Home page :: Forums :: Gallery :: About :: War Stories :: Primary Sources ::  Revolutionary War :: Spanish American War :: War of 1812 :: Civil War :: World War I :: World War II :: Korean War :: Vietnam War :: Gulf War :: Iraqi Freedom :: More...  

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Main Menu
Online
There are 185 users online

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

Past Articles
  • First Canadian Division


  • The View Along the Rhine


  • Journal, Major Henry Livingston


  • Letter, W.A. Thompson, Jr,


  • World War II Patrol Craft


  • Battle of Lake Erie


  • Navy Combat Field Historian


  • Normandy Invasion, 6 June 1944


  • Letter, E.R. Green, Company A,, Twenty-Third Engineers


  • Diary - L/cpl Samuel Weingott, Platoon A Company, 1st Battalion AIF Egypt, 1915


    • Older articles

    Military Quotes

    The God of War hates those who hesitate.

    -- Euripedes

    Current poll results


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

    Yes25 %25 %25 % 25.00 % (54)
    No67 %67 %67 % 67.59 % (146)
    I do not know2 %2 %2 % 2.31 % (5)
    I have no opinion2 %2 %2 % 2.78 % (6)
    Other, please list in comments2 %2 %2 % 2.31 % (5)

    Total votes: 216
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]

    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]

    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
    [ User information ] [ Send a message ]
    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 military personnel stationed overseas be exempt from taxes?

    [ Results | Polls ]

    Votes: 292

    This Day in History
    1838: Mexico declares war on France.

    1864: The once proud Confederate Army of Tennessee suffers a devastating defeat when its commander, General John Bell Hood, orders a frontal assault on strong Union positions around Franklin, Tennessee. The loss cost Hood six of his finest generals and nearly a third of his force.

    1939: The Red Army crosses the Soviet-Finnish border with 465,000 men and 1,000 aircraft. Helsinki was bombed, and 61 Finns were killed in an air raid that steeled the Finns for resistance, not capitulation.

    1942: During the Battle of Tassafaronga, the last major naval action in the Solomons, U.S. forces prevent the Japanese attempt to reprovision Japanese troops on Guadalcanal. Six U.S. ships are damaged during the action.

    1945: Russian forces take Danzig in Poland and invade Austria.

    1950: President Truman declares that the United States will use the A-bomb to get peace in Korea.

    1950: Lieutenant General Edward Almond, X Corps commander, ordered X Corps to withdraw south to Hungnam.

    1965: Following a visit to South Vietnam, Defense Secretary McNamara reports in a memorandum to President Lyndon B. Johnson that the South Vietnamese government of Nguyen Cao Ky "is surviving, but not acquiring wide support or generating actions."

    1972: Defense Department sources say there will not be a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam until a final truce agreement is signed, and that such an agreement would not affect the 54,000 U.S. servicemen in Thailand or the 60,000 aboard 7th Fleet ships off the Vietnamese coast.


    More...


    Home page :: Forums :: Gallery :: About :: War Stories :: Primary Sources ::  Revolutionary War :: Spanish American War :: War of 1812 :: Civil War :: World War I :: World War II :: Korean War :: Vietnam War :: Gulf War :: Iraqi Freedom :: More...  


    syndication