 For real? Geez, if you can't believe Army recruiters then who can you believe?  Most distressing! Yet the Heritage Foundation wants us to believe that the military has no problem recruiting high-quality soldiers. Give me a break. I think you are confused. The Heritage Foundation just did a study of who was recruited, not how they were recruited. Maybe if you work on your logic skills you too will eventually be smart enough to join the military. Let me spell it out for you. If the Heritage Foundation's conclusions are correct and the military has had no problem recruiting high-quality soldiers, the military would not need to resort to such methods. However, we have many accounts of recruiters resorting to duplicitous and aggressive methods to recruit soldiers, many of whom of less-than-stellar quality. Thus, I think reports like these should make us skeptical of the Heritage Foundation's conclusions. The Heritage Foundations findings have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how hard or easy a time the military had getting recruits. It was simply a study of recruits they had. How dense are you? Oh wise and brave n2sooners, pray tell just what rank do you hold and where in the middle east are you stationed? I am a disabled veteran. I served in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm in the US Navy on board the USS Nassau. How much military service do you have? The Heritage Foundation did indeed look at data from recruits and argued that the pool of recruits is just as high-quality as it was in 2003 and 1999. However, I sincerely doubt that the methods described in this article (and in others) are going to help draw in high-quality soldiers. Thus my skepticism of the Heritage Foundation's conclusions. Fifteen years as a Canadian fighter pilot serving with NATO. Plus I still have shrapnel in my back from being a volunteer with international aid agencies, received after my time in the service. What baffles me is how a vet could actually swallow the slanted horseshit dispensed by the the Heritage lie factory and others of that ilk. It is real simple logic. The military has an education standard. It is really hard for a high school drop out to get into the military, and if they do they are required to have a GED withing a certain time period. On the other hand, the civilian population is full of high school drop outs. The military also sends most recruits to some type of school. And that schooling isn't even figured into the Heritage study. And many who go into the military get the GI bill which pays for further schooling. Throw in that almost all officers have attended college and it is quite easy to swallow that the military has a higher education level than the general populace. So why do you think that recruiters are lying to students? I don't understand. Some recruiters have always lied. They are like used car salesmen. They have quotas they need to make and recruiting is harder in some areas than others. And I believe the Army has been cutting it pretty close on some of their goals while the other services haven't had much problem meeting their goals. So I don't find it hard to believe there are some Army recruiters out there who deceitful. This appears to be the only evidence of a lie in the clip. There are two different issues here. One issue is if the quality (presumably physical, cognitive, and moral capacities) of recruits has been maintained since the Iraq war. The second is if the military draws its forces equitably from the social classes in the United States. The Heritage Foundation findings have been used to support affirmative answers to both of these questions. Just because the military requires most recruits to have a high school degree does not mean that the quality of recruits is being maintained. If they are bringing in high school graduates who are so uninformed they believe that the Iraq war is over, or if they are helping kids cover up their drug addictions, th... willhelm said:From the article:One Colorado student taped a recruiting session posing as a drug-addicted dropout.This appears to be the only evidence of a lie in the clip. ABC News and New York affiliate WABC equipped students with hidden video cameras before they visited 10 Army recruitment offices in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.(emphasis mine) I was talking about the "posing" Okay, everyone here who has served in the US military and not heard at least one story from someone that a recruiter lied to them, raise your hand. And, if a high school student who just graduated doesn't know if the Iraq war is over or not, is that a reflection on the education of our military, or is it a reflection of the quality of education provided by our public school system? I don't know what a high school student who doesn't know about the Iraq war says about our education system or about our youth culture. But the fact that such a student could be recruited into the army says volumes about our military. The Iraq war is over. We won. The security issue and fighting terrorists is a different issue. I can see a disparity proved by the clip. true: troops are coming home. They are coming home in droves. false: no more troops are being sent to Iraq. Troop rotations ARE still occuring. True: there is almost 0 persent chace that someon elisting today will go to Iraq. False: Is the insinuation ( I guess) that we will not still be embroiled in a fight against jihadists. It is also true if you don't like the Army, you can quit. You can also koin and still conscientiously object to fighting... they will still take you. The Iraq war is over. We won.Nail. Coffin. Yet more proof the that war is over. Sadly we will spend many years (decades?) ruing the loss and may yet eventually have to get involved again. Sooners, I'd like to know your opinion about the governments obligation to disabled veterans and do you think the medical treatment of disabled vets by the government is adequate? Nail. Coffin. Yet more proof the that war is over.kmcolo, your reasoning is amusing. The objective for the war was acheived within days. The tyran was captured years ago. That was the war in Iraq. It's over. But like Bush said the war against Muslim extremism will perhaps last decades. But we did not start the war against muslim extremism is Iraq, and it will not end there. Once again you have proven a common trait among fellow clippers... Your intellectual starting point, objective newsgathering, and your opinion are all highly dependent on one another. Look into t... willhelm, your reasoning is little confusing, if not amusing. Here's how I see it. There's something going on in Iraq right now, and this something is frequently referred to as "a war" by commentators both pro and con. Thus I think it's fair to say, at least when you're speaking normal English, that there is "a war in Iraq" going on right now. Yes, Saddam is out of power. But this does not automatically translate into "the war is over," at least not in any of the logical lexica that I know about. To me, if you want to know whether the war is over, you look and see if, say, there's fighting going on on a regular basis. Those interested in this issue might also have a look at [... To me, if you want to know whether the war is over, you look and see if, say, there's fighting going on on a regular basis.By that definition there are wars in France and many other places. We went to war with Iraq. We are no longer fighting Iraq. The war with Iraq is over. They have an elected government, a constitution. Foreign Terrorists planting IEDs is not a war. But we're playing ridiculous semantical games..... the point is the recruiters were not lying about that. Sorry, I thought you said the war in Iraq, not with Iraq. To a certain extent, these are semantics, yes. However, by most accounts, there is a civil war going on in Iraq right now. Maybe not a conventional war, but the number of casualties would suggest that warfare is not an inappropriate description, even going by the lowest estimates out there. |
View the Top Clips from November 5, 2006
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
