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 254 users online

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

Past Articles
  • Military Journal, 1775 to 1783


  • Letter to Chloe Unity Blair by James Booker - 1


  • Going to War


  • Prison Life in Southern Prisons


  • Green LTs (Story One)


  • World War One Diary


  • John Rademacher, April 27, 1951


  • Account of Capt. F. E. Chadwick, USS NEW YORK, of the Battle of Santiago


  • Night Ambush - The Tiger Strikes


  • Corporal Alf Birkhill, in a letter published on 8 January 1916


    • Older articles

    Military Quotes

    The most difficult thing about planning against the Americans, is that they do not read their own doctrine, and they would feel no particular obligtion to follow it if they did.

    -- Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov

    Current poll results


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

    Yes25 %25 %25 % 25.23 % (54)
    No67 %67 %67 % 67.76 % (145)
    I do not know2 %2 %2 % 2.34 % (5)
    I have no opinion2 %2 %2 % 2.34 % (5)
    Other, please list in comments2 %2 %2 % 2.34 % (5)

    Total votes: 214
    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

    Are the possible side effects of anthrax and smallpox vaccines worth the risk for the military?

    [ Results | Polls ]

    Votes: 64

    This Day in History
    1775: The Continental Congress authorizes the building of 13 frigates, mounting 24-36 guns.

    1812: The last remnants of Napoleon Bonapartes Grand Arme? reach the safety of Kovno, Poland, after the failed Russian campaign. Napoleons costly retreat from Moscow.

    1814: General Andrew Jackson announces martial law in New Orleans, Louisiana, as British troops disembark at Lake Borne, 40 miles east of the city.

    1862: Confederate General Robert E. Lees Army of Northern Virginia repulses a series of attacks by General Ambrose Burnsides Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg, Virginia. The defeat was one of the most decisive loses for the Union army.

    1937: The Japanese army occupies Nanking, China.

    1940: Adolf Hitler issues preparations for Operation Martita, the German invasion of Greece.

    1941: British forces launch an offensive in Libya.

    1951: U.S. Air Force pilot George A. Davis, flying a F-86 Sabre jet out of the 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, was credited with four aerial victories against MiG-15s, the largest number of kills by a single pilot in one day during the war. These victories made Davis the first "double ace" of the Korean War.

    1974: North Vietnamese General Tran Van Tra orders 7th Division and the newly formed 3rd Division to attack Phuoc Long Province, north of Saigon.

    2003: U.S. forces capture former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in a crawl space beneath a house near his hometown of Tikrit, eight months after the fall of Baghdad.


    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