Page 5 of 5
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:19 pm
by mogami
Hi, Maybe we should move this up to the General area I think we have wandered far enough from WITP. Keep it going just relocate it. (I don't have the know how or the power to move this thread)
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:25 pm
by velkro
Flashback, 1941...
I have no confidence in the Roosevelt administration...I ain't serving...FDR led us on this path and lied about Lend-Lease...this is the wrong war for the wrong reasons...the Germans aren't so bad...I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor...
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:14 pm
by timtom
ORIGINAL: velkro
Flashback, 1941...
I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor...
Well, some people did entertain the idea that the planes had to be piloted by Germans [:)]
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:02 am
by Titanwarrior89
You hit the nail on the head with the "mission box", "goal"-telephone prospecting, cold calls, Highschool list(LRL's), home appointments, appts. made, conducted and all of the sales and processing steps required just too get one applicant too the floor and the list goes on..........................[:D]
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Actually,
I think universal service,no exceptions no exemptions for atleast a 1 year stint so "everyone" is basically trained and familiar with methods and equitment would be a smart idea. After all we are all in this together. This isn't cosmetic,or lip service but a way to show every citizen we all have responsabilities.
The left should love it,rich boys as well as opinionated loudmouths are treated the same!
While I agree in principle, the reality is that it just wouldn't work, at least not for the regular services. It may be of some benefit to the Guard or Reserves. But a one year stint wouldn't provide the individual any meaningful training. With military technology changing as fast as it is, any individual would need retraining if he were called up unless it was a reserve-type program with training periods every year. And the military just can't afford to send everyone to bootcamp and provide specialty training. The budget would have to increase by at least 50% and they would want some return for their dollars
I ran a 7-man recruiting station in Yakima, Washington for 4 years and Graycompany hit the nail on the head. The majority of rejections are due to being overweight. The rest of the rejects are normally due to a lack of a HS diploma or law violations (I could not believe how many kids have juvenile records!!!).
TitanWarrior89 mentioned the stress of recruiting. I actually enjoyed getting out there and talking with the kids. What I hated was having to call my zone supervisor everyday and reporting how many phone calls were made, how many phone calls resulted in appoinments, how many appoinments resulted in interviews, how many interviews resulted in physicals and how many physicals resulted in DEPs. It's all a numbers game to career recruiters. If the station failed to make goal, the zone supe would be down to find out why. Miss it two months in a row and the district trainer would pay a visit. Miss it 3 months in a row and you got to pay a visit to the commanding officer. Missing goal was unacceptable, didn't matter that you made 200% of goal last month... Hero to Zero in a heartbeat!!!
Chez
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:50 am
by ilovestrategy
man, I was 125 lbs when i joined the marines in 85'. today im 200 [X(]
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:32 am
by ZekeNY
ORIGINAL: timtom
ORIGINAL: velkro
Flashback, 1941...
I think we should've left the Germans alone after they bombed Pearl Harbor...
Well, some people did entertain the idea that the planes had to be piloted by Germans [:)]
Forget it, he's rolling.
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:17 pm
by Twotribes
Why is it, when the anti Bush crowd speaks in these threads it is just another post and gets "right on" or "well said" but when the people that disagree with that sentiment respond ( notice they didnt start it, simply responded to an inappropriate post) it is " ohh no, we are doomed cause people like you disagree" and "ok, its time to move the thread or delete it"?
I have an idea, all you people so dissastisfied with Bush and company ( the right) come to Madcows Steak house where such conversations are acceptable, and where proper responses can be provided without the call to delete or move the thread. I realize most of you wont come because at Madcows the other side isnt prevented from responding and you cant make your cheap shot and then count on the moderators to protect you.
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:37 pm
by mogami
Hi, How is moving the thread censoring it? It has nothing to do with WITP and so should be moved up to general topic. (Still Matrix forums) Anyone who can post here can still post there. But I agree it might even be better at Mad Cows. (I suggested moving it because it was not WITP not because of anything contained in any post. I don't care a hoot what anyone posts as long as it is not obscene or personal attack against another poster. )
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:06 pm
by usersatch
Exactly where in this thread is the "pro-Bush" camp being shut out? I think the majority of people who posted to this thread happen to be VERY "pro military" and patriotic. However, some, maybe a lot, also agree that the reasons for the war in the Middle East are suspect at best. I also think most people on this board are open-minded to discussion/debate with people who do not share their exact views (there are a few exceptions, like with everything).
In the case of the Iraq War, my personal feelings are that we, as a country, were whitewashed about the facts. We have no one to blame but ourselves for that. I remember watching Colin Powell in front of the UN arguing his case. I also remeber thinking that Powell was a man of virtue and honor and wouldnt bend or stretch the truth to further an agenda. With that in my mind, I guess I was "pro-war". We all bought it hook, line, and sinker. Of course, everything he said turned out to be a bald-faced lie and Powell has retired with a lot less respect than he started with. No WMD, no mobile labs, no chem weapons ready to slime American troops, no concrete link to al Queda. No where in that speech was human rights mentioned as a motive to invade. It was only after it began looking like all those premises were wrong that the Administration started spinning the human rights issues. Alongside this, back at home, you were literally labelled a "unpatriotic" if you happened to disagree with the motives for the war. I was accused of it several times. It was only until I told them of my military experiences that they were pretty speechless. The press was censored to some degree as well. One Presidential candidate was labelled un-American and a flip-flopper because he saw the light about the real motives of the war. Hello, my name is Usersatch, and I am a flip-flopper as well...I bought the whole song and dance about the war, but as the truth became apparent, I changed my mind.
Yes, the Iraqis enjoy some sort of freedom because of our military, but the MAIN point of or military is to ensure OUR freedoms. This war has restricted OUR freedoms. I often have to remind some of my active duty friends of that when they say "I wish those damn hollywood people would just shut the F up". My response is "You and I served to guarantee their right to say what they want." The great thing about a democracy is that we have the freedom to disagree with the "shouting heads" on the Fox news channel.
While we squander lives, resources, and money in Iraq, the man who was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans is still running free. AND North Korea and Iran (who I believe are our true enemies) grow stronger and dont seem too worried about the US's ability to wage war against them. I think I would have a better "warm and fuzzy" about Iraq if the entire post-war thing was managed better. But the thing that probably angers me the most about the current administration is their arrogance that they feel no accountability to explain the miserable failures--why did our boys have to buy body armor? why are we still dicking around with un-armored vehicles? why did the NG troops have to use captured weapons? why doesnt the oil flow from Iraq (we were promised that oil profits would help rebuild and finance)? why cant Haliburton account for billions of dollars (when I get in trouble for not reporting a few hundred dollars on my taxes)? why are resources being diverted from our troops to the contractors? why are the seceret police of Iraq back on the streets torturing again (I thought we were there to stop that sort of thing)? When asked about these issues, the administration doesnt feel compelled in the slightest to claim responsiblity.
So you must pardon my not-so-pro-Bush stance. I just dont like being lied to, seeing our boys get killed and maimed for non-existent WMDs, and knowing that bin Laden runs free. You are free to voice your opinions and I promise I wont squelch them out. I may not agree with them (or I might) but you will always have an open ear from me.
RE: New enlistment age
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:05 pm
by VicKevlar
Alrighty........once threads migrate to the political it's time to cease and move forward in another direction.
Political threads/topics belong over at Mad Cow's.
Game related forums are just that....for the games.
The General Discussion forum is for gaming and military history.
The ole AOW forum has migrated over to Vinny and Doggie's place. Head on over there and continue this discussion.
Locking up.