us army enlistment goals met

Discussion in 'Military' started by manu1959, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    for the 7th month in a row....
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/01/10/ap2442040.html

     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    thanks for the link


    i saw it on the news.....are we suposed to say that ? wouldn't wnt to get banned :duh3:
     
  4. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    I saw in the news that the US troops have not a good particularly for the kevlar coat. Studies from Pentagon shows that 80 % of the killed US soldiers in Iraq could have been saved if the kevlar was best. But the family have to pay if they want a best kevlar coat.
    As Mrs Clinton said, I think that 250 dollars more by soldier is not a lot if it can save their lives.
     
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    The thing about recruiting goals...they are 'goals'. They can be adusted as seen fit by those who make a LOT more money than most of us. :) Enlistments falling? Lower your goals. Now, you'll MEET your goals. :D
     
  6. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    That's rich, considering that it was the Clintons who slashed defense spending by almost 1/2 during the 1990s.

    Don't be fooled, Hillary Clinton is very anti-military, she is just acting pro-military for the time being. She is getting ready to run for President in 2008, so she has to appeal to as many people as possible.

    Well, the good news for me is that she won't be my Senator for very long, but the bad news is that she may eventually be my next President :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke::puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
     
  7. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    It's not because Hilary say s such things that she becomes pro-war. She just said that soldiers need better kevlar and supplies, equipment. The soldiers themselves said it to Rummie when he went to Iraq.


    But that was not the main content of my post, I quote Hilary just to end the post.

    I find that it's a shame for the US army. 80 % could have been saved. It's enormous.
     
  8. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    It is also bullshit.

    Those Kevlar vests dont do much against IEDs. I have no idea what makes people think there is anything science and technology can do to make small unit conflict casualty free. It is just not possible. There would be no US casualties at all if we had nuked the place. Seems to me that such and action would have been most effective in preventing US casualties and still removed Saddam from power.

    Also, people have to remember that the budget for the military is set by Congress. Both parties have a say in how much money is spent on what for our troops. If anyone is to blame it is the slimey politicians in both the House and the Senate who are more interested in their pork barrel projects than the latest and greatest equipment for the military folks who have to actually do the fighting.
     
  9. padisha emperor
    Offline

    padisha emperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Ratings:
    +53
    What is IED ?

    The kevlar are too small, the impacts on the bodies are often on the sides ogf the chest and in the shoulders, where the kevlar doesn't protect the soldier. (in comparaison, the french army's kevlar is bigger, and protect alos the neck. The US army should have the same one, for the wellfare of its soldiers.
     
  10. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    the french army has not fired a shot since kevlar has been invented

    for all you know the french vests are made of silk
     

Share This Page