Poll: Do you support compulsory military service?

Recommended Videos

Tanner The Monotone

I'm Tired. What else is new?
Aug 25, 2010
646
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Tanner The Monotone said:
TestECull said:
No. I only have to watch the typical American highway for 5 minutes to determine that putting those dumb bastards behind an M16 is going to cause some serious friendly fire problems, as if we didn't already have enough. Heaven forbid they get their hands on a Hummer or a Tank...they'll find a way to get them stuck. Or hit a tree. In the desert.

Yes, they're that inept.

So no compulsory service for America. It'd ruin our military.
Only the Air force uses the m16 as there main rifle anymore, and if it comes to the point where the airforce has to fight on the ground, your probably screwed anyway.
The Air Force has its own fleet of trucks, mecanics for thoes trucks, drivers for thoes trucks, convoy training for thoes troops going to the Middle East, and Airmen on the ground right now. The Air Force also has an elite Security Forces unit specifically trained to secure buildings. http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123193069 But, on that note every service has troops on the ground, even the Navy. As for the M16 argument... The Air Force, Army, and Marines still use it. I hate Wikipedia, but it pulled the information together for me instead of haveing to link several sources. Lesser evil right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

I made sure the picture showed the ABU, not the DCUs, so there could be no question if they are AF or not. It's so hard to find a good picture of the ABUs, most of the pictures on the internet are so far away you can't tell if they are ABUs or ACUs.

I only took an interest in this because my father served two tours on the ground in Desert Storm/Shield and two years as a ground troop in South Korea as part of our remaining deterrence force. You might have guessed it, but he was in the AF.
OT- I'm still gonna go with it would help our society in the US to force one tour, BUT that would also destroy what we are fighting for. The right to be free.
Well,yeah,the other armed forces use it for training purposes, but the airforce use it as their main rifle.

About the ground force thing, it was kind of an army joke.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Tanner The Monotone said:
Sarge034 said:
Tanner The Monotone said:
TestECull said:
No. I only have to watch the typical American highway for 5 minutes to determine that putting those dumb bastards behind an M16 is going to cause some serious friendly fire problems, as if we didn't already have enough. Heaven forbid they get their hands on a Hummer or a Tank...they'll find a way to get them stuck. Or hit a tree. In the desert.

Yes, they're that inept.

So no compulsory service for America. It'd ruin our military.
Only the Air force uses the m16 as there main rifle anymore, and if it comes to the point where the airforce has to fight on the ground, your probably screwed anyway.
The Air Force has its own fleet of trucks, mecanics for thoes trucks, drivers for thoes trucks, convoy training for thoes troops going to the Middle East, and Airmen on the ground right now. The Air Force also has an elite Security Forces unit specifically trained to secure buildings. http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123193069 But, on that note every service has troops on the ground, even the Navy. As for the M16 argument... The Air Force, Army, and Marines still use it. I hate Wikipedia, but it pulled the information together for me instead of haveing to link several sources. Lesser evil right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

I made sure the picture showed the ABU, not the DCUs, so there could be no question if they are AF or not. It's so hard to find a good picture of the ABUs, most of the pictures on the internet are so far away you can't tell if they are ABUs or ACUs.

I only took an interest in this because my father served two tours on the ground in Desert Storm/Shield and two years as a ground troop in South Korea as part of our remaining deterrence force. You might have guessed it, but he was in the AF.
OT- I'm still gonna go with it would help our society in the US to force one tour, BUT that would also destroy what we are fighting for. The right to be free.
Well,yeah,the other armed forces use it for training purposes, but the airforce use it as their main rifle.

About the ground force thing, it was kind of an army joke.
I'm all for a good branch joke, but I did put the hyperlink about the M16 in there so you could read it.

M16A3The M16A3 was a fully-automatic variant of the M16A2 adopted in small numbers around the time of the introduction of the M16A2, primarily by the U.S. Navy for use by SEAL, Seabee, and Security units.[65] It features the M16A1 trigger group providing "safe", "semi-automatic", and "fully-automatic" modes.

The M16A3 is often incorrectly described as the fully-automatic version of the M16A4 or an M16A2 with a Picatinny rail. This misunderstanding likely stems from the use of the "A3" designation by Colt and other manufacturers to describe commercial AR-15 type rifles before the official adoption of the M16A3 or M16A4. Colt used the "A3" designation in the hopes of winning military contracts as they also did with the terms, "M4" and "M5".

The M16A4, now standard issue for front-line U.S. Marine Corps and some U.S. Army units, replaces the combination fixed carry handle/rear iron sight with a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail, allowing for the rifle to be equipped with a carry handle and/or most military and consumer scopes or sighting systems.[65] Military issue rifles are also equipped with a Knight's Armament Company M5 RAS handguard, allowing vertical grips, lasers, tactical lights, and other accessories to be attached, coining the designation M16A4 MWS (or Modular Weapon System) in U.S. Army field manuals.[66]
 

Tanner The Monotone

I'm Tired. What else is new?
Aug 25, 2010
646
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Tanner The Monotone said:
Sarge034 said:
Tanner The Monotone said:
TestECull said:
No. I only have to watch the typical American highway for 5 minutes to determine that putting those dumb bastards behind an M16 is going to cause some serious friendly fire problems, as if we didn't already have enough. Heaven forbid they get their hands on a Hummer or a Tank...they'll find a way to get them stuck. Or hit a tree. In the desert.

Yes, they're that inept.

So no compulsory service for America. It'd ruin our military.
Only the Air force uses the m16 as there main rifle anymore, and if it comes to the point where the airforce has to fight on the ground, your probably screwed anyway.
The Air Force has its own fleet of trucks, mecanics for thoes trucks, drivers for thoes trucks, convoy training for thoes troops going to the Middle East, and Airmen on the ground right now. The Air Force also has an elite Security Forces unit specifically trained to secure buildings. http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123193069 But, on that note every service has troops on the ground, even the Navy. As for the M16 argument... The Air Force, Army, and Marines still use it. I hate Wikipedia, but it pulled the information together for me instead of haveing to link several sources. Lesser evil right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

I made sure the picture showed the ABU, not the DCUs, so there could be no question if they are AF or not. It's so hard to find a good picture of the ABUs, most of the pictures on the internet are so far away you can't tell if they are ABUs or ACUs.

I only took an interest in this because my father served two tours on the ground in Desert Storm/Shield and two years as a ground troop in South Korea as part of our remaining deterrence force. You might have guessed it, but he was in the AF.
OT- I'm still gonna go with it would help our society in the US to force one tour, BUT that would also destroy what we are fighting for. The right to be free.
Well,yeah,the other armed forces use it for training purposes, but the airforce use it as their main rifle.

About the ground force thing, it was kind of an army joke.
I'm all for a good branch joke, but I did put the hyperlink about the M16 in there so you could read it.

M16A3The M16A3 was a fully-automatic variant of the M16A2 adopted in small numbers around the time of the introduction of the M16A2, primarily by the U.S. Navy for use by SEAL, Seabee, and Security units.[65] It features the M16A1 trigger group providing "safe", "semi-automatic", and "fully-automatic" modes.

The M16A3 is often incorrectly described as the fully-automatic version of the M16A4 or an M16A2 with a Picatinny rail. This misunderstanding likely stems from the use of the "A3" designation by Colt and other manufacturers to describe commercial AR-15 type rifles before the official adoption of the M16A3 or M16A4. Colt used the "A3" designation in the hopes of winning military contracts as they also did with the terms, "M4" and "M5".

The M16A4, now standard issue for front-line U.S. Marine Corps and some U.S. Army units, replaces the combination fixed carry handle/rear iron sight with a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail, allowing for the rifle to be equipped with a carry handle and/or most military and consumer scopes or sighting systems.[65] Military issue rifles are also equipped with a Knight's Armament Company M5 RAS handguard, allowing vertical grips, lasers, tactical lights, and other accessories to be attached, coining the designation M16A4 MWS (or Modular Weapon System) in U.S. Army field manuals.[66]
Thanks for taking the time to type it out, the link wasn't loading for some reason.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Tanner The Monotone said:
Thanks for taking the time to type it out, the link wasn't loading for some reason.
Are you kidding? I'm not that dedicated. Coppy Pasta FTW.
This is a good military joke, if you know how people percive the different branches.
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
No. Granted, people should be willing to fight for their freedom, but only when it's threatened, and this seems like a lack of freedom anyway :p

Besides which, I fucking hated the cadet unit at my school. I can't imagine two years of compulsory service in the army...
 

Carlston

New member
Apr 8, 2008
1,554
0
0
Honestly some of the dirt bags I knew in bootcamp/Navy.

It changed them for the better, unless of course they did everything in their power to be kicked out (drugs use ect)

It kills racism, sexism, and really even class issues...

When you know the guy next to you will save you just because it's what ya do and you'd do it for anyone who needed it...

You break away from the whiny social blaming whitey for holding everyone down...ect. When the bullets fly and everyones head is down under cover fighting back... You come together like you wouldn't believe.

As for not wanting a typical American idiot behind a rifle...

Bootcamp transforms damn near everyone into least someone with some self control and mind set to do shit right.
 

MrGalactus

Elite Member
Sep 18, 2010
1,848
0
41
Absolutely not. A person should not have to be forced to do anything against their will. Is it right to force a conscientious objector to fight for a cause they don't believe in?
 

Tanner The Monotone

I'm Tired. What else is new?
Aug 25, 2010
646
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Tanner The Monotone said:
Thanks for taking the time to type it out, the link wasn't loading for some reason.
Are you kidding? I'm not that dedicated. Coppy Pasta FTW.
This is a good military joke, if you know how people percive the different branches.
Wow, the thing didn't open! I hate this stupid computer!
 

rockyoumonkeys

New member
Aug 31, 2010
1,527
0
0
Absolutely not. I don't like or respect my country enough to fight and die for it, especially for stupid reasons like protecting our oil interests.
 

devotedsniper

New member
Dec 28, 2010
752
0
0
Gotta say no, i don't wanna fight and kill people, but if i look at it realisticly i'd more than likely be stuck somewhere in the IT side of things being a programmer.
 

Chrono180

New member
Dec 8, 2007
545
0
0
No, for the same reason I don't support lobotomise. You are raping a person's mind and making it impossible for them to lead a normal life.
 

dslatch

New member
Apr 15, 2009
286
0
0
I'd only support it if there was a shit storm brewing or happening... like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam just off the top of my head. now that i think about it that conscription not CMS, so i support conscription when needed and CMS in a very special circumstance.
 

DaJoW

New member
Aug 17, 2010
520
0
0
We used to have it, then it was scaled back to be more selective and I think it's ended entirely now. The middle phase was good though imo, you got a form to fill out and unless you had some medical condition you got called up for some testing and information. Testing was mandatory, though you could always state "I do not want to do this" and you wouldn't be forced into service regardless of test results. Those with good test results were offered to apply.

I know several people who didn't know what to do after they finished school so they joined the army after this info. Most of them spent the one year of introduction and left, though one of my friends is in Afghanistan now.

So to answer the question: Kind of.