Theoretical draft part II

Imagine your country sends you a letter informing you that the draft is reinstated because of the imminent invasion of Iran (If you live in Iran, you can go invade the US). Would you go ?

EDIT for more info:

They're not stopping their nuclear program and the administration fears that this might lead to terrorists getting their hands on nuclear technology. It's strictly a pre-emptive strike. The first attacks are going to be carried out by the professionals, but they need more troops for a continued effort, and to keep the situation in Iraq secure.

So get your arse to boot camp soldier ! Your country needs you !

Why?

gonna need a bit more info...

updated my original post with some background info

I have to ask one question before answering.In my case would this mean that my Countrys,Finlands democraticly voted government had declared state of war.And calling all the reservist in arms?Becouse i dont live in US and i cant see war between Finland and Iran anytime soon.We lack the long range transportation to attack the Iranians.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I have to ask one question before answering.In my case would this mean that my Countrys,Finlands democraticly voted government had declared state of war.And calling all the reservist in arms?Becouse i dont live in US and i cant see war between Finland and Iran anytime soon.We lack the long range transportation to attack the Iranians.~;)

---

Sure. If you don't live in the US just imagine you are called in because the US needs support and your country decided to back them up for whatever strange reason.

I'd be hesitent, but if they thought the invasion was necessary, I'd go.

I go no questions asked

thx for the extra info, doc. in the case you lay out, i'd not only not go, but i'd actively protest the war and the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Sure. If you don't live in the US just imagine you are called in because the US needs support and your country decided to back them up for whatever strange reason.

---

There cant be any strange reasons.In order to join any international conflict,Our laws say that the state needs UN mandatum to join any military operation abroad.
So if the International community had given its support to a war against Iran and our Government had chosen that Finland sends in the Brigade im in.In that case i would go.I have no desire for war,Infact its terrible that should be always avoided if possible. I dont desire to kill anybody Iranian or others.But if my Brigade would be shipped in i wouldnt let down the men im suppose to lead in my platoon and stay while they would go.I wouldnt like it, but i would go.
Call me what ever you want for it sheep,Nationalist or what ever.But that i would do.:bow:

if Iran had the capabilities and were planning on attacking, i'll go strip the skulls of those horrible baby killing iranians, it must be done, cause if we fail to react then i have no doubt that the iranians will assault and destroy the Isrealis, and if they believe they can contend with the US and iran i see them attempting to dominate the mid east and strangle the US and europes oil supply.

I'd jump on my white stallion and slay the Iranian Hordes with a single deft stroke of my sword. Well, certainly I don't like the idea of going to war, but if say, a Terrorist with a nuclear bomb went on blew up Baltimore or something I'd go, not because I'm the bravest man out there, or because of my sheer seething hatred for all Iranians, but to protect my family, and my neighbors, and their families, and their neighbors. I've never been a person who can justify attacking another over suspicions or high powered threats and political pandering, I'd do it for the ones I loved, and I'd make sure to hate every moment of it.

I switched to this thread to get out of the US war of independence direction, even though I thought it was interesting.

But my next point is not directly related to that.

Even though I am not a religious person, I believe spiritual matters are higher than political ones. My beliefs are that fighting wars is morally wrong. It's as plain as that. Political entities, like countries are not as important to me as to many other people in this forum. I see them as something akin to a corporation. Others here treat them like a religious icon.

Now, there is a possibility, if you want to devise some kind of scenario, that I could could kill someone raping my wife and all that hypothetical nonesense, but I see no relationship between that and furthering political goals by shooting at people who were not born within the boundaries of the country I reside in.

i could live without baltimore. :blank2:

If everybody agreed to use ancient weapons or fists only I'd be happy to go. Otherwise I would go, and perform well, but would probably be very bitter if I got injured. Several months ago I played the game "Full Spectrum Warrior" which supposedly is a modern squad-based combat simulator. This was really eye-opening and I did a little more research into the sort of tactics used and scenarios that come into existence... there are too many instances where you have NO control (ie, regardless of skill, good decision-making) whether you become a casualty. For the higher command these are surely only "acceptable losses". For the infantry its of course much different. Come to think of it the only position I would be happy in would be a higher command position (lieutenant and up I believe).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Just get yourself put in a tank. Nothing can hurt those M1A1s. :inquisitive:

---

Apart from the A-10 that you're busy waving to.

No wait, the Yanks never do that :inquisitive:

Well seeing as I'm already Army Guard and plan on going active after school I'd go no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

I go no questions asked

---

Dream citizen of shitty regimes and other puppet masters every where!:2thumbsup:

Unless I missed something, we've only ever lost those babies to friendly fire.

You missed last week then , unless you can Iraqi IEDs friendly .

An IED is not going to knock out an Abrams.
Oh so it didn't happen last week then ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So that must have been a different Abrams that was wrecked in Iraq by two IEDs last week . So enlighten me , what other vehicle does the US Army have in its inventory that is also called an abrams MBT.

You know thats funny , the Israelis said the same about their new MBT , they took them off the streets when they found out they were wrong .

I wouldn't like it but I would go and serve my country. luckly I am not old enough to be in the draft. "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
leaders of nations who don't know that just need to go over to where the conflict is and they will notice.

If Iran got ahold of nuclear weapons, i'd go, more less i'd sign up that day. Iran has sponsored and created lots of little terrorist organizations, and I doubt they'll stop with nuking isreal. Personally i'd prefer to be in the fray of things then siting at home when a nuke goes off down the street from me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Faust|
If everybody agreed to use ancient weapons or fists only I'd be happy to go. Otherwise I would go, and perform well, but would probably be very bitter if I got injured. Several months ago I played the game "Full Spectrum Warrior" which supposedly is a modern squad-based combat simulator. This was really eye-opening and I did a little more research into the sort of tactics used and scenarios that come into existence... there are too many instances where you have NO control (ie, regardless of skill, good decision-making) whether you become a casualty. For the higher command these are surely only "acceptable losses". For the infantry its of course much different. Come to think of it the only position I would be happy in would be a higher command position (lieutenant and up I believe).

---

America's Army is a much better game, created by the U.S. Army much better then FSW. As for being a higher up, most of them are in the lead vehicles of their patrols. There was a couple instances were majors were in the first 2 vehicles while marching to Baghdad when they got engaged.

It only took 17 posts until the boys started comparing war toys again. These threads seem to easily decay into "F-18s are better than MIGs"/"you can't stop an Abrams with a PRL" bickering.

Everything can be blown away. You just need the right amount of explosives. Much like everything will burn you just need to heat it to the right temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bartix

Dream citizen of shitty regimes and other puppet masters every where!:2thumbsup:

---

Say what you want but If we go to war Id rather go then making someone else. If you want to protest thats fine but Im going to serve my country. Not saying its better or worse just what Id do

when iran/north korea gets nukes there is a good chance a bit of the world is going bye-bye. i don't want that to happen (unless its eire(ha(just kidding))) so we have to incapacitate there fighting forces...and what better to use than the undefeatable M1A1.:2thumbsup:

GC, Tribesman is probably talking about this:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...,90616,00.html

as BigTex said, a powerful enough explosive can destroy anything. not that it was destroyed, per se, but having the treads blown off certainly qualifies as being "knocked out".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

when iran/north korea gets nukes there is a good chance a bit of the world is going bye-bye.

---

I thought North Korea already had confirmed nukes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

I thought North Korea already had confirmed nukes

---

There still trying to build them I believe. Using the idea of building one as a threat. If they actually build one they'd lose their barggening chip to get concessions. Considering we have monster thermo-nuclear ICBM's some that have 36 seperately targetable city destroying warheads. If they were to build one it would be self-destructive to use it, thus bluff called.