Gee Who Would Think Recruitments Would Be Met?

[Annie]

Of COURSE they are "inferior" !!! What do you think "lowering standards" means??? If that is not the absolute Webster's defintion of the word "inferior", what is???????

So, you acquiesce that the troops currently serving are of a lower calibre that those that served prior to the drop in standards?

 

[maineman]

and as much as I admire CSM, I think he is being a bit disingenuous by saying "speeders". Since he has spent all that time reading the regulations, maybe he might enlighten us on what other crimes enlistees can now be convicted of and still meet "standards".

 

[maineman]

So, you acquiesce that the troops currently serving are of a lower calibre that those that served prior to the drop in standards?

don't put words in my mouth.

I said, that the terms "inferior" and "lowering standards" play well together. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Annie]

and as much as I admire CSM, I think he is being a bit disingenuous by saying "speeders". Since he has spent all that time reading the regulations, maybe he might enlighten us on what other crimes enlistees can now be convicted of and still meet "standards".

Ok then, with that clarifying statement, I guess we can put you down for the troops serving since the drop in standards suck?

Too harsh? Ok, they are less than ideal, less than has gone before or at least since only idiots served?

Psst, this is your chance to clarify.

 

[maineman]

are you suggesting that the word "inferior" does not automatically apply if one "lowers standards"?

in·fe·ri·or /ɪnˈfɪəriər/
–adjective 1. lower in station, rank, degree, or grade (often fol. by to): a rank inferior to colonel.
2. lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base: descending into the inferior regions of the earth.
3. of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard:


if the standard today is lowered from where it was yesterday, when compared, therefore, with YESTERDAY'S standard, today's standard is, BY DEFINITION, SUBstandard... the textbook definition of the word inferior.

Here's a hint: don't play wordgames with a wordsmith.

 

[CSM]

and as much as I admire CSM, I think he is being a bit disingenuous by saying "speeders". Since he has spent all that time reading the regulations, maybe he might enlighten us on what other crimes enlistees can now be convicted of and still meet "standards".

Hmmm...well what "qualifications" do you think us baby killing war mongers need? Or were you hoping to send the Mormon tabernacle choir to fight our wars?

As I outlined, misdemeanors of a non-violent nature and traffic violations no longer disqualify an individual from enlistment. If you want the precise list, go read the reg yourself. It may comfort you to know (or not) that convicted felons cannot enlist.

I spent time reading regulations because that was part of my job...it included making recommendations for changes to those regulations. I did lots of other things beside reading regulations (including killing the enemy) so your implication that I did not do much else is not only snobbish, it is uncalled for.

As for the 'inferior' soldiers that are being recruited these days, I guess we can assume that since the standards were even lower for those enlisting during WW II and Vietnam (yes some enlisted during the VietNam era...they were called "RAs") that you think those soldiers, sailors and airmen were subhuman?

 

[maineman]

NO..CSM...I did not mean to ever imply that all you did was read the regulations..... please do not mistake my words for such a slight. It was not intended or implied. I merely point out that it is more than just "speeders" who are now allowed to enlist.

And that is, by definition, lowering the standard...which means, when compared to the previous standard that some of the current enlistees are "substandard"

that is my entire point and PLEASE do not think for a nanosecond that I would question your service or your valor.

 

[jillian]

already being discussed. Dollar short and a day late.

On some right wing blog, by people whose opinions I could care less about? Why would you think I'd bother reading their comments.

And if you know the standards have been reduced, as well as recruitment goals, why imply that recruitment goals are being met as if people are rushing to get blown up by IED's.

 

[CSM]

NO..CSM...I did not mean to ever imply that all you did was read the regulations..... please do not mistake my words for such a slight. It was not intended or implied. I merely point out that it is more than just "speeders" who are now allowed to enlist.

And that is, by definition, lowering the standard...which means, when compared to the previous standard that some of the current enlistees are "substandard"

that is my entire point and PLEASE do not think for a nanosecond that I would question your service or your valor.

Understood. However, you surely realize that there are some who read and post here that would interpret your statement as exactly that. I was merely setting the record straight for those who would tend to do so.

As for a comparison of standards among the current crop of recruits, you are technically correct. However, I don't think that a conviction for speeding, failure to yield, or any other traffic violation (along with misdemeanors of a NON-VIOLENT nature) are truly going to have a great impact on a recruits performance in combat....it might in some isolated cases, I suppose, but generally the "lowered" standards will make that much difference in performance.

I also suspect that not all recruits being enlisted these days would have failed to qualify without the change in standards. I would even venture to guess that those who would otherwise have been disqualified are in the minority anyway.

 

[maineman]

Understood. However, you surely realize that there are some who read and post here that would interpret your statement as exactly that. I was merely setting the record straight for those who would tend to do so.

As for a comparison of standards among the current crop of recruits, you are technically correct. However, I don't think that a conviction for speeding, failure to yield, or any other traffic violation (along with misdemeanors of a NON-VIOLENT nature) are truly going to have a great impact on a recruits performance in combat....it might in some isolated cases, I suppose, but generally the "lowered" standards will make that much difference in performance.

I also suspect that not all recruits being enlisted these days would have failed to qualify without the change in standards. I would even venture to guess that those who would otherwise have been disqualified are in the minority anyway.

I have no quarrel with any of that.

The point of this thread was that recruiting standards have been "lowered" ino order for recruiters to make their quotas. As I said in an earlier post, I occasionally have a beer at my Legion post with the local Navy recruiter and he relayed that very thing to me: Army and Marine Corps recruiters were having a tough time making quota and the brass had lowered the standards to help them out. I am sure that a guy with a non-violent criminal record can be every bit as effective as a combat soldier.

 

[CSM]

Er...no... they lowered the recruitment goals and have taken people who never before would have been allowed into the military.

"Never before" is wrong. The standards have changed several times well before Iraq was a dirty word. You should see what the standards were during WW II and Korea! Even as recently as the late seventies, the military was recruiting some pretty shadey characters.

 

[CSM]

I have no quarrel with any of that.

The point of this thread was that recruiting standards have been "lowered" ino order for recruiters to make their quotas. As I said in an earlier post, I occasionally have a beer at my Legion post with the local Navy recruiter and he relayed that very thing to me: Army and Marine Corps recruiters were having a tough time making quota and the brass had lowered the standards to help them out. I am sure that a guy with a non-violent criminal record can be every bit as effective as a combat soldier.

Yup. I also think that given the attitude towards military service pre-9/11 the situation was difficult for recruiters anyway. Obviously, it did not have the urgency that operations today have imposed.

I wonder if this would be such a big political issue if there were no combat operations being conducted or if the majority of US citizens supported military action in say....Dafur. I suspect not.

 

[jillian]

"Never before" is wrong. The standards have changed several times well before Iraq was a dirty word. You should see what the standards were during WW II and Korea! Even as recently as the late seventies, the military was recruiting some pretty shadey characters.

During WWII and Korea, we had a draft. People had to go so long as they passed the physical and were above certain minimum standards.

But your point is well-taken.

 

[CSM]

During WWII and Korea, we had a draft. People had to go so long as they passed the physical and were above certain minimum standards.

But your point is well-taken.

Yes we had a draft. That does not mean the ONLY enlistees were draftees. There were some who enlisted voluntarily. I know that for a fact. I was one of those who did so in the Viet Nam era. Of the 52 men in my basic training platoon, 38 enlisted voluntarily. Of that 52, 46 went to SE Asia.... of that, 12men came back unscathed.

 

[maineman]

Yup. I also think that given the attitude towards military service pre-9/11 the situation was difficult for recruiters anyway. Obviously, it did not have the urgency that operations today have imposed.

I wonder if this would be such a big political issue if there were no combat operations being conducted or if the majority of US citizens supported military action in say....Dafur. I suspect not.

I agree wholeheartedly. I tried - unsuccessfully - to get my oldest son to consider the naval academy. He is now a high school music teacher so a life at sea was probably never the best choice for him in any case. I did, however, discourage by middle son from even considering it and the fact that he graduated from high school in 2004, and we were involved in what I strongly believed (and still believe) was a terrible terrible failure of the wisdom that ought to guide American foreign policy was the sole reason I discouraged him from following in my footsteps.

 

[jillian]

Yes we had a draft. That does not mean the ONLY enlistees were draftees. There were some who enlisted voluntarily. I know that for a fact. I was one of those who did so in the Viet Nam era. Of the 52 men in my basic training platoon, 38 enlisted voluntarily. Of that 52, 46 went to SE Asia.... of that, 12men came back unscathed.

Absolutely there were enlistees during Vietnam. I'm sorry so many of your platoon suffered.

My point on this thread was that since the recruitment goals were reduced and the military open to people who wouldn't have been previously accepted for service by 2002 standards, that it was disingenuous to imply that enlistment somehow represented greater public support for the war than indicated by the low approval numbers.

 

[CSM]

I agree wholeheartedly. I tried - unsuccessfully - to get my oldest son to consider the naval academy. He is now a high school music teacher so a life at sea was probably never the best choice for him in any case. I did, however, discourage by middle son from even considering it and the fact that he graduated from high school in 2004, and we were involved in what I strongly believed (and still believe) was a terrible terrible failure of the wisdom that ought to guide American foreign policy was the sole reason I discouraged him from following in my footsteps.

LOL...well, I tried mightily to disuade my sons from joining anything that required the wearing of a uniform, to no avail with 3 of them. One joined the Navy (I swear the kid is drain bramaged) and two joined the Army. At least the one that joined the Navy had enough sense to get out after PG I. The other two are still in.

 

[CSM]

Absolutely there were enlistees during Vietnam. I'm sorry so many of your platoon suffered.

My point on this thread was that since the recruitment goals were reduced and the military open to people who wouldn't have been previously accepted for service by 2002 standards, that it was disingenuous to imply that enlistment somehow represented greater public support for the war than indicated by the low approval numbers.

I don't think I ever stated or implied that recruitment numbers equated to support/nonsupport for the action in Iraq.

I do believe that RETENTION numbers (those renlisting) may suggest something about what the troops think (beyond the reenlistment incentives....believe me, if a soldier believes something is against his principles, no amount of money will entice him to re-enlist).

 

[maineman]

LOL...well, I tried mightily to disuade my sons from joining anything that required the wearing of a uniform, to no avail with 3 of them. One joined the Navy (I swear the kid is drain bramaged) and two joined the Army. At least the one that joined the Navy had enough sense to get out after PG I. The other two are still in.

you should be quite proud! I pray for their safety.

 

[maineman]

and I hope you notice how I discreetly avoided commenting on your anti-Navy slur.


"three hots and a cot"