-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
U.S. Draft back in 2005?
- Thread starter buck_ttu06
- Start date
- Status
cricechex
Active Member
Back to the side track....Even if we had not had any help, we would have won. We would have dropped A-bombs on Germany too if we had the capability before they surrendered. Would have taken out that other million the Red Army took care of. I think that dropping one bomb on each country would have stopped the war anyway. ahhhh, the what ifs...ya gotta love em.
Draft is bad, but if there is another attack on the U.S., it will probably happen.
Draft is bad, but if there is another attack on the U.S., it will probably happen.
Markham
Mad Scientist
Cricechex:
If Hitler hadn't been dumb enough to try Barbarosa, and
had concentrated on Britain and the Mediteranean, I
wouldn't be to sure about even being able to get a
bomber in range of western Europe. It's kind of splitting
hairs (what if's are hard to get a definitive answer on)
but the eastern front is what destroyed Germany.
If Hitler hadn't been dumb enough to try Barbarosa, and
had concentrated on Britain and the Mediteranean, I
wouldn't be to sure about even being able to get a
bomber in range of western Europe. It's kind of splitting
hairs (what if's are hard to get a definitive answer on)
but the eastern front is what destroyed Germany.
kohlmeyerdp
Registered User
I'll tell you where Hitler screwed the pooch: North Africa. If he had given Rommel the proper support instead of just one division, he could have taken the Suez. This would have severed Britain's link to India, given access to much needed oil, and would have effectively surrounded Russia. Had he done this prior to invading Russia, he definitely could have succeeded.
slasher
OCC 186 Bound
It's pretty clear that Hitler's ineptitude was our boon. The man had so many opportunities to cripple the allies, but hesitated, as you all have pointed out. But still there's more...Dunkirk anyone? Had he wiped out the Brits there, I'm not so sure we could have gotten a foothold over there in time enough to be of consequence.
buck_ttu06
Registered User
History and "what ifs" go hand in hand. That is what I love about being a history major. Their are numerous times that Hitler could have succeeded. Hitler was his own worst enemy. But you know what they say, genius and insanity is all but a hairline difference from one another. This guy jump back and forth from the two multiple times.
The comment about atomic bombs was a very interesting one that I have never really considered. I have to agree with it... even if Hitler was capable of setting up outstanding air defenses from keeping us from hiting Germany right away... I don't think it would have mattered. We would have done like we did in the Pacific, except we would be hoping from one spot to the next droping atomic weapons until we reached Germany. Germany would have fallen... the only difference would have been the number killed by atomic blasts and the fallout radiation. I am glad that it never came to that either.
What do yall think of the new situation in Fallujah? Allowing former Generals under Saddam go in with Iraqi troops and bring the city under control?
I have to admit that I am very hesitant towards the idea. I have to wonder how commited these Generals and troops really are to helping coalition forces. Is it just a set up? are they going to go into the city under the illusion of trying to help us, then turn around and join forces with the militants? Or are they serious about wanting to help and make a new Iraq? If they are truely committed to helping form a new Iraq and stop the uprising, it would be the best news for Iraq and America sence this whole thing started if you ask me!
The comment about atomic bombs was a very interesting one that I have never really considered. I have to agree with it... even if Hitler was capable of setting up outstanding air defenses from keeping us from hiting Germany right away... I don't think it would have mattered. We would have done like we did in the Pacific, except we would be hoping from one spot to the next droping atomic weapons until we reached Germany. Germany would have fallen... the only difference would have been the number killed by atomic blasts and the fallout radiation. I am glad that it never came to that either.
What do yall think of the new situation in Fallujah? Allowing former Generals under Saddam go in with Iraqi troops and bring the city under control?
I have to admit that I am very hesitant towards the idea. I have to wonder how commited these Generals and troops really are to helping coalition forces. Is it just a set up? are they going to go into the city under the illusion of trying to help us, then turn around and join forces with the militants? Or are they serious about wanting to help and make a new Iraq? If they are truely committed to helping form a new Iraq and stop the uprising, it would be the best news for Iraq and America sence this whole thing started if you ask me!
slasher
OCC 186 Bound
There's some trepidation lingering, but overall I'm hopeful. This is the Iraqis chance to take control and run the show. It's what they've wanted all along, and it's why they want us out. If they're smart, they'll take advantage of the situation to their and our benefit--they're probably humiliated that it took the U.S. to grant them their freedom, it only highlights their own failure. Now's their opportunity to stabilize their country and reclaim it for themselves.
If they succeed, it's a major step towards providing credibility to our efforts and important towards accomplishing them. It can lead to stability and legitimacy and our exit. If not, it's another step toward the abyss.
I don't think we could have won a decisive victory anyway--they have to do it themselves for it to work.
If they succeed, it's a major step towards providing credibility to our efforts and important towards accomplishing them. It can lead to stability and legitimacy and our exit. If not, it's another step toward the abyss.
I don't think we could have won a decisive victory anyway--they have to do it themselves for it to work.
snizo
Supply Officer
Don't know what to think about the Iraqi generals doin their thing ... they could just be power hungry and do whatever it takes to keep their position.
As far as what happens if Iraq stays democratic after we hand over power or not. I think it will reflect significantly on us. Can we go in and fix things somewhere? Or do we go in an screw things up even worse than they were before? More specifically ... as it gets close to November ... will Kerry be able to say "look at how Bush jacked up Iraq" or not?
As far as what happens if Iraq stays democratic after we hand over power or not. I think it will reflect significantly on us. Can we go in and fix things somewhere? Or do we go in an screw things up even worse than they were before? More specifically ... as it gets close to November ... will Kerry be able to say "look at how Bush jacked up Iraq" or not?
haha
My friend, I am part of the volunteer military. I was just looking for different perspectives. By the way, can anybody afford a plane ticket instead of misserably trying to escape through the borders?
I would think there are so many beautiful places to visit and dodge the draft at the same time, not only Canada and Mexico
Flash said:
My friend, I am part of the volunteer military. I was just looking for different perspectives. By the way, can anybody afford a plane ticket instead of misserably trying to escape through the borders?
I would think there are so many beautiful places to visit and dodge the draft at the same time, not only Canada and Mexico
:icon_shoo I understand the French take foreigners in their military. Best of both worlds...be in the military, but still get to flee the fighting!:icon_wink
manny7_99 said:My friend, I am part of the volunteer military. I was just looking for different perspectives. By the way, can anybody afford a plane ticket instead of misserably trying to escape through the borders?
I would think there are so many beautiful places to visit and dodge the draft at the same time, not only Canada and Mexico
I am part of the volunteer military as well. It was a joke, lighten up a little.
buck_ttu06
Registered User
What I have read about the new proposed draft resembles a system identical to that of Germany. In Germany, everyone is required to either join the military for two years or do some kind of civil work for their country. The draft under consideration now is a carbon copy. It is not the draft we are use to hearing about, like WWII or Vietnam. I think it has an excellent chance of being passed since it is under these conditions. How many people will get to chose weither they do civil work over military service will be interesting with our current situation. You can read what the draft proposes at military.com
46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
Well, this is an interesting thread. If you ask a Russian, they will tell you that they "won" WW II and the picture of the Russians waving the Hammer & Sickle over Berlin is more famous than Old Glory at Iwo Jima. As for Hitler screwing the pooch by invading Russia, 3 big what ifs:
1) If the Germans had not been delayed in Greece, they would have had an earlier start against the Russians and not been hammered as bad by the early, bitter Russian wnter of '41-'42
2) If the Japanese had launched any kind of spoiling attack against the Russian Far East, then the Russians would not have been able to transfer troops to the German front
3) If the Nazis had used the Ukranians against the Soviets (they hated Stalin) instead of persecuting the Slavs as subhuman, Hitler would have had a much better chance.
As for the draft, remember one of the big problems with increasing the size of the military is money for pay: not only active duty pay but pensions. Currently for every dollar the Pentagon spends on active duty pay, it also spends 84 cents on military pensions. The cost of pensions amounted to 12 times what the military spent on ammunition, 5 times what the Navy spent on new ships, or nearly 5 times what the Air Force spent on new airplanes and missiles (FY 2000 numbers). That is one of the big reasons why you are seeing so many military contractors and reservists being used. (Reservists don't get their pensions until age 60.) That's one of the reasons why Rumsfeld is pushing for a smaller military - a large active duty military is very expensive.
1) If the Germans had not been delayed in Greece, they would have had an earlier start against the Russians and not been hammered as bad by the early, bitter Russian wnter of '41-'42
2) If the Japanese had launched any kind of spoiling attack against the Russian Far East, then the Russians would not have been able to transfer troops to the German front
3) If the Nazis had used the Ukranians against the Soviets (they hated Stalin) instead of persecuting the Slavs as subhuman, Hitler would have had a much better chance.
As for the draft, remember one of the big problems with increasing the size of the military is money for pay: not only active duty pay but pensions. Currently for every dollar the Pentagon spends on active duty pay, it also spends 84 cents on military pensions. The cost of pensions amounted to 12 times what the military spent on ammunition, 5 times what the Navy spent on new ships, or nearly 5 times what the Air Force spent on new airplanes and missiles (FY 2000 numbers). That is one of the big reasons why you are seeing so many military contractors and reservists being used. (Reservists don't get their pensions until age 60.) That's one of the reasons why Rumsfeld is pushing for a smaller military - a large active duty military is very expensive.
- Status