| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
edrex
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2243
City: Nor*Cal
|
 Posted: May 16, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Can't we just let some other country deal with it for once?
_________________
| cameraboy wrote: | | hey edrex, go fkuc yourself. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swass
Guest
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is it time to go in with force and take the Junta out. |
I hope you're not serious. Just as a practical matter, we're barely able to sustain our current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless you advocate instituting a draft, we simply don't have the resources for something like that.
Using your logic, we should invade Washington, D.C. After all, Hurricane Katrina happend 3 years ago, and most people still don't have a place to call home.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sandman4432
Criminal
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 70
City: Tampa
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As far as this goes we have plenty of problems like Swass mentioned. As far as not having the resources, thats not exactly true. With half my extended family in the military I know that we are somewhat spread but also FAR from being that spread. But Swass is right that we should probably deal with our own problems before trying to go and "fix the world" again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weatherford
Soul Rider
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 471
City: Seattle
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why should we, I agree to help the people, but issues in "their" own country is theres. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swass
Guest
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As far as not having the resources, thats not exactly true. |
I don't want to belabor this point too much...except to point out that you're wrong. Why do you think recruiting requirements have been relaxed significantly, tours have been extended to 18 months in many cases and the majority of troops are on their third if not as many as their fifth tour? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weatherford
Soul Rider
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 471
City: Seattle
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As far as the navy goes, they have alot of guys. Can't speak for the Army or National Guard, but i think their numbers are low. The Government is wearing the NG out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sandman4432
Criminal
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 70
City: Tampa
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, as far as lowering requirements my mother was denied in her 20's cause of a random birth mark no one could explain (thats it, just a birth mark like we all have). All the statistics show that recruitments goals are right where they want them and exceeding slightly. But you are right about standards though. A recent study showed that GPA's and high school diplomas are down with new troops... so in reality I always hate spewing about politics cause there will always be something else to fix and to b!$*h and moan about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swass
Guest
|
| Posted: May 16, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You conveniently ignored all but the recruiting issue, so I'll address that specifically (for the U.S. Army).
You sort of skirted around the reason why recruiting goals are being met (barely). Requirements have been watered down to the point that if you have a pulse, you're pretty much in. The maximum age for new recruits was expanded to 42. You don't have to be a HS grad or have a GED. You can be overweight or have other medical conditions that would otherwise have been a disqualification. Criminal records are largely ignored. I can go on.
Recruiting and retention goals are intended to MAINTAIN troop levels, not to increase them, so whether or not the Army meets those goals has nothing to do with our ability to start a war in yet another country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tbonez
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 3276
City: ATL
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swass wrote: | You conveniently ignored all but the recruiting issue, so I'll address that specifically (for the U.S. Army).
You sort of skirted around the reason why recruiting goals are being met (barely). Requirements have been watered down to the point that if you have a pulse, you're pretty much in. The maximum age for new recruits was expanded to 42. You don't have to be a HS grad or have a GED. You can be overweight or have other medical conditions that would otherwise have been a disqualification. Criminal records are largely ignored. I can go on.
Recruiting and retention goals are intended to MAINTAIN troop levels, not to increase them, so whether or not the Army meets those goals has nothing to do with our ability to start a war in yet another country. |
So whats your point? Is it that you need to have a body like Rambo and intelligence like Einstein to fight for your country? So what if they lowered the requirements... Did anyone ever consider that they had the requirements set high because they wanted to limit the people that went into the military during peace time...There are plenty of jobs in the military that a 42 year old without a high school education is fit for. Someone has to serve and cook food. Someone has to fix the trucks...Do we really need an all pro athlete with a degree from Harvard to do this type of work...If someone wants to serve their country and they arent a danger to the man next to them who are YOU to tell them they arent fit?
_________________
You know you own someone when you can agitate them enough to quote you in their signature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boardordie
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 1038
City: Piqua/Ohio
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Swass: You always seem pretty up to date and accurate on the military when these topics come up. I'm former Army National Guard here so I can also read through the BS  and typically agree with your comments on the subject at hand.
Just wondering what is/was your affiliation with the armed forces? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boardordie
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 1038
City: Piqua/Ohio
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tbonez wrote: |
So whats your point? Is it that you need to have a body like Rambo and intelligence like Einstein to fight for your country? So what if they lowered the requirements... Did anyone ever consider that they had the requirements set high because they wanted to limit the people that went into the military during peace time...There are plenty of jobs in the military that a 42 year old without a high school education is fit for. Someone has to serve and cook food. Someone has to fix the trucks...Do we really need an all pro athlete with a degree from Harvard to do this type of work...If someone wants to serve their country and they arent a danger to the man next to them who are YOU to tell them they arent fit? |
Tbonez: Ever serve in a military branch? With the old standards there were plenty of fat, lazy SOB's that were hiding from the real world inside the military. That number has tripled in recent years. I think what you don't understand is that the less intelligent personnel typically get put into the infantry (aka: cannon fodder), or mess hall positions. So I ask you... do you want someone who can carry your wounded a$$ out of a fire fight, or some 40 something private who can't get out from behind cover without having a heart attack? I'll also ask you if you mind having some mentally challenged mess hall cook's drool in you mash potatoes after just completing a week in the field and a 25k road march back home? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
some incredibly ignorant posts here, and they aren't coming from swass. some of you have no concept of the overall manpower it takes just to put 100 soldiers onto foreign soil.
and yes, we are stretched to the limit right now. it's not just soldiers involved either. bulletproof vests, armored humvees, basic ammunition like bullets and grenades.... we can't get these things to all of our soldiers in iraq - how can we bite off more now?
never mind we don't need to get involved an anyone else's bullshlt right now. let the un do something on their own for once. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sandman4432
Criminal
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 70
City: Tampa
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swass wrote: | You conveniently ignored all but the recruiting issue, so I'll address that specifically (for the U.S. Army).
You sort of skirted around the reason why recruiting goals are being met (barely). Requirements have been watered down to the point that if you have a pulse, you're pretty much in. The maximum age for new recruits was expanded to 42. You don't have to be a HS grad or have a GED. You can be overweight or have other medical conditions that would otherwise have been a disqualification. Criminal records are largely ignored. I can go on.
Recruiting and retention goals are intended to MAINTAIN troop levels, not to increase them, so whether or not the Army meets those goals has nothing to do with our ability to start a war in yet another country. |
No, sorry, I wasn't "squirting" around any issue at all. I was trying to make the point that this isn't going anywhere and just pissing a lot of people off. Again I quote: | Sandman wrote: | | so in reality I always hate spewing about politics cause there will always be something else to fix and to b!$*h and moan about. |
If it gives you the satisfaction then yes; we are at an all time low for GED's and diplomas in the military and we are at a point where so few want to enlist anymore cause they either hate the government, dont give a crap about their country, or its not for them. Yes your right that we are spread out, thats obvious. Ill still fight and say that no we aren't spread as much as I think you portray but to keep someone from getting bunched panties ill shut my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tbonez
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 3276
City: ATL
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| boardordie wrote: | | Tbonez wrote: |
So whats your point? Is it that you need to have a body like Rambo and intelligence like Einstein to fight for your country? So what if they lowered the requirements... Did anyone ever consider that they had the requirements set high because they wanted to limit the people that went into the military during peace time...There are plenty of jobs in the military that a 42 year old without a high school education is fit for. Someone has to serve and cook food. Someone has to fix the trucks...Do we really need an all pro athlete with a degree from Harvard to do this type of work...If someone wants to serve their country and they arent a danger to the man next to them who are YOU to tell them they arent fit? |
Tbonez: Ever serve in a military branch? With the old standards there were plenty of fat, lazy SOB's that were hiding from the real world inside the military. That number has tripled in recent years. I think what you don't understand is that the less intelligent personnel typically get put into the infantry (aka: cannon fodder), or mess hall positions. So I ask you... do you want someone who can carry your wounded a$$ out of a fire fight, or some 40 something private who can't get out from behind cover without having a heart attack? I'll also ask you if you mind having some mentally challenged mess hall cook's drool in you mash potatoes after just completing a week in the field and a 25k road march back home? |
You seem to think that I am recommending putting 40 year old has beens and semi retarded people into the forces...Im not. I am, however, saying that there are 40 year olds that can run circles around some 18 year olds I know. I dont generalize based off of age. If you can make it through boot camp a 40 year old should have the same chance an 18 year old does..My next door neighbor is 40 years old and I would bet he could stomp 90% of the people on this boards arse...Would I want him in a fox hole with me or the 18 year old fat lazy slob that lives down the road from me? I think you can guess my answer. I understand the government needs standards for the military. I dont, however, think stretching the enlistment age to 42 is over the top. I also know plenty of people who worked on a farm and dropped out of high school. These people run multi million dollar farms and are more than smart enough to pick up a gun and shoot the enemy without drooling on someone’s food...
_________________
You know you own someone when you can agitate them enough to quote you in their signature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sandman4432
Criminal
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 70
City: Tampa
|
| Posted: May 19, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tbonez, bravo, well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
