US Armed Forces 100%+ on recruiting for April

[apdst]

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11914

April 2008 Accessions Goal Percent
Army 5,681 5,650 101

Navy 2,905 2,905 100

Air Force 2,435 2,435 100

Marine Corps 2,233 1,577 142

People are joining the Marines and Army at higher rates. Very telling numbers.

[Drocket]

Great news. You know, other than rigging the game by picking ridiculously low goal numbers, and still having to all but drop standards entirely in order to get it even them.

But yeah, wonderful. More people to send off to war for the glory of the fatherland.

[apdst]

Great news. You know, other than rigging the game by picking ridiculously low goal numbers, and still having to all but drop standards entirely in order to get it even them.

The only standard that has been dropped is the age limit.

[Drocket]

Oh, really? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm)

[apdst]

I see. Lowered the aptitude standards So, where was it when they lowered it and what did they lower it to? I think we need something a little more official that USA Today, in this case.

[lily]

This is great news.......now our soldiers will only have to do one tour instead of five........right?

[apdst]

This is great news.......now our soldiers will only have to do one tour instead of five........right?

What dreamland do you live in where soldiers, who do not seperate from the service, don't have to do repeat tours? What you want to see isn't realistic.

[ptif219]

I remember soldiers during the democrats war in Vietnam doing multiple tours except for Kerry.:lmao:

[Buck Laser]

I remember soldiers during the democrats war in Vietnam doing multiple tours except for Kerry.:lmao:

Or Bush. He didn't go at all.

[apdst]

You're off topic, Buck. I'm not going to report you, but don't do it again.

[lily]

I remember soldiers during the democrats war in Vietnam doing multiple tours except for Kerry.:lmao:

Really.........because there was a draft and the tour of duty was one year.

[Elrathin]

I remember soldiers during the democrats war in Vietnam doing multiple tours except for Kerry.:lmao:

That's because there was a draft. Oh and BTW what tours did Bush serve in VIETNAM?

[ptif219]

Really.........because there was a draft and the tour of duty was one year.

Yes many did just like many volunteer to go back to Iraq.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/05/more_dead_bring_anguish_anger_in_ohio/

''It's going to change something, I swear," predicted Jim Dawes, 57, who served two tours of duty as a Marine in Vietnam and whose nephew was among the battalion members killed in Iraq

[apdst]

because there was a draft and the tour of duty was one year.

Kerry only served 8 months. When he got his fake medals, he took advantage of the clause that allowed him to leave early.

[Pookie]

How many months did Bush serve?
Just asking.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Troubadour]

The only standard that has been dropped is the age limit.

Oh? I thought I heard they were dropping the educational requirements, and relaxing standards on recruits with criminal and psychiatric records. But that would be just plain crazy, wouldn't it? Our Glorious Armed Forces would never stoop to raiding prisons and asylums for cannon fodder. Of course, if even those standards are too tough, you can always become a mercenary enforcer and kill people for the regime off the record.

[apdst]

I thought I heard they were dropping the educational requirements, and relaxing standards on recruits with criminal and psychiatric records.

You thought you heard that the standards had been lowered? Let's see where they were lowered from and to. It shouldn't be that hard to find that info.

As late as 2005, 98% of the enlisted ranks had a high school diploma; with an average education of 12.1 years. That's 13% higher than the national average.

[apdst]

Really.........because there was a draft and the tour of duty was one year.

Another piece of reality that Libs don't know, or choose to deny, is that 2 out of 3 Vietnam Vets were volunteers.

[Wndrtch]

I see. Lowered the aptitude standards So, where was it when they lowered it and what did they lower it to? I think we need something a little more official that USA Today, in this case.

I guess the Left is trying to point out that more "hics" are going into the military. It feeds into the notion that only sub-intellegent people want to get into the military, like somehow a person with less aptitude is less than human, and should be put down.

More John Kerry elitism, to me.

http://members.cox.net/neddy/irak.jpg

[apdst]

I guess the Left is trying to point out that more "hics" are going into the military.

Technically, there are. If you look at the demographics of the armed forces, the elven former Confederate states fill 47% of the ranks.

But, you're right, the Leftists are on a mission to denigrate and undermine our military. It's been going on for more than forty years with no sign of letting up.

[lily]

Another piece of reality that Libs don't know, or choose to deny, is that 2 out of 3 Vietnam Vets were volunteers.

Your argument was that they were that they had to serve multiple tours, which they didn't.

[Troubadour]

You thought you heard that the standards had been lowered? Let's see where they were lowered from and to. It shouldn't be that hard to find that info.

Indeed.

The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/

But I especially love this part:


Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage.

Nor, apparently, do criminal records. "America's finest." I can just imagine year 35 of McCain's 100-year war: The Down Syndrome Brigade mistakes the 422nd Airborne Prison Furlough Squad for the enemy, but their random firing is interrupted when the 321st Sleazy Mercenary Battalion shows up to pimp war orphans.


As late as 2005, 98% of the enlisted ranks had a high school diploma; with an average education of 12.1 years. That's 13% higher than the national average.

I'm not saying you're just making that up, but...uh...

[apdst]

Your argument was that they were that they had to serve multiple tours, which they didn't.

They had to serve multiple tours if they didn't seperate from the service.

Troubador,

All you posted was ANOTHER article saying the standards have been, "lowered", but nothing about where the standards were lowered to.

[Troubadour]

They had to serve multiple tours if they didn't seperate from the service.

Troubador,

All you posted was ANOTHER article saying the standards have been, "lowered", but nothing about where the standards were lowered to.

First of all, you still[/i[ haven't provided [i]any source whatsoever for your claim about the relative education levels of soldiers. Secondly, if you actually read the article I provided, you would see that it directly answers your question - the Army doubled the proportion of recruits who could be accepted with aptitude scores classified as "low." If you want to know what they consider "low," go ahead and ask them, but my point has always been that they have substantially reduced standards in order to meet recruiting goals - something I have now proven, and you should concede.

[apdst]

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm

something I have now proven, and you should concede.

I'll concede that you posted an article from the Liberal media claiming that standards have been lowered. Now, I ask, again, what have they been lowered to?

[Troubadour]

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm
I'll concede that you posted an article from the Liberal media claiming that standards have been lowered.

ROFL. And I'll concede that you posted an article from a fascist organization claiming that soldiers have a higher rate of high school graduation than civilians. BTW, your use of "liberal media" to describe MSNBC deserves a robot pic:

http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/robot4.jpg

Maybe this guy can join the Army - he's already armed. Although maybe his flat fleet would be a problem...


Now, I ask, again, what have they been lowered to?

Well, they doubled the number of allowed recruits with low aptitudes scores, so that would roughly mean the standard has been lowered to half where it was. Again, you keep trying to divert the subject from the military meeting already lowered expectations by lowering them even further.

[apdst]

Well, they doubled the number of allowed recruits with low aptitudes scores, so that would roughly mean the standard has been lowered to half where it was.

Show us the new standards.

You asked for a source, I gave it to you. Now it's your turn to provide a source that refutes it.

[Troubadour]

Show us the new standards.

What do the new standards have to do with my claims? All I claimed is that the standards were reduced, which I backed up with a source far more credible than the Heritage Foundation - your apparent standard of reliability. You, however, are now expanding the scope of that to the exact nature of those standards, which I made a sincere effort to discover because I too was curious - but I didn't find the information, and I'm not going to go out of my way for your diversionary tactic. If you can find the information, we'll discuss it. For now, we have the fact that the military has sharply reduced its standards while trumpeting that it meets recruiting goals. Well, huzzah - they've redefined success until it fits what they're capable of. A very Republican "solution."


You asked for a source, I gave it to you. Now it's your turn to provide a source that refutes it.

I didn't dispute your source's claim, I simply responded in kind to your ludicrous attempt to call mine into question. Maybe if I got a 4-star general on video explaining how they've lowered the standards to meet recruiting goals, you'd say "Your liberal media video camera claims he said this." Reality really does have a liberal bias, doesn't it? It must so hard on Republicans, having to live on planet Earth and deal with constant attacks by liberal reality.

[ptif219]

Typical lib make an accusation then refuse to show proof.

If can't show proof don't make the accusation.

[apdst]

What do the new standards have to do with my claims?

It has everything to do with your claims. If you can't actually show us what the new, lower, standards are, then you're talking out of your ass.

[Troubadour]

It has everything to do with your claims. If you can't actually show us what the new, lower, standards are, then you're talking out of your ass.

Such reeking desperation and dishonesty. (1)The military had a standard. (2)No one claimed it was a bad standard, or an overly high standard. (3)The military was having trouble meeting its recruiting goals. (4)The military lowered that standard to HALF what it was. (5)Now the military trumpets that it met recruiting goals. Same old Republican BS, redefining success until it fits whatever happens to result from their stupidity.

[bishop]

http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/

The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.)

The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel. There used to be a regulation that no more than 2 percent of all recruits could be "Category IV"—defined as applicants who score in the 10th to 30th percentile on the aptitude tests. In 2004, just 0.6 percent of new soldiers scored so low. In 2005, as the Army had a hard time recruiting, the cap was raised to 4 percent. And in 2007, according to the new data, the Army exceeded even that limit—4.1 percent of new recruits last year were Cat IVs.

i guess it's fitting that idiot politicians are stocking the military up with idiots to be their fodder.

and let's forget about the soaring recruitment and retention costs. our volunteer military is more like a band of mercenaries choosing between the dark prospect of being an adult without an education, or between fighting a fool's war for big cash prizes.

[Troubadour]

i guess it's fitting that idiot politicians are stocking the military up with idiots to be their fodder.

The Empire found out how dumb it was in the '60s to try and stock its legions with unwilling college students, so now they've hit upon a golden formula: Morons + criminals + mercenaries = cheap and expendable meat. "Be all that you can be..."

http://www.forward-moving.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/38197-spam.jpg

"...in the Army."

[preservanation]

criminalsJust keeping up the tally....

[Troubadour]

Just keeping up the tally....

Indeed.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[NortheastCynic]

I've received two calls from army and Marine recruiters since the beginning of this thread.

-NC