http://vader.uta.edu/agv/docs/link.html

In case of a tank, requirements to the object recognition system are far more demanding than in case of a plane. Remember all those path-finding problems in RS games?

Besides, jamming-proof remote contol for an airplane is somewhat easier to build, too.

I hope you do if you join, because I would hate to be one of your buddies in the tank if you don't. I would not want my life to be in the hands of someone who is apathetic, or worse...

If NATO sends Norwegian armor to wherever, and he is on the crew, I hope that he can get it together, otherwise, he will endanger the mission, his crew, his fellow tankers, the lives of other NATO personnel, and the lives of the innocent he was sent to liberate or protect or whatever.

Secondly, I would feel nothing, for NOBODY would ever have to tell me to do my duty. I know my duty, I do my duty, and I live by that code.

It saddens me to see someone so completely brainwashed as you.
If politicians start a war, or decides to intervene, do you just accept that without a thought and simply do your "duty"?
I truly feel sorry for the likes of you, but it's your life...
Those who start the war, never participates... hmmm... that thought ever cross your mind?

In my opinion it's sick to just go along with any orders.
I have no problem with civilian laws, since they're designed to make things run smoothly and to protect people.
But just blindly follow every command and fight for some cause you most likely never will know - just stupid!
If soldiers all over the world stopped and thought for a moment "Why am I REALLY doing this?" we would have very few wars...

How old are you? You sound like a 13-year-old...

Imagine if your unit had ever been ordered to seize firearms from US citizens, with deadly force if neccesary, as part of some big gun control effort. That's a likely mission for an infantry unit like the ones I was in during my time in the Army. What would you do? Do the immoral thing and follow orders, or do the right thing and get court marshalled.

I wonder, was it easier for a German soldier in WWII to follow orders or follow his conscience? Should the Chinese troops who overran Tiannamen square be commended for having the "fortitude" to follow orders, or should they have disobeyed?

LOL! Tell that to the Souix. In fact, tell it to virtually any N. American indian (or if you prefer aboriginal/native/first nations). In fact, tell it to the French, or the Germans, or the English, or the Russians, or the US for that matter. Every single one of those nations have broken treaties and had treaties broken. Treaties are legal agreements between states. They get created and broken all the time. Take NAFTA, for example, you Americans violate at least 5 sections of it (and those are the ones I know off the top of my head).

If you think I blindly follow orders, then you are not at all familiar with Special Operations. I just know that wherever I am sent, IF I go, then I will do my duty to the furthest of my ability, and will not willfully endanger the mission, or the lives of non-combatants (unless absolutely necessary), or the lives of my fellow operators.

Second, when it comes to seizing weapons from US Citizens, if that is the law they pass, no matter if it infringes on constitutional rights, the constitution is fluid and it can be changed. If that is the new law, then I am beholdant to uphold it. At least until they do the right thing and reverse the decision...

Let's get a grip...

Here's an article I think you should all read...

A Tribute to the United States

This comes from a Canadian newspaper.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto. The editorial was by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian Television commentator. What follows is
the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record.

America: The Good Neighbor.

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans
as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the
Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States
that hurries to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of
dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating
over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC-10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon-not once, but several times-and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in
the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those. Stand proud, Americans.

I agree.

-Skater

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opa:
Skater
1) Regular norwegian forces are not used for foreign operations, so I don't see the possibility of fighting on foreign soil.

I know that, but it is not unforseeable that this policy can change in the near future. Look at the Germans. They had not deployed to a foreign land since WW2, yet they did so just recently in the Kosovo action.

2) If I don't join the army at my age, my authorities will send me to jail.(That's how it works in Norway) I think 12 months locked inside a tank would be better.

Well, although I do not agree with compulsory military service (does not make for a very professional or motivated force), I think it does impart a certain something into society as a whole. I just hope that the reasons in which you go are noble, and not just "because I have to". The US learned bitterly with Vietnam what compulsory service does to unit integrity during an unpopular military action.

3) My opinions will not affect my behaviour in combat, I can tell you that right now. A lot of things may affect it, but not my opinions.

Well, I am indeed happy to hear that. Know your duty and perform it. Military service imparts great responsibility, and the lives of your buddies depend on you stepping up to the plate and accepting that responsibility.

I see where you want to go with this, but I've never accused NATO personell of anything, they were just obeying orders, as they are expected to do. In their place, I would do the same thing, regardless of my own feelings about it.

---

Although I am pretty sure I have seen you accuse NATO of being terrorists, I will take you on your word that you have not. I am glad to see that you accept your responsibilty and can set aside personal feelings. That is the mark of a true soldier.

I don't agree with you that compulsory service makes bad soldiers. Of course you should use drafted soldiers only to defend your homeland not to stick your nose into the affairs of another country.

When the Netherlands stil had compulsory service the army was a mirror of Dutch society. Rich or poor, low tech worker or university graduate they all had to serve. The current proffesional Dutch army consist largly of high school drop outs making a buck on a short term contract.

The current proffessional army soldiers have lower educations. It takes more time to train them. They will have to serve longer and are more easely bored (Remeber they serve at least 4 years as opossed to 14 months).

You can never send a conscript army to war without support of the population. Every family has at the least one relative serving in the army. Do you want to send your coussin John to a place where he might get hurt for a cause nobody believes in. You have to be a good politician to pull off something like that and even then a member of your own family might just serve his time in the army and get himself killed.

Just look at the French if they get half a chance they will send their merceneries (The Foreign Legion) to the hot spots and keep their conscripts save.

When we still had a conscript army all the units for peacekeeping mission consisted of volenteers. No one could send you against your free will to serve in Lebanon or Bosnia.

With a proffesional army who cares? You chose to do this line of work. Most of you come from low income families. We don't know people like that. Lets send you in harms way to do our dirty work.

Consider also two examples where mandatory service still exists and provides a very motivated force: Switzerland and Israel. In Israel the percieved threats and the relatively small size of the nation ensures that conscripts are very motivated and professional in their conduct and service. Switzerland too has many of the same qualities (minus the threat aspect), but like Germany prior to 1914, Switzerland's laws serve to ensure a very motivated and professional pool of soldiers.

So, to say that Conscription results in less motivated troops is incorrect, even if it does occur in many circumstances.

re: USA...

I don't have anything particularly against the US. I generally admire my neighbours to the south. I think they've got many things right, I also think we do some things better. We sometimes get upset because we feel like we're a mouse sleeping with an elephant, but we have the world's longest undefended border (at least until Pat buchanan gets the Presidency) for a reason: Canada and the US are good friends and good neighbours to one another (generally anyways). However, just because I generally respect the US does not mean that I'm going to turn a blind eye when I think they've gone astray, if I did it would prove that I don't care about my friends south of the border. It is precisely because I care about my neighbour that I feel it neccessary to point out the problems with the US when they manifest themselves.
The reason I brought up the issue of native treaties was because you brought up the issue of treaties as being inviolable. They aren't. Treaties are always broken. Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes longer, but they always get broken in the end.

I find your comments about the constitution interesting. Again, I'd point out that the Weimar constitution did not protect Jews from the holocaust (the constitution did include any protection), so does that make the actions of the Gestapo moral? No. In the example cited (gun sweeps) there is more constitutional protection for Americans than for German Jews, and still you'd consider that moral? I hardly think it to be (and I'm a Canadian (and hence a socialist gun-control advocate apparently)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by boshar:
Skater

I don't agree with you that compulsory service makes bad soldiers. Of course you should use drafted soldiers only to defend your homeland not to stick your nose into the affairs of another country.

When the Netherlands stil had compulsory service the army was a mirror of Dutch society. Rich or poor, low tech worker or university graduate they all had to serve. The current proffesional Dutch army consist largly of high school drop outs making a buck on a short term contract.

The current proffessional army soldiers have lower educations. It takes more time to train them. They will have to serve longer and are more easely bored (Remeber they serve at least 4 years as opossed to 14 months).

You can never send a conscript army to war without support of the population. Every family has at the least one relative serving in the army. Do you want to send your coussin John to a place where he might get hurt for a cause nobody believes in. You have to be a good politician to pull off something like that and even then a member of your own family might just serve his time in the army and get himself killed.

Just look at the French if they get half a chance they will send their merceneries (The Foreign Legion) to the hot spots and keep their conscripts save.

When we still had a conscript army all the units for peacekeeping mission consisted of volenteers. No one could send you against your free will to serve in Lebanon or Bosnia.

With a proffesional army who cares? You chose to do this line of work. Most of you come from low income families. We don't know people like that. Lets send you in harms way to do our dirty work.

Harry

---

I don't even have to say a word. You just illustrated a perfect example of why compulsory service (in general) produces an unmotivated, unprofessional, soldier corps.

If you are not there with the expectation that you may and can be sent to serve (and any good soldier who has never been in combat WANTS to see combat) in a combat environment, then you should not be there at all. Professional soldiers don't do it for the money. Ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:
I am also of the opinion that compulsory service does not always equal a poorer motivated force. In the heyday of conscription before the first world war the armies of Europe were heavily motivated, partly by percieved threats, but mainly because army service meant shared experiences for all men in the nation. It was a place where boys became good national citizens and the real utility was not in the military aspects, but in the social ones. In the first world war, France, suffered terrible conscript losses, but not due to motivation (see: the Battle of the Marne) while Germany's reserve and conscript units proved superior to the regular forces of most of their opponents (at least into 1917).

Again, we are talking about a different time, and a different set of circumstance. Today, compulsory service, in general, produces unmotivated, unprofessional troops. There are quite a few exceptions, Norway, Denmark, and Israel come to mind, but they are hardly the rule, and the number of troops is small. In general, Russian forces, comprised almost totally of conscripts, suffer from a lack of motivation. This never used to be the case during the Soviet era. A similar degeneration can be witnessed within several other national armies. The reasons for this are many, and we can get into them at length another time... Suffice it to say for nor, the problem is real.

Consider also two examples where mandatory service still exists and provides a very motivated force: Switzerland and Israel. In Israel the percieved threats and the relatively small size of the nation ensures that conscripts are very motivated and professional in their conduct and service. Switzerland too has many of the same qualities (minus the threat aspect), but like Germany prior to 1914, Switzerland's laws serve to ensure a very motivated and professional pool of soldiers.

Switzerland has a very small number of troops, with one of the highest benfits and salary packages of any military force on the planet. They are a highly professional, highly motivated, and highly trained bunch. However, most of Switzerland's active force strength consists of volunteers. That is, after the perfunctory compulsory service is complete, a great percentage of Switzerland's active military conssists of those who have elected to stay on, voluntarily. This is the bulk of, and nearly all of, the Swiss NCO and Officer corps.

The same can also be said of the Israeli military (with whom I have had the pleasure of training with several times). The bulk of their forces that remain active are volunteers.

So, to say that Conscription results in less motivated troops is incorrect, even if it does occur in many circumstances.

I do not believe so. We will have to agree to disagree here.

re: USA...

I don't have anything particularly against the US. I generally admire my neighbours to the south. I think they've got many things right, I also think we do some things better. We sometimes get upset because we feel like we're a mouse sleeping with an elephant, but we have the world's longest undefended border (at least until Pat buchanan gets the Presidency) for a reason: Canada and the US are good friends and good neighbours to one another (generally anyways). However, just because I generally respect the US does not mean that I'm going to turn a blind eye when I think they've gone astray, if I did it would prove that I don't care about my friends south of the border. It is precisely because I care about my neighbour that I feel it neccessary to point out the problems with the US when they manifest themselves.

I respect this rationale fully...

The reason I brought up the issue of native treaties was because you brought up the issue of treaties as being inviolable.

I never said inviolable, but I did say that treaties are EXPECTED to be upheld by the signators. Is that not the basis of treaties? If nobody believed that they would be upheld, then why would anyone bother to propose and sign them? Treaties can obviously be broken, but not without consequence. In today's world, breaking those treaties and doing what we did to the American Indians would have raised international outcry and sanctions, and maybe worse... We could not do that today. Nobody could. Thank God.

They aren't. Treaties are always broken. Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes longer, but they always get broken in the end.

I do not agree with always, but with a high probablility, yes.

I find your comments about the constitution interesting. Again, I'd point out that the Weimar constitution did not protect Jews from the holocaust (the constitution did include any protection), so does that make the actions of the Gestapo moral? No. In the example cited (gun sweeps) there is more constitutional protection for Americans than for German Jews, and still you'd consider that moral? I hardly think it to be (and I'm a Canadian (and hence a socialist gun-control advocate apparently)...

(btw: I'm neither a socialist, nor in favour of gun control).

---

Well, I don't profess to be an expert on the Weimar Republic, so I won't comment...

But when it comes to the comments I have made (ie. Gun Sweeps), if the US Supreme Court was to write an opinion on the current ammendment or to change it completely, then as a soldier, if so ordered, I would have to uphold the law. Personally, I would think it to be wrong, but not immoral. I would perform my duties. If I thought it immoral, then I would not be able to conscientiously perform my duties, and I would have to request to be relieved of duty. The US has long recognized the right to conscientious objectorship. However, under the UCMJ, that right may or may not allow yopur military record to become marred. It is a choice that all US soldiers have to make for themselves. Do or Don't. Simple as that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skater - SimHQ:

I don't even have to say a word. You just illustrated a perfect example of why compulsory service (in general) produces an unmotivated, unprofessional, soldier corps.

If you are not there with the expectation that you may and can be sent to serve (and any good soldier who has never been in combat WANTS to see combat) in a combat environment, then you should not be there at all. Professional soldiers don't do it for the money. Ever.

-Skater

---

My english must be worst than I thought. I think I made a few points in my previous post which you don't seem to understand lets repeat them.

Technical skill
A conscript soldier has a higher education. He will learn quicker to use the modern equipment of today's armies.

Motivation
A conscript serves a shorter time in the army. After basic millitary training and weapons specialisation life will become pretty boring in the army. The conscript doesn't view this life as a career he will have fun during his free time and the occasional exercise. He just has to serve his remaining time which is a few months not a lot of years.

Serving
A soldiers job is to protect the political interest of his country. In a democracy this is governed by the majority of the voters. When a conscript has to fight it will be for a case he believes in. He wil go wherever the fight is and will be determined to do his best.

Professional Soldiers
You seem to confuse professional soldiers with mercenaries. I think that most of the common soldiers in the US army do it as a job and the fact that they will get a free education. The boredom might cause them to want to see some action but seeing your comrade blown to pieces in the streets of Mogadishu soon cures that feeling. The career soldier (officer corp) will be more like you describe but they need grunts to do the dirty work and when they get older they will have a wife and children they might want to go back to with all the vital organs still in the same place.

The CNN age
Even with a proffesional army it will become difficult to go into a conflict that is unpopular with your own people. When the body bags start getting home and CNN broadcast live pictures of your sons and daughters are getting killed the army will be called back way before the next election. (think Somalia).

I don't know what your experience with the army is. I served as a conscript in the Royal Netherlands Airforce (1990). I was a sergant responsible for corrective maintenance on the F-16. I have met USAF personel the National Guard units made a beter impression than the regular airforce guys. USAF airforce personel seems more drilled (follow step by step procedures, work by the book by the letter) while European groundcrews are more technical skilled. We could change the engine of an F-16 with 3 guys in half an hour. I believe American procedure has 4 or 5 guys doing it in 1 hour. I think they needed these procedures because of the lower technical level of their personel. THe Air Nation Guard personel was more like use and liked to improvise / invent beter procedures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opa:
The norwegian navy "hunters" (Is that SEALs to you? I don't know) are rumored to be among the finest of the world, and norwegian conscripts have performed very well, and often superior to, professional soldiers from countries such as britain and the US.

---

They are extremely capable. While their missions do not vary in range as do SEAL missions, they are very capable in Naval Special Warfare. I have had the pleasure of training with them twice. Very capable unit.

However, they are not conscripts. Every single member of the "Hunters" are volunteers.

Also, this is by no means a regular unit. This unit is Special Operations all the way. There is quite a bit of difference, and I can tell you this from personal experience, between regular units and Special Operations units.

-Skater

And well, those navy hunters are not regulars, true, but it is a unit consisting of conscripts who applied for that particular service.(As I applied for the cavalery, they don't just put you in a random place)
Of course, it's a tough duty, so if you join them, it's because you WANT to, not because you have to.(AND you have to pass a whole lot of rather tough tests....)

quote:

---

Originally posted by boshar:
My english must be worst than I thought. I think I made a few points in my previous post which you don't seem to understand lets repeat them.

Go right ahead...

[b]Technical skill
A conscript soldier has a higher education. He will learn quicker to use the modern equipment of today's armies.

Absolutely false... On both points.

Motivation
A conscript serves a shorter time in the army. After basic millitary training and weapons specialisation life will become pretty boring in the army. The conscript doesn't view this life as a career he will have fun during his free time and the occasional exercise. He just has to serve his remaining time which is a few months not a lot of years.

And this motivates him as a soldier? This makes him a better soldier? Yeah, I wanna be in YOUR armed forces...

Serving
A soldiers job is to protect the political interest of his country. In a democracy this is governed by the majority of the voters. When a conscript has to fight it will be for a case he believes in. He wil go wherever the fight is and will be determined to do his best.

Wrong again. Conscript or not, a soldier goes where they tell him to, or he goes to the brig, or he is dismissed from service. Again, if you think that this makes a coscript a better soldier than a volunteer, you are dead wrong...

Professional Soldiers
You seem to confuse professional soldiers with mercenaries.

No. I do not. I am a professional soldier, and adhere to the warrior code. I do not consider mercenaries soldiers at all...

I think that most of the common soldiers in the US army do it as a job and the fact that they will get a free education.

Opportunity is a major motivating factor. Training is as well. Money is not. Soldiers have never been known to get rich off of service. In fact, on the salary that US military personnel are paid, they are a bit BELOW the poverty level. Money has never been a factor. So your assumption that US Army personnel do it as a job is also dead wrong. We don't get paid enough to do it just as a job. You can literally make more money working at McDonalds.

The boredom might cause them to want to see some action but seeing your comrade blown to pieces in the streets of Mogadishu soon cures that feeling.

No it does not. The lure of combat never goes away. Not as long as you train to fight. Combat will however, humble your dumb-*** really quick. You stop feeling like Superman and realize you can get killed, your buddies can get killed, and that this is a dangerous, dangerous, serious-as-a-heart-attack business.

The career soldier (officer corp) will be more like you describe but they need grunts to do the dirty work and when they get older they will have a wife and children they might want to go back to with all the vital organs still in the same place.

The average US soldier is an NCO and is married with more than one child. This is the AVERAGE soldier. Very few are young, and wet behind the ears. The average age of the US soldier in the Gulf War was 27. This is not a youngin'. Also, the Officer corps is not the bulk of any professional armed force. They are a very small percentage. No, the bulk of a professional armed force consists of NonComs. I am a Petty Officer First Class. I am a NonCom.

The CNN age
Even with a proffesional army it will become difficult to go into a conflict that is unpopular with your own people. When the body bags start getting home and CNN broadcast live pictures of your sons and daughters are getting killed the army will be called back way before the next election. (think Somalia).

Only Task Force Ranger was called back to the US. Makes sense since their stated mission was complete, they had just taken part in a major battle, and they had taken significant losses in personnel and equipment. Other US forces rotated into the theater and existing US forces remained to complete their part of the US mission there. I say again, the US did not pull out of Somalia because of any percieved loss in Mog.

While I agree that negative US civilian sentiment can harm the status of US missions, they will not impact them. The US has never relied on public sentiment to direct it's military missions, and I do not think they will be changing that policy in the forseeable future.

I don't know what your experience with the army is.

None. I am in the Navy... You guys really need to stop slinging these insults around!

I served as a conscript in the Royal Netherlands Airforce (1990). I was a sergant responsible for corrective maintenance on the F-16. I have met USAF personel the National Guard units made a beter impression than the regular airforce guys. USAF airforce personel seems more drilled (follow step by step procedures, work by the book by the letter) while European groundcrews are more technical skilled.

If you think so...

We could change the engine of an F-16 with 3 guys in half an hour. I believe American procedure has 4 or 5 guys doing it in 1 hour.

Europeans also have a higher ratio of loss/per sortie. About 7.5x as high actually. I would not brag too much about being able to change a aircraft engine with less personnel in 1/2 the time with a record like that. The US does not waste man hours or personnel resources wantonly. If it takes 4 guys and 1 hour, that's what it takes. Hey, we built the airplane. We know how long it should take. Resources are dictated by safety.

I think they needed these procedures because of the lower technical level of their personel. THe Air Nation Guard personel was more like use and liked to improvise / invent beter procedures.

I doubt that. NG guys are generally Air Force guys that have retired or entered the Reserves. These guys were regular Air Force at one time. Considering that they have 8-10 years of experience over their regular Air Force counterparts, it's a no-brainer that they both know what they are doing, and are more capable.

Non of your proffesional soldiers was happy when the Gulf War started.

You took some kind of survey? How did you come by this info?

And they where airforce so would be miles behind the battleline. Most of the Dutch professional personel was also fery unhappy. Their career was based on serving until you are 55 years old and go into retirement. Only we the conscripts and some of the younger professional soldiers where happy to serve and willing to go to Kuwait to kick some Iraqi but.[/B]

---

You are really, really, REALLY wrong on that one...

this is a half-truth. I'll certainly concede the first point, but remember the following:
a) the troops are barely trained. The Russian gov't lacks the money to pay for training and equipment for their troops. As a result they suffer higher casualties, attrition and even suffer from stupid things like frostbite and starvation. These affect motivation.
b) The Russian troops are not currently being paid, because the Russians can't afford to.

Volunteer troops and mercs have the same motivations: a desire for adventure and combat. Neither mercs nor volunteer troops typically join for the money. Contrary to popular belief, mercenaries are usually not paid much more (often less) than members of well-funded armed forces like the USA and Saudi Arabia.

According to Venik's avaiation page, some of the airplanes shot down in Serbia were UAVs (somebody please explain the accronym). Another presence in Kosovo not discussed at our forum was the presence of private interests backing the KLA, that is, mercenaries. I watch the newstands and in the beginning of the worst of Kosovo, SOF made it back to the newstands and they were talking about Kosovo. A couple other gun magazines were talking about weapons making it into Kosovo, especially fancy sniper rifles.

Actually this is true of all the worlds army's, and certainly the ones that I have worked with, where the part timers will always be more "keener" to do something.

This can be attributed to a number of things and usually its simply because they enjoy what they do because they dont do it every day.

For part timers shooting a machine gun, hurling a grenade or driving a tank isnt something you do every day in the office so when they get the chance to do those things they get stuck into it with relish.

I was a part timer for some years and you DO see a difference, the regs arent as keen to do anything above and beyond their job where as the part timers are like little puppy dogs...only to pleased to do anything at all.

The upshot of this is that its absurd for some idiots in here to go on about how US part timers or part timers from their country are better than the regs because this simply aint the case.....part timers may be keener to get the job done BUT they wont do it to the same levels of efficiency as the regs simply because it aint their job day in day out sorta thing.

Another thing, there is a very real difference between Mercs and Part Timers simply because Mercs are hired killers who have been lured there by money in most cases whereas Part Timers certainly AINT doing it for money....that and they tend to be more professional and the training is of a higher standard as well.

There is no question on whether infantry units manned with conscripts are more efficient than those manned with career soldiers or not. For sure they are worse. The REAL question is value for money here.

Conscription is a way to have more people in the field for the same amount of cash. Which is the right thing for low-tech forces but is no good for equipment. By deciding that they will only use professionals, USA essentially decided that they are never going to fight large scale infantry wars (WWII-style) with otherwise equal opponent.

Anyway because of the GI Bill, the US armed forces actually do attract a lot of educated people as well as the "losers" and lower classes. Another thing that helps bring in middle and upper class folks is the fact that we have large reserves, that is, you can always just join the reserves or Guard if you have a more lucrative career but still want to be a soldier on weekends for fun. So overall, the US armed forces have plenty of good people to work with.