national security.



If we had to send troops to North Korea, Libya, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia,
or even to just one or two of those countries, to continue our current
political objectives
where would they come from?

Texas, of course. ;)



Maybe we can do like the British used to do and hire foreign mercenaries. If we
want US soldiers, we need to create a bunch in short order.

The British used mercenaries? Now, the French have their Foreign Legion which is a
mercenary elite force; but AFAIK the Brits never used large numbers of mercenaries
(at least not since the Hessians came over here). They did have a large number of
colonial troops though, for example the Ghurka brigade(s).



Or, we need to rethink the politics of militarism on a global scale.

Well, "we" don't need to, it's the profiteering boneheads in the current
administration who need to rethink... or think in the first place...

Regards
Doug King

Any ready-reservists here?
 

JohnH wrote:


An E-5 with over 3 years service makes $1910 per month, excluding housing
allowance. If he has a dependant who lives in non-military quarters in the 22310
zip code, he gets an additional $1400 per month. That's not too shabby.

John H

You ought to re-up, Herring, volunteer for Iraq, catch a landmine while
on guard duty, and save some useful member of society from that fate.
Just think, you can donate a leg to the Bush election campaign...

Any ready-reservists here?
 

JohnH wrote:
On 02 Jul 2004 06:32:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

And......the military has repeatedly said they do not want conscripts

Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today? (Probably
doesn't compare very well to the six figure salaries that we're paying the
private "security contractors" hired by Kellog, Brown and Root at taxpayer's
ultimate expense. Wonder if KBR is having trouble recruiting?)

Calling out the geezer brigade, (some of whom "volunteered" maybe 15-20 plus
years ago and have been inactive for a very long time), isn't "technically" a
draft.....it's just yarding in a bunch of civilians who would really rather be
somewhere else and doing something else. People who have already served.

Maybe the military doesn't want conscripts, but if we are going to be taken
seriously with our implied threat to occupy any countries that give us too much
krap, we're going to need the manpower to pull that off.

Extending tours of duty, calling up the National Guard, activating the
Reserves, and recalling ex-military doesn't create an impression that we've got
any excess troop strength.


For more details, put "military pay scale" in Google.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Any chance you'll be recalled, John? After all, you drew pay all those
years and did nothing to earn it...

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Harry Krause wrote:


You ought to re-up, Herring, volunteer for Iraq, catch a landmine while
on guard duty, and save some useful member of society from that fate.
Just think, you can donate a leg to the Bush election campaign...


Naw, krause doesn't hate anyone. He just wishes them dead. And that
because he disagrees with their politics.

-- Charlie

Any ready-reservists here?
 

For more details, put "military pay scale" in Google.

Actually, I did and posted the link here.

Know what I found?

That the lower ranks are earning wages that put them below the poverty level.
Many of our soldiers below the rank of Sargeant would qualify for food stamps,
free school lunches, etc.

I also found "typical" BAQ and uniform allowances closer to $600-800 per month
than the $1400 (probably extreme) example you offered.

And check this out: The US Army Chief of Staff earns under $160,000 a year.
Average pay for a CEO running a private corporation even half as complex as the
US Army is almost $1 million a month.

Tough to keep the best and the brightest in the service with that kind of
disparity.
The USACOS should be earning more money than a moderately successful yacht
broker or real estate salesman.

We should increase military pay. These people work for all of us, doing a
dangerous and important job. They should earn at least as much as their
counterparts do in other government jobs with equal responsibilty, and rather
obviously they do not.

My son will be teaching 8th Grade this fall,
with a beginning pay scale (for a new teacher with a master's degree plus a
certain number of credits) about equal to a beginning Major in the Army. No way
is his responsibility as high as an Army Major.
How could you possibly argue that the military is adequately compensated?
It seems inconsistent somehow.

Is it your position that all other wages should be reduced to the point where
military pay is comparatively attractive?

It would seem reasonable that if the pay were better, we would not be so short
of manpower. As the economy oh-so-slowly improves, (and it is), it will become
ever more difficult to find guys and gals willing to get shot at in hot, desert
climates for $1000 (plus a little) per month.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Then they better do something to attract a sufficient number of genuine
volunteers.
Maybe the answer is pay. What does an E-3, E-4, or E-5 earn today?

..........Check this out........

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/20/pf/s...pay/table.html

There ought to be better pay for the troops.
These numbers are shameful. (Maybe if we paid commensurate with the skills
involved and commitment required there would be more volunteers).



Maybe we ought to cut the pay of Congress and give it to the troops. The
Congress is getting another big raise and blame it on the law requires it.
But they passed the law. And we ought to cut the retirement benefits at the
same time. 1 tour of duty in Congress, and you get about $15,000 month for
the rest of tyour life. And do not have to pay Social Security.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

1 tour of duty in Congress, and you get about $15,000 month for
the rest of tyour life. And do not have to pay Social Security.

Are you claiming that after serving a single
term in the House you are pensioned off at
$180,000 per year? That would be a *raise* for most of the people in Congress,
(not counting what they probably siphon off here and there).

Cite?

I find dramatically different information, such as:

• Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement
System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of
remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

• As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is
funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress
under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan
and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.


Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of
50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at
any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62.
Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to
even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and
the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting
amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final
salary.

Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The
average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of
federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years
and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909
a month.

The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is
$158,100 per year.


My cite?

http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/librar.../aa031200a.htm


Gues you can't believe everything you hear on the radio. :-)

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Again, I feel more compassion for your son than for 95% of the majors in the
Army. Hopefully he's going into a nice, uniformed, gender segregated,
Catholic
middle class, middle school where every parent attends every PTSA meeting,
fully supports the school, and mandates homework completion for their
children.

Tell him to get in touch. I'll give him some tips. The first will be to
provide
a "Help Line" for the kids. More later if interested.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Actually, he's teaching in a public school in a lower middle class
neighborhood. A lot of these kids have very few real advantages in life, many
are from homes with revolving Dads, etc.

He's already been through a baptism of fire.

His student teaching last fall was a ridiculous experience. He taught three
classes a day. One of the classes had 50 kids, and 18 of them were on
"special individualized learning" programs.
(State law says there aren't supposed to be more than a handful of these
academically challneged kids in a class at any one time). The "instructing"
teacher spent no time in the classroom after the first week or so of the
semester, and was hiding out in the teachers' lounge. My son spent a lot of
time every day trying to keep discipline in that class, with mixed results.
Some of the kids would simply, and literally say, "**** You" when he'd ask them
to sit down. He was frustrated by that class, and took some heat from the
school's principal over the number of kids he was sending to the office every
day. A couple of them ultimately got kicked out of school entirely over
behavior in that class, and in one case my son was threatened by an angry
parent who was protesting his kid's expulsion.

I gave him a few tips that helped. One of the initial problems he had was
paperwad fights. The school had so much trouble with the stuff kids were
putting into thier lockers, that all the lockers had been welded shut and the
kids were carrying all their books and papers from class to class
in backpacks. (There was stuff in some of those backpacks that would have made
anything ever left in a locker look tame).
The kids would begin wadding up papers when they got to class, and throwing
them, like snowballs, around the room.

I suggested a new routine for the class, and it cured the paperwad fights. When
the kids came into the classroom, they piled all the books and papers not
needed for that class against the back wall. Each student was given *one* piece
of paper to take notes on, and the student had to write their name on the paper
before class began. When the first paperwad flew after this policy went into
effect, my son picked it up, unraveled it, and discovered (surprise) no name.
No big deal. There was
only one kid in that corner of the classroom *without* a piece of paper on his
desk. Busted. Paperwad fights were very rare after the change in paper policy.

He survived the class from hell. His other two classes, with a more normal
number and mix of students, went very well. I was half afraid he'd get washed
out because of all the trouble he was having in the almost-impossible class,
but he wound up with an "A minus" in student teaching which wasn't too bad, all
things considered.

For the last six months he's been substituting in middle schools in the same
district. Remember 8th grade? A substitute was fair game for all the krap you
ever wanted to do but were too smart or scared to pull on the teacher who
would be giving you your semester grade and talking to your parents on
conference night.

(You are in a unique situation to appreciate that)

It's doubtful that he'll have any worse experience than subbing through the
second semester and student teaching.

He can be a very effective teacher. When he was teaching the US Constitution to
college freshmen as a graduate student, the students in his section of that
class consistently outperformed the other two sections of the same class and
scored very well on exams. If he starts to flounder, I'll consider you a ready
resource. Thanks.

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Chuck,
I always knew you were a far seeing individual. :-)
Paul
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
snipped
Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were
receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service.
snipped

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Chuck,
I always knew you were a far seeing individual. :-)
Paul

That's the problem with a cut 'n paste.
All the typos get moved as well.

But who knows? It could have been 20034.

One interesting theory says that there is no such thing as time. We are each of
us
still everyone and everywhere we have ever been, and already are everyone and
everywhere we ever will be. These layers of
experience overlap like shades of paint being swirled in a bucket, and all are
contained in a single Cosmic Spark. It is only because the human mind is finite
and compelled to search for linear patterns that we experience the illusion of
progress through an artificial essence we call time.

So, with that in mind, it could just as easily have been 20034. At least that's
my
BS excuse, and I'm stickin' to it! :-)

Any ready-reservists here?
 

Chuck,
Many cultures have viewed time as a spiral. You present an interesting
concept.
Paul

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
I always knew you were a far seeing individual. :-)
Paul

That's the problem with a cut 'n paste.
All the typos get moved as well.

But who knows? It could have been 20034.

One interesting theory says that there is no such thing as time. We are
each of
us
still everyone and everywhere we have ever been, and already are everyone
and
everywhere we ever will be. These layers of
experience overlap like shades of paint being swirled in a bucket, and all
are
contained in a single Cosmic Spark. It is only because the human mind is
finite
and compelled to search for linear patterns that we experience the
illusion of
progress through an artificial essence we call time.

So, with that in mind, it could just as easily have been 20034. At least
that's
my
BS excuse, and I'm stickin' to it! :-)