Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Online
There are 219 users online

You can register for a user account here.
Library of Congress

Military Quotes

Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.

-- Otto Von Bismarck

Current poll results


Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congress is now proposing?

Yes25 %25 %25 % 25.71 % (54)
No68 %68 %68 % 68.57 % (144)
I do not know1 %1 %1 % 1.90 % (4)
I have no opinion1 %1 %1 % 1.43 % (3)
Other, please list in comments2 %2 %2 % 2.38 % (5)

Total votes: 210
One vote is allowed per day

[ Voting booth | Other polls ]

Comments

Display Order
Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 14, 2002
I say "no". Unless the enlistee has some specialty to offer and requires minimal training. Otherwise, 18 mopnths is simply not enough time to become trained and serve to any reasonable effect.

The Old Sarge

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 16, 2002

I agree with the Old Sarge, by the time you got them trained they would not be cost and time effective. And we wounder what is wrong with the military.


Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 20, 2002
the reason for the 18 month enlistment is to increase numbers. I dont know what will get people to join. I would love to get some feedback on what you think.

Bargunner

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 20, 2002
If you want to increase numbers, start up the draft ... but first clean up the deferment system.

The Old Sarge

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 22, 2002
six months more won't harm anyone and they should...learn more, the reason for being
there in the first place...veritas

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 23, 2002
The draft is a sure way to get people to join. But todays America and todays military are not ready for another draft. Most of the people drafted would only make our military weak, theres got to be a way to make the military something Americans want to be apart of not forced to be apart of.

Bargunner

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 23, 2002
The military could keep there standard enlistment lengths if they allowed people to join active duty, then live in the town of there chosing. Plenty of people join to see the world then again plenty of people dont join because of the Uncertainty of not knowing where you are going to live or whats to happen in there life.

bargunner

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 26, 2002
Why would it make the military weak? Becaues we didn't draft a wide spectrum of those eligable? That's why I said we needed to clean up the deferment system first.

The draft, peacetime or wartime, should provide for the draft to active duty of a representative cross section of our society... college grad to HS drop out... upper class rich kid to poverty stricken ...

Why should any able-bodied individual be exempt? Do we not all reap the same benefit?

The Old Sarge

Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Sep 26, 2002

They shouldn't offer 18 months, they should draft for 24 months again! Won't happen cause elected officials don't want "their own" to serve.


Re: Should the military offer 18-month enlistments, as Congr
by Anonymous
on Oct 03, 2002
My guess would be that this question is not so much one of "should" enlistments be extended to 18 months as it might better be expressed that a) if the government needs to to extend enlistments it will do so regardless of popular opinion, b) enlistments in time of need are routinely extended and the brave re-up voluntarily.
Maybe the military/national guard should consider raising the age-limit for former and first time service volunteers, in order to benefit from the knowledge and maturity of volunteers and offset, perhaps, some of the need for more bodies...or at least create a kind of official old-timers auxilliary corps? My estimate would be that there are millions of us even into our late sixties who could do very nicely in almost every kind of military work, and relieve the pressure on some tasks. Being 18 does not necessarily mean greater stamina, intelligence nor bravery in battle.

Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in
Military History
Forum Posts

Military Polls

Should the United States Focus its Resources on Building a Missile Defense System?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 93

This Day in History
1745: American New Englanders captured Louisburg, Cape Breton, from the French.

1775: British General William Howe lands his troops on the Charlestown peninsula overlooking Boston and leads them against Breed's Hill, a fortified American position just below Bunker Hill.

1863: On the way to Gettysburg, Union and Confederate forces skirmished at Point of Rocks, Maryland.

1863: At the Battle of Aldie the Confederates failed to drive back Union troops in Virginia.

1863: C.S.S. Atlanta, Commander Webb, with wooden steamers Isondiga and Resolute, engaged U.S.S. Weehawken, Captain J. Rodgers, and U.S.S. Nahant, Commander Downes, in Wassaw Sound.

1864: General John B. Hood replaced General Johnston as head of CSA troops around Atlanta.

1870: USS Mohican burns Mexican pirate ship Forward.

1876: Sioux and Cheyenne Indians score a tactical victory over General Crook's forces at the Battle of the Rosebud, foreshadowing the disaster of the Battle of Little Big Horn eight days later.

1898: The Navy Hospital Corps is established.

1913: U.S. Marines set sail from San Diego to protect American interests in Mexico.