Gee Who Would Think Recruitments Would Be Met?

[maineman]

Then tell that to John Edwards and the rest of your party

They seem to think Iraq is NOT part of the war on terror

show me one quote where Joh Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias.

I'll wait.


and in the meantime, retract the fucking LIE that I think Iran has nothing to do with the terrorists in Iraq.

I won't wait long for that.

 

[red states rule]

show me one quote where Joh Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias.

I'll wait.


and in the meantime, retract the fucking LIE that I think Iran has nothing to do with the terrorists in Iraq.

I won't wait long for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6352899.stm

Like you, Dems think Pres Bush is lying, Iran is not a big problem, or they need to 'engage' the region

 

[Gunny]

are you denying that recruiting standards have been lowered in order to meet the demands of the war in Iraq? yes or no?

It's yes AND no. Last I knew, the Army and Navy required 35% or higher AFQT, and the Marines and Air Force a 50% AFQT. The Marines would waiver down to 35%. The Air Force has a waiting list and feels no need to waiver anything.

To my knowledge, none of those standards have been lowered. However, one does not actually "fail" the ASVAB unless one score 10% or lower. That pretty much says you can't spell your name the same way twice.

IMO, it probably boils down to what the services are willing to waiver. It really isn't a fair comparison to make comparing now -- a time of war -- to the 80's-90's when the military was going through downsizing and actually buying people out.

 

[red states rule]

show me one quote where Joh Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias.

I'll wait.


and in the meantime, retract the fucking LIE that I think Iran has nothing to do with the terrorists in Iraq.

I won't wait long for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6352899.stm

still waiting for your spin MM

 

[maineman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6352899.stm

still waiting for your spin MM

from your own link:

"I don't doubt that Iran has been involved to some degree and clearly that's a problem that needs to be addressed"

which you posted in response to my statement:

"show me one quote where John Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias."

do you have to work at being that stupid, or does it just effortlessly roll off the tongue?

 

[red states rule]

from your own link:

"I don't doubt that Iran has been involved to some degree and clearly that's a problem that needs to be addressed"

which you posted in response to my statement:

"show me one quote where John Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias."

do you have to work at being that stupid, or does it just effortlessly roll off the tongue?

the dems were also saying how the intel was inflated - same old talking points

MM pulls one comment and ignore the rest - typical

 

[maineman]

let's try again:

"show me one quote where John Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias."

 

[red states rule]

let's try again:

"show me one quote where John Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias."

Still in ignore mode MM?

 

[maineman]

Still in ignore mode MM?

no democrat has denied that Iran is involved. I have not denied that Iran is involved.

 

[red states rule]

no democrat has denied that Iran is involved. I have not denied that Iran is involved.

Only the intel was maniplated or inflated

 

[maineman]

Only the intel was maniplated or inflated

claiming that the intelligence was manipulated and/or inflated is not the same thing as denying that Iran is playing a role. Everyone knows Iran is playing a role. The difference between you and me is that I have a better understanding of what role they are playing.

 

[red states rule]

claiming that the intelligence was manipulated and/or inflated is not the same thing as denying that Iran is playing a role. Everyone knows Iran is playing a role. The difference between you and me is that I have a better understanding of what role they are playing.

Yea, it is called DNC talking points

 

[maineman]

Yea, it is called DNC talking points

I never use talking points...I only use my experiences in the area, and my knowledge gains through years of study.

 

[red states rule]

I never use talking points...I only use my experiences in the area, and my knowledge gains through years of study.

You have the DNC talking points memorized

 

[TheStripey1]

For all branches? Guess they are all coming from the 20% that thinks the war is great? But that CAN'T be! Those 20% are all chicken hawks!

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mi..._strong_despite_publics_alleged_dissatisfact/

they're not chickenhawks if they sign up... that label is reserved for those that advocate war but don't/didn't bother with military service when it was their turn to go. and yes... since they now take women into the armed services, women can be chickenhawks too...

so kathianne... have you served?

 

[TheStripey1]

I never use talking points...I only use my experiences in the area, and my knowledge gains through years of study.

perhaps the DNC is taking it's talking points from you, mm... or rather, from veterans within the party...

 

[TheStripey1]

Originally Posted by maineman
I applaud the patriotism of any American who choses to serve....but let's not kid ourselves.... the DoD has, in fact, adjusted recruiting standards downward and is now accepting applicants that, six years ago would not have qualified for enlistment.

and 20 years ago those same recruits would have qualified... forty years ago those with minor criminal offenses would have been offered a choice to either join the military or go to jail....

True, CSM... but what does that have to do with the all volunteer army we have now? If we lower the standards in order to keep supplying the military with boots, what happens to the level of expertise that military is capable of being?

If all we care about is how many boots are on the ground, is it time to return to the draft?

 

[TheStripey1]

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)

I haven't seen rsr provide ANY links that back up his baseless allegations when I've asked him for them... none at all... Have you any links to those times where you say he has?

 

[mattskramer]

let's try again:

"show me one quote where John Edwards or any democrat denied the fact that Iran is assisting shiite militias."

I think that I understand what you go through with RSR. As someone, for whom he is probably a fan, once said, “Words mean things”. RSR seldom if every can back up his statements. Then he tries to change the meaning of his statement when he gets caught. It was so funny when he supplied a link that not only failed to support his statement but also stated nearly the opposite. Keep up the entertainment.

 

[TheStripey1]

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.....

Is it time to reinstate the draft? Or perhaps, Mandatory Military Service for ALL...