San Francisco votes to ban Blue Angels

[Bill Nichols]

Resolution to be heard in today's San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting:


Whereas, Pursuant to Environmental Code Section 101 of the City and County of San Francisco, all officers, boards, commissions and departments shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County affairs; and

WHEREAS, the Precautionary Principle requires public servants to take anticipatory action to prevent harm and through exploration and careful analysis select courses of action that present the least threat to all; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angels is an elite Navy exhibition squadron that tours the United States to perform air shows, involving dare devil maneuvers and tight flight; and,

WHEREAS, Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

WHEREAS, Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities, most recently on April 21, 2007 Beaufort County, South Carolina, when Blue Angel pilot Lt. Cmdr. Kevin J. Davis, crashed with his plane into several neighborhood homes, killing himself and injuring eight people on the ground; and,

WHEREAS, Each October, the Blue Angels performs an air show over the City of San Francisco as part of the Fleet Week; and,

WHEREAS, Based on the recent history and the style of their performance in which the slightest error by a pilot or a mechanical malfunction has been known to have disastrous effects, the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angel F/A-18 Hornet jets make a considerable amount of noise pollution with volume rising to levels that exceed legal limits for the civilian community; and,

WHEREAS, When the aircraft fly their simulated strafing runs over the concrete and glass canyons of San Francisco’s high-rise buildings, the volume is magnified to ear splitting and nerve shattering levels; and,

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a Sanctuary City for many immigrants from war torn countries and home to thousands of veterans of war who have experienced air bombardment and are at risk of being traumatized when the Blue Angels perform; and,

WHEREAS, The jets also terrorize small children, seniors, pets and local wildlife; and,

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has taken steps to contribute to the effort to stem global climate change and to avert the catastrophic consequences of air pollution, nevertheless, the Blue Angels spew tons of toxic exhaust during their flyovers; and,

WHEREAS, This is a time of under-supplies of crude oil and its byproducts, the F/A-18 Hornet wastes an inordinate amount of jet fuel; and,

WHEREAS, The Federal deficit and national debt have risen to levels never before imagined, and the people of San Francisco have suffered from Federal cuts to vital programs; and,

WHEREAS, The City pays for additional support from the police and fire departments while waiving the normal $25,000 fee to the military; now, therefore, be it

RESOLved, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco support the permanent halt to flyovers by the Blue Angels; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors call on Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos to use all resources at their disposal to bring a permanent halt to unnecessary flyovers by military aircraft

:hulk:

[The Avon Lady]

No problem.

They should move to a more deserving city.

[Skybird]

For the sake of reason they should not perform about settlements, and thus move to some abandoned or desert ground. If then visitors drive there to watch, okay - their risk. It should be obligatory, though, that insurances must not pay for anything in case something bad happens due to planes faling down from the air and into the crowds. Like smokers also should obligatory pay all by themselves for all costs and health problems cuased by their smoking.There is a reason why military practice grounds and gunnery ranges usually are kept strictly separate from urban and civilian areas. It is not feared so much that a tank, for example would intentionally fire into a settlement. But accidents, technical malfunctions, human errors - all that is something different, and thus military airshows should at leats be kept away from settlements and cities. It simply is unreasonable to the max to perform extreme air manouveurs in formation above the heads of a crowd, wether it be fighters, or air race planes. that's as if Formula One would allow people to stand right in the sandboxes at turns and corners. Instead they have built walls and fences and minimum distances between stands and tracks. I wonder why?

[Etienne]

The Blue Angels do shows over INHABITED AREAS?

Holy ****. That's safe.

[Bill Nichols]

Actually, they fly over San Francisco bay, not the city itself. But little details like that don't mean anything to anti-military zealots.

[JALU3]

The city has consistently made resolutions against the Uniformed Services. They voted against hosting the USS Iowa . . . and now this . . . I say the next time they need help from the Uniformed Services, someone just pass a resolution against their request . . . I'm sure they'd like that.

And as for our elected representatives of our Great State of California . . . I wish I could vote them out of office . . . Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi . . . :nope:

Reminds me of when the voted to end JROTC and ROTC programs within the City and County of San Francisco. :shifty:

[Camaero]

I have never liked San Fran... waaaaaaaaaay too liberal for me. Damn hippies. :nope:

[The Avon Lady]

I have never liked San Fran... waaaaaaaaaay too liberal for me. Damn hippies. :nope:
Actually, I think SF gives hippies elsewhere a bad name. :p

[SUBMAN1]

For the sake of reason they should not perform about settlements, and thus move to some abandoned or desert ground. If then visitors drive there to watch, okay - their risk. It should be obligatory, though, that insurances must not pay for anything in case something bad happens due to planes faling down from the air and into the crowds. Like smokers also should obligatory pay all by themselves for all costs and health problems cuased by their smoking.There is a reason why military practice grounds and gunnery ranges usually are kept strictly separate from urban and civilian areas. It is not feared so much that a tank, for example would intentionally fire into a settlement. But accidents, technical malfunctions, human errors - all that is something different, and thus military airshows should at leats be kept away from settlements and cities. It simply is unreasonable to the max to perform extreme air manouveurs in formation above the heads of a crowd, wether it be fighters, or air race planes. that's as if Formula One would allow people to stand right in the sandboxes at turns and corners. Instead they have built walls and fences and minimum distances between stands and tracks. I wonder why?

Maybe you shouldn't come out of your house - you might get hit by a falling meteor! :p

Watching the Blue Angels is safer than swimming in the ocean. Chances are that you will get eaten by a shark 1,000,000 times over vs. being killed by watching the Blue's airshow.

I understand that some people have a phobia of aircraft such as airliners, private aircraft, and even military jets flying over them (forgot the name of this particular phobia), but please let let the rest of us watch our air shows.

Thanks,

-S

[CptSimFreak]

So when are they going to ban cars?

[Sailor Steve]

I have never liked San Fran... waaaaaaaaaay too liberal for me. Damn hippies. :nope:
Actually, I think SF gives hippies elsewhere a bad name. :p
Hear! Hear!

So when are they going to ban cars?
You're kidding, right? They've been moving in that direction for decades now. They're just being as subtle as possible about it.

[SUBMAN1]

So when are they going to ban cars?
Exactly. That is the most dangerous thing possible upon stepping outside your house.

I wonder if someone could even run a statistic on the possibility on getting killed by a Blue Angel F-18? I bet it would be impossible to calculate it would be so high an improbability.

-S

[Skybird]

Actually, they fly over San Francisco bay, not the city itself. But little details like that don't mean anything to anti-military zealots.

Me an anti-militaristic zealot? Maybe it is you being a militaristic zealot! ;)

Well, I am certainly guilty of not jubilating and shouting hiphip and hooray when military weapons are on parade. Having them is unfortunately a necessity, but never a reason for celebration (or must our human stupidity that leads us to mutually kill each other be celebrated today?) Waging a war, and even win it, may be a necessity sometimes as well, but still is no reason to celebrate, but for sadness (TaoTeKing). And if LaoTse is not you taste, and you happen to be Christian, eventually, try to imagine what Jesus would have to say on people parading with and celebrate toys of death, killing and destruction.

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.

[kiwi_2005]

Childhood memories...

"The Streets of San Francisco"
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/sanfranscio2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/sanfranscio.jpg

:)

[SUBMAN1]

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.

That view is a modern liberalistic view, not old fasioned. Old fasioned loves this kind of stuff.

In case anyone forgot, this is the first generation in history where the men where not brought up and taught either to shoot a rifle or use a sword. Look how disrespectful we have become as a result!

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Like smokers also should obligatory pay all by themselves for all costs and health problems cuased by their smoking.
And people who eat fatty food should pay for their bypass surgery.
And people who drink to much should pay for their liver replacement.
And people who do over the speed limit and crash should pay for their medical expenses.
And people who do not exercise should pay for the heart attack that is forthcoming.
And obese people who dine on McDonalds all the time should pay for their gastric bypass surgery.

I believe they call it health insurance. I pay for it just as well as the non- smoker who is indulging on a Big Mac and listening to their arteries hardening.

Sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind the smokers issue and who pays what. BTW, keep on taxing the cigarettes like it is going out of style.....take that tax away and watch the others taxes sky rocket to cover the loss.


Back on track, send the Blue Angels over my city any day:rock:

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.
That view is a modern liberalistic view, not old fasioned. Old fasioned loves this kind of stuff.

In case anyone forgot, this is the first generation in history where the men where not brought up and taught either to shoot a rifle or use a sword. Look how disrespectful we have become as a result!

-S
I'll go along with Subman. But in all reality the Blue Angels are a plane show. Air ballet if you would. It is not a show of arms at all. I have never seen sidewinders on the aircraft they use. They could use piper cubs for the show. Makes no matter as these are precision fliers, not the guardsmen showing their wares.

[Camaero]

Actually, they fly over San Francisco bay, not the city itself. But little details like that don't mean anything to anti-military zealots.

Me an anti-militaristic zealot? Maybe it is you being a militaristic zealot! ;)

Well, I am certainly guilty of not jubilating and shouting hiphip and hooray when military weapons are on parade. Having them is unfortunately a necessity, but never a reason for celebration (or must our human stupidity that leads us to mutually kill each other be celebrated today?) Waging a war, and even win it, may be a necessity sometimes as well, but still is no reason to celebrate, but for sadness (TaoTeKing). And if LaoTse is not you taste, and you happen to be Christian, eventually, try to imagine what Jesus would have to say on people parading with and celebrate toys of death, killing and destruction.

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.

They are just airplanes. They only become weapons when you strap missiles to them. I have never seen a live missile strapped to any of the Blue Angels. They are beautiful man made machines which soar into the heavens and are flown by very gifted pilots who become one with their machines to do it. The Blue Angels are pure art and I would beg one of them to fly over my house just once even if it was at 3 in the morning. You have your heart in the right place Skybird but I think that you sometimes take it overboard. Just my opinion.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~s_g_t/Images/Aircraft/blue%20angels%20f-18%20high-g.jpeg

What a beauty!

[Konovalov]

Can the Blue Angels pay a visit to the UK? They can fly over my rooftop anytime.

[tycho102]

We're talking about San Francisco, here. What the heck is new? When the San Andreas moves, this issue will clear itself up.

edit--- They're not still flying those, are they? That plane rolled off the assembly line in about 1986.
http://tron-chaser.net/images2/m_lot6.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Feinstein seems to be anti-military. I wonder how she thinks her country seems to be able to what it does without harm?

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

This kind of reminds me of the time Washington DC did not book the Beach Boys to play on the 4th of July as they draw the wrong crowd.:o I guess we will book Motorhead instead or perhaps Judas Priest to play on the mall in Washington for the 4th of July. Crazy really.

[Sea Demon]

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools. And they also blocked the USS Iowa from having a permanent home as a museum there. San Francisco is one of the most anti-military places I've ever seen from my own travels. This city is a large Liberal Democrat haven. This is Nancy Pelosiville here. What more could you expect from the voters of this area?

[waste gate]

They're back!!:up: :up:

San Francisco's skies are safe for the Blue Angels. A Board of Supervisors committee Monday rejected a measure that would have called for a permanent end to the high-flying, aerobatic show that happens yearly during Fleet Week.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/14/BA0PRHS4S.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/14/ba_blue_angels_san_f.jpg

[sunvalleyslim]

It seems its time again to talk about a change. We need two states here. North California, and South California. Based on your ideals, you can pick which state........actually Northern California is beautiful. I suspect that they wouldn't want San Francisco either. So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[waste gate]

So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

............and Boulder, Colorado.

[Bill Nichols]

It seems its time again to talk about a change. We need two states here. North California, and South California. Based on your ideals, you can pick which state........actually Northern California is beautiful. I suspect that they wouldn't want San Francisco either. So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


No, I have a better solution. San Francisco can become "South British Columbia".

;)

p.s. For the latest update on this topic, check the news on Subsim's homepage.

[Skybird]

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools.
Nothing wrong in that. In fact, by law it should be the rule that the military is not given access to school's registries of student's adresses, and should be permitted to approach them in any form or way until they are adult by law. Try to tempt juveniles into joining the military is highly immoral and a very disgusting practice from any ethical perpsective I could even vaguely imagine. The army/navy/air force is not a job like any other. It should be left to a young adult's mind alone, unmanipulated, untempted, and after sober reasoning of what military service and war is about, wether soembody volunatrily wants to join, or not. The recruiting practice in the US over here in Germany and apparently in other countries, too, is considered as one of the most disagreeable characteristics of the US society.

But due to different histories, war and martial violance and weapons have different status in the US, and in Europe. In WWI and WWII the US only experienced the attack on Hawai, and it is fair to say that thus it never has experienced what war with a foreign enemy could do to it's cities and homeland. But Pearl Harbour or 9/11 just compare to bombing Helgoland and leave the rest of the Third Reich untouched - nobody would have been impressed by that. that war is so easily triggered and considered acceptable by the US last but not least is coming from that American cities do not bear neither scars nor histories of having suffered the bombing and mass destruction by foreign nations, not to mention foreign occupations. the modern military defeats or draws (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq), only damage the American ego, and come at different strategic costs for foreign political perpsectives - the bright lights and loud sounds always happened to take place elsewhere. Seen that way it is understandable that America, never having seen it's modern cities in ruins, on the question of wether to go to war or not, feels easy to answer "Well, why not?" It simply never was hurt to the ammounts other nations have experienced the horrors of war. For america, using military force more or less appears to be a success story - at least to that degree that makes it think earlier than others that war and/or other kinds of more concealed military longterm operations are a legitimate option.

From there it is not far to indoctrinating children's minds to be blind about the glamour stories about war and military, and generally have a positive bias towards these things. But it remains to be manipulation and abusing of the weak and not-yet-strengthened minds and characters of juveniles. Irresponsible and unscrupulous. If we would do exactly like that in Germany, all world would point fingers at us and yell "Nazi!" and "Hitlerjugend!" again. The method is exactly the same.

[waste gate]

I have to say that once again Skybird has me very confused. In this thread he calls for the end to airshows and military recruitment. Yet in his 'Recently on a boke tour... (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120390)' http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120390, he posts pictures of a warbird without any mention of its history, or contribution to the war effort. Why is that?

[Skybird]

If you can't see the diufference between a fighterjet being pushed to extreme manouveurs, formation flights and thus raise risks far beyiond what we usually need to accept when steppoing out of our doors each day, and a sightseeing flight, I must accedpt the fact that I am not believing you can't see that and thus I conclude that you try a rethoric cheat only.

That bird neither flew any stunts, nor anything else that would be considered an increased risk for civil air operations.

Accepting every day risks that are part of every day life is one thing. A tile from the roof could fall on my head when the wind is strong, and that tree falling during a storm could kill me indeed, yes. Intentionally pushing risks to the limits without any need is something totally different. I mean I certainly do not stand at our roof and throw bricks up there to see how long i need to get myself killed by a falling tile.

[waste gate]

Believe me when I tell you that when the BA fly there is no danger to civil aviation.
The risk to civilians on the ground is also minimized due to the aerobatic box which is established far from and parralell to the crowd line. You also have very professional aviators who take their responsibilities very, very seriously.

That all being said, my confusion comes from your stand on the military. In one thread you are for/unconcerned about it, and in the other very much against it.

You are a very complex fellow and I would just like to know where you want to stand. It would help in our future exchanges.

[Skybird]

My stand on the military? It sometimes is needed, but I am far more hesitent than the american political position on how easy to use it. I am more detemrined to use it than the general european and german position. fighting a war and killing people and destroy cities and countries sometimes cannot be evaded. You can feel relief when it is over, and maybe express that. But I full-heartly subscribe to the TaoTeKing concerning this question (translated into English from my own German reworking of it):



30
Ohne Gewalt vermag zu lenken die Welt,
Wer im Einklang lenkt mit dem Einen Wesen.
Gewalt richtet gegen ihn Gegengewalt,
Und großen Heeren folgt umso größere Verheerung.
Es zu tun, genügt!
Der Weise tut es, und prahlt nicht damit,
Er rühmt sich nicht seiner Taten.
Nicht stolz er deswegen ist,
Und er tut es gewaltlos,
Entschlossenheit nur, wo es ihrer bedarf,
Denn eine große Kraft ist nicht von Dauer.
Kraft und Entschlossenheit sind nicht des Wesens Weise.
Was nicht des Wesens Weise ist, dauert nicht an.

31
Auch beste Waffen sind Zeichen des Todes,
Der Weise verächtlich meidet sie,
Er wendet sich ab von ihnen.
Die Freude erfüllt sein Leben im Frieden,
Die Trauer erfüllt sein Leben im Krieg.
Waffen sind nicht des Wesens Weise,
Nur gezwungen benutzt sie ein weiser Mensch,
Wenn es gar nicht mehr anders sonst geht.
Nichts weiß er von der Freude am Kämpfen,
Den Sieg zu lieben heißt, mordfreudig sein.
Wer mordfreudig ist, ist außerhalb der Freude, zu Leben.
Nach dem Sieg ist der Truppe die Freude,
Dem Feldherrn indes sei die Trauer,
Er begehe den Sieg wie eine Trauerfeier.
Töten heißt Trauer schaffen,
Wessen Handeln Tote schafft,
Dem sei jeder Sieg wie ein Begräbnis.

30
He who guides in harmony with the One Essence
Is able to guide the world without force.
Violance directs against him: counter-violance,
And huge armies are followed by even greater devastations.
Just doing it, is enough!
The sage simply does it, and does not brag.
He does not boast of his deeds.
Not proud he is of it,
and he does it without force (effort),
Determination only where it is needed,
since a huge strength will not last.
Power and determination are not the way of the One.
what is not of the One's way, does not last.

31
Even best weapons are signs of death,
The sage, contemptously, avoids them.
He turns away from them.
Joy fills his life in peace,
Sorrow fills his life in war.
Weapons are not the way of the One,
Only when being forced will a wise man use them,
If it does not work in any other way.
Nothing he knows of the enjoyment to fight,
To love victory means to love murder.
Who loves murder, is outside the joy to live.
After victory, pleasure is the army's share,
but the commander's share shall be grief,
And he shall commit the victory like a funeral service.
To kill means to create grief.
Whose acting creates death,
For him every victory shall be like a funeral.


Further:


38
Wahre Tugend ist sich ihrer nicht bewußt,
Drum ist sie eins mit dem Einen.
Tugend, die nach Tugendsamkeit strebt,
Ist nicht des wahren Wesens.
Wahre Tugend bewirkt ohne Absicht,
Und nichts bleibt ungetan.
Falsche Tugend will handeln,
Doch sie erreicht nicht viel.
Der Gütige wirkt auf die Menschen,
Doch liegt ihm nichts an seiner Gütigkeit.
Der Gerechte handelt für die Menschen,
Doch hat er Absichten in seiner Tat.
Der Moralische tut mit den Menschen,
Und wenn sie nicht willig sind, so will er sie zwingen.
Wer uneins mit dem Einen ist, ist tugendsam.
Wer nicht der Tugend hat, ist gütig.
Wer nicht der Güte hat, ist gerecht.
Wer nicht der Gerechtigkeit hat, ist moralisch.
Moral ist nur der Schein von Treu und Glauben,
Und die Verwirrung beginnt.
Moral ist vergängliche Form,
Und aller Unwissenheit Anfang.
Darum der Weise:
Er verweilt im Inneren,
Und hängt nicht am Äußeren,
Er lebt nicht aus seinem Selbst,
Und lebt somit im Sein.
Es blendet ihn nicht das Viele,
Und er sieht deshalb das Eine.

53
Wer Einsicht erlangt hat,
Wird geleitet durch die Weisheit des Einen,
Und seine einzige Sorge ist, sie zu vertun.
Des Wesens Weise ist offensichtlich und leicht,
Doch Menschen machen die Dinge gern kompliziert,
Und so geleiten sie sich auf Abwege.
Sie schmücken sodann ihre Häuser und Höfe,
Derweil die Äcker verkommen und die Scheunen sich leeren.
Sie kleiden sich in reiche Gewänder,
Sie schärfen ihre verzierten Schwerter,
Sie fressen und saufen
Und gieren nach Reichtum im Überfluß.
Räuber und Diebe sind sie,
Und ihre Prahlerei zeigt
Ihren Mangel an Weisheit und Einsicht


58
Bist du zurückhaltend in der Führung von Menschen,
Werden sie redlich und lauter sein,
Drängst du ihnen deine Führung auf,
Sind sie weder loyal noch zufrieden.
Das Unglück legt die Wurzel des Glückes,
Im Glück schon keimt das nächste Unglück.
Wer aber weiß schon und handelt so,
Daß er nicht versuchte, die Dinge mit Gewalt zum Besseren zu wenden?
Der gute Vorsatz – nicht lange hält er an, eh seine Tat sich
wendet.
Das Rechte verkehrt sich, und wird zum Ungerechten,
Und Güte wird zur Heuchelei.
Blindheit naht, und währet lange.
Darum der Weise:
Er ist Richtmaß, doch teilt er die Menschen nicht,
Er ist zutreffend, doch verletzt er sie nicht.
Er ist wahrhaftig, doch zwingt er die Menschen nicht,
Er leuchtet ihnen, doch protzt er ihnen nicht mit seinem Licht.


69
Hast du Konflikt mit anderen,
So besinne dich auf ein Wort:
Ich bin dem Kampf nicht der Gastgeber,
Ich bin dem Kampf nur der Gast.
Ich heiße ihn nicht willkommen und eile ihm nicht entgegen,
Sondern begegne ihm mit Zurückhaltung.
Das ist eingreifen, ohne anzugreifen,
verteidigen, ohne zu kämpfen,
zurückwerfen, ohne anzugehen,
gewinnen, ohne zu nehmen.
Das ist die Kunst des kampflosen Kampfes,
Der keiner Waffen bedarf.
Das größte Unheil ist,
Den Kampf leichtfertig aufzunehmen.
Wer den Kampf unterschätzt, verliert sein Liebstes.
Darum der Weise:
Kämpft schweren Herzen bloß,
Und wo die Waffen sich erheben,
Und aller Kampf sich selbst nur steigert,
siegt er durch Zurückhaltung.

[Sea Demon]

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools.

Nothing wrong in that. In fact, by law it should be the rule that the military is not given access to school's registries of student's adresses, and should be permitted to approach them in any form or way until they are adult by law.

You know nothing of what you speak. These military recruiters are offering opportunities for after these kids graduate high school. The military is not the only ones that look for prospective people to work for them after they graduate. Do you know that there are tons of people who have been given opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?

In fact, I'm one of them. I enlisted in the Air Force, got excellent training turning a wrench on jets, got to travel a little bit, made a network of friends/professionals, and got money for college. After college, I was ahead of the game in applying for a commission and getting a flying billet for the USAF. My military experience has been very beneficial to my life as a whole.

Why do these lefty elitists seek to deny this type of experience and opportunity to young people in need of these types opportunities? The military has given some kids with no other way or goals a chance to succeed. These lefty jerks in SFO are only limiting choices and opportunities for kids due to their own political biases.

[blue3golf]

I happen to be on my tour for recruiting right now in the Army. Those who say keep the military recruiters out of schools better keep the college recruiters out too, just to make it equal opportunity. The best part is the ones who want the military out of schools were usually at one time disqualified from service and are bitter about it, half the time their kids are too.

[Skybird]

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools.



Nothing wrong in that. In fact, by law it should be the rule that the military is not given access to school's registries of student's adresses, and should be permitted to approach them in any form or way until they are adult by law.

You know nothing of what you speak. These military recruiters are offering opportunities for after these kids graduate high school. The military is not the only ones that look for prospective people to work for them after they graduate. Do you know that there are tons of people who have been given opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?

Yes. You describe it exactly as I have learned about it how it is. And I find the method disgusting to the max. "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?", you say. The final last step would be that they are get "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc." from joining the party.

I also know that schools are obligated to give the army the adresses of their students so that they can be contacted, that various show events are designed for exactly attracting young kids attention and interest in these "cool toys" and weapons, that recuriters are trained in letting it all appear in glamour, adventure and shining, while hiding the dark backside of the medal. It is longterm manipualtion, pure and simple, that phase by phase aims at the according age of the targetted prey. The military is no other usual job like any other in business and economy, and that America considers this practicing as acceptable will always remain to be one of the sharpest differences between you, and us.

I repeatedly heared so revealing comments on the immorality of this system from veteran'S organizations, wether it be an essay on the web, or a docu on TV. You should better listen more closely to them. They have seen both sides of the coin, and many payed the price for it. That Americans often honour their veterans apparently only as long as they do not speak out against war, tells a hypocritical story to me. If they do, they are being turned into the dirt of the earth, labelled as commies, loosers, traitors, lefties, and God knows what. Shame!

Book tip.
Steven Kuhn: Soldat im Golfkrieg. Vom Kämpfer zum Zweifler. A book that no american publisher dared to print, so it was released in Germany, finally. Kuhn was a tanker and member of the 1987 team that (until the Cup competition was ended in the 90s) has been the only American team ever that has won the Canadian Army Trophy. During the Gulf War 1991 that he experienced from the perspective at Basra, he learned that nevertheless he had choosen a totally wrong path, his life steered into troubled waters, until he settled own in Germany, married an understanding women, and came to rest again. He lives in Berlin today, saying that "America has made him a man, but Germany made him a human." He works as a manger for a fitness company. another quote by him: "Es ist die Ignoranz vieler Soldaten, nur das zu glauben, was sie motiviert. Wer Zweifel zulässt, kann kein guter Soldat sein."
http://www.3ad.com/history/cold.war/cat.index.htm

http://www.amazon.de/Soldat-Golfkrieg-Vom-K%C3%A4mpfer-Zweifler/dp/3861532999/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/028-0050133-9422147?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187139373&sr=8-1
A reader: "Obwohl Kuhn sehr selbstkritisch reflektiert, ist er doch ganz und gar Amerikaner. Und das macht seinen Zwiespalt aus, den man als Leser gut nachvollziehen kann. Es wäre wünschenswert, daß das Buch in seiner Heimat zur Pflichtlektüre bei jenen Jugendlichen avancieren würde, die damit liebäugeln in die Army oder eine andere US-Militäreinheit zu gehen."

[August]

So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
............and Boulder, Colorado.

Hey don't be dissin' Rhode Island. We have our own aircraft carrier, submarine and our national guard has an air wing and we host the US Navy War College.

Rhode Islands military history is quite extensive as well. The Seabees were created here, Rhode Island patriots burned a british ship to the waterline a full 4 years before the Baystaters got into it at Lexington, we've developed torpedos and submarines and PT boats, the last nazi sub to be sunk in ww2 was in our waters.

We've been home to the international military parachute competition ever since I can remember and yeah our national guard hosts a kick ass air show every year that remains wildly popular.

So don't be putting us in the same category as SF, Boulder or any other bastion of weak kneed, appeaser, surrender monkeys. :cool:

[Sea Demon]

Yes. You describe it exactly as I have learned about it how it is. And I find the method disgusting to the max. "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?", you say. The final last step would be that they are get "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc." from joining the party.


Well, I'm telling you from personal experience how it helped me start a career. And other benefits I got from it. And how I saw others benefitting the same way. I thank God that those recruiters helped me at the beginning with my choice. The military profession is an honorable one. And those that choose it as a profession are a special breed of person. Not everyone is suited to it's rigors however. From what I garner, you have no military service history yourself. Am I right? Therefore, you may not have an ability to understand.

[CptSimFreak]

Yes. You describe it exactly as I have learned about it how it is. And I find the method disgusting to the max. "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?", you say. The final last step would be that they are get "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc." from joining the party.

Well, I'm telling you from personal experience how it helped me start a career. And other benefits I got from it. And how I saw others benefitting the same way. I thank God that those recruiters helped me at the beginning with my choice. The military profession is an honorable one. And those that choose it as a profession are a special breed of person. Not everyone is suited to it's rigors however. From what I garner, you have no military service history yourself. Am I right? Therefore, you may not have an ability to understand.
100% agree. I started same way, right out of high school while I was still 17. It was best choice and I would do it all over again. Now I have a degree thanks to uncle Sam and since I liked it so much, I'm trying to return into USAF as an officer. In fact, I'm typing from a hotel room a night before taking AFOQT and physical.
FYI; if person under 18, guardians have to approve of military service.

[blue3golf]

Here's another it helped!:up: :up:

[Sea Demon]

100% agree. I started same way, right out of high school while I was still 17. It was best choice and I would do it all over again. Now I have a degree thanks to uncle Sam and since I liked it so much, I'm trying to return into USAF as an officer. In fact, I'm typing from a hotel room a night before taking AFOQT and physical.
FYI; if person under 18, guardians have to approve of military service.

Good luck on the AFOQT. And you do have a leg up applying for a commission due to you being prior enlisted. Trust me, the powers that be who chooses officer candidates likes that. At least that's what they told me when I was going through the grinder. ;)

Here's another it helped!

Exactly. It's a darn shame that the mean spirited scrooges in San Francisco don't at least see the value in that for opportunities. I myself don't believe they tried to stop Blue Angel shows because of anything "dangerous". The fact that they wanted to get rid of recruiters from offering students a choice to see these opportunities kind of prove to me that their motives are less than honorable. If they could only see how many people military service has helped. Or maybe they do, but their crazy misguided worldview gets in the way.

[Skybird]

Point is, guys, I am totally critical of earning starting helps, business chances and such - by willing to join the military first. That is no antimilitarism by me. I simply find it to be an extremely bad idea to give the military such a massive influence on civil society, and to give it the baits needed to lure young people with their minds still undergoing their adolescence to go to the army. It is not a job like any other. Becasue if you think it to the end, your profession is to kill and destroy, if ordered. Everything else (keeping the peace, guarding the free world, deter attackers), is ways and attempts only to squirm around that statement. In the face of the high numbers of wars and operations the Us has been engaged in since WWII, it also is not convicning to abstract it to the levelö of idealism how nice the world and the job in the military is - as long as there is no war.

Don't try to distort me. On many occasions I have said myself that I would like to see another and stronger understanding for the need of a better funded military her ein europe. I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US, and I disagree on the easiness with which the decision in favour for wars are made in the US. I insist on seeing the military as what iot is: a tool of destruction and killing. That's why I am so hesitent to use, not to mention: to glorify it.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird
Yes. You describe it exactly as I have learned about it how it is. And I find the method disgusting to the max. "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc. from joining the military?", you say. The final last step would be that they are get "opportunities/job skills/training/college money/etc." from joining the party.

Don't try to distort me. On many occasions I have said myself that I would like to see another and stronger understanding for the need of a better funded military her ein europe. I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US, and I disagree on the easiness with which the decision in favour for wars are made in the US. I insist on seeing the military as what iot is: a tool of destruction and killing. That's why I am so hesitent to use, not to mention: to glorify it.
The bulk of any countries military are filled with young people. Thats a fact of life and it will never change. It is easier to recruit in school's before they become busy with a 'civilian' life. Getting an enlistment bonus and money for college are perks thats meant to entice people into the military thats also a fact. A majority of recruits come from small town USA that really has nothing to offer and they have no way out to another life. The military offers a way out and a new beginning. For that you give three years of your life to your country. People join for a multitude of reasons and the young of today are not under any illusions of what is expected of them. They also have a choice of which branch they want to go into and also mostly a choice of jobs according to their testing.
For the life of me I can't understand where you get 'joining the party' from. You sound like it's joining Darth Vader. Our military is over a million strong. It's a fact that not everyone is able to cut it, or adjust to it for one reason or another but you gave a promise and you have to carry through. If things are that bad go seek mental health care and they will work with you and your commander.
just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean civilians honoring those who serve?
Which war have we had a choice in besides Vietnam(debatable for that time) and Iraq? The military is a tool for destruction and killing but offering perks isn't glorifying. Both sides benefit. Both sides have their eyes open.
I'm also another that joined at 17. :) And I have never regretted it. I was never under any illusions and never met anyone who was.

[tycho102]

Don't try to distort me.

I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US

You've never been to California. Georgia or Texas, you'd have a point.

Also, the reason the "decision" was made so easily is because a whole lot of rich, influential people were significantly inconvinenced. Someone runs a couple planes into Sony Square in Berlin, and you'd see a similar effect. I'm not that familiar with Germany, so just figure out where all the millionares and politicans cavort, and then figure out what would happen after a few planes rolled in there during happy-hour.

Your "political elite" would react the same way, because suddenly no amount of armoured cars and bodyguards would prevent their asses from getting washed.

[Skybird]

Don't try to distort me.

I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US

You've never been to California. Georgia or Texas, you'd have a point.

Also, the reason the "decision" was made so easily is because a whole lot of rich, influential people were significantly inconvinenced. Someone runs a couple planes into Sony Square in Berlin, and you'd see a similar effect. I'm not that familiar with Germany, so just figure out where all the millionares and politicans cavort, and then figure out what would happen after a few planes rolled in there during happy-hour.

Your "political elite" would react the same way, because suddenly no amount of armoured cars and bodyguards would prevent their asses from getting washed.
No, I think you overestimate (or understimate us). As a matter of fact we do not speak of Bundeswehr soldiers, but "citizens in uniform" (talking of "army" and "soldiers" is too much for our sensible and wellmeaning hearts and minds). The public is mentally non-prepared to send our developement aid chorps (which is armed for self.protection only) into offensive comabt operation. The parties aren't prepared for that, too. And finally we would not be able to show up with the global logistic capacitiy to support a combat mission of thzat scale on the other side of the plant.

It is strange. Remember one year back, autumn 2006. Canada and Britain and the US heavily complained about the German's role in Afghanistan, ignoring that the German reconstruction efforts caused far greater successes and progress than any other strategy in Afghanistan that focussed on fighting some declared enemy alone. The public attacks was rude and unscrupulous, and intentionally distorted some solid facts. It was demanded that - I quote word by word - Germans "need to learn how to kill again". - Now, here is a german - me! :) - saying that Germany's understanding of what "soldier" and "army" means really is naive, that Germans need to learn indeed that "army" means battle, and that "soldier" means warrior. Here I am and refuse to join my fellow citizens in their naive nice-talking of the army to be a chorps of civil assistants only, or to be an armed assistance force to the "Technisches Hilfswerk" or "Doctors without Frontiers". Instead I say that we need to focus more on the military meaning of what an army is about - and that is fighting battles, kill and destroy - and that I do see the tragic need to do so at certain imaginable occasions, but see no need to glorify it, I already said.

But I do not cheer and applaude, and refuse a system that persuades kids into positive attitudes towards the killing business that the army is - and so I am critizised again: for saying that a soldier's job is to fight wars and to kill and destroy, and that there may be necessity in doing so, but no glory.

From my perpsective your opinions are self-contradictory, and down-playing. I had seen only some, not too much, places of war and fighting and destruction and dying and human sufferign because of war - but maybe I did not see enough to become so dulled that I do not care about it and label it as honourable and glorious. It is not.

Or as I once had said in my sig: "Strong and noble is the one whose eyes can bear everything, but whose heart still feels everything." I strongly believe that this is true, even if it is only a line from an adventure movie (spoken by the unique Philippe Noiret in "La fille d'Artagnan").

(On the situation in Afghanistan I had set up a separate essay back then and so must not comment on that again. Thinking about it I see no reason to correct anything in it - the months since then I see as ecvidence that my estimations on the future were correct. I am just referrting to the international conspiracy that aimed at trying to lurk the Germans into active combat missions and distract them from their own reconstruction strategy that is in sharp contrast to the anglosaxon attempt - as if not already 80% of the German budget is invested into the Afghanistan force and only 20% into reconstruction - how could one expect to succeed in Afghanistan with relations like that? Militarily alone it cannot be won.)

[Heibges]

So when are they going to ban cars?

Very soon.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass

[JALU3]

We're talking about San Francisco, here. What the heck is new? When the San Andreas moves, this issue will clear itself up.

edit--- They're not still flying those, are they? That plane rolled off the assembly line in about 1986.
http://tron-chaser.net/images2/m_lot6.jpg

Actually, yes, they are still F/A-18A/Bs . . . and they aren't looking to change anytime soon . . . although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17).

But as for San Francisco, and my wish for peace, I still see it's necessary to arm for war . . . and San Francisco is a beautiful place, spent my teen years there . . . love how open it is . . . but it's way to PC oh, the other peoples feelings, suppress non-liberal ideas . . . but the city is nice. Just don't let anyone know your a Republican . . . and it's all good.

But Have you ever been to the Marine Corps Club & Hotel . . . great place for servicemembers. I guess a bit of a left over from the hey days of the Sixth Army at the Presideo and half of 3rd Fleet being at NAS Alameda.

[tycho102]

although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17).
No, those planes are completely stripped to minimize weight. It would take well over a thousand man-hours just to stuff everything back in there. They're "battle ready" like New Orleans is "hurricane ready". The avioncs are the absolute bare minimal. The entire radar package has been pulled out. All the displays except the hud. The gun, too, but they actually had to throw some ballast in there to keep the center of gravity forward.

I looked through the "official" website, and it does indeed look like they are flying those 20+ year old airframes. From one aspect, you could say it's an amazingly strong aircraft. From another aspect, they're all going to undergo catastrophic structural fatigue within months of each other. I'd honestly have reservations of them flying anywhere near inhabited areas. They've not been subjected to typical flight patterns and stress.


I've only been to SanFran a couple of times, as a tourist.

[JALU3]

I looked through the "official" website, and it does indeed look like they are flying those 20+ year old airframes. From one aspect, you could say it's an amazingly strong aircraft. From another aspect, they're all going to undergo catastrophic structural fatigue within months of each other. I'd honestly have reservations of them flying anywhere near inhabited areas. They've not been subjected to typical flight patterns and stress.

Remember, you'll be pointed out as a tourist if you don't call San Francisco as "The City", if you are wearing shorts, and you don't have a jacket with you.

Well as for the Airframes . . . that makes me wonder what their plan is when these airframes give out . . . I guess it's the era of the F-35C? If so, will the Thunderbirds follow suit using the F-35A?

[LibertyToad]

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a Sanctuary City for many immigrants from war torn countries and home to thousands of veterans of war who have experienced air bombardment and are at risk of being traumatized when the Blue Angels perform; and,


Typical Leftist, kindergarten crap. Amusing.

[August]

although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17). They're "battle ready" like New Orleans is "hurricane ready".

The term "battle ready" would refer to the pilots not the performance aircraft I think. Blue Angel pilots are all fully qualified combat pilots who are recruited from the Navys air arm and will go back to sea duty once their tour with the Angels is over. To those guys getting ready for battle is as simple as getting out of one cockpit and getting into another.

[JALU3]

although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17). They're "battle ready" like New Orleans is "hurricane ready".

The term "battle ready" would refer to the pilots not the performance aircraft I think. Blue Angel pilots are all fully qualified combat pilots who are recruited from the Navys air arm and will go back to sea duty once their tour with the Angels is over. To those guys getting ready for battle is as simple as getting out of one cockpit and getting into another.

Say, they do reload these aircraft and send them to "Camp Cupcake" . . . I wonder what it would look like if they offered Close in Air Support.

Man, I would want to see pictures of that.

[August]

Say, they do reload these aircraft and send them to "Camp Cupcake"

A squadron can have more planes than it has pilots. The fancy painted ones you see at airshows are not the same aircraft they'd be flying into combat.

[JALU3]

Say, they do reload these aircraft and send them to "Camp Cupcake"

A squadron can have more planes than it has pilots. The fancy painted ones you see at airshows are not the same aircraft they'd be flying into combat.

From my understanding didn't the Squadron draw down from eight aircraft down to six?

[August]

From my understanding didn't the Squadron draw down from eight aircraft down to six?

Six aircraft performing at one time. That does not indicate how many pilots or aircraft they have in total.

[Heibges]

Point is, guys, I am totally critical of earning starting helps, business chances and such - by willing to join the military first. That is no antimilitarism by me. I simply find it to be an extremely bad idea to give the military such a massive influence on civil society, and to give it the baits needed to lure young people with their minds still undergoing their adolescence to go to the army. It is not a job like any other. Becasue if you think it to the end, your profession is to kill and destroy, if ordered. Everything else (keeping the peace, guarding the free world, deter attackers), is ways and attempts only to squirm around that statement. In the face of the high numbers of wars and operations the Us has been engaged in since WWII, it also is not convicning to abstract it to the levelö of idealism how nice the world and the job in the military is - as long as there is no war.

Don't try to distort me. On many occasions I have said myself that I would like to see another and stronger understanding for the need of a better funded military her ein europe. I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US, and I disagree on the easiness with which the decision in favour for wars are made in the US. I insist on seeing the military as what iot is: a tool of destruction and killing. That's why I am so hesitent to use, not to mention: to glorify it.

I think we have found something we agree upon beside Steel Beasts.

I find the loss our reliance on the Citizen Soldier since the end of WWII (which was won by citizen soldiers on all fronts, on the air, land, and sea) to be disheartening, and very dangerous.

If the United States is Rome, then Nazi Germany and the USSR are our combined Carthage. And Rome lost as much as she gained from the defeat of her archenemy.

[JALU3]

Point is, guys, I am totally critical of earning starting helps, business chances and such - by willing to join the military first. That is no antimilitarism by me. I simply find it to be an extremely bad idea to give the military such a massive influence on civil society, and to give it the baits needed to lure young people with their minds still undergoing their adolescence to go to the army. It is not a job like any other. Becasue if you think it to the end, your profession is to kill and destroy, if ordered. Everything else (keeping the peace, guarding the free world, deter attackers), is ways and attempts only to squirm around that statement. In the face of the high numbers of wars and operations the Us has been engaged in since WWII, it also is not convicning to abstract it to the levelö of idealism how nice the world and the job in the military is - as long as there is no war.

Don't try to distort me. On many occasions I have said myself that I would like to see another and stronger understanding for the need of a better funded military her ein europe. I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US, and I disagree on the easiness with which the decision in favour for wars are made in the US. I insist on seeing the military as what iot is: a tool of destruction and killing. That's why I am so hesitent to use, not to mention: to glorify it.

I think we have found something we agree upon beside Steel Beasts.

I find the loss our reliance on the Citizen Soldier since the end of WWII (which was won by citizen soldiers on all fronts, on the air, land, and sea) to be disheartening, and very dangerous.

If the United States is Rome, then Nazi Germany and the USSR are our combined Carthage. And Rome lost as much as she gained from the defeat of her archenemy.

There in lies our strategic weakness at this point, ever since the draw down during the previous administration we have let our National Guard Forces and Reserve Forces languish on the vine, as the saying goes, rather then taking the Cold War Bulk and transitioning it to stategic reserves.

Ideally, the bulk of ones forces would be reserves, with a small active force unless you're involved in major operations.

Well, our nation is involved in major operations, the force size hasn't increased significantly, and we're raiding the NG & AR to supplement a force that needs to be larger to handle the OPTEMPO that is currently being conducted.

So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

[seaniam81]

No, I have a better solution. San Francisco can become "South British Columbia".

;)



No you americans can keep san fran... we canadians dont want it.:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

There in lies our strategic weakness at this point, ever since the draw down during the previous administration we have let our National Guard Forces and Reserve Forces languish on the vine, as the saying goes, rather then taking the Cold War Bulk and transitioning it to stategic reserves.

Ideally, the bulk of ones forces would be reserves, with a small active force unless you're involved in major operations.

Well, our nation is involved in major operations, the force size hasn't increased significantly, and we're raiding the NG & AR to supplement a force that needs to be larger to handle the OPTEMPO that is currently being conducted.

Whats going on wasn't supposed to happen. The plan since draw down from the cold war was supposed to be quick in quick out, short and extremely violent, max use of technology (civilians call it shock and awe) with short use of reserves and guard. The plans of mice and men!


So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

Thats because it would be party suicide to bring back the draft and thats what it would take. The cost of equipping today is waaay up there and as the man said "No new taxes". This is a sore subject for me. Politics costing lives and nobody with the balls to make it happen.

[JALU3]

So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

Thats because it would be party suicide to bring back the draft and thats what it would take. The cost of equipping today is waaay up there and as the man said "No new taxes". This is a sore subject for me. Politics costing lives and nobody with the balls to make it happen.[/quote]

We didn't have the draft, and our force was double what it is today back during the late cold war . . . so the draft isn't the only way to increase the force size. Production and development cost would go down per unit if there is a steady need of armament consumption, because it is high now due to small prior demand, a smaller production base, and fewer items purchased (thus increasing the cost per item).

Take a look at the ship building industry . . . when you have only three major producers, some under the same company, that means that they can get away with charging significantly more, because you can't go elsewhere to make the same quality and type of item.

It will cost money to fund a larger armed forces, that is without a question . . . but as they say "If you buy in bulk, you'll save money. Yayyyy!"

[bradclark1]

[. . . but as they say "If you buy in bulk, you'll save money.
Thats what EB keeps telling the the navy (seriously). Month or so back EB said they could drop the price so many millions per sub added to the contract. Can't remember how much but it made me whistle.

[bradclark1]

We didn't have the draft, and our force was double what it is today back during the late cold war . . . so the draft isn't the only way to increase the force size.
That depends on how long you want to take doing it and we weren't in an Iraq situation then. A couple of years ago would have been a good time.
The Army is giving $25,000 bonuses to sign up right now. Thats what it is taking to man our ranks. I have no idea what the reenlistment bonuses are. You think they could do that for three more divisions?

Edit: Reenlistment bonuses: http://www.stayarmy.com/messages/srb/MILPER2007_002.html

[Heibges]

But everything is still geared towards folks with former Active Duty experience.

There is a wealth of fantastic people in the National Guard and Reserves that could be enticed into the Regular Army.

[JALU3]

But everything is still geared towards folks with former Active Duty experience.

There is a wealth of fantastic people in the National Guard and Reserves that could be enticed into the Regular Army.

I had a plan pre-9/11 of course, way back when . . . regarding our military, that would have kept force strength, increased the stature of our NG & AR . . . and decrease the size of the RA.

But alas, that plan would have never worked these days.

[bradclark1]

But everything is still geared towards folks with former Active Duty experience.

There is a wealth of fantastic people in the National Guard and Reserves that could be enticed into the Regular Army.
I'm not going to search but I'd say the enticements would be there already and they could become active in a heartbeat if they wanted.

[Heibges]

Right now I believe the Army does not want folks who have only Reserve experience, and are no longer in the reserves, or is it very easy to transfer from the reserves or national guard into the regular army. :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Right now I believe the Army does not want folks who have only Reserve experience, and are no longer in the reserves, or is it very easy to transfer from the reserves or national guard into the regular army. :hmm:
Some Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers who are currently activated can apply for direct transfer to active duty (critical mos?).
However, one may apply to the Reserves and/or National Guard for a "conditional release." Basically, a "conditional release" says that the Reserve Component or National Guard agrees to release you from the remainder of your commitment, if you are accepted for enlistment or appointment to an active duty service component.
To start the conditional release process, you must see an active duty recruiter. The Recruiter is the only person who can request a conditional release.
The Army offers a "broken service," or "prior service" enlistment bonus for those who have separated from the Army (or another service), but wish to re-enlist into the Army, if they possess a military skill that is considered "critical."