[Grut]

Apparently selling oil filters is more important than protecting the country.

Well, if you're in the oil-filter-selling business it is! Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed? This business of calling up reservists for a year or so every few years isn't fair to the reservists or their employers. We need bigger standing forces and an end to this cut-rate staffing of the military with 'temps'.

[kaboom]

"Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed?"

Because they are defending your right to make stupid comments.

[clamper1797]

"Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed?"

Because they are defending your right to make VERY stupid comments.

[1rudeboy]

Because they are defending your right to make extremely stupid comments.

[bimbo]

Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed?

With many companies now considering themselves "multinational" this type of complaint will become more and more common.

[RightOnline]

"Well, if you're in the oil-filter-selling business it is! Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed? This business of calling up reservists for a year or so every few years isn't fair to the reservists or their employers. We need bigger standing forces and an end to this cut-rate staffing of the military with 'temps'."

You couldn't possibly have meant to say this.

Tell me you didn't, even if you did.

[glory]

Well Pep Boys are welcome to lobby for such changes, but in the mean time, they have no right firing this guy.

[Core_Conservative]

I disagree that you would call the reservists cut-rate staffing. My wife (ODC_GIRL) is in the guard, and they have in the past beaten the pants off of Active Duty Unit in head to head competitions!

[archy]

This business of calling up reservists for a year or so every few years isn't fair to the reservists or their employers. We need bigger standing forces and an end to this cut-rate staffing of the military with 'temps'.

The question of the ratio and role of reserve/militia forces to those of the regular *standing army* that our nations founders warned us were a threat to the liberty of our nation has long been a matter of debate and political consideration.

But as one of those reservists, I tend to agree at least in part with at least some of your words, if perhaps less so with the apparent tone of them. If my reserve functions are ever called upon, it'll likely be as a result of a reinstituted draft and callup of at least three divisions worth of trainees to build the core personnell for about three divisions, around 50,000 conscript troops- and that'll be just at the training facility I'd be at, no telling how many similar units would be so engaged at present and former, now-inactivated military training centers.

But at the same time as I see such efforts as a real matter of desperation in desperate times, I'm no great fan of the idea of hiring the young as mercenaries to do the dirty work either. Maybe a limited draft for national service for roles besides the military, and with those in military positions limited to duty within the Continental United States [CONUS] might be a workable compromise. Or maybe not.

I am sure of two things, however: whatever course is adopted, it will fall short of perfection and have to be reworked to fit the circumstances of its need. And if it's needed hurriedly, the need will indeed be desperate.

-archy-/-