your thoughts please

[rathi]

Conscription vs Volunteer is opten a function of the size of the country. Smaller nations simply don't have the manpower to be all volunteer, while larger ones can. Russia has the population to maintain a sizable military even with an all volunteer army. However, at the moment, a switch would be quite difficult. The current system treats conscripts terribly, which would seriously undermine recruiting attempts to switch to an all volunteer force. Spending a few years improving the living conditions of soldiers before switching would be beneficial.

Most importantly, I think Russia needs to switch to smaller force. A vast army is not needed given the current political situation, and their aims could be better served with a smaller force size and spending more per soldier.

 

[Elena]

Conscription vs Volunteer is opten a function of the size of the country. Smaller nations simply don't have the manpower to be all volunteer, while larger ones can. Russia has the population to maintain a sizable military even with an all volunteer army. However, at the moment, a switch would be quite difficult. The current system treats conscripts terribly, which would seriously undermine recruiting attempts to switch to an all volunteer force. Spending a few years improving the living conditions of soldiers before switching would be beneficial.

Most importantly, I think Russia needs to switch to smaller force. A vast army is not needed given the current political situation, and their aims could be better served with a smaller force size and spending more per soldier.

Thank you for your opinion, if you don't mind I'll present your argument on a Russian forum.

However, the US (a large country)/NATO is facing a problem of not enough servicemen, and many here are talking of the benefits of reintroducing conscription.

Do you think it is possible to have a "mixed" military, perhaps?

 

[rathi]

Conscription is not an option for the U.S. military. The political backlash would make it impossible. It would simply be a repeat of Vietnam, and probably be even worse given the current political climate. The draft is not going to happen in the U.S. unless we face a foe as dangerous of those in WW2.

 

[Scorpion89]

One has to sleep sometimes you know...

I am glad that you have a first hand experience of training (?) Georgian army, and yes, I would like you to share with me your knowledge.

Information I have states that at the start of the war there were 1000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia; then there is this What Israel Lost in the Georgia War - TIME

And what was that Russians found after the Georgian army ran, and the US were eager to return?

Hmm a 1000 US Military Instructor on the groun din Georgia far from it how about 150 actaul US militayr Personal and around 100 or so DoD employee's far from the so-called 1000.

As for what the Israel lost they didn't loss anything question did you read the article?? If you had then you would have noted that the Israelie Govn doesn't seel Arms directly to over sea's Countries but they do allow certain Defense Companys like LAVI which make low grade UAVs to be sold.

As for what the Russian found after teh Georgian Army left yep I know what it was, try the 325 Humvees that were part of the Joint US Goergain Military Excersie that was going to tak eplace, oh and geuss what the Russian returned all of them to us.

Like I said this is a subject you out of your league on.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to answer these question I ask of you,

1) A link showing what type of Armour and Tanks the US and Israel provided
2) A link showing what type of Helicopters
3) A link showing what type of machine gun and light arms
4) A link showing what type of UAVs
5) A link showing what type of Military Issued Clothing
6) A link showing what typer of Intel items

 

[Elena]

Like I said this is a subject you out of your league on.

Oh, absolutely! That's why I have you to help me with the particulars, innit?

But first let us establish something: I answer only for MY words and MY claims.

And there they are (as a reminder):

1. Well trained by US instructors,

2. armed by US and Israel, professional Georgian army ...

Even you do not deny that the US and Israel supplied military equipment to Georgian army, and there were/still are US military instructors in Georgia, you just try to present it in negligible figures as "nothing". But why should I believe your word, keeping in mind you are an DoD employee and an official position of the US during and after that war is that of distancing itself from it by downplaying US involvement?..

OK', let's see what we can see...
18 January, 2004 BBC:
"In 2002 the Bush administration set up an 18-month, $65m programme aimed at training and equipping Georgia's impoverished army.
.......
US officials have said that their military presence in Georgia will now become permanent. lol: -- "cellulite and Irish relatives"?)

The American military has been training and equipping the Georgian army since the spring of 2002.

Having trained three battalions of Georgian soldiers, US military instructors were due to leave in March.
...
On Saturday the US ambassador to Georgia said they had decided to continue training the Georgian army in a full-time programme.US 'security guarantee' " BBC NEWS | Europe | US military will stay in Georgia

Now, I am a bit confused about some of what you said... For example this: "how about 150 actaul US militayr Personal and around 100 or so DoD employee's..." Indeed, in 2002 "President George Bush called the May deployment of some 150 U.S. advisers to Georgia..." to train "about 1,500 soldiers" (almost 1:1 tuition!), but US military advisers were arriving to Georgia prior as well as after that time, and I was talking of 2008.
Green Berets now in Georgia: U.S. Special Forces are training Georgian soldiers to fight radical Muslims. The mission could benefit other U.S. interests as well | VFW Magazine | Find Articles at BNET


"Georgia unleashed its military campaign against South Ossetia on August 7, following the completion of a joint US-Georgian military exercise, in which 1,000 US military advisers took part, according to Churkin (Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations)"

Putin: "We know there were a lot of U.S. advisers (in Georgia)... but instructors, teachers and personnel for military weapons should be on firing ranges and in the teaching centres -- but where were they? They were in the zone of military operations."

You may ask "how does he know they were American?" Well, you see, when Russians found dead bodies of BLACK people... Perhaps next time the US sends its personnel to fight the war they shouldn't be involved into, it will give more consideration to racial makeup of the region. Just a thought. You may write it down. :lol:

Another bit I find confusing is this: you said "...Humvees that were part of the Joint US Goergain Military Excersie that was going to take place..." Didn't you know that "“Immediate Response 2008” conducted with the joint efforts of the USA and Georgian Armed Forces was held at Vaziani Military Base on July 15-31", while Georgians attacked S.Ossetia the night 7 -- 8 of August? Humvees as well as missile boat Dioskuria were taken by Russians on the 19 of August. What the hell were they doing in Poti 20 days after the exercise had finished?

And do you remember those Israeli drones the Abkhasians kept shooting down prior to the war?

"For past seven years, Israeli companies have been helping Gerogian army to preparer for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry units and security advice... "The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday. War in Georgia: The Israeli connection - Israel News, Ynetnews


In my opinion it is enough to conclude that the US and Israel were and still are (not sure about Israel now) training and arming Georgian army.


PS.
Tell the truth, did you stomp your foot when you were typing this: "I'm still waiting for you to answer these question I ask of you"? :lol:

 

[American]

The Iraq war should never have happened in my opinion.
Iraq is not America's property it shoud belong to the people of Iraq.

America is supposed to be helping Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want unfortunatly terrorist and other factions only want Iraqi people to have what they want them to have
So the American soldier winds up fighting terrorist and other factions plus some Iraqis the language becomes a problem, the fitting in becomes a problem,then there's the trust issue.

:beatdeadhorse Are you here for the topic or to beat a dead horse. The discussion of Iraq is an example, not the topic.

 

[presluc]

:beatdeadhorse Are you here for the topic or to beat a dead horse. The discussion of Iraq is an example, not the topic.

To me it is an example nothing more I could just as easily used Vietnam.

However since America is still fighting a war in Iraq it is not as you put it a "dead horse".

Since President Bush said this war was partly a result of "bad intelligence" it makes me wander exactly when Iraq became a "dead horse" issue before or after the pre-emtive strike.

 

[American]

To me it is an example nothing more I could just as easily used Vietnam.

However since America is still fighting a war in Iraq it is not as you put it a "dead horse".

Since President Bush said this war was partly a result of "bad intelligence" it makes me wander exactly when Iraq became a "dead horse" issue before or after the pre-emtive strike.

Talking about whether we should have gone or not, IS A DEAD HORSE. The train has left the station my man.

 

[presluc]

Talking about whether we should have gone or not, IS A DEAD HORSE. The train has left the station my man.

Perhaps I'm talking about wether we shouls stay or not.

 

[Glücksritter]

Hi!

...

I am not able to anser your question in general cause it largely depends on the circumstances. I agree on this point you gave e.g.

In a real war against a powerful enemy the mercenary army is not capable of defending a country. This was demonstrated during the war in Kuwait, whose army offered no resistance to aggression by Iraq in August 1990. Kuwait was awash with oil money and the salaries of soldiers were no problem, they were excellent as was combat training, and military equipment... But at the start of the Iraqi aggression the army of Kuwait simply "evaporated". "Well-paid and well-trained professionals" have not shown the slightest desire to die, that was not what they joined the army for. If anything, civilians showed more resistance to the aggressors.

I do not think that Kuwait is a good example, cause IMO outmatched anyway, but what you want to illustrate is right IMO. So if a country is really threatened by a rivalry which is to be taken seriously a conscript army can be an advantage to defend your country.

On the other hand an army stronger in quatity has higher costs, if n peace time or when you are in offensive. Then a more mobile army can be better.

 

[Glücksritter]

:beatdeadhorse Are you here for the topic or to beat a dead horse. The discussion of Iraq is an example, not the topic.

Off topic: Which part of the horse is the man aiming at with his gits? :shock:

 

[roguenuke]

Thank you for your opinion, if you don't mind I'll present your argument on a Russian forum.

However, the US (a large country)/NATO is facing a problem of not enough servicemen, and many here are talking of the benefits of reintroducing conscription.

Do you think it is possible to have a "mixed" military, perhaps?

Where did you get that the US is having problems of not enough servicemen? I know for a fact that recruiting in the US has been slowed by the government. There are plenty of people trying to get in. The recruiters are actually having to find reasons to turn people down or greatly delay their entry into service. I know this from my husband's efforts to get in.

Now, I personally feel that they could use more people in the military, but the shortage is due to funding, not the lack of volunteers.

 

[Elena]

Where did you get that the US is having problems of not enough servicemen?

I already stated that it was not my article.

But as a matter of fact, there were few publications outlining difficulties with recruiting.