RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ...

RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 7:27:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire If you had read the rest of the article. Or done a little bit of research on the military website...there are articles after articles explaining why they met their quotas. Because they now allow those with positive drug tests in. Because those who don't exactly score very high on the asvab are now allowed in. I believe they even allow those with no diplomas from high school in at this point. For the person who asked about the Coast Guard...their numbers are also up. Though the military has reached an entire low point in society..one that had not been breached before and that is why their numbers are up. Didn't we already have this discussion in another thread? This: Though the military has reached an entire low point in society..one that had not been breached before and that is why their numbers are up ... is so patently false as to be laughable. FirmKY

LadyEllen -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 7:40:04 AM)
Interestingly, and rather paradoxically given the apparent, above mentioned success of US Forces' recruitment, the British Forces are struggling to recruit and retain over the last year. Since the only difference between the period when recruitment was not a problem and now, when it is a problem, is the commitment we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be fair to hypothesize that those two engagements have had a significant effect on recruitment. The engagement in Iraq is here seen for what it is; a quagmire, and a war in which we should never have become involved. Not many young Brits I would venture, are willing to risk their lives in such a hopeless cause which was never any of our business in the first place, and which even the dumbest likely recruit can comprehend as being a major geo-political blunder. The engagement in Afghanistan however, is seen as worthwhile; still though, aspiring recruits having heard the tales from the front there, are put off by the fact that our forces are in an impossible and unwinnable and very deadly situation. Add on top of that, that our forces lack the equipment for the job - suitable vehicles, sufficient ammunition, body armour and helmets and even weapons, and this does not help. British units are not known as "the borrowers" for nothing. The situation is serious. Our forces are nowhere near as large as those of the US, and nowhere near as well equipped. When senior generals say these things publicly, then we know the circumstances must be dire, for to risk the negative impact on morale of such statements, a general must have passed from the eternal griping of the soldier into a state of serious concern. British forces right now are committed all around the world. The thin red line is more of a join the dots puzzle these days. Not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in several places worldwide that either require a UK garrison or have invited our forces in to assist local forces. The time is now well passed, since others apart from the US, UK and the usual NATO providers such as Canada, must step up to the plate. Whilst a British soldier is worth ten of any other nation, there is a limit to what we can do. The UN also must insist that member nations contribute, not on a voluntary basis as now, which enables for example the French to send little more than a football team to the Lebanon, but as a condition of membership and the benefits that so many of them derive without any intention of putting in. The consequences of the world relying on a handful of nations to provide security are being seen now in the recruitment process; the question for British taxpayers is, why should we pay such a disproportionate share for all this, and the question for aspiring recruits is why should we risk our lives when others do nothing? But then, those who rarely if ever contribute know that we cannot pull out of any of these theatres, and are happy to allow us to bear the brunt and expense in the knowledge that they can sit on the sidelines and not have the toll of deaths and injuries in the daily news, nor the impact of the expense of war on their governmental budgets, influencing voter opinion in their countries. E

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 7:50:52 AM)
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling

LadyEllen -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 8:00:27 AM)
I wish someone would invade France, again. See how ready we all are to help out, again, when past help to them has been so unacknowledged and still less reciprocated. And as for the Germans; its been 60-odd years, the guilty parties are mostly all dead, youre forgiven. So take your share. E

cjklyn -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 8:41:53 AM)
With regard to the UK armed forces, they have had a recruitment problem for some years, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan havent been major factors, as we were well under strength before any of those events. A large part of the recruitment problem isn't the lack of recruits, but the lack of suitable recruits. They turn more away as unfit than ever before, and have had to change height and weight limits in order to even try to keep the numbers up. Other problems relate to pay, when you think a soldiers pay is for a 24 hour day, not just a 9 to 5 job, and all the restrictions the army put on a single or married soliders personal life. I think socially the UK has gone through a major change in the last 30 years or so. I doubt many people under 30, maybe even under 40, would have the same concept of duty to their country as previous generations. Add to that that our forces are over stretched, fighting in so many theatres, without enough reserve to give reasonable leave and rotation, maybe we should pull back a little from our world role.

sub4hire -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 1:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Didn't we already have this discussion in another thread? This: Though the military has reached an entire low point in society..one that had not been breached before and that is why their numbers are up ... is so patently false as to be laughable. FirmKY Perhap's so, however the articles I posted in the thread you picked that up in came directly from the military. So, I guess they are lying in their reports to us. I didn't only rely on printed newspapers but I also got the paper from the military....if I recall I think it was military.gov or something like that. However, been a while. It would just be easier to pull it out of the old thread. I have no issues with you standing behind the military's word or not. I just know what they have told the citizens of the US...belive them or not. No skin off my back either way.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 4:53:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY This: Though the military has reached an entire low point in society..one that had not been breached before and that is why their numbers are up ... is so patently false as to be laughable. Perhap's so, however the articles I posted in the thread you picked that up in came directly from the military. So, I guess they are lying in their reports to us. I didn't only rely on printed newspapers but I also got the paper from the military....if I recall I think it was military.gov or something like that. Your understanding is what is false, not your sources. And your sources do not support your conclusions at all. quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire I have no issues with you standing behind the military's word or not. I just know what they have told the citizens of the US...belive them or not. No skin off my back either way. You attempt to turn this into some kind of a personal opinion versus personal opinion is incorrect. You made some very incorrect blanket statements: 1. the military has reached an entire low point in society 2. one that had not been breached before 3. that is why their numbers are up All of these are demonstratably false. But, they tie into to your political views, and therefore you accept them, repeat them and attempt to skew anything you can to support them. When called on it, you attempt a duck and run, and to shift the terms of the debate. FirmKY

ScienceBoy -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 5:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I wish someone would invade France, again. See how ready we all are to help out, again, when past help to them has been so unacknowledged and still less reciprocated. And as for the Germans; its been 60-odd years, the guilty parties are mostly all dead, youre forgiven. So take your share. E Y'know.. I wish somebody would invade the UK. Been a long time. Must be owed. ;)

Dtesmoac -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 5:57:40 PM)
If the Iraq fiasco had not arisen perhaps getting greater French and German involvement in Afghanistan would have been possible but now why would the French want to help out with a mess they warned about. Bush has almost single handedly made the USA the most loathed nation on earth and provides amunition to make Putin's Russia and Iran seem "plausible". At the moment to many "normal people" in other nations are quietly pleased to see the US and UK having problems, because they (Bush & Blair) told the International Community we don't need you......the other nations are now saying....well go on then...! It won't change until two years time when Bush has gone, and then it will be to late. As for the British Army it has always been undersized, look back to 20th, 19th, 18th, century acounts and it has always been a thin dotted red line, it was native / local troops that backed the British and provided the key difference.

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 6:12:08 PM)
I think the incubation of the idea for the germans might run something like this...all you pundits correct me where I go astray..... So the two Hitler Jungend get back together in the Reagan years, first shot outta the chute they are going to the middle east as a peacekeeping force or a Nato combatant...... Let's assume that politics is not a sphere that surrounds most peoples heads........ The New York Times and the Guardian next day as a Kraut whacks some poor fuckwad in Kabul What would the headline look like? Krauts not satified with frying the Jews, now turn to Islam...........photos by (AP), Rush defends the Hun Position............ Jesus, H, Fuckin', Christ------------ Edward R. Murrow This is infantile..............

LadyEllen -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/16/2006 3:07:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScienceBoy Y'know.. I wish somebody would invade the UK. Been a long time. Must be owed. ;) You know, in a funny way you answered your own proposal. We are not worth invading - we dont have anything; its all owned by someone overseas already, and/ or mortgaged in return for finance etc that we owe to someone overseas. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/16/2006 3:29:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac If the Iraq fiasco had not arisen perhaps getting greater French and German involvement in Afghanistan would have been possible but now why would the French want to help out with a mess they warned about. Bush has almost single handedly made the USA the most loathed nation on earth and provides amunition to make Putin's Russia and Iran seem "plausible". At the moment to many "normal people" in other nations are quietly pleased to see the US and UK having problems, because they (Bush & Blair) told the International Community we don't need you......the other nations are now saying....well go on then...! It won't change until two years time when Bush has gone, and then it will be to late. As for the British Army it has always been undersized, look back to 20th, 19th, 18th, century acounts and it has always been a thin dotted red line, it was native / local troops that backed the British and provided the key difference. I agree with you; Blair was f'in stupid to go down the path he did with Bush in Iraq. I dont think there is a Brit alive who doesnt think the same - even members of the government that are trolled out to defend it from time to time. Saddam was a monster, unfit to run a car let alone a country - but there was a time when he was our monster, when he was a perfectly fine chap, and even after Kuwait he was still a valuable monster to us, keeping the countries to his east and west in check in a way which we could never do, are now not doing and which the Iraqi government in future will not be able to do. Afhghanistan is a different matter - there, we had good reason to go in and try to do something about the Al Quaeda presence. That Guantanamo followed on was a major blunder - it is not possible to terrorise people into submission; strangely enough, something understood by Bush and Blair only in relation to terrorism directed against them. If you or I were an Al Queda fighter, would we surrender or take as many with us as possible, if surrender meant total forfeit of human rights I wonder? One can understand, even support in my case, the German and French arguments over Iraq, but Afghanistan was always a different case, where the enemy really was there and an answer had to be given - even if the answer given was blundered by a poor John Wayne impersonator; 9/11 was not just an attack on the US, but against the whole western world. However, the situation has now passed over from being a purely US/UK misled operation to being something of concern to the world at large. Indeed, it could be said that continuing US/UK presence and involvement is more of a hindrance to returning order, than effective in that restoration. This is why NATO have taken over in Afghanistan after all - though as usual, reluctantly in most cases. It is also why NATO at large, or the UN at best should take over in Iraq now too. For certain nations to sit on the sidelines when the allies whom they would call on and on whom they have relied for decades are in need, on the basis of an arrogant sense of superiority that they told us so, is childish indeed. That is not the way friendships work. If a friend does something we warned would be unwise, do we stand and laugh at their misfortune when they did not heed us, or do we assist them despite our prior disapproval of their action, as a friend? E

LadyEllen -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/16/2006 3:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I think the incubation of the idea for the germans might run something like this...all you pundits correct me where I go astray..... So the two Hitler Jungend get back together in the Reagan years, first shot outta the chute they are going to the middle east as a peacekeeping force or a Nato combatant...... Let's assume that politics is not a sphere that surrounds most peoples heads........ The New York Times and the Guardian next day as a Kraut whacks some poor fuckwad in Kabul What would the headline look like? Krauts not satified with frying the Jews, now turn to Islam...........photos by (AP), Rush defends the Hun Position............ Jesus, H, Fuckin', Christ------------ Edward R. Murrow This is infantile.............. Maybe youre right. Maybe the German forces are now so tainted, forever more by what happened in the last century, that they are undeployable anywhere, anytime for fear of comparisons being made between the soldiers of the third reich and their great grandchildren. Equally, Germany is not about to be attacked or invaded by anyone, now that the Warsaw Pact is finished, and many of its former constituents are now part of NATO. The Germans have no overseas commitments as the UK and France do, so what need does it have for any forces whatever? But assistance need not always be in terms of boots on the ground; it can be by way of equipment, ammunition and other resources, which as one of the leading economies of the world, Germany can afford - particularly given its own absence of need for these things in the circumstances. Aside from those issues though, I fail to see how, even if by some remote chance the German army of today is somehow the repository of the traditions of the Waffen SS, the involvement of German forces in Afghanistan and/or Iraq could possibly lead to any worse headlines than those which we have already seen in connection with US and UK troops' abuse of the local populations. Indeed, given the sensitivities surrounding the presence and operation of German forces in any overseas deployment, and given the very real awareness of all Germans that I ever met about the atrocities their nation led, I would expect the highest standard of behaviour from any German unit so deployed, such that its collective behaviour and the behaviour of every member of that unit was beyond all reproach. Just as it has been in the peacekeeping in Bosnia - a potentially far more sensitive deployment than any in the Middle East or Afghanistan, which German units have participated in as part of NATO. Thus I'm afraid I must disagree. Germany has the means and the ability to assist the US and UK whether that be by way of resource or forces, and certainly could not make the situation any worse than it has been made by the very abuses one might erroneously fear from residual naziism in the Germans, except perpetrated by some of the fine, upstanding men and women of the UK and US forces. E

sub4hire -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/16/2006 6:19:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You made some very incorrect blanket statements: 1. the military has reached an entire low point in society 2. one that had not been breached before 3. that is why their numbers are up All of these are demonstratably false. But, they tie into to your political views, and therefore you accept them, repeat them and attempt to skew anything you can to support them. When called on it, you attempt a duck and run, and to shift the terms of the debate. FirmKY I did not make those statements. You've copied and pasted them from somewhere but not from my thread. I used the same statements I pulled out of numerous newspapers. When the whole Kerry fiasco came into play. I started searching on why he would say such things. That is what I found. I then used the same statements the papers said here. Fact is, even if you look at the news channels. 20/20 has had numerous stings where recruiters gave people cleaning kits to get the drugs out of their systems to pass the test. Given them links to get fake diploma's knowing nobody would ever check to see if they were real or not. I've seen about 4 so far. I'm sure there have been other's. Though now, it doesn't matter there is no need for any such stings. Because it is all policy. Though I have to ask, since you know me so well what is my political affiliation? I am with the 60-70% or so of people in the US who do not like Bush on any given day but does that mean I am not a republican?

Dtesmoac -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/16/2006 6:34:25 AM)
It was Bush that came up with the with us or against us...if Germany & France support in Afghanistan Bush will try to proray that it is linked with support in Iraq and of his policies, only way to break the deadlock now is for Bush to have a nasty accident and a new president to come in and allow others to change their positions. It is America that is the ally of France and Germany, not the oil cartels of rich thick boy GW. The war in Afghanistan needs to be won, but it can't until Bush departs, and by then it may no longer be winable.

MasDom -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/26/2006 11:57:15 PM)
Damnit I don't want to be drafted. [:'(] Its hard enough to Dom U.S woman. I don't want to learn another language just to say kneel bitch.... ...er....."Wait how do you say that in arabic?"... Oh and not to be of topic. But they do accept satanism as one of the perceived religions They have to service to. With crappy small paper prayer book and all. Hail......uh yeah.... I like that fact. [:@]Least I know why i,m fighting. Its because these idiots cant figure out anti-pro propaganda. And the issues with sending in more people without it. If I said what I really think. (These fu*& idiots did it again) I may be with held for treason, and properly shot once the draft is re issued... Of course at these Nazi's command. Hey cool Berlin wall... Love the army. Just really hate the war. OK sorry. Back to the current topic. Did any one place in the national guardsmen lost? Seems they pulled from that a lot these days.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (1/16/2007 2:08:01 PM)
FR: DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for December Army 123% Navy 100% Marine 110% Air Force 100%

Sinergy -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (1/16/2007 5:12:14 PM)
What is curious about recruitment goals from studies by Rand and Defenselink, is they tend to combine recruitment with retention. Stop-Loss means nobody is allowed to leave. So it appears from the listings that all those people whose terms of service are up and are not sent home qualify as recruits in the statistical analysis performed by the military. http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=9630 In order to make what quotas they make, the military has increased enlistment max age from 35 to 42. They have increased bonuses offered. They have lowered the minimum test scores for physical and mental ability. They have relaxed their health standards. While they have made their quotas for 2006, most of the sites state that none of the branches made their quotas in 2005. If imprisoning drug offenders endlessly wasnt so profitable for big business, I imagine they would be recruiting in the Big House. Just me, etc. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (1/16/2007 5:21:13 PM)
You fuckin sie a..... since your service obligation is actually six years no matter what, when your active service is up and they extend you, you have been retained. This goes hand in hand with what we were discussing about the Minnesota National Guard being re-rotated, it could in a pentagonal PR move be said that they volunteered to go again. You only need look about you and watch the droves and lines outside the recruiters offices to know that you can't believe your lying fucking eyes. Ron (ex-U S Army, and ex-recruiter)

Sinergy -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (1/16/2007 5:23:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin sie a..... since your service obligation is actually six years no matter what Im not sure what a sie a.... is, but doesnt Stop-Loss mean that you can go longer than 6? Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875