|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
Originally posted by MxRacerCam:
i support lesbians. but they won't let me sign up. 
i support gay rights, but i won't be joining that group either. 
i also support people with mental disabilities. but i...errr... nevermind. 
What he said!
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
|
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
Originally posted by MxRacerCam:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Haven't you heard about the severe shortage of recruits, Andy?
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/goals.htm
you can go ahead and stfu now. 
Slam and dunk!
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
|
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Quote:
So I think the question be asking of you is this ... "considering your strong support of the war in Iraq, will you be serving in the U.S. military in Iraq, and if not, why not?"
I've understood most things that you've said in the past, as you've always had well thought out opinions and posts. But this one is a bit off for me. I know where this all comes from, as it started with F9/11, that if you support a war, then you should go fight in it, but I do not agree with this. Not every person is cut out for military service. But on the other hand, there are far more ways to serve the military than to enlist. After the Marines I worked for L-3 on secure military communications systems for the military, which are now being used to keep our troops safe. I also worked for Symantec on a project funded by the Air Force codenamed "Retriever", which did network scanning and security/vulnerability assessments, and quantification of risk, which is now being used to protect our Internet infrastructure. There are far more ways to "serve" than to go and hold a weapon.
E1
Ding Ding Ding! Hey, Fat Mike, you getting this?
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
|
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
Sorry I missed this one and arrived late...
I have more to say, but I gotta run right now.
The short answer - I am Pro War, in at leas the the context I believe the question was asked. As for Volunteering; been there, done that. And, I'd return if I could. Age and health prevent me from certain types of support, but as we have seen there are many ways to support ones contry and beliefs.
Mark
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 503
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 503 |
Originally posted by Antonio:
I see idiots like Sean Hannity and other talking heads(many on this board) spout all this nonsense BUT they are not over there fighting NOR are thier kids. If you believe so much in the cause then sign up.
Well, my bro is in the Marines and I amd looking pretty seriously at the Navy. Ans I do support the war. weapons of mass destruction or no we still had to get Sadaam out and some life and hope to Iraq.
95 LX-with a mind of its own
24v DOHC
SVT exhaust and K&N=all thats worth modding
Go Fighting Sioux!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 227
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 227 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
I don't count?
Obviously I don't either?
I went to Iraq not really having an opinion I was just hoping I didn't die. But while there I realized that it was a good thing we went there.
Antonio, I don't fault the people that support the war without serving or enlisting, why should you? In fact I know a few people that I should thank for not serving as I don't see them as people I could have depended on.
The really screwed up thing is that part of me wants to re-up even though I've done my part and it could mean going back.
Ryan
'99 T-Red SVT, KKM, Borla, 1387 of 2760
'92 T-Red F-150 Flareside 4.9, 5 spd
'94 Geo Prizm, it was cheap
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Trapps:
Originally posted by MxRacerCam:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Haven't you heard about the severe shortage of recruits, Andy?
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/goals.htm
you can go ahead and stfu now.
Slam and dunk!
So the military puts out a press release and you buy it completely? Did you guys even bother to consider that military is desperately trying to spin this? Or are you just refusing to face the truth?
Major news outlets have been reporting for MONTHS that the military is struggling for recruits. They have reported that the military is trying to cover up the problem by LOWERING its official "recruiting goals" (in wartime!!! when forces are stretched thin!!!) and lowering standards for new recruits. Apparently you guys are so locked in to your pro-war tunnel vision that you have failed to even notice.
Here are a few articles (easy to find if you had even bothered to look):
New York Times
NEW YORK TIMES
NATIONAL DESK | October 1, 2004, Friday
Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards
By ERIC SCHMITT (NYT) 1077 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 24 , Column 1
To help meet its recruiting goals at a time when its forces are strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has lowered some requirements for recruits.
The changes are among the clearest signs yet of the military's growing problems in recruiting and retaining soldiers. They mean that many hundreds of recruits who would have been rejected in the past could be enlisted this year.
Army officials characterize the changes as modest and well within quality standards mandated by the Pentagon and Congress. But they amount to the first relaxation in Army recruiting standards since 1998, when a strong economy was hurting military recruiting.
Army officials said Thursday that for the recruiting year that started this week, at least 90 percent of new recruits must be high school graduates, compared with 92 percent last year. And up to 2 percent of recruits will be enlisted even if they scored in the lowest acceptable range on a service aptitude test, compared with 1.5 percent last year.
Given the total of 101,200 incoming soldiers whom the Army and the Army Reserve say they need to send to basic training this year, the changes mean that as many as 2,000 or so recruits who would have previously been rejected could be enlisted.
"In difficult recruiting environments, it is inevitable that either quality standards or recruiting resources be subject to adjustment," said Richard I. Stark Jr., a retired Army colonel who is a military personnel specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. "The Army has been forced to adjust to both."
The Army's decision to loosen standards comes amid calls for the House Armed Services Committee to investigate accusations by Iraq war veterans at Fort Carson, Colo., and other Army bases that, nearing the end of their enlistments, they are being pressured to choose between re-enlisting and being sent back to Iraq with another unit. Army officials have denied using any such approach to encourage re-enlistment.
In another sign of strains within the Army, more than 35 percent of nearly 3,900 former soldiers mobilized for yearlong assignments in a little-used wartime program have resisted their call-up, seeking delays or exemptions. Some of the former soldiers, members of the Individual Ready Reserve, may face criminal charges for failing to report, Army officials said.
Taken together, these issues have energized a bipartisan effort in Congress to increase the size of the Army by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers, have helped to spur calls by Senator John Kerry to enlarge the Army by 40,000 troops and have prompted many lawmakers to warn of a tough challenge for recruiters.
"Recruiting for the United States Army is going to be a major challenge in the days ahead," Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said this week. "You are wearing them out."
Officials said Thursday that the Army met most of its goals for the 2004 recruiting year, which ended on Monday. The active-duty Army exceeded its recruiting target of 77,000 soldiers by 587, and the Army Reserve exceeded its goal of 21,200 by 78, according to Douglas Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command, at Fort Knox, Ky. But the Army National Guard missed its recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by 5,000, the first shortfall by the Guard since 1994.
One main reason the Army has changed its quality standards is that it is entering the new 12-month recruiting cycle from one of its worst starting points in a decade.
Typically, the Army wants to enter each recruiting cycle with a cushion of incoming volunteers whose entry has been deferred from the previous year - about 35 percent of its overall goal for the year. But several weeks ago the Army projected that it would reach only 25 percent, and officials said Thursday that the cushion was actually only 18 percent.
The Army is adopting a range of incentives including bonuses, educational benefits and choice base assignments to help meet its recruiting and retention goals, as it typically has during years when it starts with so few recruits already identified. In addition, it is bringing on 1,000 new recruiters.
But aides to two Colorado lawmakers, Representatives Diana DeGette, a Democrat, and Joel Hefley, a Republican, said their offices had received calls from several soldiers at Fort Carson, as well as Fort Riley, Kan., and Fort Lewis, Wash., complaining of pressure to re-enlist with the alternative being deployment to Iraq.
One sergeant at Fort Carson, who served nearly a year in Iraq with the Fourth Infantry Division's Third Brigade and whose enlistment is to end in February 2006, said Thursday that he would take his chances on being reassigned rather than re-enlist.
"I can understand we're in a war, and extraordinary things happen in war, but the Army is moving the goal posts on me," the sergeant said in a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A spokesman for Fort Carson, Lt. Col. Dave Johnson, said a new Army program to create more stable units whose members will stay together for three years required troops whose enlistments end before December 2007 to re-enlist, extend their current enlistments a bit or take no action and possibly be assigned to another unit.
But Colonel Johnson said the Army was looking closely at each soldier's record and was not using the threat of Iraq deployment to increase re-enlistments. "We're not strong-arming anyone," he said.
Another good article on recruitment difficulties
Yet another good article on recruitment shortages
My original point was that you and everyone else are not exactly in a hurry to enlist for this misguided war. The articles I posted show that is true. If you want to believe the opposite is true, simply because the Army says it "met it recruitment goal for this year", you are just ignoring the truth. Slam and dunk? Hardly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,882
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,882 |
yeah, um, my friend's husband is an army recruiter and she said they are really hurting for new recruits. 
Originally posted by Tourgasm:
Sometimes you can mess up a word so bad that spell check doens't know what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,241
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,241 |
i was going to go into this diatribe about my little brother and 5 of my friends who have all come and gone and volunteered to go.... but i'm not their mouthpiece and they dont need pats on the back for their service and courage.
like it was said earlier "pro-war" is bs. I am pro-use of force when nessicary though. and we've met before, you know why i cant go. sure, call it a convenient point of view, i'll never be required to back up my ideals or whatever you like. But i've got plenty of courage behind my convictions and my daily life's proven that to me.
Essentially what you're doing is calling those of us who are for the use of force when nessicary cowards if we've not been or are not currently in uniform. That is an underhanded shallow tactic intended (i assume and we can see the assumptions are flying so i'll continue) to make us feel bad and you feel better about all of our respective positions.
There are plenty of arguments for and against the war in iraq, and all of these discussions have been had over and over and over again on this board. resorting to calling those of us on this side of the aisle cowards is just weak, pathetic, and ignorant. Grow up man. Get some better material.
-Matt
"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, and glory lasts forever!"
will do/pay just about anything for the following parts:
CF sunroof glass replacement
OEM CF trunk
Non OEM style cf or fiberglass hood not the cf1 design
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
So the military puts out a press release and you buy it completely? Did you guys even bother to consider that military is desperately trying to spin this? Or are you just refusing to face the truth?
.... Slam and dunk? Hardly.
i've worked next door to recruiting offices for all four branches, and they have NOT been hurting for recruits.
and thats not a "press release", it's a yearly fact sheet put up by army recruiting. i know if i was down in recruits, i'd be lying about it, that way noone would think there was a need for more.
so... just so i can be clear about this... it's not ok to believe what the military says, but the media must be believed? give me a break.
just so you know, there's no santa or easter bunny too, though you may see them pop up in the news as well. 
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone?
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
