Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Online
There are 111 users online

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

Military Quotes

How many things apparently impossible have nevertheless been performed by resolute men who had no alternative but death

-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Current poll results


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

Yes25 %25 %25 % 25.12 % (54)
No67 %67 %67 % 67.91 % (146)
I do not know2 %2 %2 % 2.33 % (5)
I have no opinion2 %2 %2 % 2.33 % (5)
Other, please list in comments2 %2 %2 % 2.33 % (5)

Total votes: 215
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 guards involved with the Abu Ghraib prison be punished?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 130

This Day in History
1805: Napoleon Bonaparte celebrates the first anniversary of his coronation with a victory at Austerlitz over a Russian and Austrian army.

1863: General Braxton Bragg turns over command of the Army of Tennessee to General William Hardee at Dalton, Ga.

1864: Major General Grenville M. Dodge is named to replace General William Rosecrans as Commander of the Department of Missouri.

1864: Confederate General Archibald Gracie, Jr., is killed in the trenches at Petersburg, Virginia, when an artillery shell explodes near him.

1914: Austrian troops occupy Belgrade, Serbia.

1932: Bolivia accepts Paraguays terms for a truce in the Chaco War.

1942: Enrico Fermi, the Italian-born Nobel Prize-winning physicist, directs and controls the first nuclear chain reaction in his laboratory beneath the bleachers of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago, ushering in the nuclear age.

1942: The Allies repel a strong Axis attack in Tunisia, North Africa.

1944: General George S. Pattons troops enter the Saar Valley and break through the Siegfried line.

1946: The United States and Great Britain merge their German occupation zones.