The Armed Forces Press Service issued a press release on Thursday morning, July 10, in celebration of the fact that the U.S. military has had 13 consecutive months of meeting and/or exceeding recruitment goals. Sadly, the media stayed sullenly quite all day, taking no notice of the success of our military on OR off the field.
Regardless of the fact that the media ignored the good news, there is good news, indeed.
The June recruiting and retention figures reflect recruiters’ hard work and young people’s continued willingness to step up and serve, Lainez said. The Army signed up 9,365 new soldiers in June, 101 percent of its 9,250-soldier goal. The Marine Corps recruited 4,531 Marines, topping its monthly goal of 3,934 recruits by 15 percent. The Navy met its goal of 4,209 sailors, and the Air Force brought in 2,203 airmen, six recruits over its June goal.
The numbers for the reserves and National Guard were also strong and retention also rolled on a pace.
Of course, when the media does bother to report on military recruitment being up they still have to focus on the supposed "unpopularity" of the war even as they report that the military seems to have little trouble making their recruitment goals.
So what about that "unpopular war," anyway? Isn't it affecting the armed services?
"There were concerns about how today’s fight would affect retention, and yet, retention has been as strong as any period in our history,” he (Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel and policy) said on the all-volunteer force’s 35th anniversary. “Volunteers want to serve; their performance is strong, their behaviors are strong, and their discipline is high."
So, the big question is: where are the media on this?
Well, the answer would be that the media are in the same place on reporting healthy recruiting goals being easily met by the U.S. military as they are reporting on the incredible successes seen in Iraq. Consistently silent.
The media are obviously so out to discredit the U.S. military that they refuse to even report the news.
(Photo credit: CBSnews)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe the military can task
July 11, 2008 - 02:17 ET by HermanoMaybe the military can task some of their recruits to infiltrate the media. They seem to be the enemy after all.
Sweet!
July 11, 2008 - 04:45 ET by Mike HammerI would be willing to head up that task force.
enemies - both foreign and
July 11, 2008 - 12:40 ET by TruthMongerenemies - both foreign and domestic:)
all this US Military success is indeed very bad news for Democrats
they've been working so hard these last 8 years to hamper US mil efforts - all to seemingly no permanent avail...
these democrat "patriots" need some cheering up, dangit...
what's the Iraq death toll up to now?
Enemies is the correct term
July 11, 2008 - 13:40 ET by kdoliverI was debating with my wife the other day and I said the exact same thing. The DIMs do want us to lose. They truly are the enemy. To think we fought a Revolution over less than the agenda put forth by the DIMs.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
winning the WOT would
July 11, 2008 - 15:59 ET by TruthMongerwinning the WOT would indeed be very bad for dems and their AQ soul-mates
interesting strategy - i guess...?
I was offended when I
July 11, 2008 - 07:13 ET by MidAmericaI was offended when I saw the link on Drudge that California was going to ask for federal troops to help fight their wildfires. Well..... isn't this the state that has a lot of 'anti-military' protests that have been trying to shut down and shout down military recruiters? I say put shovels and fire hoses in the hands of the code pinko's and the other crazies and let them fight their own fires.
(sub)Human Torches
July 11, 2008 - 07:59 ET by SickofLibsGreat concept, but not practical Mid...
The Benjamin crew's tutus, glitter and feather boas are HIGHLY FLAMMABLE
Hmm, that sounds even
July 11, 2008 - 08:17 ET by general companyHmm, that sounds even more appealing
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The beauty of it is that we
July 11, 2008 - 08:24 ET by Troika37The beauty of it is that we WILL go to California if ordered. Men and
women who wear the flag will swap their rifles for hoses and fight to
save the people and property threatened by the fire. This will be done
in spite of the anti-military attitude in California. We protect all
Americans. Even the douchebags.
That is simply the measure of our character.
And that character is to be commended...
July 11, 2008 - 09:51 ET by ontherightHoorah!
i'd love to see the marketing budget
July 11, 2008 - 07:55 ET by abeautifulpersonstrangely absent from the public relations press release are the numbers for how much money the military spends on all those slick ads. if anyone has those numbers, please post them. i'd appreciate it.
really beauty
July 11, 2008 - 08:05 ET by candanceI love the way you don't address the actual point of the articles you read here but instead try to find some distraction to complain about.
That's like saying national employment numbers are tainted by money wasted on HR. It simply makes no sense.
a distraction?
July 11, 2008 - 08:24 ET by abeautifulpersonummm maybe you have deep pockets and want to spend all your hard earned money financing the military machine, but not everyone does.
this isn't some profitable company that simply needs to beef up its staff numbers, its the tool some people use because they are incapable of solving problems without shooting, exploding and demolishing things.
AND there is no profit. the country's infrastructure, educational system, care for the elderly, sick (including war veterans) etc, is all hamstrung because tax $ are funneled into things like increased budgets for recruiting. (i am not even going to get into the tactics used by recruiters.)
there is no reason to celebrate.
So all of us who serve (or
July 11, 2008 - 08:27 ET by Troika37So all of us who serve (or have served) were simply 'taken in' by some recruiter? None of us are there on our own accord, for our own reasons? Did you seriously just imply that the troops are so simple-minded as to have been duped by a recruiter, thus explaining the 13 consecutive months of exceed recruitment goals?
nope did not.
July 11, 2008 - 08:37 ET by abeautifulpersondon't put words in my mouth.
but if you are suggesting that a five-fold increase in marketing has nothing to do with inciting people to sign up, then you are not connecting the dots.
standards right now, are clearly lower than they have ever been. efforts have never been greater.
and i'm not going to bother to answer your leading question.
here's another sad reality that no one here has considered: scary economy, increased joblessness = more recruit applications.
It was a question, not a
July 11, 2008 - 08:43 ET by Troika37It was a question, not a statement, but I appreciate the answer.
As to your idea that more recruits are swearing in because of the 'shambles' in which the economy finds itself, I'd point you to the study showing that today's recruits are better educated and wealthier than their civilian counterparts.
http://www.heritage....
I'm absolutely convinced an increased marketing budget will have a positive impact on recruiting numbers. I am not, however, even close to convinced that marketing by itself can explain the steady meeting of goals over more than a year.
dude, it's the kool
July 11, 2008 - 12:46 ET by TruthMongerdude, it's the kool aid
his odds of recovery are not good
but thank you for trying anyway
The five fold increase in
July 11, 2008 - 11:24 ET by BDThe five fold increase in necessary simply to remain on par with the hatespeech coming out of the MSM and Hollywierd.
Five-fold increase in
July 11, 2008 - 11:59 ET by SickofLibsFive-fold increase in marketing? Where did that little 'fact' come from?
A few minutes previously you just said "if anyone has those (marketing) numbers, please post them."
You're either an amazingly fast researcher or fabricating-on-the-fly.
Actually
July 11, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Warner Todd HustonActually we don't spend nearly enough on the military. We should never, ever spend less than 10% of GNP. War OR peace.
Justification?
July 11, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Giles WinterbourneWMEAT (state.gov)
Please provide a coherent
July 11, 2008 - 16:31 ET by BDPlease provide a coherent comment. Simply posting a link does not tell me what you are thinking.
When I know what you are thinking we will be able to start the debate.
this isn't some profitable
July 11, 2008 - 08:51 ET by dscottthis isn't some profitable company that simply needs to beef up its staff numbers, its the tool some people use because they are incapable of solving problems without shooting, exploding and demolishing things.
Sigh! As if the world is full of people skipping with baskets in one hand and a daisy in the other singing joyfully. Reality Check - some tall buildings in NYC are no longer there! Compliments of your daisy carrying friends al Qaeda. The reality is jihad is a murderous ideology embraced by gun toating thugs and fanatics willing to blow themselves up all in order that you and me should bow to their god and worship in the manner they proscribe. Anyone not complying with their demands will be killed. The reality is al Qaeda setting off bombs in the public market killing Sunnis and Shiites alike and is passed off as "collateral damage". Their songs are not of peace and tolerance but hateful rants of "Death to America". Denial maybe a way to for your mind to cope with things it can't handle but then you shouldn't be getting in the way or detracting from those who can handle reality.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Please, remind me of the
July 11, 2008 - 08:45 ET by general companyPlease, remind me of the last time your group solved a problem, with or without fire arms.
Your little rant is about as enlighting as a brick, congrats.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
every time leaders sit down and talk...
July 11, 2008 - 08:53 ET by abeautifulperson... a war may have been averted. every time people come together to better understand each other, war is averted. no war is unquantifiable. duh.
why it even needs to be said speaks volumes of some people's inability to envision.
Nice panacea
July 11, 2008 - 09:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonNice panacea, would you like a drink with that order?
Unfortunately for you, your claim of diplomatic fantasy rarely works. So, no, NOT "every time leaders sit down and talk" is war averted. In fact, damn FEW times is that ever the case.
So, thank you for your foolish, utopian peace-in-our-times gobbeldegook.
Warner, I think Beauty
July 11, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Hunter12Warner, I think Beauty should recall a little history.
Probably the most famous: "Peace in Our Time!"
Equally successful: "North Korea."
Appeasers always meet with such great success.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Ok beauty, we will leave it
July 11, 2008 - 09:18 ET by bassndudeOk beauty, we will leave it to you. You go and talk to Osama and smooth things out for us. But dont lose your head in the process.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You are showing a notion of
July 11, 2008 - 11:22 ET by BDYou are showing a notion of diplomacy that is peculiar to western Democratic nations liberal population. That being somehow negotiation in an of itself is worthy.
Most other nations do not view things this way.
Every time a tyrant sits in a peace conference, another opportunity to free his people is wasted.
"every time leaders sit down
July 11, 2008 - 11:50 ET by SickofLibs"every time leaders sit down and talk..."
Homicidal despots and maniacs are NOT "leaders"... they're just that.
duh.
there is no reason to
July 11, 2008 - 08:50 ET by BDthere is no reason to celebrate.
ummm maybe you have deep pockets and want to spend all your hard earned money financing the military machine, but not everyone does.
its the tool some people use because they are incapable of solving problems without shooting, exploding and demolishing things.
AND there is no profit.
the country's infrastructure, educational system, care for the elderly, sick (including war veterans) etc, is all hamstrung because tax $ are funneled into things like increased budgets for recruiting.
(i am not even going to get into the tactics used by recruiters.)
your bias is showing
July 11, 2008 - 08:54 ET by candancemaybe you have deep pockets and want to spend all your hard earned money financing the military machine, but not everyone does.
I don't like wasting my money on failing government schools, free birth control, keeping NPR on the air, or funding the DNC convention, but that's what happens when we live in a democracy.
its the tool some people use because they are incapable of solving problems without shooting, exploding and demolishing things.
Translation: I'm a pacifist who thinks the military has no right to exist, so I'm going to criticize it no matter what.
the country's infrastructure, educational system, care for the elderly, sick (including war veterans) etc, is all hamstrung because tax $ are funneled into things like increased budgets for recruiting.
Ah yes, the old "we could all have free healthcare if we weren't in Iraq."
If you're really and truly concerned about government waste you need to look at places where money is actually wasted. Here are a few examples:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/14/meatball.justice/index.html
http://www.bi-bestpractices.com/view-cases/4774
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20080710-9999-1n10health.html
So before you go on a rant about money wasted on the military I suggest you do some homework.
Oh, and if you'd like to continue to insinuate that we don't have the money for infrastructure, please get some facts about exactly how much money the state of MN had in excess of their budget, and how every dime of the profit was promised to special projects even as they blamed the bridge collapse on Bush. The MSM did a real fine job of hiding that story so "educated" people like you can sit around blaming it on the military.
Good examples of waste Candance
July 11, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Dee Bunkhere are some more
Disability fakers cost $10 billion
Medicare Fraud Costs Billions each year
Earmarks Cost taxpayers 63 billion in 2006
We could go on and on with billions more in examples.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Peace keepers
July 11, 2008 - 13:09 ET by amberI was in Pakistan when the Taliban took over Afganistan. I was scared to death most of the time. I remember one time I was sick and waiting for my group to come back to our building, I was on the top bunk, afraid to breath because someone might hear me. My group was over 2 hours late comming back. I also remember going to someone's house with a group of women to pick up some clothes we had made for us. The man there liked me, told everyone to leave and made me stay. He started to gather his things and had someone bring me tea and was ready to lead me out of the home and into his car...probably to disapear forever. I was 19, I did not speak Urdu, I had no idea where the consolate was, I had no means to protect myself and I was there teaching. I had heard about a 12 year old girl who showed up in a hospital, pregnant and unable to speak. She was kidnapped when she was 7. Not everywhere is free and safe. The people who made the world unsafe are not content to stay where they are. They are comming for us, for our children, for everything we hold dear and they aim to destroy it. Our armed population and our military not only keeps us safe, but frees people from their grasp. Say what you want about our military, but they are the real peacekeepers. The women of Afganistan were not freed by a sit-in. The women and children and men of Europe were not freed by a concert. The Jews were not rescued through negotiations. Blessed are the peacekeepers. I know who they are, they wear a red, white, and blue flag on their uniforom every day.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Amber
July 11, 2008 - 16:47 ET by general companyThanks for sharing some of your story, wow.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Hey Beauty. Here's a
July 11, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Hunter12Hey Beauty. Here's a little experiment we can perform together in the real world. We'll go to East LA. We'll each take a $100 bill and fold it long-ways and put it in our shirt pockets. Then you can take your bunch of flowers and I'll take my shotgun and we'll start down the street. I'll bet you the $100 that I'll make it further down the street than you. The shotgun is the thing that will determine who gets attacked first. I probably won't have to use it, but knowing I have it will influenece any thugs. Someone may end up with my $100 and my shotgun, given the sad state of affairs in our country today, but it take a fight and my shotgun will be empty. When you decide to defend yourself, those flowers aren't going to be much of a deterient. The military that safeguards the interests of our country, at great personal sacrifice, isn't some nice-to-have accessory, but a vital component in keeping the wolf at bay. We wouldn't have an educational system or infrastructure to maintain without them. You may not be able to see it through those rose-colored glasses, but the rest of the world contains a lot of bad people who look at what we have here with envy. When you put your children to bed in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, have them say a little prayer of thanks to that military willing to put their lives on the line for us at a current rate of compensation nowhere close to what they deserve.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
PS. Eisenhower came back
July 11, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Hunter12PS. Eisenhower came back from WWII, having seen the effectiveness of Germany's highway system in their war effort, and with the need to be able to move troops around a country 3000 miles wide and 1000 miles deep quickly in times of crisis. He started the interstate highways system, an important cog of your infrastructure, to aid that mobility requirement, not primarily to make it easier for ABP to drive to Grandma's house.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave
July 11, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Giles Winterbourne" ...but it take a fight and my shotgun will be empty."
Flower Power
Thich Quang Duc
Eyes Wide Open
Recruitment
Recruitment
Giles: Please refrain
July 11, 2008 - 16:41 ET by BDGiles:
Please refrain from simply posting links as it is a waste of time in the battle ground for ideas.
Your first link does not post.
Your second link reminds me how under control our military is in comparison to all others in the world for the past 2000 years. Only the US Army would stand by and allow a long haired flake to position a flower in the barrel of their weponry. I guarantee any other Army would have shot the crowd in front of it.
The link to the burning Budhist monk is an unusual selection. Did you post it to remind us that only in a free country is someone capable of setting themselves on fire without threat of consequense to thier companions? I Also guaranteee you that all such protests held in Vietnam post '75 did not have as happy an outcome - and in fact family and freinds of protestors simply "Disappear.". In fact, please look to the Tienamen Square for best examples.
Your recruitment links do not read.
Please refrain from simply posting links as it is a waste of time in the battle ground for ideas.
a word from our sponsor
July 11, 2008 - 16:48 ET by TruthMongerNEW YORK TIMES REPORTER
A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the
lion's cage.
Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull
her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on
the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps
back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified
parents, who thank him endlessly.
A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter
addressing the biker says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I
saw a man do in my whole life.' The biker replies, 'Why, it was nothing,
really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and
acted as I felt right.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a
journalist from the New York Times, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have
this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what
political affiliation do you have?''
The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
The journalist leaves. The following morning the biker buys The New York
Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on front
page:
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
Actually, National Guard.
July 12, 2008 - 02:56 ET by Giles WinterbourneActually, National Guard. But then, there was Kent State.... (and that's 'long hair'?)
Tienamen Square ( or Tiananmen Square) is in China, different country, different basis for protest, and I think the iconic image from that is a single man stopping the line of tanks. So, I'm unclear on the point you're attempting to make about 'consequense to thier companions'.
Links work fine, thanks for trying them. Both discuss recruiter techniques and ploys, educationg HS kids on their rights. Oddly you don't mention Eyes Wide Open.
Actually, National Guard.
July 12, 2008 - 09:37 ET by BDActually, National Guard. But then, there was Kent State.... (and that's 'long hair'?)
Tienamen Square ( or Tiananmen Square) is in China, different country, different basis for protest, and I think the iconic image from that is a single man stopping the line of tanks.
So, I'm unclear on the point you're attempting to make about 'consequense to thier companions'.
Links work fine, thanks for trying them
Both discuss recruiter techniques and ploys, educationg HS kids on their rights.
Oddly you don't mention Eyes Wide Open.
BD eyes wide open
July 12, 2008 - 10:02 ET byis a 720 million dollar propaganda campaign emphasising the human cost of the the war. It speaks not to any relevant factors which make military action necessary. Based on my experience with actual troops in the middle east, they know the human cost much more personnally than Giles here and THEY SUPPORT THE MISSION. What Giles doesn't get is we didn't start this but we do need to finish it.
Maybe with Giles-thought we should have ceded the west coast to Hirohito after Pearl Harbor to avoid the human cost?
In the End, God will Speak
Totally foolish statement...
July 11, 2008 - 09:58 ET by ontheright...one key element of the charter of the US Government (you know, that entity that taxes us to death) is to protect and serve We the People. This means funding the military by the very taxes you don't want to go to the "military machine". Educate yourself before you post here erasing all doubt that you are a fool.
These same tax dollars were NOT supposed to be "wasted" on all the entitlement programs that the charlatan politicians (and those who think like you) champion day in and day out.
“The world is a dangerous
July 11, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Lee Boggs“The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” - Albert Einsten, speaking of people like abeautifulperson.
The U.S. Government's top priority, as is the Commander-in-Chief's, is to protect the country. The U.S. Government is not responsible for funding your socialist views of a Utopian society.
You remarked "some people are incapable of solving problems without shooting, exploding and demolishing things." Tell that to the terrorists.
It just warms my heart that
July 11, 2008 - 12:54 ET by amberIt just warms my heart that people like you are paying my mortgage, my kid's education, my farm, my sheep, my vacations...thanks a million. I especially liked the last 2 tax free years you all gave my family. Paid off the truck with that. But please, let my husband do the job you all are paying him for.
Oh, and did you know that in the off time of the military personel in Iraq, many of the medics volunteer to run free clinics for Iraqis. Since Sadam decimated their hospitals to fund his mansions and his son's raping and murdering lifestyles they have not had good medical care and their hospitals do not have the medicine they need. Thankfully the American soldiers and their families search out medication to send them for their clinics (can not use to troop medication, it all has to be donated). We also build schools and orphanges and the smiles on those kids faces when they received brand new crayons and a new notebook and markers and glue and colored penciles and backpacks all donated by military families and those who love them...priceless. The military families and troops make sure what we send them for the people get in the right hands and not to some tribal leader who will hold it hostage and not in some UN leader's son's hands to play with... Oh, and did I mention we kill bad guys too? lots of them.
Minnesota Army National Guard Family, full time, and damn proud of it.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Read the Constitution
July 11, 2008 - 13:06 ET by CobraMan"ummm maybe you have deep pockets and want to spend all your hard earned money financing the military machine, but not everyone does."
Read the Constitution, will ya? The Constitution REQUIRES Congress: “To raise and support Armies” and ‘To provide and maintain a Navy.” Part of the method of raising and supporting armies and navies is the process of RECRUITMENT, which is much better than a draft, wouldn't you agree?! That requires funds, does it not?
Since it is well documented that America needs it’s military more than it needs it‘s diplomats (remember Dec.7, 1942? That‘s what happens when diplomacy fails) it behooves us to fund recruitment of the military.
If you have any complaints, I suggest you bring them up with the Founding Fathers as they understood the need for a well-funded, well-equipped, and well-trained military.
some interesting statistics on military recruitment...
July 11, 2008 - 08:14 ET by abeautifulpersonmax enlistment age raised from 35 to 42
percentage of recruits with high school diploma has dropped by almost 20% to just over 70%
# of waivers granted to army recruits with criminal backgrounds has increased 65% between 2003-2006
in 2003, the budget for recruitment was $4bn
in 2008, the budget for recruitment was $20.5bn
that's over a 510% increase
tell me, at what point should we celebrate this?
sources:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080602/mcduffee
http://www.nytimes.c...
how far will army recruiters go http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/eveningnews/main692497.shtml
Educational
July 11, 2008 - 08:29 ET by general companyEducational Requirements
Success in any branch of the Military depends on a good education, and a high school diploma is most desirable. Candidates with a GED (General Education Development certificate) can enlist, but some Services may limit opportunities. It is very difficult to be considered a serious candidate without either a high school diploma or accepted alternative credential. In any case, staying in school is important for entering the Military.
Yea ok, anything you say
http://todaysmilitary.com/before-serving/entrance-requirements?=gmilitaryrequirements
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
abeautifulperson....please....
July 11, 2008 - 08:49 ET by bassndudeWe all know your not cerebral enough to understand the need for a military. But it is a fact that there has been one from the beginning of this country, and will continue to be. Your little quote from thenation, (left left wing there), are construed. The crimminal backgrounds are minor, (HS students throwing eggs). You have more than likely engaged in some of the same crimes your refering to. A speeding ticket requires a waiver.
And as for your infering that the military provides no benefit to this country or its people, you have no idea what your talking about. The very fact that you can sit there, all safe and secure, and say that is proof that the military has provided a benefit. Even to you.
As for the age limit, if they would up it a few more years, I would go back, again. But I am sure you would not understand that.
You people that have never, will never, could never or would never serve are pretty much worthless, in my view. You sit around and suck up all the goverment give aways you can, sit in the security the military has provided over the years, and whine.
Edit: BTW, the military education level is still higher than the general populus. All military personel aquire their GED while a member of the Armed Forces.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
that's all the time i have for now.
July 11, 2008 - 08:56 ET by abeautifulpersonbut thanks for sharing. its really enlightening andhelps me to understand the conservative american psyche.
have a terrific weekend.
Run away! Run
July 11, 2008 - 09:04 ET by bassndudeRun away! Run away!
Cannot defend my positions...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, She probably had to
July 11, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Hunter12Bass, She probably had to go because of a medical condition: her heart was bleeding.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
LOL Hunter. The profile
July 11, 2008 - 09:28 ET by bassndudeLOL Hunter. The profile sayes it is a male in his 40's. Long drawn out ramble. But you may be right, if he is in Cal. Mass. or NY.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
seriously beauty
July 11, 2008 - 09:21 ET by candanceI'm half tempted to just stop replying to you altogether. It's the same story on every thread: you start an argument, make vague accusations, and then disappear as soon you're given a comprehensive rebuttal. That's the definiton of a troll my friend.
Very good Grasshopper, very
July 11, 2008 - 09:59 ET by dscottVery good Grasshopper, very good...
Trolls hurl assertions and accusations, intelligent people present and exchange ideas in a discussion.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
thought i'd peek in one last time before the weekend
July 11, 2008 - 10:28 ET by abeautifulpersonguys guys guys...
just because i don't have all day to be insulted doesn't mean i don't love you all.
this site needs dissenting opinions. but i don't have all day to debate this. i've said some valid points. i disagree with a good percentage of what was said. i don't feel the military machine is completely useless but is being used very badly by an inept administration and there have been many enemies created because of it.
i'd love to jabber about this all day and all night (actually not, i do put a time limited on this site), but work and family calls. so have a terrific weekend.
and there have been many
July 11, 2008 - 10:32 ET by general companyand there have been many enemies created because of it.
Such as?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Valid points? I disagree, I
July 11, 2008 - 10:35 ET by bassndudeValid points? I disagree, I saw no valid points made by you.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Once again, you are correct.
July 11, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Roger the ShrubberOnce again, you are correct. This website does need dissenting opinions. Unfortunately, you are ill-equipped for the task. Not an insult towards you; just stating the obvious.
what we need
July 11, 2008 - 14:22 ET by candancethis site needs dissenting opinions
What we really need is someone who can articulate dissenting opinions with vigor - not someone who starts a debate and then wanders off in the middle of it. Some lefties thrive here, like Balboa and Shawn, because they contend for their views.
In other words, invest the time to defend yourself or don't bother starting an argument.
i've said some valid points.
What valid points? Insinuations about poor infrastructure that were never explained? Asking for stats and then providing your own at random?
You actually think the military is useful? Glad to have that nailed down somewhere.
You make some great points.
July 11, 2008 - 09:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou make some great points. I, too, do see the folly of uneducated petty criminals having the chance to do something positive with their lives. That's just plain silly.
Leave it to
July 11, 2008 - 09:31 ET by bassndudeLeave it to Beav..er...Roger...:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Right Bass ABP uses selective satistics with an agenda
July 11, 2008 - 09:21 ET by Dee BunkThe recruits with wavers only make up approx 11% and of those 11%, 90% of the wavers are for misdemeanors.
Of course it's harder to recruit in War time than in piece time. Duh! There are people who like to sign up strictly for the travel, job training and benefits during peace time. Maybe those type people should be weeded out in peace time, but I would think that would be impossible to discern. People like ABP think that the military should only be used for that (travel, job training and benefits for people who can't find other jobs). Sorry but that's not the purpose of the military.
The military wouldn't need nearly as large of an advertising budget if it didn't have to combat the media bias. If APB cares about the recruiting dollars spent then she'd be better of complaining to the media about their coverage. As it is, the recruits go in knowing the absolute worse picture created by the media. They have both sides of the story. People like APB hate that. They want them to only have one side.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Do you think Beauty will
July 11, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Hunter12Do you think Beauty will protest BHO's expanded civilian corps, which is expected to have an equivalent cost?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Great point Hunter - APB
July 11, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Dee Bunkwill love that program because it's consistent with socialism. Give all these people jobs (cushy jobs with better benefits than most people) with the major goal of getting more people hooked on Government. The more people forced to rely on the Government for their livelihood the better for these people. That's socialism.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Something about that
July 11, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Hunter12Something about that program makes me very nervous. If it is expanded, I'll bet you a steak dinner that in a few years we'll discover a scandal where the federally-funded "volunteers" are out there campaigning for the latest liberal.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Oh really?
July 11, 2008 - 12:47 ET by Giles Winterbourne"It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to
recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits
dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious
misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers.
These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular
homicide.
The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11
percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent." (NYT )
The offenses you list are
July 11, 2008 - 16:46 ET by BDThe offenses you list are felony's.
I have yet to receive a felon to train here.
crimminal backgrounds are minor
July 11, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Giles WinterbourneGlad you can cite a source for that.......
"Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes
including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist
threats."
"But the Pentagon statistics showed the Army allowed 106 convicted
burglars to enlist in 2007, up from 36 the year before. It also granted
waivers to 43 recruits convicted of aggravated assault that year, up
from 33 a year before; and to 130 people convicted of possession of
drugs other than marijuana, a rise from 71 in 2006." (CNN)
" The Army is meeting its recruiting goals partly by accepting more
enlistees who lack high school diplomas, who have low scores on the
military's aptitude test or receive waivers for criminal and medical
problems.
Army documents obtained by NPR link the lowered
standards to a drop since November 2001 in the number of men interested
in joining up."( NPR - Morning Edition Apr 2008)
"Applicants who have committed a single felony such as arson,
burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana
possession must also receive a moral waiver to join. Applicants with
more than one felony - or with a single conviction for a more serious
crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking - are not
eligible.
Army officials acknowledge privately that the increase in moral
waivers reflects the difficulty of signing up sufficient numbers of
recruits to sustain an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq; the Army
fell short of its monthly recruiting goals in May and June." (IHT July 2007)
"It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to
recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits
dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious
misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers.
These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular
homicide.
The number of waivers for felony convictions also
increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006,
from 8 percent." (NYT - Feb 2007)
Lest we complain
July 11, 2008 - 13:18 ET by CobraManYour complaining about a couple of hundred (at best) waivers for a force of over 2 million? Dude, that's just foolish! It also highlights that the Military is VERY careful about how many convicted felons it will actually allow into the Military.
BTW, since convicted criminals can serve their country in the local, state, and federal governments after they serve their sentence (Marion Berry anyone?), why shouldn't they also be allowed to serve their country in the military?
Dude, that's just foolish!
July 11, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Giles Winterbourne2007 (August) Army 519,471 Air Force 337,312 Navy 338,671 Marine Corp 184,574 Total 1,380,082 (InfoPlease)
"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
During that time, the Army has employed a variety of tactics to expand its diminishing pool of recruits. It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join, and loosened weight and age restrictions.
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide."(NYT)
""Our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that
they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards,"
"The data was obtained through a federal information request and
released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank
that studies military issues.
"The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people
with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years
illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this
time of war,"
The military also does not have programs that help convicted felons
adjust to military life, according to a new study commissioned by the
center, Belkin said." (military.com)
2006 is NOT 2008
July 11, 2008 - 14:31 ET by CobraManCome up with RECENT data, will ya? All the stats you produce are from 2006 and prior. We ‘re dealing with the last 18 months here.
We're dealing with recruitment from January 2007 and beyond, not 2004 to 2006. The ONLY stats you provided for 2007 showed less that 200 waivers for criminal convictions. This means that the numbers of waiver for criminal convictions has DROPPED during this 18-month period while recruitment goals have been met and exceeded, wouldn't you agree? How can you explain that little fact?
BTW, how many of those waivers were given to people whom REPEAT crimes while in service? Your stats don’t say, but I’m willing to bet that number is VERY low, almost zero.
CM, Yea i have the same problem with Giles, all his OLD OLD crap
July 11, 2008 - 14:51 ET by upcountrywaterGiles this is the internet age, NO excuse.. Try some 2008 data..
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
you know cobra
July 11, 2008 - 14:56 ET by candanceI find it bizarre that these people begrudge aimless young men the ability to serve in the military. They come on here blasting all these sources saying "look! look! more and more soldiers are no-account dropouts who spent time in jail! but I'm not bashing the military!"
Maybe the military is loosening standards somewhat because this is simply the future. It's much more common and socially acceptable for young men (or women) to get their GED without the stigma of them being stupid. More and more health conditions are dealt with in a way that allows people to be more productive. Middle age men are much healthier than their counterparts in the past. Perhaps the military came to realize that a DUI from 15 years ago should not prevent you from serving.
Yet libs here act like this is the proof they've been waiting for that our military is full of illiterate rednecks. For people who supposedly want an end to "the wealthy elite" and the snobbish effects of class distinction, they're the first to say "eeewwww she has a GED" as if that's beneath them.
The Military is progressive
July 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET by CobraManAs a veteran, I can attest that the US Military is VERY progressive in its social structures, far more than the average society. The US Military was the FIRST to integrate the races, long before that was accepted in society. It has a very high standard for the personal behavior of its members, far more than society demands. It instills a sense of patriotism and commitment to the country and its laws, something that society in general seems to neglect. It instills a sense of belonging and camaraderie between its members. It also instills a belief in the inherent values that make this country great. I can't understand why so many "progressive" people fail to understand this? Perhaps they really aren't as "progressive" as they pretend to be and actually want to be ruled as in times past?
Felony Waivers (Convictions Only) by Type of Offense -2007
July 11, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Giles Winterbourne"The statistics were released by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California
Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
He has given the Pentagon
a month to hand over up-to-date details on the number of waivers
granted, reports on how the recruits have performed and information
about how the waivers are related to meeting recruitment goals." (CNN - April 2008)
"The U.S. Army and Marine Corps let 861 convicted felons join their
ranks in 2007, an 88 percent jump over the previous year that helped
meet recruiting goals in wartime, according to data released on Monday.
The Army, the largest branch of the U.S. military, gave felony
waivers to 511 recruits last year, up from 249 in 2006, according to
the figures released by a congressional panel. The Marine Corps granted
350 waivers, up from 208 the year before." (Reuters - April 2008
Felonies waivered by type and service: Great, only two Indecent acts or liberties with a child, molestation, five Rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, incest, or other sex crimes. four Riot, two Terrorist threats including bomb threats. That's just the Army, just 2007. Latest statistics Pentagon released to Waxman. He requested 2008 data by May. Seen it? Read about it being released?
"The percentage of recruits requiring a waiver to join the Army because
of a criminal record or other past misconduct has more than doubled
since 2004 to one for every eight new soldiers." ArmyTimes -April 9, 2008
"The ONLY stats you provided for 2007 showed less that 200 waivers for
criminal convictions. This means that the numbers of waiver for
criminal convictions has DROPPED during this 18-month period while
recruitment goals have been met and exceeded"
Felony convictions-Army 2006 - 249, 2007 - 511
In reviewing my cites above, most say UP FROM, or A RISE FROM 2006. The document Waxman was able to get from the Pentagon shows increases in virtually all categories from 2006-2007.
So Giles, are you
July 11, 2008 - 17:28 ET by general companySo Giles, are you suggesting that these 800 troops should not be allowed in our armed forces? Are you ready to establish the same policies in regular Government jobs and other public facilities? Do you believe in second chances? Do you think that these 800 are the sole reason for recruiting goals being met?
I personaly think you despise the very folks that allow you the ability to spout such nonsense's. Or am I wrong?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
short term, politically motivated fixes.
July 11, 2008 - 18:45 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe focus of the article being cited is 'meeting/exceeding recruiting goals'.
However, it does not address the lowering of the standards, moral, educational, and AFQT, the raising of maximum age, and increases in bonuses that were needed to achieve those goals.
With 44% of 2007 recruits meeting 'High Quality' in education and testing, lowering acceptance standards in felony convictions , adding additional expenses in bonuses, increasing numbers of personnel not making it through a full term of enlistment, praising 'meeting goals' is faint praise indeed.
And with no data to suggest that those recruited under the lower standards are more successful either in the military or later, but with 40 years of study showing that lower quality recruits aren't as successful, we're basically looking at short term, politically motivated fixes.
National Priorities Project?
July 11, 2008 - 18:58 ET by mastersofdeceitNational Priorities Project?
http://www.discovert...
Study this
July 11, 2008 - 19:10 ET by CobraManThat study isn't proof, it’s opinion (and a poor opinion at that) as the number of recruits over the last 40 years is in the tens of millions. Are you telling me that millions of recruits over the last 40 years were failures? That's BS! I was in the military, dude, and I can tell you that the people who made this "study" obviously don't know what they’re talking about.
Pentagon study
July 11, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Giles WinterbourneThat is a Pentagon study. If you have better resources, cite them.
The NPP analysis is based on data provided by the Pentagon. That data is available on the NPP site. If you have better resources, cite them.
Saying "... it’s opinion..." and not providing a better analysis seems intellectually weak. If you have a better analysis, cite them.
Waxman has requested data on "..impact of increasing the number of personnel conduct waivers
or on the performance of those enlistees for whom waivers were granted;" and "..programs that the Department of Defense, Army, Navy, or
Marine Corps have in place to provide additional training, counseling, or oversight to
those enlistees for whom waivers were granted." (letter - David Chu)
No, it isn't
July 11, 2008 - 20:00 ET by CobraMan"That is a Pentagon study."
No, it isn't, according to the link you provided anyways. The link you provided for your "forty year of study" is for the National Priorities Project at nationalpriorities.org, not the Pentagon.
From the site: "This analysis of Army recruiting in fiscal year 2007 is the National Priorities Project’s fourth study on military recruiting. The data and statistics for 2007 are compared to earlier studies done by NPP where relevant."
"Saying "... it’s opinion..." and not providing a better analysis seems intellectually weak."
Using someone else's studies and claiming that it's proof is intellectually weak. It shows that you are unable to come to your own determinations through personal data collection and analysis. Do the work yourself sometime and tell me what results you find. You can start by actually talking to Iraq vets here at MB. Ask THEM how moral is in Iraq.
"If you have a better analysis, cite them."
I cite personal experience, something you can not do. That's the best means of gathering information in which to make an analysis and form an opinion, wouldn't you agree? Or is that something only a "scientist" can do through "studies" of “stats?”
Personal Experience
July 11, 2008 - 20:11 ET by BlondeYou are correct, Cobra.
I can give Giles an "experience" clue as well.
I was an O-wife in the early 80's....after the debacle of the Carter administration. Back when the judges told young men to enlist or go to jail.
Back then, a GED was not even a requirement. I taught BSEP (Basic Skills Education Program)...where I had young men who could not do math at the 3rd grade level.
It's an infuriating liberal lie that our military is just a bunch of uneducated, no-account bunch of whatever. And the stupid liberals, if they bothered to do the research, would find that today's military is one of the best places in the country to get a quality education.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
what the DoD says
July 11, 2008 - 22:45 ET by Giles Winterbourne"According to, what the DoD says is “more than 40 years of studies”,
around 80 percent of those with regular high school diplomas will
finish the first term of enlistment. Up to half of those with a GED,
other alternative equivalency credential, or no credential will drop
out during the first term of enlistment."
Did you realize we are
July 11, 2008 - 20:37 ET by BDDid you realize we are recruiting for an expanding force? (Thank GOD.)
I came into the military in 1984 as one of the "Reagan Kids" who took over for the dregs of the earth that were then serving (McNamera's 100,000 anyone???).
Personnally, I think we have a better force today than even the kids who joined with me in the early 80's.
During the 90's we were fortunate that we did not have to man a large force (or so we falsely thought) and therefore recruiting standards could be tighted up. We have since learned that a 8 Division Army is not large enough even in the best of times and need to go larger and thus have a larger recruiting mission.
On top of that, why do you CARE since you obviously do not seek to serve in the first place?
I wouldn't worry, Dude
July 11, 2008 - 19:23 ET by CobraManI wouldn't worry about the quality of education of enlistees if I were you:
"Enlistment education quality remains high: last year more than 3,200 new recruits enlisted with their Bachelor’s degrees, 250 recruits had their Master’s degrees and 20 enlisted after having earned their doctoral degrees."
That's from the same link you provided and it represents 2007 data. It looks to me that the education levels are well represented in the military. It also represents a perioud of prolonged conflict and not peace time. How does that compare with a little more than 800 felons in the same perioud?
Do you hate the military?
July 11, 2008 - 20:13 ET by CobraMan"The focus of the article being cited is 'meeting/exceeding recruiting goals'."
The military has done this. Their goals are met, the recruitment effort successful. Why do you insist on disparaging success? Do you really hate the military that much, or are you arguing simply for the sake of arguing? The goals were met, that you can't deny. Instead of accepting this, you HAVE to try to spin this into bad news. Why? What's the point, other than to insult the military? For that's just what your doing, insulting the members of the military by insisting that the majority of American Citizens serving in the military are "below standard."
I’d rather spend my entire life with a million “below standard” veterans than a single day with an elitist like you. You have NO respect for anyone who serves, this much is obvious, and that’s a shame as the people who serve are of the highest character. Spend some time with a veteran and you’ll understand just what I mean
" Their goals are met, the
July 11, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Giles Winterbourne" Their goals are met, the recruitment effort successful."
And look at the methods....
lower health standards
lower educational standards
double the number of level 4 recruits
raise the maximum age
lower moral standards
raising enlistment bonuses and increased variety of schemes
5x the recruiting budget
Lower standards? My butt!
July 12, 2008 - 00:42 ET by CobraManYou really have no idea about the military, do you?
Let' go through your arguments one by one, shall we?
"lower health standards"
Where do you get that? Every recruit MUST pass the entrance physical. If you don't pass, you’re not accepted. That physical, and the standards for acceptance in the military, hasn't changed in decades.
Also, every member of the military is tested at least one a year and each member must pass minimum physical fitness requirements. Those requirements are lowered according to age, but I bet most civilians would have a lot of trouble meeting those requirements. In the Army, this was called APFT, I suggest you look it up.
"lower educational standards"
The standards haven't lowered one bit. Try again. Each potential recruit must pass the basic skills test and that test is not easy. Ever take it? Try it sometime.
The DoD may not like the fact that more college graduates are not joining, but that's immaterial as the military was accepting people without a high school diploma when I joined back in the 80's and, like today, they would help recruits acquire a GED by providing classes at no cost. The military also offers continuing education classes, in which you can receive a college degree, one again at no cost. The military is a GREAT place to further your education and acquire new, marketable, skills
"double the number of level 4 recruits"
So, you believe that we should refuse to allow people in the military simply because they got a speeding ticket or committed another offence like a DUI? Why should we refuse service for people simply for making a mistake? None of the recruits are repeat offenders. You know that, right? What's wrong with giving people a chance to prove that they have reformed themselves and let them serve? Do you have a problem with allowing American citizens with making a better life for themselves in the Military? You sure seem to have a problem with that.
"lower moral standards"
On edit: Oopps, I read morale insted of moral. My Bad. Let me try again.
The moral standards of military members are VERY high. The military follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the UCMJ comes down hard on anyone that violates the moral standards it enforces. I would stack the moral standards of any member the military against most common citizens. Instead of facing a lower standard of morals once finds in the civilian world, an enlistee faces a ridged moral code which is strictly enforced. You should look it up sometime.
raising enlistment bonuses and increased variety of schemes"
And your point is, what? We have an all-volunteer military and people get paid to serve, just like they get paid to work in the civilian world. Haven't you ever heard of a hiring bonus in the civilian market? I'm sure have. How about benefits, ever hear of them? I bet you get benefits where you work, don't you? Why should the military be any different?
"5x the recruiting budget"
Advertising is not cheap, just as any one who pays for a commercial to promote their product. This is an indication of how expensive advertising has become and is not an indication of any "lower standards" by the members of the military. Do you think that running a commercial is as cheap now than it was ten years ago?
All you’re proving here is that you have very little understanding of what the military is all about and what is required of the members that serve. It seems to me that you dislike the military and nothing anyone can say will change that. But, hay; feel free to revel in your delusions about the military and the people who serve. After all, we serve so that you can do that in peace.
Oh, good grief. I cited
July 12, 2008 - 01:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneOh, good grief.
I cited previously - max weight was raised to increase acceptability of overweight recruits.I think that link also talked about chronic conditions also.
"double the number of level 4 recruits" refers to score on cognitive test and HS/GED. I think they've subdivided the IV to A and B, possibly to be able to pick up V as recruits.
Recruiting budget includes saleries for recruiters, programs and many other costs other than advertising.
"allow people in the military simply because they got a speeding ticket or committed another offence like a DUI?" Go back and read; FELONY - Aggravated assault, assault with dangerous weapon, maiming., molestation, manslaughter, terrorism, narcotics, burglery, etc. That was the beginning of this thread.Felony convictions and recruiting.
" Ever take it?" Yup, 99th percentile
I missed one
July 11, 2008 - 23:54 ET by CobraManI missed one:
“raise the maximum age”
So what? People live a lot long now than in the past and they live a healthier life for longer periods of time. I myself joined at the age of 24 and I ran circles around the younger recruits. Age doesn't reflect capabilities, you know. The fact that I was awarded an award for Outstanding Graduate of Basic Training, despite the fact that I was OLDER than one of my drill sergents and ALL of my fellow recruits in my company, proves that age really doesn’t matter much. The military relies on a trooper’s capabilities, not their age. Why shouldn’t the military accept older, yet physically fit, citizens simply because they reached a certain age? Do we have a maximum age requirement for any other government function? Limiting capable people simply because of their age is foolish and reflects poorly on this government.
BTW Giles, Congress sets the age requirements
July 12, 2008 - 00:33 ET by CobraMan"raise the maximum age"
BTW, Congress sets the maximum rage requirements for military enlistments. It is Congress that you should blame for raising the maximum requirement from 35 to 42. They did this in 2006, when the democrats took control of both the house and the senate, remember?
"In 2006, Congress raised the maximum age for enlistment in the military
to 42, from 35. But Department of Defense policy allows the individual
services to specify a lower maximum age of enlistment based on their
own requirements.
For instance, the active Army and Army
Reserves allow 42-year-olds without prior military service to enlist,
yet the Navy has set a maximum age of 34 for active Navy and 39 for its
reserves.
"
Link
What do you propose we do
July 11, 2008 - 17:54 ET by BDWhat do you propose we do with the 800+ people who required waivers?
Immediate inprisonment?
Deportation?
Execution?
Do the math
July 11, 2008 - 18:59 ET by CobraManYou’re complaining that 861 recruits out of over 283 thousand recruited in 2007 are prior felons and claim that this proves that it is detrimentally effecting the military? Do the math, what percentage is that? I work that out to be about .003 percent. Is that correct? So, you’re worried about .003 percent being prior felons? Man, talk about obsessed! I wonder what percentage of college students enroled in 2007 are prior felons? I bet it’s a lot higher!
Actually it is 0.3% - you
July 11, 2008 - 21:14 ET by HermanoActually it is 0.3% - you needed to multiply by 100 to get percent. I am going to have to credit Giles on this one, folks. He has made the claim that recruiting standards have decreased and he has been able to back this up with some data, reagardless of the source. However, I also have to throw my 2 cents in for the troops as well. We still have the most disciplined and best trained armed force in the world. This could not happen without above average men and women enlisting in the service. No one, not Giles, not the military, will be able to go back and examine the "exceptions" list to determine the circumstances of the felons convictions and the reasons for their acceptances into the service. But CobraMan is right - the acceptance rate for felons into colleges may very well be a lot higher, particularly at some institutions. Annecdotally speaking, however, the courage, conviction, intelligence and discipline of our troops surpasses almost any other group in the world, and we, as Americans, should be very proud of them.
Funny though how "felons"
July 11, 2008 - 21:28 ET by BlazerFunny though how "felons" as far as Giles is concerned are bringing down the military, an organization that can actually instill value, repair morals and teach brotherhood. But stay tuned to later on in the future when he will use them in a strawman argument as victims who's rights are being trampled on , as far as furthering his and his comrades liberal agenda. The left love their victims.
The one thing they all have in common is they hate the military, and they hate to win.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
documentation vs. a WA guess
July 11, 2008 - 22:59 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...the acceptance rate for felons into colleges
may very well be a lot higher, particularly at some institutions."
So documentation vs. a WA guess? Actually, not even a guess; just a remark intending to derail a discussion..
It could well be said that the Society of Friends would surpass most any group in ' courage, conviction, intelligence and discipline' and ' we, as Americans, should be very proud of them. '
And thanks, Hermano. Though a source better than Pentagon data may be a bit hard to find.
Interesting that, in the
July 12, 2008 - 06:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberInteresting that, in the same post where you criticize someone for using a "WA guess vs. documentation", you proclaim a group of whackjob Quakers (Society of Friends) to be more courageous, etc, than most any group, citing nothing more than a WILD-ASS GUESS on YOUR part (and no documentation).
Are all Quakers as bright as you?
Just pointing out that the
July 13, 2008 - 01:52 ET by Giles WinterbourneJust pointing out that the platitudes weren't advancing the discussion. Actually sidetracking it. And that that attitude can be seen from different points of view.
Insulting a religion seems fair game here. Maybe it is just an attempt to raise the bar to your comfort level.
Glad you figured out WA
Giles... Seriously...you
July 13, 2008 - 02:05 ET by bigtimerGiles...
Seriously...you stretch the limits...just with your user name...
Giles...come on...who can take you seriously...
I know, I'm in trouble, I couldn't help myself.
...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
You just contradicted yourself
July 12, 2008 - 00:05 ET by CobraManYou just contradicted yourself. You claim that the military has lowered its standards then say that "This could not happen without above average men and women enlisting in the service." Well, which one is it? Are they of a lower standard or a higher one? They can’t be of a lowered standard if they're above average, unless that standard was an impossible one to meet and the military has lower it’s expectations to reflect the real world.
It seems to me that the military is accepting people of a higher standard than exists in the civilian world and your statement leads me to believe that you feel the same.
There is no contradiction
July 12, 2008 - 08:08 ET by HermanoThere is no contradiction here. The military does recruit above average people. Their standards are well above the mean. Even if they "lower" the standards, the recruits will still be well above average. (From 10 to 9, i.e.)
To have an average,
July 12, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Giles WinterbourneTo have an average, there will be 50% above and 50% below that standard.
What we've been talking about is that group near the bottom - cognitively, have felony convictions, or health. Those standards have been lowered, or larger percentages in that range have become acceptable.
Giles
July 12, 2008 - 22:11 ET by50% is the median not the average (mean)
In the End, God will Speak
botg... Don't expect a
July 12, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Clear thinkerbotg...
Don't expect a lot of logic coming from Giles. He has obviously been brainwashed by those he considers heroes. Che, Castro, Marx, Lenin... well you get the idea.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
standard deviation
July 13, 2008 - 01:41 ET by Giles WinterbourneTests are normed.
Above, someone was trying to make the case for recruits being 'above average' based on no criteria.
Assuming the majority of the population doesn't have a felony conviction, does have a HS diploma, then how is lowering recruiting standards on felony convictions, accepting a higher percentage of lower cognitive testing scoring mean 'above average'?
and you
July 13, 2008 - 08:11 ET bywere arguing against it based on the wrong measurement (median) instead of the correct one (mean).
Granted in large populations these values will be very close (as will the mode) it just shows you were trying to use a big word you don't understand. Now how does another means of measurement which breaks groups into percentiles (standard deviation) add anything? Are you merely trying to throw out stuff to look smart? yer doing it rong.
In the End, God will Speak
I'd suggest a remedial
July 13, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Giles WinterbourneI'd suggest a remedial course in Stats, possibly some research in to norming tests, and probably some logic.
But thanks for trying
Giles
July 13, 2008 - 14:39 ET byare you serious?
the mean is the average sumN/N
median is the 50%
mode is the highest incident
standard deviation measures percentiles (dispertion) on either side of the median. Here's a simple graph on a bell curve showing the correlation of standard deviation (σ) to percentiles. (The larger the population sample the more likely the data is to graph as a bell curve.)
You may wish to follow your advice before giving it, you'd look a lot less foolish.
you may note this all began with you confusing median with average (mean).
In the End, God will Speak
But you are also talking
July 13, 2008 - 14:00 ET by HermanoBut you are also talking about 0.3% of the recruits with such convictions. Even if they lower standards, they are still recruiting above average people. Even the weakest of them physically could probably embarrass you on a little run. And it looks like there are much more than 0.3% of the recruits with advanced degrees. But my questions to you is this: do you think our military can outperform every other country's?
While perhaps factually
July 11, 2008 - 14:42 ET by bassndudeWhile perhaps factually true, the stats you quote are misleading. Speeding tickets require a waiver, and those are included in stats. My son had to have a waiver for climbing on the roof of a mall when he was 13. 99% of recruits get their GED while on active duty, and go on to collage courses. And why would the military need a program to help convicted felons adjust to anything? Fact is, in the past, convicted felons were given a choice. Prison or the military. The help they needed to adjust to military life was called Basic Training. I served with several of that were faced with that choice. They were all good soldiers. Except Green...he was a little on the lazy side, but we worked that out. He adjusted just fine.
In reality, your stats are half wrong.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It's telling
July 11, 2008 - 15:01 ET by CobraManIt's telling, really, that people like Giles keep arguing that the standards of recruitment has dropped over the last 200 years (have they, really?) yet fail to acknowledge the fact that the standards for the personal behavior of members of the military has increased dramatically over the past 200 years, especially over the last 40 years.
I'd trust a veteran who served in the military after committing a crime FAR MORE than any other past criminal. Unlike the penal system here in America, the military instills a value system in the recruits it trains and that's something people like
Giles will never understand, let alone admit.
Giles has a tendency to
July 11, 2008 - 15:06 ET by bassndudeGiles has a tendency to quote stats that fit his little view of the military. Having never experienced the military himself, he has a need to portray himself as an expert on military affairs. If he has to go back 40 years to get stats that fit his little world, those are the ones he will use. Damn the truth! Full speed ahead!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Expert? Only at parroting others
July 11, 2008 - 15:23 ET by CobraMan"Having never experienced the military himself, he has a need to portray himself as an expert on military affairs."
Giles is only an expert at quoting others. I've yet to see him make an argument or determination on his own, using personal experience and a little intelligence in order to promote his arguments. All he ever does is copy and past someone else's work and use that for his arguments. And the data he uses is always old and outdated.
Giles, why don't you make your OWN arguments for a change instead of copying the work of others? For example: Tell us why you believe that the Military is suffering form the recruitments of people with a past criminal history or lack of college degree? Use your OWN arguments here and don't link to someone else's determinations or analysis in order to make your point, ok? Are you up to the challenge?
recruitment standards in 19th century ? Uh, no....
July 11, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Giles Winterbourne"... people like Giles keep arguing that the standards of recruitment has dropped over the last 200 years (have they, really?)... "
Odd, I don't see any mention of recruitment standards in 19th century or even the 1970's in this conversation. Perhaps you can point to where we weren't discussing the RECENT changes in standards and the increasing levels of lower quality recruits.
Felony records are one thing; it also behooves an educated populace to realize "In 2007, for the third year in a row, the Army did not meet its
benchmark for the level of educational attainment of recruits. The
percentage of recruits the Department of Defense (DoD) considers ‘high
quality’ also dropped considerably. A higher percentage of recruits
will drop out well before the end of the first term of enlistment,..." "The percentage of ‘high quality’ recruits has dropped precipitously. In
2005, it was 56.2 percent, in 2006, it was 46.6 percent and in 2007,
the number dropped further to 44.6 percent. Compared to 2004, the Army
is recruiting more than one-fourth fewer ‘high quality’ youth."
The standard is 90% with a HS diploma (not just GED) 2007 was 70.7%. The military statistics show a huge difference in ability to stay in the service between a GED and a HS diploma (links to the data in the article cited).
It is also worth noting that to get that data. Waxman had to request it , and that FOI requests were required.
Yup, I tend to cite more than expound opinion. But then, it is better to be informed than guess or be willingly mis-informed. Opine as you wish, but as T. Jefferson said, " "The people cannot be all, and always, well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
Giles, The Expert at Nothing
July 11, 2008 - 18:40 ET by CobraMan"But then, it is better to be informed than guess or be willingly mis-informed."
You are willingly misinformed here, not me. I have experance in the military and I know what is expected of the troops in regards to intelligence and behavior. Can you say the same? I'll take my direct experience over your copied stats and studies any day so take your borrowed data and ill-formed arguments to someone else, they‘re not impressing me at all.
It's obvious that you really don't understand just how a potential recruit is judged and accepted for military service. Are you aware that ALL potential recruits must take basic skills tests and that those that don't achieve a set standard are refused service? If a recruit passes the basic skill tests, how can they be considered substandard since all recruits must pass the same tests including college graduates?
BTW, why do you disparage the fact that the military accepts people with a GED level education? Do you have a problem with people, like myself, that received a GED as opposed to a "normal" high school diploma? Do you feel that we're less intelligent than yourself and that we don't deserve to serve in the military?
and increasing numbers are in the lower percentile
July 11, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Are you aware that ALL potential recruits must take basic skills tests
and that those that don't achieve a set standard are refused service?"
Yup, and increasing numbers are in the lower percentile. But that doesn't address lowering standards for felony convictions, increasing maximum age, increased bonuses and expensive enlistment schemes.
GED/HS diploma - I was citing Pentagon research showing that non-HS diploma recruits have a 50% dropout rate compared to HS diploma recuits having 80% completion of their enlistment period.
"In this case, the authors argue, the GED represents a lower level of
investment and should not be considered as a replacement for a high
school diploma" (AYPF) "Compared with high
school graduates, GED recipients earn less, experience more job
turnover, and have similar cognitive abilities. Studies have confirmed
that GED certification increases access to postsecondary education,
which in turn leads to improved wages" (Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients)
There are significant differences in how a GED measures learning, significant differences in what is taught and how it is taught. Significant differences in quality of performance
Giles, you are approaching
July 11, 2008 - 19:45 ET by dscottGiles, you are approaching this issue with the false premise that all positions in the military require the highest educational level, they don't. Some positions require a college education, the military after taking a college grad, sends them to more schools after they are commissioned as an officer. Every other person the military takes in is educated to the level necessary to perform the task they are assigned. If the military determines a person who has not graduated high school has the ability to get their GED and be trainable to perform their job why not? Especially when you consider that the public schools FAILED in their responsibility to get the person to graduate. The military is in the unique position of giving firm guidance and discipline to those whom the public school system FAILED with their lackadaisical discipline. There is also a big difference between a kid who doesn't want to go to school because the school system was so incompetent as not to impart the idea that education is success, and in the military where education is a young adult's key to literal survival.
The second false premise you are advancing here is that every person who joins the military must have never made poor judgement in their lives. Apparently, you need to be reminded of what country this is...America, the land of second chances. Anyone who has been convicted of a crime in this country and has paid their debt to society is given another chance to be a productive member of this society. I thought liberals were for this concept?
Actually, I am rather surprised at your objections given since people are being given an opportunity to be productive members of society. How can you possibly object to this? As a liberal I would think that the rehabilitation of everyone possible would be of the highest concern to you? If the military determines a person can not meet the requirements of service that person is washed out or discharged from service whether that be for lack of character, lack of physical stamina or inability to learn their task. The military deals in risk of death, their focus is in minimizing that risk.
Please Giles, if you are coming from the tact that the military is just taking in cannon fodder so they want drop outs and criminals, you are sadly mistaken as is Charlie Rangle. That notion of military commanders sending people off as cannon fodder ended with the Vietnam War. A war btw that a Dem started and escalated and a Repub ended.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Actually, you are "citing"
July 11, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberActually, you are "citing" a left-wing agenda website who is "citing" Pentagon figures, but those figures are incorrect. At one quick glance, the "statistics" cited by your "non-partisan" source lists Army recruiting for 2007 as 67,398. The # of recruits for the Army for 2007 was actually 80,407. If I cared to, I am sure I will find many more discrepencies, but trying to convince a socialist hack like you is, quite frankly, not worth my time.
Just a note to the non-socialist douchebags in the NB audience, the "valid source" that our progressive comrade here keeps using as "truth" is the National Priorities Project. Who? The same group who has spent the past 5 years promoting anti-war rallies across America, and lobby politicians to vote against the Iraq War. They are members of the Moving Idea Network, a group of left-wing activists found by John Podestra's Center for American Progress. You know them, they are the founders of Media Matters.
The NPP gets funding from the usual Left-wing suspects: Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Tides Foundation (shocking!), and, of course, the Open Society Institute.
So, Giles, please forgive us if your credibility in our eyes resides squarely in the "full of bat crap" column, regardless of what "facts" you fling at us.
Well, it appears Giles is, once again, shooting blanks.
July 11, 2008 - 20:34 ET by R D HelmLOL-Guess I'll go find an interesting discussion. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
"Actually, you are
July 11, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Blazer"Actually, you are "citing" a left-wing agenda website"
Nawwwww Rog, Mrs. Winterbourne surely wouldn't be citing a leftist website rife with platitudes, talking points and strawman arguments devoid of fact, I'm sure Giles would cite a more reputable site like say,...... say for instance........DKOS or Huffpo, or maybe N.Y.T. Jazeera.
Let's just use Giles's wisdom here:
" O.K., our military stooopid, their military smart."
Why do our boy's continue to enlist in record numbers, in the most educated and technologically advanced military in the history of the world and continue to kick everybody's a$$es despite facing an enemy in the Middle East and one in Congress if their their so stooopid?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
variations in numbers
July 11, 2008 - 23:49 ET by Giles WinterbourneThere is a discussion, by a recruiter, about the variations in numbers in the comment thread "Second, the services use two numbers when discussing recruiting
results: new contracts and accessions. Basically, an accession is when
a recruit reports to basic training. A new contract is when a recruit
signs the enlistment contract. For any given recruiting year, total new
contracts do not have to equal total accessions."
Of course, if DoD made the numbers readily available, there would be no need to parse out the numbers.
But that is partly why NPP had to do a FOI request to get what should be public knowledge.
Incidently, there was a panel at the Brookings Institute - OPPORTUNITY 08:THE STATE OF THE MILITARY TODAY reiterating most of the same arguments.
"It really breaks down into two areas. The first is personnel, and
the second is equipment. On the personnel side, what people tend to focus on is
the raw recruiting numbers, and this really became an issue in 2005 when the
Army missed its recruiting target by 8 percent, which was the largest miss that it
had in over 20 years. Now, to me, what wasn't the big deal about that was the
number but the fact of the huge efforts the Army was already putting in to try and
meet that number. They'd added 1300 new recruiters, and they'd raised the
recruiting budget five times what it had been previously. And yet they were still
making that miss in '05. And so what happened then is that changes began to
occur and a series of stopgap measures, and that's everything from the Stop Loss Programs that kept in 8000 enlisted soldiers; pulling folks from the individual
ready reserves, about 15,000; and also changing the standards of who you allow
in the force, and that's everything from the age standards, which went from 35
years to 40 years, to in the middle of 2006 just when they changed it to 40 years
again changed it to 42 when the numbers on recruiting didn't show that they were
occurring."
Boy, you're doing alot of
July 13, 2008 - 17:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberBoy, you're doing alot of excusing and ass-covering for your sources. We must have struck a nerve.
BTW, using another left-wing Soros-funded source to back up your other left-wing Soros-funded sources is, well, laughable. Are all Quakers this simple?
statistics that you feel are more reliable
July 13, 2008 - 20:15 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo, rather than offering up statistics that you feel are more reliable, presenting an argument with some merit, it seems just attacking the source of the data is sufficient for your needs.
The alternate number cited for about.com previously didn't provide a link to where they got their number from. A first sign of unreliability.They also did not explain what accession meant.
So, a bit of an FYI since you didn't like the first source:
"The Army had about 12 percent of its goal in the DEP (Delayed Entry Pool) entering fiscal 2007." (armytimes)So the NPP was using a number that counted the actual number of recruits; about.com was citing basically an inflated number that helps the military look better on paper. Sorta like the medieval accoounts of military size.
In any case, throughout this thread, I haven't seen a cite of a .mil or any site with credibility. Fine if you need to do that to feel like a winner, I guess. But it doesn't hold any weight in proving your point. Just like using insult and smears to attempt to either off-track the discussion or to make yourselves feel good. Typical of conservative attempts at rebuttal on science and liberal political forums. Thanks for trying.
You see, while you are
July 14, 2008 - 07:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou see, while you are concerned with "feeling" like a winner, I am actually achieving that status. You, on the other hand, remain pouty, cranky, fist-clenched, purple-faced, and shamed on this thread. Your obvious displeasure of being taken to the woodsheed and exposed as a fraud is, well, icing on the cake. Thanks for making my Monday, Quaker Oats!
P.S.: just to stick a big fat candle on the Quaker cry-baby cake, the stats I posted are actually coming from the DoD, unlike your "facts". My link is here. the DoD link is here.
I believe this is where you bravely run away, Sir Robin.
Oh, you just aren't
July 14, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Giles WinterbourneOh, you just aren't getting it.
We've already covered the difference between the ~80,000 (your DoD # and the ~67,000 (NPP # released throuh FOI request).
DoD uses Accessions. That's the number of PROMISES to join that are signed. However, the actual number of those who join in the same period of time is the recruit number, also provided by DoD (the FOI request from NPP), that actually started their enlistment period. Neither number actually accounts for the number that finish training as records are checked and discrepencies are found, GEDs not completed, etc. And obviously, some of the accessions never join because they don't pass one or all criteria, or would increase a tier level of recruit that is limited. So, too many tier IV, overweight, felony convictions not waivered, GED not earned, etc. A percentage of that ~80,000 accessions is a cushion DoD knows will never make it into the military.
Glad you think you're gaining some points among your syncophants by your pre-adolescent name calling and insulting.
Some might have noticed I've not said that I am a Friend, btw. Just pointing them out as a group that has many positive social attributes.
I note you have not
July 14, 2008 - 13:39 ET by BDI note you have not addressed my points regarding the decreasing vs Expanding force sizes. Please do so.
Regarding your post of:
Some might have noticed I've not said that I am a Friend, btw. Just pointing them out as a group that has many positive social attributes.
Once again, you are pulling
July 14, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Roger the ShrubberOnce again, you are pulling all of your "facts" from the same, since-debunked political agenda-driven source. This is sad.
Must suck being a Quaker Wannabe. What was the problem? How much of a pud do you have to be to NOT make that team?
Asinine comments - redux
July 14, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...since-debunked political agenda-driven source." Interesting that is how you define ArmyTimes .
Glad you think you're gaining some points among your sycophants by your pre-adolescent name calling and insulting. That is always such a quality intellectual effort.
Especially since it seems to be the main thrust of your argument at this point.
Why don't you reply to MY
July 14, 2008 - 15:34 ET by BDWhy don't you reply to MY posts rahter than just rail against others supposed mistreatment of you?
You have yet to engage my points to you.
sorry perfessur, didn't realize percipation was required in you
July 14, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Giles Winterbournesorry perfessur, didn't realize percipation was required in you class.
You're not discussing topics that are relevent to the thread, and just want to argue side topics; there are plenty of other venues for you to take them to.
FYI: Re:"...However, 1,000,000 US sodiers..." A rather more thorough reading of Jacksonian era American history than a MS or HS textbook would be in order before discussing. Howe, Feller, Tate, and Sellers would be good choices.
Re: "...do not seek to serve in the first place?" Just as there are different ways to express one's patriotism , there are different ways to serve.
Giles Winterbourne
July 14, 2008 - 18:15 ET by BDYou're not discussing topics that are relevent to the thread, and just want to argue side topics; there are plenty of other venues for you to take them to.
Then you went into a wild rant about quakers and their positions that I countered point for point.
However, 1,000,000 US sodiers..." A rather more thorough reading of Jacksonian era American history than a MS or HS textbook would be in order before discussing. Howe, Feller, Tate, and Sellers would be good choices.
Re: "...do not seek to serve in the first place?" Just as there are different ways to express one's patriotism , there are different ways to serve.
If you did some reading
July 14, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Giles WinterbourneIf you did some reading, you'd learn that a) slavery wasn't the main reason /cause for the Civil War and b) the Antebellum system was in failure mode, so ascribing a military success to the ending of slavery isn't accurate.
It doesn't matter whether we are in the 'mdist' of an expanding or contracting period. The article was about the MSM not pointing out the attainment of a goal. In this particular case, their not covering it works to the conservative advantage because the issue of the quality of recruit, the lowering of standards, the increasing expenditures for recruiting, the bonuses, etc would have all gotten more air time.
Since you've consistently been stating that a military response is the only way to effect change, I countered that there are alternative schools of thought and provided some examples.
If you did some reading,
July 15, 2008 - 07:55 ET by BDIf you did some reading, you'd learn that a) slavery wasn't the main reason /cause for the Civil War and
b) the Antebellum system was in failure mode,
so ascribing a military success to the ending of slavery isn't accurate.
It doesn't matter whether we are in the 'mdist' of an expanding or contracting period.
The article was about the MSM not pointing out the attainment of a goal.
In this particular case, their not covering it works to the conservative advantage because the issue of the quality of recruit, the lowering of standards, the increasing expenditures for recruiting, the bonuses, etc would have all gotten more air time.
Since you've consistently been stating that a military response is the only way to effect change, I countered that there are alternative schools of thought and provided some examples.
gotta love it BD
July 15, 2008 - 10:18 ET by candanceYou really have to love the ability to rewrite history on a whim without feeling a tinge of guilt. Bleeding Kansas had nothing do to with the expansion of the antebellum society, and in fact the economy of the slave states was failing so badly that they were not actually winning the war for the first three years.
I see why the Quakers
July 14, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberI see why the Quakers turned your down. You are not the brightest bulb. The Army Times article does not do anything but solidify MY position, and does absolutely NOTHING to bolster your nutjob Leftie National Priorities website claims. Face it, Gilesey.
All this time, yet you have nothing to show, except the embarrassing confession of your rejection by *snicker* Quakers.
I am more than happy to belittle you further. Keep on responding.
Reread the AT article
July 14, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Giles WinterbourneReread the AT article, there is a discussion of the difference between accessions and actual enlistments, which accounts for the different numbers. Background checks, health screening, AFQT results, and changing minds all come into play.
Of course, it is telling that it took an FOI request to get those actual numbers.
Perhaps too subtle a point, but it is interesting that the CBO report on All Volunteer Military, cites NPP study of who joined the active Army in 2004, 2005, and 2006 and notes the results as "..broadly consistent.." with their own. If there were a concern on the numbers being used in that government report, there would have been a mention of those concerns.
And with what information do you have proof I was 'rejected' or wanted
to join that church? Your own 'leap of faith' it seems...... Does disparaging a group help you feel better? Glad you think it is gaining you points.
Read the thread again. You
July 14, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberRead the thread again. You still do not grasp the fact that, regardless of who cites NPP "facts", or merely repeating those "facts" over and over, does not make it reality.
We are obviously at an impasse. There are no buyers here of the crap you are selling.
You know, there are other options for those who just can't cut it as Quakers. Shakers, perhaps? Holy Rollers? Or, I guess you could continue being a Quaker cheerleader.
pre-adolescent insulting and taunting
July 14, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Giles WinterbourneArmy Times discusses the numbers. CBO verifies the numbers from previous studies. You haven't been able to disprove the numbers given by the Pentagon through a Freedom of Information Request. Because they don't fit your meme, you are arbitrarily refusing to accept them.
And out of a sense of fustration, you are adding / repeating your 'clever' pre-adolescent insulting and taunting. It is a sorry state of affairs if that helps you in your concept of reality..
Giles...
July 14, 2008 - 19:37 ET by Clear thinkerI must say, you provide some much needed comic relief. You might even be funnier than Al Franken.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
This is getting tedious.
July 15, 2008 - 06:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberThis is getting tedious. Perhaps this simple timeline will help show you where you derailed your own argument.
1. You started posting comments and links to a left-wing agenda, Soros-funded website, which stated, IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of their "analysis": In spite of efforts by the Pentagon to aggressively recruit youth into the Army, the Army missed its benchmarks once again in 2007.
2. I quite easily pointed out that your "factual source" somehow could not even manage to get the 2007 recruiting numbers correct (your site used 67,398, while I showed the DoD website's 80,407).
3. You then tried to throw in this silly "accession" argument, to somehow explain the disparity between your Soros-funded data versus actual DoD reported data. However, that was debunked by your own Soros-funded website in the comment DIRECTLY BELOW your "proof": The data were obtained from Army Recruiting Command and were for accessions, not contracts. So, I proved the data to be bad, and you countered with a easily-swatted rebuttal. Even your hack website agreed with me. Both sources of data WERE accessions, but, still, somehow, the Soros-funded website managed to be off by 16% from the actual data.
4. Based on the data I easily debunked in step 3, how can any sane, NON-AGENDA DRIVEN person take any data from this Soros-funded website as being correct? I mean, come on, the data the Soros-funded website based most of their "calculations" on is wrong.
The lesson is over, Giles. Your un-Quaker-worthy ass has been weighed, has been measured, and has been found wanting.
Analysis based on data supplied by the Pentagon
July 12, 2008 - 02:00 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnalysis based on data supplied by the Pentagon. If you have a better analysis, or better data, go right ahead and supply it.
The orig complaint was that MSM didn't cover the 'success' of meeting goals. The requirements that needed to be met to be able to achieve those goals were lowered, more resources were thrown at the problem. And it took investigative reporting, FOI requests, Senate hearings to get that out into the public. So a complete reporting of that 'success' would include that information.
And you wouldn't be happy about that either.
I don't see anyone citing anything from any source that counters the information I've presented.
Giles fading in out on an AM artbellian waste land..3% bad shows
July 12, 2008 - 03:21 ET by upcountrywaterAny science based stuff, you're NOT.
I don't see anyone citing anything from any source that counters the information I've presented.
Thank you for your blindsight, torqued N forcing by CO2 heating ; N' cooling , cha-cha- changer dudelette.
This scares me alot FYI today.
March,08 allegedly the bottom of an 11 year cycle.
Cosmic rays , it's cooler now.. H2O vapor is going off, more snow this year..that bug you, at all?
where is the 138 F This Year, you know to melt the ice, flood Florida, 20 feet... ok 2 inches, how about 2/10 of an inch.. not!
none of this bothers you..
kuz
U r ah Liberal
and the following is some fine science too
IranianUranium
Yawn.
July 12, 2008 - 06:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberI gave one quick example of how your "facts" were wrong. I also said there are surely more, if I cared to counter your partisan argument further. But I have a good life and people to meet, places to see, things to do. Exposing even more examples of your douchebaggery is waaaay down on the priority list.
I gave proof of a socialist, anti-military special-interest group who never show the ACTUAL data, but their manipulated "data tables" to bolster their agenda.
So, let's sum this up: I have shown the information you have presented to not be factual, and manipulated for a Sorosian political agenda.
Thanks for playing. You may go now.
And you know the data is
July 13, 2008 - 02:03 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd you know the data is 'manipulated', how? Not bothering to cite a source that you feel is reliable - ......
Giles
July 13, 2008 - 14:57 ET by BDGiles Winterbourne:
Following the end of the Cold War, the US made a value juedgement athwe could decrease the active army froma 18 division structure to an 8 division structure.
This reduction was based on the mistaken belief that we would not face a significant threat in the near future and that peacekeeping would likely take up the military's time.
As such we were able to reduce the recruting numbers commensurately and raise the standards of incoming recruits. THe military of the 1990's, and we were able to be as choosy as we desired since we only needed a handfull of recruits each year.
SInce we have since realized our mistake, we are now trying to rebuild our forces to a more adequate level and the recruiting standard that got us by in the 1990 - to 2001 timeframe will no longer do. (THere is a limit to how many physically fit PHD's under the age of 45 there are after all - ha!.)
The best equivalent would be standards in journalism. If the requirements in the journalism field were to be halved, then the hiring agencies working in journalism could be choosier, right?
The standards we are now using are more in line with the standards I observed in the 1980's when we were trying to keep 18 divisions manned.
So you are complaining that we are raising the force size, is that it?
Or is it that you just cannot fathom fielding a force at all?
It would appear that there
July 13, 2008 - 16:24 ET by HermanoIt would appear that there is a bottom to things. Using your journalism example, I do not think they, as a collective, could get any worse. Then again, I have been amazed before!
You have shown no evidence
July 13, 2008 - 16:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou have shown no evidence that the data HASN'T been manipulated, but I HAVE shown you that their "facts" are incorrect. I also gave you ample evidence of an anti-war left-wing agenda, which you seems to ignore (because it makes your argument null and void).
I cannot help it if you are unable or unwilling to accept these truths. Grow up and act like a man.
Or at least A Boy Named Sue.
July 15, 2008 - 05:10 ET by Jack BauerOr at least A Boy Named Sue. That'd be a start.
Wintersoldier and his ilk
July 13, 2008 - 05:26 ET by Jack BauerWintersoldier and his ilk are obsessed to the point of compusion to denigrate the military. It's in their DNA. They have to find any way possible to try to sneer and smear.
I think its weird, but hey... as you intimate shrubbo it's takes him away from his other delusion about "manmade" global warming (sic).
1998? It's 2008!
July 11, 2008 - 20:23 ET by CobraManI see you're STILL citing old data. In this case, data from the Clinton years.
ED418239 Publication Date: 1998-04-00
That reports cites data from 1995.
AYPF. Dated October 23, 1998
So, you think that a ten year old report that uses 13 year old data and a 10 year old forum brief is proof of what is occurring today?
You have no resource that states otherwise?
July 12, 2008 - 01:52 ET by Giles Winterbourne"So, you think that a ten year old report that uses 13 year old data and
a 10 year old forum brief is proof of what is occurring today?"
You have no resource that states otherwise? Basic facts are the same GED employment and other stats are not as good as those with HS diploma, no matter how much it hurts the 'public schools are shait' meme
from 2002 "Key findings were as follows: (1) a GED provides economic benefits only
to low-skilled dropouts; (2) economic benefits of a GED appear over
time--often over 4 or 5 years-- rather than immediately; (3) although
the returns on postsecondary education and training are as large for
GED holders as for traditional high school graduates, GED holders do
not typically pursue postsecondary education or on-the-job training,
thus missing out on economic benefits;"
You're not citing Petagon research
July 11, 2008 - 20:32 ET by CobraMan"I was citing Pentagon research"
You’re NOT citing Pentagon research, you’re citing an NPP analysis. Don't you understand the difference?
From your source: “NPP releases its analysis of 2007 recruiting and provides access to data by state, county and ZIP Code.”
What is wrong with you?
July 11, 2008 - 20:44 ET by CobraMan"Yup, and increasing numbers are in the lower percentile."
What is wrong with you? Are you "too smart" for the rest of us or something?
Get it through that thick skill, there's a minimum requirement for passing those tests. That minimum requirement has not changed, at least not since I enlisted. If you pass the tests, you're in. What's wrong with that? Not everyone is as "intelligent" as a college graduate is, you know, and I know several college graduates that couldn’t pass those tests. Having a high school diploma or a college degree doesn’t mean that someone is intelligent or can pass the basic skills tests. My nephew graduate from High School and he couldn't even balance his checking account!
So, some people aren't in the top ten- percent. Who cares? That doesn't mean that they can't be successful or are not worth of serving our country. That also doesn't mean that they are substandard people. As a matter of fact, those "lower percentile" people are some of the best people I ever met. If you don’t like that, well, that’s YOUR problem
Test was re-normed in '04
July 12, 2008 - 01:36 ET by Giles Winterbourne" That minimum requirement has not changed, at least not since I enlisted."
Test was re-normed in '04. So while the 'score' or percentile levels wouldn't change, the ease or difficulty to attain a score would.
America the Beautifull
July 11, 2008 - 13:12 ET by CobraMan"tell me, at what point should we celebrate this?"
At this point.
Now can we question their
July 11, 2008 - 08:53 ET by sixgunNow can we question their patriotism???
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.-George Washington
Media Budget
July 11, 2008 - 09:43 ET by richb313One of the BIGGEST reasons for a media budget to begin with is to help young people get an idea of the Military Culture and to help them make up thier minds about which branch they would like to serve in. I am a Navy vet but I think the most brilliant ads are from the Marine Corps. It boldy states what they desire from recruits and also tells a young person what they can expect from the Corps. The Army has the next best then the Navy with the Air Force taking the 6 o-clock position. The Coast Gaurd has little or no funding for ads but due to the good work they do and favorable press they recieve they do not really need one.
Can anyone tell me in these time with the coverage in the MSM how a young person would get any info at all on military service that isn't biased, distorted, and downright false.
Re-enlistment
July 11, 2008 - 10:35 ET by ScrapironHow many of the media outlets covered the reenlistment of 1215 soldiers in Iraq on July 4th? How did that happen when the troops are all worn out and stretched too thin to be effective? Actually if Hussein O is elected all of the members of the military are in for a rough ride (I served through Dimmy Carter's joke). I now recommend that everyone make sure they have a discharge date around Jan 2009 or don't enlist until after Nov when we will know if they will be serving under another enemy of America.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Let us compare (or contrast) shall we;
July 11, 2008 - 10:56 ET by HeavyChevyYeah I can see how the evil American War-machine is so horrid.
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."