Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 4:50 pm:
PW where would you like them to build, in Iraq? And is exactly what are they building coffins? Iraq is not going to become the 51st state of the US folks. George

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/21/06 5:35 pm:
dont let the facts get in the way of a good screed :

Guard, active Army meet recruiting goals

By Michelle Tan
Army Times staff writer


The active Army and Army National Guard met their recruiting goals in February, according to the Defense Department.

February was the ninth consecutive successful recruiting month for the active Army and the fifth for the Guard.


According to the DoD press release issued March 10, the Army Reserve missed its February goal by 3 percent, but Army Recruiting Command numbers show the Reserve exceeded its goal in February.

Army Times typically reports Reserve recruiting numbers from USAREC rather than DoD because USAREC numbers don’t include accessions made through Human Resources Command.

• The active Army reported 6,114 accessions, 102 percent of its goal of 6,000.

• Army Guard recruiters brought in 6,583 people, 101 percent of the 6,536 goal.

• The Reserve recorded 101 percent of its goal, bringing in 1,550 people. Its goal was 1,542, according to Recruiting Command. According to DoD, the Reserve made 97 percent of its goal, bringing in 2,279 people instead of the targeted 2,359.

The Army’s continued recruiting success this year is a change from fiscal 2005, when the active Army fell 8 percent short of its yearly goal, the Army Guard missed every monthly goal and the Reserve made only 87 percent of its yearly goal.

According to a fact sheet released by the Army G-1, approximately 110,000 people have enlisted or re-enlisted in the Army’s three components so far this fiscal year. Officials have credited this year’s success to a higher number of recruiters, various enlistment incentives and new marketing and advertising campaigns.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/21/06 5:46 pm:
George,

The number of active-duty military has been steadily decreasing since 1992 (and probably earlier, but I couldn't find information prior to 1992).

Here are the number of active duty personnel for the last 13 years, as of September 30:

1992 1,739,411
1993 1,705,103
1994 1,610,490
1995 1,518,224
1996 1,471,722
1997 1,438,562
1998 1,406,830
1999 1,386,703
2000 1,384,338
2001 1,385,116
2002 1,413,577 (first year after 9/11)
2003 1,434,377
2004 1,426,836
2005 1,389,394.

As you can see, with the exceptions of 2002 and 2003 (in reaction to 9/11) the number of active duty military personnel decreased every year. Was that Bush's fault too?

What I see, George, is a return to the trend we had been seeing before 9/11. And I believe that this trend is largely because of anti-recruitment groups that no longer allow recruiting on capuses, and are in fact against recruitment ANYWHERE. To be fair, though, part of it is because the military is both more selective than it used to be and more automated than it used to be, thus requiring fewer personnel to do the same amount of work.

So this isn't a new trend caused by Bush's "mishandling" of the war. It is a trend that goes back to the beginning of the Clinton administration, and likely earlier than that too.

And if you love our troops so much, why do you assume that they are all "children" who lack the intelligence to know what they are getting into? Why do you insult the intelligence of the soldiers you claim to love? Why do you insult the intelligence of their parents as "too stupid to say no"?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/21/06 5:46 pm:

more on the military meeting or exceeding their enlistment goals :

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_3617922

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031206/loc_2006031201.shtml

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 6:56 pm:
"And if you love our troops so much, why do you assume that they are all "children" who lack the intelligence to know what they are getting into? Why do you insult the intelligence of the soldiers you claim to love? Why do you insult the intelligence of their parents as "too stupid to say no"?"


ETW- Ok so according to you when your son/daughter turns 18 don't ever give them advice or help with making any judgement calls from then on out. Ok makes sense now. With parents out their like yourself I think the governemnt has reached it's target.

George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/21/06 7:20 pm:
George,

Sorry, I meant this to be a follow-up.

I will probably give them lots of advice when they turn 18. But I won't automatically assume that they are too stupid or too young to understand the consequences of their decisions. You are the one who called them "innocent youth"... as in "too innocent (a.k.a. dumb) to really know whether they want to join the military or not", and "too innocent (a.k.a. stupid) to resist the government's 'propaganda' regarding recruitment".

If my kids are interested in joining the military, I will talk with them about the consequences of their decision, and make sure that they have all the information they need to make the decision properly. I will help them do the research. And if they still decide to join up, I'll be proud of them. What I won't do is assume that if they are joining up, it's because the government somehow brainwashed them into doing so. YOU are making that assumption and it is wrong. Our kids are smarter than that. At least mine are.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 7:29 pm:
Yes Tom I gleaned through the article and stuck in the middle of that propaganda this is what it admits..."In the U.S. Army, re-enlistments for fiscal 2005 were nearly 70,000, the highest in five years, although it was also the branch's worst year for recruiting new enlistees since 1979, when it last failed to meet its annual goal. Army recruiting for the year fell short by nearly 7,000 recruits."

I'm not fooled by Dubya and the numbers don't jive. I have family involved I know for a fact some of the same soldier's have been shoved back into Iraq three times now. Very risky Tom to keep putting he same soldier's into the fray after they've already served twice before. Should they already had a draft? Possibly. The commercial ads suggest the need or GW's possible upcoming expanse into other countries. Yup Tom that's our government.


George

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 7:33 pm:
ETW- trust me I want your children to live to be a hundred and eighteen. I gather from the ads more underlying problems then just the norm.

Thank you,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 7:56 pm:
PW,


"You're right drgade. To be offended while being protected is everyone's right as an American"


Nope and abusing the rating system want make it so!


George :)

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 03/21/06 7:58 pm:
Beelze:

This wasn't an abuse of the rating system - it was only a case of a stuck computer...
Try not to jump to such a quick conclusion. People aren't always bad just because they hold a different viewpoint.

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/21/06 8:04 pm:
This wasn't an abuse of the rating system - it was only a case of a stuck computer...


Oh? OK! Wink-wink. LOL!


Try not to jump to such a quick conclusion. People aren't always bad just because they hold a different viewpoint.

Uh-Huh! I think you've share enough wisdom for one day. Now that is very interesting concept and one that I'm sure you will include into your own repertoire.



George :)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/21/06 8:32 pm:
George,

>>>ETW- trust me I want your children to live to be a hundred and eighteen.<<<

Good. The you agree that they should be protected... as in the protection of the US military. Because our military is the only thing standing between us and the crazy "holy warriors" of Islam. And the only way for that to continue to have people to do it is through recruitment to the military via campus recruitment and TV ads. I'm so glad you agree.

>>>I gather from the ads more underlying problems then just the norm. <<<

You gather incorrectly. Bush doesn't do the military recruitment advertising any more than he runs the day-to-day operations of FEMA. So whatever rediculous beef you might have against TV ads for military recruiting, you really shouldn't put it at Bush's feet.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/21/06 10:42 pm:


Is recruiting successful because more are joining up than are being killed and disabled?

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/22/06 12:06 am:
"Good. The you agree that they should be protected... as in the protection of the US military. Because our military is the only thing standing between us and the crazy "holy warriors" of Islam. And the only way for that to continue to have people to do it is through recruitment to the military via campus recruitment and TV ads. I'm so glad you agree."

Now get your words out of my mouth. I want your children to live to see a hundred and eighteen and the same time I'm oh so thankful for term limits.

"You gather incorrectly. Bush doesn't do the military recruitment advertising any more than he runs the day-to-day operations of FEMA. So whatever rediculous beef you might have against TV ads for military recruiting, you really shouldn't put it at Bush's feet."



Nope "ETW" your missing the big picture. The boss is at the top and along with some counseling from the cabinet those directions are then carried through on. Do you really think I would be having this discussion if we were not stuck in the middle of Dubya's Iraqi war campaign. Please get a grip.


The role of the United States president as highest ranking officer in the armed forces. The Constitution provides this power, but, through the system of checks and balances, gives Congress the authority to declare war. During periods of war, presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and George W. Bush have taken active roles as commander in chief.




I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by fredg on 03/22/06 4:34 pm:
Hi,
No, I don't think I missed the point about the Gov't needing more volunteers. They sure do!
Running commercials about the Army during basketball games is "tarketing" some of the best "in shape" young people around.
fredg

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/22/06 5:14 pm:
Fred-

Some of the soldiers in Army Units have had to go back over three times now. To have to preform at that level demonstrates ignorance by our leadership. While some of those soldiers are accepting of the task there are just as many now disenchanted with the Iraqi war campaign, and the moral is down. I know! I have a close family member in charge of men in an Army Unit headed back to Iraq for his fourth time. He said what is especially a problem now is the new soldiers coming assigned to his unit that have never been to Iraq, even they don't want to go and complain. Of course they were recruited and promised the world. Only a few of those young men that enlist think they will end up in Iraq.



Fred, I like your replies. I'd bet you are older gentleman than most of the others on this board. There is a difference between people in the know and those pushing political parties or for usless points to see their name on top of the boards.



George