evince
Truthmatters
But you don’t want black people to be honored for their Valor
Navy weighs renaming carrier slated to honor Black war hero, potentially switching it to Trump
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Maybe, maybe not. You do know, depending on the part of the country, that 30 to 50% of all draftees are rejected for service mostly on the basis of medical or mental (incompetent, etc.) issues.
What's really funny here is that draftees who didn't extend voluntarily for an extra year of service, rarely were sent to Vietnam. Their two-year term made that a reality. Instead, they were either filling billets in the US or back filled to ones in places like Europe. Training, even just for an infantryman, took over a year to complete. That left less than a year on a draftee's service term so they couldn't be shipped to Vietnam where a tour was one year long--well, unless you were a lying cheat like John Kerry.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It would be fine to name say a frigate or destroyer after him, as that is usual practice. Anything bigger is a hard "NO!" in my book.
Ya.....this is not normal and this is not OK.....America is better than this.....naming a carrier after someone essentially because of his skin color.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Yes, it is so wrong to name a carrier for someone based on racism which is what this amounts to.
You are not always wrong.
Fuck you asshole. You supported the assassination of your president so, fuck you!
Fuck you asshole. You supported the assassination of your president so, fuck you!
Well, if your daddy owns the building the doctor was in and you get a sudden diagnosis of bone spurs it leaves room for suspicion. Plus Trump’s inability to answer straight questions on his experience during the feud with McCain raises questions
And you are all wrong about draftees in Vietnam:
“Timing was everything in that crucial period of 1968 and 1969, when the Army was running out of volunteer replacements and more and more draftees were needed to man infantry units in Vietnam. Draftees represented an ever larger percentage of those Americans killed in action in 1968 and 1969, and college graduates born, like Trump, in 1946 or 1947 became a target for draft boards across the country (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330)”
It took roughly four months to train, eight weeks of basic and eight weeks of advanced training. Deployments to Vietnam were thirteen months, and could come anytime as long as you had fourteen months left to serve
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
This is wrong.
If everything went perfectly. Individuals were not shipped to units to replace losses. Instead, units were rotated in and out of combat in Vietnam as a block. Training for basics in infantry took about 4 months, then the soldier was integrated into his unit where he did unit training taking as much as 3 or 4 months more. Given that only about 10% of the Army is infantrymen in any case, only a small minority of all draftees were put in that branch. Depending on your ASVAB scores and education level, you'd far more likely end up in a technical job than as infantry.
It was easier to back fill units not in combat with draftees than send them to units going to Vietnam. Did some draftees go? Yes, definitely. But the bulk of them didn't.
Wait a minute, I provided documentation showing you were wrong, and there is plenty more, draftees represented a high percentage of servicemen serving and dying in Vietnam
Your ten percent is true for any engagement, and given RA’s committed to three years they were the ones usually assigned to more specialized MOSs, in fact, most signed up with promised fields, while draftees usually got 11B the Army knowing they were only going to be around two years, in fact, the Army offered an 18 month term if the draftee agreed to go to Nam
Nothing personal, but you are out of your element in this area
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Let's take it up a notch, and see who is out their depth here:
About 8.7 million men served during the Vietnam era. Of that, 3.3 million were actually in-theater in Vietnam. That includes roughly 600 thousand who were Air Force or Navy personnel that were either offshore or flying into and out of Vietnam on missions.
Draftees made up about 30% of that total. That's far less than in previous wars where a draft was held. About 10% of draftees were voluntary. This sounds counter intuitive but it isn't when you consider things. Those that volunteered for the draft served just two years where they would have to serve 3 or 4 if they enlisted for service instead. By being voluntarily drafted, they got a shorter term of service.
Do the math here: There's roughly a 10% chance that someone drafted would end up in Vietnam. Only the Army took draftees. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force remained volunteer services.
Your confusion comes from the fact that draftees that did serve in Vietnam were likely to be in combat units even though they represent a minority of the manpower in those units. Being junior in rank places them in positions more likely to be ones where they are killed or wounded. That's because they lack time in service and rank.
So, volunteers and career soldiers got more of the safer positions in combat units (like administrative, artillery, armor, support, engineering etc.) while the junior and low rank draftees were put in more dangerous jobs like combat infantry. But that said, they still represent a small fraction of the total number that served in Vietnam.
Overall, the death rate for draftees that went to Vietnam was 3.5% while that for volunteers and career military was 2.8.
Vietnam War Draft Statistics | Verified 2026 Data
Our in-depth market data report on vietnam war draft. Explore verified statistics and the latest research.
This is cute, Gardner thinks he is an expert on the military, even though he obviously never served... Or had any family members who served.
Kerry had a one year tour which was cut short by three injuries, the same rules applied to everyone. The Navy enforced those rules more severely, because they take injuries more seriously, and because they had more volunteers than positions.
Slightly over a third of all draftees served in Vietnam combat, so not rare.
Training an infantryman took 17 weeks.
With 17 weeks of training, some leave and possibly extra training, there was more than enough time to serve a year in Vietnam. In fact, it was specifically planned that way.
Kerry had a one year tour which was cut short by three injuries, the same rules applied to everyone. The Navy enforced those rules more severely, because they take injuries more seriously, and because they had more volunteers than positions.
Gardner's complete lack of service gives him what right to decide such things?
While some units were rotated in as a "block", many units spent years there, and rotated individual soldiers in and out. Even when rotated as a unit, individuals would be transferred in.
There was two weeks of in-country orientation after joining a unit, but that was done in Vietnam.
I guess you could argue slightly less than two thirds means "a bulk" did not go, but over a third is not rare.
That is the new fangled Epstein math. Real draftees had over a third chance of ending up in Vietnam.
Another one of Gardner's fantasies. The US Marines started drafting in 1968 for Vietnam. I had a relative who was at first not drafted for the Marines, but one of the draftees for the Marines burst into tears, so my uncle was ordered to be a Marine instead.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You are an idiot. I served, and likely served longer than anyone else on this board. I am an expert on many things military as well.
Wrong! Draftees made up about 30% of all service members worldwide during the Vietnam era.
So? Unit training and maneuvers followed that.
The US Army moved away from the individual replacement system used in WW 2, particularly in the ETO because it created too many poor results.
So, Kerry claims. The medical records and those who served with him say he was never seriously injured.
I served 26 years and change.
Combat units generally didn't. Support units are a different story.
No, even in the Vietnam era you got that class before leaving the states. It's done online now individually rather than as a classroom setting.
About 10% of all draftees ended up in Vietnam. 30% of the entire military were draftees, but only a fraction of those served in Vietnam.
1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9 or about 10%. You are clearly a mathematical illiterate. Roughly 10% of all Vietnam era service members were draftees who served in Vietnam.
I was incorrect here. The Marines did indeed take some draftees.
Last edited:
It is that Epstein Math again. 38% of draftees were sent to Vietnam. That is just a fact. Your statement of what percent of service members were draftees does not change that.
For those sent to Vietnam, usually one to two weeks of in-country orientation followed that.
So every military record showed, and everyone who served. If you got three Purple Hearts, your tour of duty ended. The Navy was very strict on that. Not reporting an injury was a major crime in the Navy.
And yet have zero military knowledge?
A guy I know lost part of both of his legs during in-country orientation... So not really stuff you can learn in a classroom setting.
In-country orientation was meant to teach the newly deployed what the more experienced members of the unit had learned from fighting in the war. It was taught in Vietnam.
10% of people in Vietnam were draftees, but 38% of draftees went to Vietnam.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
And draftees made up about 30% of all service members worldwide during that period. So, 1/3 x 1/3 = What, do all the service members that never went to Vietnam during that period not count? Are you saying they should be erased from the total or something?
Your lack of understanding is making you look even more stupid than you usually do.
My argument from the beginning was that draftees made up a small percentage of the total who served during the Vietnam era and a relatively small percentage of the total personnel sent to Vietnam.
Okay, that's fine. It makes little difference to the argument.
No, if you got 3 purple hearts you could request that your tour be ended. Kerry made that request. That's on the record and documented. Kerry asked for his tour to end.
My view on it is he gamed the system. He wanted to be a "war hero" to enhance his political career. When he saw that the country's mood was against veterans, he became an anti-war protester because he thought that would help his political ambitions. He was, and is, a piece of shit.
Non sequitur in the form of ad hominem.
So?
Okay, and?
The first number is far more relevant than the second. Or are you diminishing and dismissing the importance volunteers and career military played during that period?
And 38% of them went to Vietnam. So that means that if you were drafted, you had a 38% chance of ending up in Vietnam. You also had a chance of ending up in Europe. I have a distant relative that was drafted, already knew some German, was taught more German in the Army, was sure he was going to Europe, but was sent to Vietnam and told to use his language skills there. The draft worked in weird ways.
Volunteers do not count as draftees, because they were not drafted. If you were drafted during the Vietnam War, you had a 38% chance of going to Vietnam. If you divide that number by all the pieces of sand on the beach, it would be less than 1%, but it would not change that if you were drafted you had a 38% chance of going to Vietnam.
Say it with me, if drafted, you had a 38% chance of going to Vietnam.
Can you understand that?
Yeah, that is what makes me think you did not serve. If you got 3 Purple Hearts(they are capitalized) your tour automatically ended. You could request not to end it, but your request would not even be considered in the US Navy.
Kerry certainly gamed the system to get sent to Vietnam.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The original question here was what percentage of personnel who served in Vietnam were draftees. The answer to that question is roughly 10%. You are off on an irrelevant tangent.
Another non sequitur. Not relevant to the original discussion.
Not the point of the discussion.
I understand it, and it is irrelevant to the question on the table.
Yes, he did.
No, the original question is what percentage of draftees served in Vietnam. You said it was rare for draftees to serve in Vietnam, while I pointed out that 38% of them did.
Let's say you claimed it was rare for Team Epstein members to rape children, and it turns out that 38% of them did. Then you pointed out that while 38% of Republicans did, Republicans are comparatively rare compared to the total world population... That would not make Team Epstein great people.