Why is the Army targetting children for recruitment?

[actsnoblemartin]

That is entirely correct.

admission standards may not be lower than they were during Vietnam, but they are lower than they were earlier in the Bush administration and lower than they were at other times during the all volunteer military. I have seen several accounts of Army flag officers admitting as much.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Admission standards have not been lowered. Another lie brought courtesy of the left-wingnuts. They are the same as they have ever been. There just have been more waivers for Cat B enlistees. Not the military's fault society's producing dumber kids.

Oh, OK, I see. They didn't lower the admission standards. They're just letting in more people that fail to meet to admission standards. That's completely different.

And if right wingers are pussies, how come we're the mutherfuckers in the military while you sit home pulling your pud?

These rightwingers aren't in the military
http://debriefingtheboys.blogspot.com/2007/07/draft-college-republicans.html
they feel their duty to their country is served by staying at home and proclaiming what a great idea it is for other people to go and die for their country.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You can NOT be serious about why the military has to advertise? Shall we go back to a draft? Shall we make ALL 18 year olds randomly risk serving in the military without choice? You are aware we use an ALL Volunteer military right?

Yeah, why would they have to advertise? If 33% of people approve of the President, that means there's 100 million Americans that approve of the President's job and hence believe its a good idea to remain in Iraq. Take away the old and the young and the disabled you've probably got at least 30 million Americans that should be lining up to serve right now, yet very very few of them are. Why is that?!?

Is a true patriot someone who sits his ass at home while a war that he claims to support is going on, proclaiming that we have an all volunteer army and he'd be oh so happy to serve if there was a draft?



P.S. as tangential question not meant to be part of the argument, I'm just curious, what percentage of soldiers are career soldiers?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I love the game. It's a free download and game play in multi-player servers.

You should sign up then.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes. You don't know what you're talking about, neither does ST, nor a bunch of left-biased morons. When you want a class on recruiting, and entrance requirements, just ask.

Yeah right guys, they didn't lower the standards, they're just letting more people in who don't meet the standards, this has been explained!

 

[Gunny]

Did I say that I knew that standards are lower than they were? No. Don't put words in my mouth. I do find it surprising that, based on your statements, all 12 of these web sites are wrong.

Learn to read matts. I responded to the original statement. You attemped to refute it. If you are not refuting what I stated, then all your little links and comments would be irrelevant, would they not?

 

[Gunny]

Oh, OK, I see. They didn't lower the admission standards. They're just letting in more people that fail to meet to admission standards. That's completely different.

These rightwingers aren't in the military
http://debriefingtheboys.blogspot.com/2007/07/draft-college-republicans.html
they feel their duty to their country is served by staying at home and proclaiming what a great idea it is for other people to go and die for their country.

Wrong, jimbob. They allow more people in who are not top tier. That in no way means they are unqualified no standards have been lowered.

This is just grasping at straws for some negative spin. Nothing more.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah right guys, they didn't lower the standards, they're just letting more people in who don't meet the standards, this has been explained!

Playing to the audience, jimbob? You needn't worry ... the rest of the spinning partisan hacks here are right behind you all the way. Be sure you lead them over a HIGH cliff, will you?

 

[maineman]

No. The fact is, the number of waivers has always been contigent on the needs of the services. When I joined in 1980 if you spell your name right twice you could get a waiver.

But saying the standards themselves have been lowered is a misnomer.

don't you think that is really hair-splitting? If the standards are being routinely waived and guys who are beneath the standards are being let in in greater numbers in order to fill the needs of the services - the standards may not have "technically" been lowered, but the net practical effect is the same as if they had.

 

[CSM]

don't you think that is really hair-splitting? If the standards are being routinely waived and guys who are beneath the standards are being let in in greater numbers in order to fill the needs of the services - the standards may not have "technically" been lowered, but the net practical effect is the same as if they had.

So am I to assume then that the "needs of the services" should be ignored at all cost? I suspect your stance on the waiver/standards issue is based on your bias and not on service needs. I also suspect if some thought we needed more enlistees to support THEIR cause (for example, intervention in Dafur or even in the past...Kosovo/Bosnia) they would be all for lowering the standards or allowing waivers.

I guess this also raises the question of whether there should even be a waiver process...no matter how urgent the need or noble the cause.

 

[mattskramer]

don't you think that is really hair-splitting? If the standards are being routinely waived and guys who are beneath the standards are being let in in greater numbers in order to fill the needs of the services - the standards may not have "technically" been lowered, but the net practical effect is the same as if they had.

I agree. This is just hair splitting. In practical terms it means the same thing. If the military is not getting the numbers it needs, to lets people in who would otherwise not get in. It is as simple as that.

 

[Angel Heart]

You should sign up then.

Already did my time years ago.

 

[manu1959]

http://www.switched.com/2007/07/30/americas-army-game-comes-to-the-arcade/


What is the point of this game anyway? Are they hoping that the people playing it will find they enjoy killing people?

yes

 

[manu1959]

Yeah, and children don't get to smoke legally, either, but you can still target your advertising campaign to children. Most arcade rooms that I've seen are full of children.

And in my book a 17 year old is not an adult, regardless of what documents their parents sign.


Why should it even be necessary for the military to advertise itself as an employer? How many other organizations can you think of that spend so much money advertising themselves as an employer? Sure, we had "Calvin" on the McDonald's commericials, but that was just a transparent attempt to make McDonald's look like it was giving inner city kids a chance.


Why does the military even HAVE to advertise itself? Everyone knows its there - and there are millions of young right wing college students claiming to be great patriots. If they were serious about their convictions, you'd think there would be TOO MANY recruits, you'd think the military would be raising its admission standards instead of lowering them. I guess the overwhelming majority of young right wingers are either a bunch of pussies or they don't really believe the crap they're spewing.

you do know that a game company approached the military and asked to take their training sim and make it a game?....you do know there are worse games out there than this like say GTA....which teaches you to rape and kill average people not other militray factions waging war on america....you do realize it is a game....harry potter a movie.....da vinci code a novel....the tooth fairy a myth?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you do know that a game company approached the military and asked to take their training sim and make it a game?....you do know there are worse games out there than this like say GTA....which teaches you to rape and kill average people not other militray factions waging war on america....you do realize it is a game....harry potter a movie.....da vinci code a novel....the tooth fairy a myth?

Oh, I see, it just a game. That would make complete since, considering the primary purpose of the military is to entertain the youth.

Yet despite the fact its "just a game" - if you had read the article you'd see the military is convinced that its getting people to sign up. Are they wrong?


And to respond to your previous post - really? So the military teaches you to enjoy killing? Wow, that must be why there's so many soldiers coming back with fond memories.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wrong, jimbob. They allow more people in who are not top tier. That in no way means they are unqualified no standards have been lowered.

So they haven't lowered their standards, they're just satisfied with applicants of lesser quality - I see.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So am I to assume then that the "needs of the services" should be ignored at all cost?

That's what the overwhelming majority of young Republicans are doing.

 

[Gunny]

So they haven't lowered their standards, they're just satisfied with applicants of lesser quality - I see.

Misleading semantics. And last I checked, the left has almost an exclusive use monpoly on playing them.

Was the thread title "US Military Accepting More Enlistment Waivers" I wouldn't be in it. But that would be stating the truth rather than misleading the reader to believe actual standards have ben lowered and any neanderthal need just make his "x" on the contract.

 

[Gunny]

That's what the overwhelming majority of young Republicans are doing.

And what is the overwhelming majority of young Democrats doing? Last I checked, we're ALL Americans.

Something only those on the left seem to need reminding of eveyday.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Misleading semantics. And last I checked, the left has almost an exclusive use monpoly on playing them.

Was the thread title "US Military Accepting More Enlistment Waivers" I wouldn't be in it. But that would be stating the truth rather than misleading the reader to believe actual standards have ben lowered and any neanderthal need just make his "x" on the contract.

So they aren't satisfied with applicants of lesser quality - but they are taking them because they have to? Would that be less misleading?