War The world is running out of soldiers - Wars are getting more common and militaries are building up. There’s just one thing missing.

1.png
Young recruits undergo military training at a recruiting center in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 9, 2024. Getty Images

A war between the United States and China would involve the kind of military manpower the world hasn’t seen in decades. As a point of contrast, around 156,000 troops landed on the beaches of France during the Normandy invasion in 1944, which was commemorated by world leaders earlier this month. Some experts estimate that if China were to try to invade Taiwan — the most likely flashpoint for a superpower confrontation — it might need as many as a million. If the US were to defend the island, according to some estimates it might suffer as many as half the number of casualties in just the first three weeks of fighting as it did in 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The last time the US fought wars anywhere close to this scale, many of those fighting were not there by choice: the military draft only ended in 1973, as American involvement in the Vietnam war was winding down. That conflict involved some 2.7 million American servicemembers in total, more than 58,000 of whom were killed — around 30 percent of whom were draftees.

A report released on Tuesday by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a DC-based defense think tank, looked at what might happen if the American government once again felt a draft was necessary to provide for the nation’s security. For military planners, its conclusions are not encouraging.

In a tabletop wargaming exercise — in which experts are asked to anticipate how a given military scenario might turn out — participants including military officers, Pentagon staff, and academic experts were given the task of raising a force of 100,000 conscripted US soldiers in 193 days for a war with China. (One scenario involved a war over Taiwan; another, significantly less plausible one, involved a Chinese attack on the West Coast.) The most “successful” groups in the exercise found they’d likely only be able to raise half as many of the 100,000 needed soldiers; most groups raised far less.

Some of the factors complicating their efforts were simply logistical: The Selective Service System has estimated it will take 500,000 induction notices to produce 100,000 draftees. But by US law, those notices would be sent by mail to the address that draftees — which include all 18- to 25-year-old men living in the US — used to register for selective service when they turned 18. Many of these letters would probably not reach their intended recipients.

There would almost certainly be legal challenges to the draft, as well as significant public protests, while some number of draftees would apply for conscientious objector status or dodge it altogether. (An estimated 300,000 Americans either illegally dodged the draft during the Vietnam War or deserted from the military.) Many, if not most, might simply not be eligible for service: Pentagon studies have found that around 77 percent of young Americans would not currently qualify for military service due to being overweight, using drugs, or having other physical or mental health issues.

The military would also have to ensure that it had the equipment, facilities, and training resources needed to absorb these raw recruits so quickly. This was an issue in the early days following Hamas’s October 7 attacks, when the Israel Defense Forces called up a record 300,000 reservists only to be quickly overwhelmed by complaints about insufficient facilities, equipment, food, and other logistical bottlenecks.

Given the cultural and political upheaval that ultimately caused the draft to be scrapped toward the end of the Vietnam War, a return to mass conscription is not an option most US leaders would prefer to contemplate. But the CNAS report makes a stark case that US leaders need to at least consider scenarios where it would become a necessity: “US lawmakers, policymakers, and military leaders must assume that if a draft were called, it would be absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, it must work.”

“We have been so successful at deterring major power conflict for the past 75 years that we have started to consider them a relic of the past,” Katherine Kuzminski, author of the report and director of CNAS’s military, veterans, and society program, told Vox. “Now, every country is having to think about what happens when you have a no-kidding, existential threat on your borders.”

But while we may live in a world in which the number and severity of armed conflicts are increasing again after decades of decline and in which countries around the world are ramping up their military spending, there’s one resource nearly all major militaries seem to be short of: people to actually fight those wars.

War without soldiers​

In the United States, the Army is slashing its ranks by thousands of positions amid chronic recruiting shortfalls. In Europe, despite military spending increases since the war in Ukraine, the shortfalls are, if anything, even worse: Germany’s military has been shrinking for years despite a major recruiting push, while the UK may soon decommission four warships because of a lack of sailors to sail them. Despite a military buildup prompted by concerns about China, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are falling short of their recruitment goals. Even China, which has the world’s largest military by people-power — with some 2 million active personnel — is struggling to recruit the skilled high school graduates it needs to operate its increasingly advanced weaponry. There’s an active debate among defense analysts about whether China even has the personnel needed to pull off an invasion of Taiwan.

In this context, more national leaders are starting to gingerly approach the issue of conscription. Germany’s defense minister recently presented a plan for a form of limited military conscription based on the systems now used by Scandinavian countries, which conscript some, but not most, eligible young people based on defense needs. Britain’s Conservative Party has included a plan for mandatory national service — with military and civilian options — in its platform for the country’s upcoming election. In the United States, the Washington Post recently reported some allies of former President Donald Trump’s campaign have suggested that some form of national service might be introduced if he is elected.

Whether any of these initiatives will go anywhere is hard to predict. Britain’s Conservatives are widely expected to lose, and Trump himself, who avoided service in Vietnam due to a diagnosis of bone spurs, dismissed the Post report as “fake news.” But in an era of so-called “great power conflict,” the question of who will actually be fighting the wars of the future will only become more important.

Lessons of Ukraine​

The reason for the sudden resurgence of global interest in soldiers and conscription isn’t a mystery. The war in Ukraine, with its trench lines, tank battles, and artillery duels, marks a return to the sort of warfare that many had hoped was consigned to the dustbin of history.

For instance, the year-long Battle of Bakhmut, in which Russian forces — primarily from the semi-private Wagner Group — eventually succeeded in taking a small eastern Ukrainian city, was Russia’s bloodiest battle since World War II. More than 19,500 fighters were killed, according to a recent independent media investigation. That’s more troops killed in a single long battle than the Soviet Union lost in its decade-long war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Finding troops for the “meat grinder” in Ukraine hasn’t been easy for the Russian government. Russia does conscript soldiers every year, but conscripts generally can’t be deployed outside Russia. In the fall of 2022, the Kremlin declared a “partial mobilization” meant to raise 300,000 troops for the military. But more than twice that number are believed to have fled the country to avoid the draft.

Since then, however, Russia has managed to stabilize its manpower situation. It has done this in part by offering large signing bonuses that exceed average annual salaries in many remote and impoverished regions of Russia, and by granting pardons to prison inmates. (Pardoned prisoners made up the bulk of the fatalities in Bakhmut.) These tactics have largely kept the public backlash to the hundreds of thousands of casualties manageable.

The worries about personnel are far more acute in Ukraine, which has a democratic political system and about 100 million fewer citizens than Russia. The long lines that formed outside recruiting centers immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 are a thing of the past. Today, there are desperate shortages of Ukrainian troops on the front lines.

The average age of these soldiers is over 40 — shockingly old by global standards. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently signed a controversial law to lower the age for draft eligible men from 27 to 25. (The average age of an American GI in Vietnam was 19.) The government has resorted to a number of carrots (giving volunteers the right to choose their own battalions) and sticks (highly unpopular street patrols to find young men avoiding the draft) to replenish the ranks. And like Russia, Ukraine is also now recruiting prison inmates to serve.

Another similarity to Russia: Ukraine was in a state of precipitous population collapse even before the war, thanks to a combination of plummeting birth rates and out-migration. Its population declined from 51.5 million when it became independent in 1991 to just 37 million in 2019. Add to that the more than 6 million people who fled the country after the outbreak of war, those currently in the military, those killed or seriously wounded in the war, and those who’ve turned to black market employment in order to avoid conscription, and it’s no surprise that Ukraine’s civilian economy is facing serious labor shortages.

The war has presented Ukrainian leaders with an agonizing choice that goes even beyond the brutal prospect of sending thousands of young people to their deaths: Fighting for their national survival today might require decimating the nation’s already grim demographic future.

Grayer world, grayer wars​

Demography is also on the mind of military planners in rapidly aging East Asia, which is furthest along the global trend toward lower fertility rates. With the ever-present risk of a major war with neighboring North Korea growing, South Korean men have to perform at least 18 months of military service — and at least among democracies, it’s one of the toughest countries to avoid the draft. Even members of K-Pop supergroup BTS have to put in their 18 months.

But the country is also facing some stark population math. To maintain current troop levels, South Korea needs to enlist or conscript 200,000 men per year. But if current birth rates continue, in 20 years there will only be about 125,000 men available per year to fill those spots.

South Korea has one of the world’s fastest aging societies, but it’s hardly an outlier. Two of the regions with the fastest falling birth rates — East Asia and Eastern Europe — are also the places where risk of interstate war or superpower conflict may be highest right now.

In China, demographic decline is further compounded by the legacy of the country’s one-child policy. A high-casualty war — which China has not fought since its conflict with Vietnam in the 1970s — would devastate many families in a society where lone adult children are often expected to provide for their aging parents. Perhaps in recognition of this concern, the People’s Liberation Army amended its policies to allow parents as well as spouses to claim death benefits for a soldier killed in the line of duty.

There might appear to be a bright side to all this. Not so long ago, some theorists were predicting a “geriatric peace”: societies with fewer available soldiers as well as older — therefore, presumably, less aggressive — populations might simply be less likely to start wars.

But the recent actions of Russia — where population decline is only slightly slower than in Ukraine — provide a powerful counterexample to that theory, not to mention the rising tensions and territorial conflicts in fast graying East Asia. The calculations of aggressive leaders like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping might just as easily be explained by what international relations theorists call “power transition theory”: the idea that governments will try to lock in military gains before their power starts to decline.

In other words, looking at decades of population decline to come, China’s Xi might decide that now is the moment to act in Taiwan, while he still has the troops to take it.

Andrew Oros, a professor of political science at Washington College who is writing a book on the security implications of East Asia’s aging societies, suggests that we may be seeing what he calls “dual graying” of conflict in the region: As societies age, they may be more likely to engage in so-called “gray zone” tactics — sabotage, propaganda, hacking, deniable attacks by unofficial militias and dual-use fleets — rather than all-out war. “This kind of gray conflict is something that older states are still very capable of doing,” Oros told Vox. “You don’t necessarily need to be fully able-bodied to fight a cyber war.”

Dulce et decorum est?​

It’s not just that the pool of available soldiers is getting smaller. Those in that pool are less willing to join up than ever. Polls show young people around the world are becoming far less willing to fight for their country. Young Americans have far more negative views of the military as an institution than older ones.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who supervised recruiting as commander of the Army’s Accessions Command, said one challenge is an anti-establishment mood in society at large, one that has even infected feelings about the military — an institution that long had wide support from Americans, whatever their politics. “There’s something of a loss of confidence in institutions across the board — courts, the government, the media, and the military,” Freakley told Vox.

When those feelings are paired with what is now a period of relatively high employment and higher wages in even low-skills sectors in the private economy, and the idea of arduous and potentially dangerous military service can look less appealing. It’s not a coincidence that Russia has been doing the bulk of its conscription in poorer, more remote regions of the country where the private sector can’t compete with military bonuses.

This trend holds even in some countries facing imminent military threat.

Taiwan recently extended compulsory military service for its citizens from four months to a year, but service is widely unpopular among many young Taiwanese and the government has struggled to expand its roughly 169,000-strong military.

A recent Carnegie Endowment poll shows that in Ukraine, a significant generation gap has opened up in attitudes toward the war. Ukrainians over 60 are about 20 percent more likely to say that Ukraine is winning the war and that it should fight until it liberates all its territory than those between 18 and 25 who would be more likely to do the actual fighting if the country began drafting more aggressively.

Jennifer Sciubba, a population demographer who focuses on defense issues, told Vox that “when you have a larger pool [of potential recruits or conscripts] to draw from you have to worry less about cultural shifts. It becomes a great issue in countries where the shift toward smaller populations is more pronounced.”

Uncle Sam wants you​

A range of policy changes are being considered in light of these trends. Some Asian countries are loosening age and height requirements to expand the pool of potential recruits or conscripts. Australia, dealing with its own recruitment woes, is considering allowing foreign nationals to serve in its armed forces for the first time. At a recent panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Gen. James Slife, vice chief of staff of the US Air Force, said his commanders were looking at loosening some restrictions, such as requiring airmen to have driver’s licenses. (Gen Z-ers are far less likely to drive.)

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussion of manpower is gender. Israel may be the best-known example of a country with universal (with some notable exceptions) military service for both men and women. Norway and Finland are among the few countries with selective service systems that draft women as well as men, though Denmark recently joined them. Taiwan only recently rolled out plans to allow women to register for reserve training.

In the United States, where women are no longer excluded from combat roles in the military, the Supreme Court has rebuffed several legal challenges to the all-male Selective Service System.

But CNAS’s Kuzminski suggests that this is an issue for the government to deal with now, rather than when a wartime draft actually becomes necessary.“The legal underpinning for the all-male registration law is on pretty shaky ground,” she said. “It’s not about the social policy side of things. From our perspective, it’s about the fact that you cannot afford to lose a week, a month, two months, while this gets moved up through the courts.”

Then there’s the question of whether the wars of the future will be fought by humans at all. The Pentagon recently announced plans to build thousands of cheap drones as a means to, in the words of Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, “overcome [China’s] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people.”

Gen. Nick Carter, former chief of the UK’s Defense Staff, predicted in 2020 that his country might someday “have an army of 120,000, of which 30,000 might be robots.” (The country currently has 130,000 servicemembers, all human.)

Freakley, who commanded US combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, was skeptical of the idea that “mass” could be achieved through autonomous systems alone, pointing out that similar claims had been made in previous generations by advocates of airpower. “There’s always a balance between manpower and technology,” he said, “but what history has shown us in warfare is that if you want to control another nation, you’ve got to put boots on the ground.”

But finding young people to put into those boots is only becoming more challenging.

Article Link

Archive
 
A war between the United States and China would involve the kind of military manpower the world hasn’t seen in decades. As a point of contrast, around 156,000 troops landed on the beaches of France during the Normandy invasion in 1944, which was commemorated by world leaders earlier this month. Some experts estimate that if China were to try to invade Taiwan — the most likely flashpoint for a superpower confrontation — it might need as many as a million. If the US were to defend the island, according to some estimates it might suffer as many as half the number of casualties in just the first three weeks of fighting as it did in 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
People keep thinking that war is computer game and that all you need is men and weapons. There's a whole supply chain that goes along with it that, frankly, the west wouldn't be able to achieve in Taiwan.

China can organise a naval blockade of Taiwain and SCS while flooding the island with millions upon millions of boots. The west wouldn't be able to land anywhere near it. If it did, and somehow got a foothold on the island, how will supplies get in? Magic?

There's only one reason why Taiwan isn't Chinese and that's because it doesn't benefit China. The cost of the war isn't worth the spoils. It has nothing to do with western ability.
 
There's only one reason why Taiwan isn't Chinese and that's because it doesn't benefit China. The cost of the war isn't worth the spoils. It has nothing to do with western ability.

China does not have the ability to intercept the rain of cruise missiles that will target the Three Gorges Dam (largest concrete gravity dam in the world not anchored to the bedrock below it) in the event of a war, and when the dam goes so does China, and slightly less than the majority of the Chinese. China also doesn't have sufficient sealift, the PLAetc is an untrained three ring circus of a military without even the paltry experience of sandbox wars, and what hardware they have that isn't vintage Soviet makes the vintage Soviet stuff look like X-Wing starfighters. Their economy needs the west far more than the west needs China even if it wasn't teetering on the brink of collapse (much like those tofu dreg ghost cities). Because the government is terrified of nuclear warlords, they keep their missiles and warheads far, far apart, so they have effectively zero second strike capability, and first strike is hampered by that issue too. Their population is aging, their demographic bomb worse than the west's, and their culture is only making that worse.

Stop acting like China's a threat. It can probably navigate all these issues more or less ok; however, if a war happens, you'll see another warlord states situation in your lifetime.
 
The current economic situation of white countries does not allow any more for an unskilled labouring class. They are a problem, and they are going to be removed. This is historically how that removal is done.
thats why they desperately try to import unskilled labourers especially after covid?

On the subject over my dead body .

Also fucking pay people you fags. Your soldiers make far less than the median while russian pay theirs double the median its not a rocket science
 
Last edited:
China does not have the ability to intercept the rain of cruise missiles that will target the Three Gorges Dam (largest concrete gravity dam in the world not anchored to the bedrock below it) in the event of a war, and when the dam goes so does China, and slightly less than the majority of the Chinese.
Optimistic that one dam would end the chinks - a massive country with 1.5 billion people.
China also doesn't have sufficient sealift, the PLAetc is an untrained three ring circus of a military without even the paltry experience of sandbox wars,
They're warm bodies. History tells us that in the majority of cases, meat waves will win the day. Sure, there are exceptions, but the average chink is more disciplined than the average amerimutt.
and what hardware they have that isn't vintage Soviet makes the vintage Soviet stuff look like X-Wing starfighters.
Rag heads had ak-47s and camels and did well. Vietcong had pointy sticks and defeated the frogs and yanks. Soviet era armour is making a mockery of a well equipped ukraine.
Even the sambas gave the English a good old prodding using nothing more than sharpened spears and a wooden shield, against a hail of bullets.
Their economy needs the west far more than the west needs China even if it wasn't teetering on the brink of collapse (much like those tofu dreg ghost cities).
This is cope. It's brought up time and time again and it's bullshit based on nothing. China needs the west for 1 thing; food. And not food to feed their entire country, just to stop a few million from starving. Push comes to shove, China could lean on friends/allies and neutral enemies of the west to divert food production away from amerimutts and towards chinks.
Because the government is terrified of nuclear warlords, they keep their missiles and warheads far, far apart, so they have effectively zero second strike capability, and first strike is hampered by that issue too. Their population is aging, their demographic bomb worse than the west's, and their culture is only making that worse.
Every population is aging. The difference with the chinks is there's still 100 million disciplined, brainwashed meatbags ready to throw down for glorious empire. The west has fat faggots, lazy niggers and a horde of muslims ready to turncoat the second they get the chance.
Stop acting like China's a threat. It can probably navigate all these issues more or less ok; however, if a war happens, you'll see another warlord states situation in your lifetime.
China isn't a threat unless the west make it a threat, which is why nothing has happened.

I'm going to assume your line of work doesn't involve any dealings with SME's or manufacturing? The vast, vast, vast majority of shit, even yank and europe shit, is build in or by China. There are every day items that are shipped to china to be assembled, then shipped back to the west to be sold. I know, it's fucking retarded, but that's the truth. Covid fucked the west because the boats were delayed. Imagine what would happen if the boats stopped?

Leaving aside the shipping physical products aspect, the financial markets of the west, which are propped up by rampant consumerism, would collapse. Those SME's that make up a majority of jobs for plebs would cease to function without chinesium. Hell, most SME's ive worked with rely on getting basic, critical items from Amazon. What would those people do for work? Nobody can buy products because there are non coming westward, nobody has cash to buy shit because they're all unemployed.

Like i said in my first post, people think a war is like command and conquer, where men and tanks move here and then attack. There's so much more to it than that and without going to war and seeing all of the moving parts, you can't really appreciate how fragile the whole thing is. That's before we look at rippling repurcussions.

TL;DR - The idea that "chinks can't fight, lol 3 gorges" would be the end of a war, is retarded. China doesn't need the west in a wartime scenario, only in peacetime. The west is fat, lazy and reliant on chinks building our products, which prop up the western house-of-cards economy. Going to war with china, would be taking a leaf-blower to that economy.
 
Civic nationalism is dying out, less people are willing to make sacrifices in a sake of state entities that don't represent their interests. Back to to medieval peasantry/nobility dynamic: upper-class doesn't care how you get by, you don't care about their stuff in return.
 
China does not have the ability to intercept the rain of cruise missiles that will target the Three Gorges Dam (largest concrete gravity dam in the world not anchored to the bedrock below it) in the event of a war, and when the dam goes so does China, and slightly less than the majority of the Chinese.
China has the H-Bomb. You want to kill several hundred million people, and the Chinese will respond in kind.
Their economy needs the west far more than the west needs China even if it wasn't teetering on the brink of collapse (much like those tofu dreg ghost cities).
No, their economy needs access to the rest of the world. Inflating your own currency doesn't change that reality - the USA is no longer the #1 spot. China is at 30tn, the USA is at 25 - the 6:5 ratio is more like 6:20, per-capita.

Or - the country which went through the Great Leap Forward has closed the gap. They are well within the boundaries of outright dominating the USA in their own area. You, as the USA, do not have the infrastructure left to handle an equal fight.

Because the government is terrified of nuclear warlords, they keep their missiles and warheads far, far apart, so they have effectively zero second strike capability, and first strike is hampered by that issue too.
They have stocks of haemorrhagic smallpox - thanks to the USA, ironically, when you released it in North Korea during your embarrassing retreat from their forces. I can guarantee you that if you launched a "rain of cruise missiles" then the USA would be a practically barren continent by the end of the month.

Of course the USA wouldn't proudly gloat about that fact, but yeah, the Chinese are far from stupid and fortunately for Yurop, all the evil shit from the colonial era appears to have been forgiven by the fact that China and Russia were our allies in two world wars. The Chinese would happily engage with the USA, too - the Nanking Safety Zone was set up by American missionaries - but nope, you guys shat the bed and threw smallpox at them.

Push comes to shove, China could lean on friends/allies and neutral enemies of the west to divert food production away from amerimutts and towards chinks.
They have Russia on their side, the single biggest mistake in the West's history.

Russia is a European country with a massive Asian territory - somehow, America wedged its way in and demanded that the natural result of that leave.

The west has fat faggots, lazy niggers and a horde of muslims ready to turncoat the second they get the chance.
I don't think China is a natural enemy. Honestly - Chinese media is one of the only sources where you'll find realistic, all-white casts for historic events. Look at John Rabe - they got some authentic swastikas, and German/British uniforms, for the Nanking Safety Zone.
 
Honestly I'm at the point why die for an ungrateful country? Why did for a war that has no benefits for you or your family whatsoever? Why did for a country that seems hellbent on going to want to dismantle itself because of past bad thing in weak show? Why die for countries that would sneer at you in pure contempt even though your the main reason that their not vassals to another country?
 
Remember, the last few years of the war in Afghanistan, once bin Laden was killed, was more about building lesbian ice cream shops and teaching gender studies to the women and less about anything to do with warfare.

There were hadjis making more pumping gas and stealing it than the troops there.

There were civvy faggots making 6 figures for doing damn near nothing.

The troops were there just for security.

Or the fact that the CIA started being able to call the shots, and actively protected pedos and poppy growers.

Or that the CIA and the State Department destroyed the chain of command at Abu Grabass and then pretended they had nothing to do with it.

Why fight in a war that will be less about winning a war and more about making civilians rich and getting the CIA more funding?

The truth is simple: If you fight and win the war, the powers that be fucking hate you with the fury of a thousand suns. They want it to go on forever so they can funnel the money to their friends and into their pockets.

We know they'll use it to clear out whatever they deem as undesirables.

So why fight in something that is less a war and more a fundraiser with a foundation of bodies?
 
Zbigniew Brzezinski is proven right yet again. I really wish I could find the quote but he understood the effects of mass media on recruitment. Thankfully he didn't come up with a solution.
Optimistic that one dam would end the chinks - a massive country with 1.5 billion people.
The Chinese have a long history of destroying their own dams during war, most recently against the Japanese in WW2.

But now the 3 gorges is Chynas glowing red weak spot; hit it and xi jingpingpong commits soduku on live TV and Chyna surrenders unconditionally to the USA :story:
 
The article doesn't bother mentioning the real reasons why military recruitment has collapsed in the US, real reasons including--but not limited to--decades of no-win forever wars fought for profit and the Woke ideological indoctrination that demonizes whites and puts troons and freakshow fetishists in positions of authority.

A veteran myself, I wouldn't fight for the fucking rainbow flag and the neo-Marxist authoritarianism encapsulated by the nauseating catchphrase muh precious democracy and wouldn't want any young person I care about to fight for it, either.
 
Last edited:
Also fucking pay people you fags. Your soldiers make far less than the median while russian pay theirs double the median its not a rocket science
Do you how army pay works during draft time? I'll promise you a house, your own land, a 250k per year salary, and guaranteed veterans pay for the rest of your life. And you know what?

You'll never see a fucking cent of it.

I'm tricking you into going. You aren't meant to come back. Even if you do come back, you'll never get what I promised you. If you try and protest, I'll meet you at the Capital with the National Guard that will open fire without remorse. If you think the US government wouldn't do that, they've already done it. Three times.
 
Do you how army pay works during draft time? I'll promise you a house, your own land, a 250k per year salary, and guaranteed veterans pay for the rest of your life. And you know what?

You'll never see a fucking cent of it.

I'm tricking you into going. You aren't meant to come back. Even if you do come back, you'll never get what I promised you. If you try and protest, I'll meet you at the Capital with the National Guard that will open fire without remorse. If you think the US government wouldn't do that, they've already done it. Three times.
The biggest thing the government hates is soldiers that didn't die in the wars.

And God forbid it look like you're winning the war. They'll sabotage that shit quickly.

Then act like you're an ungrateful greedy asshole for wanting what they promised you.

How many know who Audie Murphy is?
Me.
 
Back