Gee Who Would Think Recruitments Would Be Met?

[maineman]

this is a thread about recruiting. Can you answer this question:

Do you think that the admissions standards have been lowered recently to allow recruiters to make quotas to fill the rolls for the Iraq war?

 

[red states rule]

this is a thread about recruiting. Can you answer this question:

Do you think that the admissions standards have been lowered recently to allow recruiters to make quotas to fill the rolls for the Iraq war?

Yea, I was right - you will now talk down the troops since the Dems gave up the fight

 

[maineman]

in case you misread it:

this is a thread about recruiting. Can you answer this question:
Do you think that the admissions standards have been lowered recently to allow recruiters to make quotas to fill the rolls for the Iraq war?

 

[red states rule]

in case you misread it:

and as I said - your new tactic is to talk down the troops

 

[maineman]

I am not talking down the troops...I am discussing the topic of this thread.

Why are you incapable of doing the same? I asked you a realy simple question. are you going to answer it or will you continue to spew spinning bullshit in an effort to avoid answering it? your call.

 

[Truthmatters]

just creepy, you asked him what he thought and he said Gunny answered it.

This guy could not debate a dead parrot.

he is a troll

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"standards" change all the time in an all volunteer force. Answer this question.... Are the current standards lower then any other time for the US Military?

Answer this question also, Since the inseption of the All Volunteer force have the standards ever changed?

 

[maineman]

"standards" change all the time in an all volunteer force. Answer this question.... Are the current standards lower then any other time for the US Military?

Answer this question also, Since the inseption of the All Volunteer force have the standards ever changed?

1. no
2. yes

 

[maineman]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

just creepy, you asked him what he thought and he said Gunny answered it.

This guy could not debate a dead parrot.

he is a troll

Opposed to your cut and paste jobs? How is that any different?

And last I checked RSR doesn't make claims he can not provide actaul links that say what he claimed, his links don't require a magic decoder ring to read between the lines with.

( PS I dislike defending RSR, but you two are trying to obfusicate and slander while doing similiar things)

 

[Shogun]

nothing says "proof" quite so much as anything from newsmax.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. no
2. yes

In other words the change is unimportant and is just a tool?

 

[maineman]

you are a fucking moron and really ought not to put word in MY mouth. Got it, asshole?

You asked two questions. I answered them. Then I provided a link that proved the second answer. Put some words of response in your own fucking mouth and quit trying to restate mine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So I must assume it is your contention that the only acceptable change to standards is to go up? Is this your position?

 

[maineman]

of course not. my only contention was and is that recruiting standards have, in fact, gone down recently to allow quotas to be met.

are you gonna dispute that or not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

of course not. my only contention was and is that recruiting standards have, in fact, gone down recently to allow quotas to be met.

are you gonna dispute that or not?

Not at all, but it is meaningless since all it is is a tool to use. I mean we ARE in a war, it was and is expected that recruitment would get tighter. Whats surprising is it isn't as bad as one would expect, I mean with all this " we are losing" " Its a quagmire" and such talk.....


Now I have answered your question, how about telling us why it matters to YOU that standards have changed when you admit they are not any worse then in previous years and in fact are not the worst we ever had?

 

[maineman]

Not at all, but it is meaningless since all it is is a tool to use. I mean we ARE in a war, it was and is expected that recruitment would get tighter. Whats surprising is it isn't as bad as one would expect, I mean with all this " we are losing" " Its a quagmire" and such talk.....


Now I have answered your question, how about telling us why it matters to YOU that standards have changed when you admit they are not any worse then in previous years and in fact are not the worst we ever had?

It doesn't matter to me in the least. I know full well that during Vietnam, we took lots of folks we would not take today.... but I also know that the standards today are as low as they have ever been since the inception of the AVF.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It doesn't matter to me in the least. I know full well that during Vietnam, we took lots of folks we would not take today.... but I also know that the standards today are as low as they have ever been since the inception of the AVF.

You just made a claim that I want evidence of. Previously you stated that the standards were NOT the lowest ever, NOW suddenly you are saying they are. Link please.

 

[maineman]

not at all...I said that the recruiting standards were much lower during Vietnam.

you need to learn to listen to understand, not just listen to reply

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You stated earlier in the yes no question that Standards for the ALL VOLUNTEER Force were NOT the lowest, now your claiming they are, provide evidence of this...

I made a quick look and found this site....

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards2.htm

It doesn't have a specific date but does have up to date data on pay charts so I am going to assume it is up to date. I suggest you read it.

The only big change recently was the age change. And I believe the Army takes a few more cat 2 types. I am also sure that while the policy is no Cat 3 types, this is waiverable. Which has ALWAYS been the case.