Flashermac Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 The German submarine service was the one with the highest casualty rate of all, something over 80% killed. Allied radar was spotting the subs as soon as they surface to recharge their batteries and restock on air, but the German Kriegsmarine kept sending them out to certain death anyway. Plenty of subs in the last months of the war were lost with all hands when going out on their first mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I heard that some soldiers have spent more time in Iraq then what some USA soldiers had spent fighting in WWII? Any truth to it? Not surprising considering they joined the war 2 years into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Pure politics. The neo-cons KNOW that if the institute a draft for the Iraq debacle, they'll be lynched. Cheers, SD Hey SD...when did Hollings and Rangel become "neo-cons". From your favorite source, Wiki: "In 2003, legislation to reintroduce general conscription was introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings (Democrat of South Carolina) and Representative Charles B. Rangel (Democrat of New York)..." HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 << Not surprising considering they joined the war 2 years into it. >> Not to worry, the Seven Years War lasted 9 years in America. We were fighting it 2 years before you folks decided to give us a hand, even though we were Brits back then too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Wouldn't calling up discharded soldiers be something the military itself would do without the govt, whereas conscription would require the govt to enact laws etc? Would be loads easier and more effective to drag ex soldiers in, even if against their will, than to call up raw recruits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Thats just it, they are technically still in the military, just not on active duty. And as they have all there paperwork read to them, they all KNOW THAT. This guy is just a coward or thought he has found an interesting out, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 As I said ... there is technically a six year obligation. The military may discharge you after 3 or 4, but you could be called back for the remaining time. I remember I breathed a sigh of relief when I got my final discharge. I was in Thailand at the time.* However, I can't think of any time the US military has recalled people EXCEPT over Iraq! Thanks a lot, GWB. You've established a precedent. *I was released after Vietnam and transfered to the Inactive Reserve. I turned in my ID card and effectively left the Army. But my name remained on file, and technically I was still in the Army. That's what this guy is, no matter what he says. (I might think more highly of him if he had actually served in Iraq, which he hasn't. This always makes you wonder about his motivation - political or just plain frightened.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 << This guy is just a coward or thought he has found an interesting out, or both. >> Always makes you wonder. I remember my roommate in graduate school (another vet) commenting on how nobody protested or dodged the draft BEFORE the VN War. It always sounds better to say you oppose this particular war then to admit you are scared sh*tless of going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Thats just it, they are technically still in the military, just not on active duty. And as they have all there paperwork read to them, they all KNOW THAT. This guy is just a coward or thought he has found an interesting out, or both. Is a man who experience war and hated it more of a coward than one who chooses not to join up? Personally, I would hate to be called up and I reckon seeing active duty in some foreign hell hole would only reinforce that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Is a man who experience war and hated it more of a coward than one who chooses not to join up? A man who chooses not to join up does not have to be a coward. But this case is not about that. A man who chooses to join up, then refuses to go is absolutely a coward. That is what this case is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.