Willie and Joe up front!


Just went over the old Bill Maudlin WWII cartoons again. It maybe that some of our younger readers have not become familiar with this great work. You can “Google” it up. The reason I bring it to your attention is that the military is in such sad shape, from the inside out. I cannot imagine what two old soldiers would say about the mess. Can you imagine the boys and girls today in Italy or France after Normandy or on Bloody Pelilu or Iwo Jima? I would like to say that might always triumphs,as well as right, but like Hemingway said<“That old evil is pretty tough.” In a mano-a-mano fight without technology on our side, could our people defeat fanatics like Iran or North Korea in an equal contest? I hope we don’t have to find out.
On a more cheerful note, and while we are talking about cartoons, many of you may not be familiar with Walt Kelly,either, Some of the best ever. So much better than today’s attempts at comics.(Yep…I gave up comic paper cartoons in the Sunday paper,too. Not funny,or are out and out heretical or Leftist.
So,anyway, fanatics can be tough in a fair fight, but ,God willing, we will blow 'em to Kingdom Come first .Mr Trump strikes me as the sort of man who would always get there "“The firstest with the mostest”.


Love Walt Kelly comic Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us” :vb-rofl:

Agree, no such thing as a fair fight, better to be the fastest with the mostest or risk getting KO’d


I was also a big fan of Al Capp.


… What would North Korea use to fight us, exactly?

The fuel for their tanks and airplanes they don’t have? The 2/3 of their army who don’t even have ammo?

When you take stock of what North Korea has, you start to realize why they’ve been acting so strangely. It’s their growing irrelevance as a conventional military power that’s forcing them to chase a nuclear option.

As to Iran, this is their newest tank.

It’a redress of a T-72.

This is their most advanced fighter

It’s the F-14A. They have about a dozen of them still flying.

Modern militaries are very difficult, and very expensive to field. Iran is a poor country. North Korea even worse.

To be blunt, this isn’t a worrisome concern with either of them. China is more worth watching.


It’s hard to say how well, but any nation (including ours, even as soft as we’ve gotten) can turn into fighting fanatics when they realize they have a fight on their hands and a cause worth fighting for.

By the way, AS, as seen in my quote from him, Foghorn specified “mano-a-mano fight WITHOUT TECHNOLOGY ON OUR SIDE.”


I already accounted for the most practical vision of that, hence why I mentioned, 2/3 don’t even have ammo.

Even if it’s war carried out with bare small arms, their supplies are lacking, they aren’t well trained, and they’re half-starved.

It’s still forgetting to take stock of the condition of the InmunGun.

Any war with them would quickly break down into asymmetrical guerrilla tactics, no different than the Iraqi insurgency. It’s precisely the deterrent they aim for, along with the rows of artillery.

So no, I stand by what I said. China is the real threat to examine.


Our military is in tatters from 2 key issues:

  1. OVER, use, extended, worked, BROKEN, people, equipment and LEADERSHIP that supports social engineering rather than combat soldiers.

  2. A nation that sees little need for a strong military due to the resurgence of the far left, aka, protesters of the 60’s. 8 years of O’joker apology all over the world and 'lead from behind strategy have left the military broken and a nation that wants to bake cakes for gay weddings rather than stand strong.

Few people in America know a military person. If you take all the former, National Guard and Reserves and Active Duty and combine them, they are about 1% of the population of America. We have isolated our military from the populace and we still have ½ or more of our populace that would not spit on a soldier if he was on fire. They just are not as vocal as they were in the 60’s but they have not gone away.

The FIX: Restore the DRAFT, then it affects every man and woman in America.


Sure, so, pull out of Afghanistan. Pull out of other conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East.

Reorient as a deterrent to China and Iran. Let the broader Middle East and Africa sort itself out.

It’s more like 7%:


No; forcing people into the military who don’t want to be there lowers both the morale, and the quality of the people serving.

This is why Russia has been moving away from conscription, to a volunteer force (and has created their own NCO corps). They realize the lack quality just renders their troops ineffective, making for high casualties, and bad publicity.


Funny, morale and quality were high during WWII, and we had the draft then.
On edit: Far better than we have now.


South Koreans and Isrealis all serve, and every one I’ve met were more patriotic and understanding of the cost of freedom. Unlike the average American I meet.


LOL, those numbers like the rest of the VA are smoke and mirrors. Only 2.55M served in Vietnam as for WWII: according to US Department of Veterans Affairs statistics, 558,000 of the 16 million Americans who served in World War II are alive in 2017. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/wwii-veteran-statistics

The numbers you quoted are the ESTIMATES, in fact a significant % of vets never register or go to the VA. The VA also counts all those who receive benefits in that number, which includes certain dependents that never served. I know for a fact there was a woman on the VA roles in 1983 who got her eligibility from a Civil War veterans.

That said, kets just use YOUR numbers and call at 7% or about 21.5 M living vets…the TOP 10 states with vets account for approx 50% of all the vets living today: https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_What_state_has_the_most_veterans%3F

Let me state again, VERY FEW people even know a vet reasonably well enough to know name and could call or see them to ask a question…that is 50 years of observation. So the FACT JACK is that our populace has become detached from veterans, unlike post WWII era where 16 M served and every one had a dog in the fight.

I was drafted, how about YOU? Draftees were noted in Vietnam to have great attitudes and were fierce fighters.

YES we need a draft and a bit different from the old draft:

  1. we draft men and women

  2. Its a 2 year gig and if successful you get a 4 year scholarship books and tuition, with an option for up to 2 more years for a Masters program IF you chose a needed field such as Engineering, Business, Sciences etc

  3. ALL of Federal govt is open to each draftee based upon requirements. States may also participate in the Draft program

  4. Volunteer draft is open from age 17-22, regular draft is age 18-22

  5. those who elect the military option will not be assigned into the combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Engineers, SF, Ranger, SEAL etc. Draftees may volunteer for Combat Arms after one year of active duty and agree to sign up for an additional 3 years for a total of 5 years of service.


Maybe this should be the campaign motto of the Grand Old Party’s 2018 campaign. Either that or “We aren’t quite as bad as the other guys.”


We didn’t keep the draft perpetually, and you’re not comparing the same thing.

I’m talking about a volunteer force vs draftees, you’re talking about morale in a vacuum.

Israel does it out of necessity; South Korea suffers the very quality problems I spoke. To include a much higher propensity of soldier violence and suicide.

Better comparison; how many gay people do you know? By bare numbers, You’re twice as likely to see a veteran, as you are someone who is homosexual.

You can’t use the “congregation” excuse, homosexuals do the same thing. There are certain places around the country where they concentrate.

I wasn’t, but this man was, and he served in both with draftees and volunteers, guess what he observed?


During America’s conscription era from 1940 to 1973, fear of dying in infantry combat inevitably perverted the selective service system. Mom and Dad didn’t want Johnny to die so they went to extraordinary lengths to keep him out of a close combat unit. The system became even more perverted when grossly unpopular wars like Vietnam made avoidance of the draft suddenly acceptable among much of the population.

The perversion of the draft laws was tragic for those of us who had to lead these men in combat. The most difficult task in war is to fight close to the enemy. It takes extraordinary strength, endurance, skill and an intuitive sense of a soldier’s surroundings. Yet in my father’s war, thanks to a corrupt draft, infantry came from the lowest mental categories and were universally smaller and weaker than soldiers drafted for non-combat specialties. Thus it should surprise no one that better trained and acculturated German soldiers had a field day killing Americans with great skill in the hedgerows of Normandy. The same can be said for my Vietnam generation where the ranks of infantry units were too often filled with young men who hated the fact that they lost the lottery. They were too poor or too disadvantaged for their parents to get them deferred or into the National Guard.

As we learned in World War II, an amateur army can become professional over time but the price of learning is measured in blood. It takes years to build a cohesive band of brothers within close combat units. A draft would rush unprepared, under-trained and poorly bonded soldiers into battle only to get them killed. If you think that post-traumatic stress disorder is a problem for a volunteer force, just watch the consequences of putting unwilling, poor quality drafted soldiers under enemy fire.

As he describes it, the draft is a Utopian concept for social leveling. It doesn’t consider at all the effect on the military, or the people whose lives you’ve disrupted… in peacetime.

Utopian is Utopian, for the very reason it doesn’t model human nature well at all; premising ideal scenarios that cannot exist. It also forgets the practical needs of the military.

You’re putting people where they don’t want to be, and make everyone else’s lives hell as a consequence.


You did NOT read what I wrote:

those who elect the military option will not be assigned into the combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Engineers, SF, Ranger, SEAL etc. Draftees may volunteer for Combat Arms after one year of active duty and agree to sign up for an additional 3 years for a total of 5 years of service.”

I knew General Scales, one of my favs and I agree with him, which he sez…draftees have been the cannon fodder and that is WRONG. That said Draftees were NOT more likely to serve on the front lines in Vietnam, in fact there were fewer of us than you might imagine. Of my draft group on 25 Jan 1967, there were maybe 50 of us at the Post Office, IIRC 13 went into the USMC, the rest Army, I knew most of the guys, my best friend he was picked for USMC and he went to Japan to be a clerk for 2 years. NONE of the guys I knew were on the front lines except me, only a few of them even went to Vietnam. I was recently at my HS Reunion and not a one was a combat soldier other than me.


[quote=“17Oaks, post:14, topic:54960, full:true”]

You did NOT read what I wrote:[/quote]

To the contrary, you’ve underestimated what I said.

In asymmetrical warfare, just as we experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, rear echelon forces see combat all the time, if not just as much as the dedicated combat units.

You’re not avoiding putting people who don’t want to be there into firefights. Quit kidding yourself.

If this didn’t happen, my mother wouldn’t have been shot at by the NORKs, and Jessica Lynch wouldn’t have been captured by the Iraqis in 2003.

Unless you’re posting everyone to a peacetime role in the continental U.S., you’re not avoiding this.

You’re also not avoiding bloating the military with people we don’t need, who are poorly motivated, paid for with funds we don’t have to spare.

We don’t need more people, we do need new equipment; not the same thing. You’re wasting money on a Utopian pipe dream that would be better spent modernizing our forces.


Again you fail to either read or your comprehension skills are lacking. My Draft does not put people in the military, that is merely an option for them. If you are so concerned about those in the rear, then FINE, lets not ship them ANY country for duty in which Combat pay is authorized. Feel better now?

Then you lack of understanding shows yet again, the draft does not put people on active duty for which there is not a need or a slot for. You CLEARLY have no understanding of the military and how its organized or staffed. But I assure you we don’t have folks who do not have an assigned job to go to, it does not work like that.

NO its not a Utopian pipe dream, the only pipe dream going on here is the one you are smoking, open the windows it ill expand your mind more than the smoke does…

Material acquisition and personnel acquisition are different pots of money and based upon different things and requires a real balancing act. Just wonder, over you military career did you work in Personnel, Logistic, Operations and serve in a TO&E or TDA unit and did you serve in front line combat?


AS: YOU know this how???


This was a cute little note from Foghorn and you folks totally changed the point. I remember the Maudlin cartoons and the cartoons of the 40’s and 50’s. During the second world war cartoons were a great source of relief from the seriousness of the fighting.


No… you just changed the goal posts.

Problem is, I do understand the military, and you just changed your tune. You said this before:

draftees may volunteer for Combat Arms after one year of active duty

Active duty, & military service, was apart of your premise from the start.

You’re now walking back those requirements since I’ve pointed out the flaws of drafting people. It’s a strain on morale, on resources, and on fighting quality.

Yes it is; we don’t have money to do this, we don’t need to do this, and you’re encouraging Socialization by doing it.

You eat up defense dollars that are needed elsewhere, and you put people in jobs they have no interest in doing.

Quit your ****** manpower drive for the Government.

We don’t need large labor pools in the military, we need capital improvements, and people capable of using them.

Not unskilled people on two-year commitments; trained specialists who fill niche roles.


Say hello to Maj. General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (Ret.).

He’s the current head of the Reserve Policy Board, and he’s also currently one of the leading critics of absolutely inane ways the military’s budget is spent.

Fencing Intelligence operations, a huge bureaucracy in the pentagon, an unsustainable retirement system, and procurement system that laughs in the face of logic. And flow charts.

He knows exactly what we waste our money on, and where we should be spending it instead. That’s basically his damn job at this point.

Growing the military by over 300% its current size; forcing it to absorb untrained people to do menial work? There’s no room in the budget for it and the military doesn’t need it.

It frankly needs less people (personnel costs are already 80% of what the military spends on), and more equipment. Paradoxically, it also, as I said, needs more people with very specific skill sets.