Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

People with real disabilities are exempt anyways.

I was told I was always "special".............special needs!! yet I still did my time, may of been a bit loopy and bonkers at times but i still got through lol

Originally Posted by Charge_7

I understand you more clearly, however, I still disagree with you. Like I told the 13th Redneck, I served in the "bolo" Army. I never EVER want to see that again! You don't know how lucky you are we put an end to that.

What kind of stuff that US "bolo" army was? How it looked like and what kind of people were in? What was draftee's attitudes and motivation?

First of all "bolo" comes from the term used when you fail a test in the US military. If you "bolo" your marksmanship qualification for example it means you failed it. The term was applied to the US Army from about 1970 or so until about 1976 (give or take a couple years either way) by those who saw themselves as professionals in an Army populated with too many losers. Nobody was going to Vietnam anymore for the most part and certainly not at all after 1973 yet there were still people in who had been drafted. They no longer had any reason to do proper military work or learn anything as they had no real threat to getting their ass shot off in a rice paddy anymore. So things became lax, more lax and finally insufferably lax. Haircuts were unkempt, moustaches too long, uniforms looked like crap, orders were not obeyed or were done to the least possible level. This brought down the morale of even those who _wanted_ to be there. After the last of the draftees were gone it took some time before things shaped up considerably and it really didn't do so until President Reagan came into office. This is not to say the entire Army was like this. Elite units far from it. Mostly it was units like I saw stateside and some in Germany which wound up where alot of the draftees were placed.

That's a very interesting insight Charge_7. Let me get an opinion from you since those "bolos" whould probobly have the same temperment as modern guys forced into the army under my proposal.

Do you think that if they where relegated to "in the rear with the gear" work like logistics and mess duty that it would be a big detriment to the army? These "bolos" would be under the direct command of a volunteer NCO. Theoretically they would be seperated from the volunteers because the volunteers would be assigned to more demanding tasks.

why field a big army of incompetent people instead of a mediuns sized one of good people?

You're underestimating the worth of those "in the rear with the gear", Whispering Death. There's an old maxim about the Army that probably goes back farther than Alexander. It is "there are three groups of people you never screw around with in the military; cooks because you won't get fed well, supply because you'll never have the proper equipment, and admin because you'll never get paid right or possibly even see your promotions come through the way they should". So I'll ask _you_ this:

Do you want to get fed by people who don't give a damn?

Do you want to get your equipment from people who don't give a damn?

Do you want to get paid by people who don't give a damn?

Originally Posted by Charge_7

I understand where you're going, but it would never fly in this country. Nothing compulsory ever does. h**l ask 03USMC how hard it is to get people to comply with _driving_ laws.

For a percentage of the population it is impossible. Complusary service would be the same.

"Do you want to get fed by people who don't give a damn?

Do you want to get your equipment from people who don't give a damn?

Do you want to get paid by people who don't give a damn?"

Sounds bad. Why aren't those people booted out from the military or give them a good changes to quit easily when they ever want to? Boot all crap off the carts right at the begin.

***

Uh, you're confused. Read the whole post EuroSpike and the one I made before it. Those people are looonng gone. More than a quarter of a century now.