|
17 May 05 - 07:41 AM (#1486480) Subject: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Independent report According to the above report there are recruiting problems within US army. To the extent where criminal records of recruits are being overlooked to up the numbers, and laxatives being given to would be recruits to lose a few pounds and make the criteria. Recruitment teams are to be given extra training to iron out the problems. In the US what do you think the likelihood is of drafting? And what do you think the effect of that would be on the Bush administration. Are these reports being published there? |
|
17 May 05 - 09:01 AM (#1486509) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: artbrooks This information is easily available in both the print and internet media. The chance of reviving the draft is nil. |
|
17 May 05 - 09:14 AM (#1486515) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST,Rapaire Oh, for goodness sakes! This isn't news, at least not in the US. The US military has been missing its recruiting targets for some months now, and that includes the Guard and Reserves. The "stop loss" programs that are in place demonstrate that; folks deployed have said that they would like to go home, but have a really bad time leaving their buddies (this is true for any war, by the way). The chances of a draft in the US are slim to none, at least right now. A nuclear strike on the US would put one in place, but at the moment that isn't likely. Another 9/11-type thing would bother folks terribly, but isn't likely to trigger demands for a draft. The biggest reason that there isn't more protest here is because there is no draft and hence combat service isn't an immediate threat. And yes, the news in the US carries the reports of those deserting, those who are AWOL, and those who try for CO status -- at least, those who do so because of their objections to combat. The Pentagon statement is accurate: most of those who go AWOL or desert do so because of criminal, not conscience, matters. What would be the effect of a draft on the current Administration? Well, assuming that one could pass Congress -- damned little. The Bush administration ended when he was re-elected. What it would do is change the balance of power in the Congress with the elections next year, and Bush would be even more of a lame duck than he is now. (And no, impeachment wouldn't be out of the question except that Cheney would then become Prez.) If you're looking for blood in the streets sort of stuff, it wouldn't happen. |
|
17 May 05 - 09:17 AM (#1486519) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST If you're looking for blood in the streets sort of stuff, it wouldn't happen. No, not at all, there is more than enough of that in Iraq. |
|
17 May 05 - 09:21 AM (#1486527) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST,robomatic GUEST, there are those who would observe that that is the point. I'll now anticipate your self-righteous anonymous rejoinder. |
|
17 May 05 - 09:39 AM (#1486537) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Anticipate away. Rapaire if they are lowering the standards for recruits, could this be to avoid a draft, or would that number be so minute as to not make that much of a difference? Are people concerned about the calibre of men being sent to fight in their name, or again is it a very low proportion? And how do the returning/currently out there forces feel about being backed up by recruits that the forces would normally not enlist? I would be concerned if I were out there, but are they being given this information. Whether the reasons for being there are right or wrong, the forces out there need to be able to rely on their comrades? |
|
17 May 05 - 01:31 PM (#1486673) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: DougR GUEST:Either you need to get a job, or get a life. You obviously have too much spare time on your hands. DougR |
|
17 May 05 - 02:02 PM (#1486694) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: artbrooks GUEST 17 May 05-09:39 AM: the standards for recruits have not been lowered. Some recruiters have bent these standards to get recruits and meet their quota, and several have been relieved and sent back to the real Army. |
|
17 May 05 - 02:14 PM (#1486700) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Yes Art that's what was in the link I provided. I wondered if that had fed through to your people serving/returning and what their reaction had been, to fighting with back up coming from men that would not have been allowed in the army a couple of years ago. Doug fuck off. |
|
17 May 05 - 02:59 PM (#1486733) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: artbrooks GUEST 17 May 05-02:14 PM: my understanding is that those recruits who didn't meet standards were caught elsewhere up the line and sent home. Few, if any, actually made it past basic training. The issue of people serving/returning and what their (reaction is) to fighting with back up coming from men that would not have been allowed in the army a couple of years ago is not an issue. Recruitment is down, but retention is up; more here. |
|
17 May 05 - 03:15 PM (#1486741) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Rapparee The US military raised the standards around 1980. Before that, for instance, you didn't need a high school diploma to enlist. I haven't heard about the standards being lower than before, but then I haven't followed the recruiting regs since I was before I was discharged in 1971. As for supporting you out there -- speaking as ex-Infantry, I'd rather have a high school dropout I can count on when the shit hits than a PhD who agonizes over shooting back. |
|
17 May 05 - 03:17 PM (#1486742) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Thanks art. I couldn't get the link, but that's probably a fault at my end. But I accept your statement that Recruitment is down, but retention is up. Which does seem to back up rapaire's earlier statement that those out there find it hard to leave. I don't agree with US troops being there, but regardless of that, I am glad that the rogue recruits have been curtailed and the recruiters scuppered. It would have been vaguely satisfying had they lumped the two groups together and sent them out to see some live action together, with only each other for back up. But life isn't ideal. |
|
17 May 05 - 03:23 PM (#1486746) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Rapaire we cross posted. The dropping standards were not connected to those who did or didn't have academic qualifications, they were in relation to criminal records of recruits that were being deliberately overlooked. But as art points out it was uncovered and acted upon. |
|
17 May 05 - 03:33 PM (#1486749) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Thanks art. I couldn't get the link, but that's probably an end at my fault. But I accept your statement that Retentioni is down, but recruitment is up. Which does seem to back up rapist's earlier statement that way out there it is hard to find. I agree with US troops being there, but regardless I am glad that the rogue recruits have been retailed and the recruiters scupped. It would have been satisfyingly vague had they lumped the two togetherence and sent them out to see some lives together, with only life isn't ideal. |
|
17 May 05 - 05:19 PM (#1486802) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Rapparee Those with criminal records have often opted for the military as a way of life. In the past, judges would even "sentence" youthful offenders to "jail or the Army." When I was in Basic Training it was a standard joke. Can't say for sure how often it happened, although I suspect that it happened more often than we care to think about -- you know, "a good dose of military discipline'll straighten the boy right out!" Funny thing -- turned out the military didn't want them either. Far too many caused as much trouble for the Armed Services as they did for their local cops. For some time now recruiters who "enlist" too many (some always get through, but get caught further along) face rather tough prospects, from reprimands to (even!) prison time (although I don't know of anyone who's been sentenced, but it's on the books). Yes, sometimes it did "straighten out" the "punk kid" but all too often it simply added to the military's problems. Criminals, by and large, don't have the self-discipline necessary to survive (and allow others to survive) in combat. |
|
17 May 05 - 05:32 PM (#1486814) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Peace "Doug fuck off." I don't wish to be overly pedantic, but the sentence above requires a comma between Doug and fuck. The reason is this: Doug is the subject of the sentence; however, there is an implied subject before fuck. That would be 'you'. So, if you had written, "Doug, YOU fuck off", I'm sure you would have supplied the comma. I just thought I'd mention that. GUEST, please be nice to Doug. He's Republican, but he's also a good guy. BM |
|
17 May 05 - 05:52 PM (#1486826) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Criminals, by and large, don't have the self-discipline necessary to survive (and allow others to survive) in combat. Couldn't agree more Rapaire, that's exactly what I was thinking. It seemed sick that recruiters could put their own people in (more) danger through their over zealousness. |
|
17 May 05 - 05:57 PM (#1486834) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Once Famous Guest, your dick is caught in your zipper, but you don't even realize it because you are so numb and high. |
|
17 May 05 - 06:51 PM (#1486872) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Bobert Well, "Stop Loss" is gonna turn a lot of folks into criminals because it, in essence, is focing folks to continue fightin' after they *thought* they had completed their side of the contract... Problem is, the contracts are no soldier friendly and as kids learn motre and more about just how unfreindly they are, they're sayin' "No way, thank you," in increasing numbers to the recruiters.... Ahhhh, the immoral war ain't helping either... Here's the saddest part.... There are millions of Americans ridin' 'round in their gas guzzling SUV's with half a dozen "Support the Troops" who don't have a clue what the term "Stop Loss" means or how it impacts the folks who are in the service.... Bobert |
|
17 May 05 - 07:31 PM (#1486890) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: wysiwyg The recruiter's job is to recruit (by offering signup contracts) and then hand the recruits off to the MEPS people who screen and examine the recruits to see if they pass inspection before induction. Incentives for recruiters are balanced by MEPS. Hate to get in the way of the latest consiracy theory, but before y'all go too far from reality in your piossing contest, at least deal with how it all actually works. ~Susan |
|
17 May 05 - 07:38 PM (#1486892) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: wysiwyg MEPS for Dummies The mission of USMEPCOM is to process individuals for enlistment or induction into the armed services, based on DoD-approved peacetime and mobilization standards. A separate Department of Defense (DoD) agency, USMEPCOM is comprised of two geographical sectors and staffed with personnel from all military services. Three primary areas are considered in determining an applicant's qualifications for enlistment: <> aptitude for military service <> physical qualification <> background evaluation screening ~S~ |
|
17 May 05 - 07:41 PM (#1486893) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: wysiwyg Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction SUMMARY: This Directive establishes basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Armed Forces in accordance with Section 113 of Title 10, United States Code and delegates the authority to specify certain of those standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. This Directive establishes the age, citizenship, education, aptitude, physical fitness, dependency status, moral character, and other disqualifying conditions that are causes for refection for military service. Other standards my be prescribed in the event of mobilization or national emergency. It sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, or induction are able to perform military duties successfully, and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Service life. There's a document there you can download (unless you're paranoid). ~S~ |
|
17 May 05 - 07:48 PM (#1486898) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Peace "your dick is caught in your zipper" Martin, do you have any idea how much that HURTS? Don't even THINK things like that. I did that when I was a youngster. Holy shit. All you guys learn this mantra: put it away THEN tug up the zipper. |
|
17 May 05 - 08:17 PM (#1486910) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: frogprince Yeah; usta go "commando" quite a bit in summer, growing up on the farm, and the downside was increased risk of gettin' that thing in the zipper... |
|
17 May 05 - 08:58 PM (#1486938) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Peace The cabin boy, the cabin boy The dirty little nipper, Refused to wear his underwear And caught it in the zipper. |
|
18 May 05 - 12:31 AM (#1487023) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST I think the prospect of the draft being reinstated is stronger than some other posters to this thread. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in place before the end of this decade, especially if a Republican gets elected to the White House in 2008. Just a prediction. |
|
18 May 05 - 12:35 AM (#1487024) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Peace The way things seem to be going, I don't think folks'll be allowed the formality of an election in 2008. |
|
18 May 05 - 12:46 AM (#1487029) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST The scary thing is: that is almost believable. |
|
18 May 05 - 08:56 AM (#1487196) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST,Rapaire The way things are going in the US, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans lose control of at least the House next year. I'm in a state that is so "red" it's sad. In fact, I live in the only city in the state of any size that has a Democratic mayor. And the people I talk to (and I'm damed wary of taling politics!) are pretty much sick of where the country's going. They're tired of a war that we can't seem to end, they're tired of prices that are going up, they're tired of TSA and Homeland Security and privacy erosion and, most especially, the extinction of the Middle Class. I'm not going to be back to this thread, as I have just broken my promise to myself about posting politics. But that's how I see it right now. |
|
18 May 05 - 12:43 PM (#1487316) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: kendall We will do whatever we must to get our shit hooks on Iraq's oil. |
|
18 May 05 - 11:53 PM (#1487789) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: dianavan I know that during the VietNam era, young men who were brought before the court (for many different reasons) were given the choice of jail or the military. It was common practice. It was considered a solution for overcrowded jails and a need for more recruits. I don't know if this is still practiced today but it is also a logical solution to unemployment. I wondered why there were so few protests but the lack of a draft probably explains that very well. If brothers and sons and husbands were to have to fight a war for the privilege of driving a SUV, public opinion might change. I think sons and daughters of Republicans should be the first to be drafted since they are the ones that seem to believe this war is justified. |
|
19 May 05 - 12:59 PM (#1488250) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Brothers, sons, and husbands are fighting this war for oil, as are sisters, daughters, and mothers. There was a related thread a few months back, and to me the most surprising thing to come out of that discussion was the initiative to reinstate the draft was spearheaded by Democrats ...Charles Rangle in particular, if memory serves. In this initiave there was to be no college deferment, no running off to Canada. The reason the Dems gave was to equalize the perceived class bias, i.e. most of the soldiers who joined were/are from the lower socioeconomic strata. Duh...I would guess there are a few these days who join out of a patriotic desire to defend their country, but most of the recruits fresh out of high school choose the military for the training, benefits and pay, especially when the other options are not much more than a notch above flipping burgers at McDonald's. Would the Democrats have us seriously believe that class bias in the military is of paramount concern to the average constituent? When has it ever been the case that those who stood to benefit the most went to war to defend what they had? Does the Democratic Party think that reinstating the draft with no provisions for sidestepping conscription would really force those of privilege to serve? Of course not. Rangle is no different from anybody else. He likes cheap and abundant sources of oil as much as anyone on either side of the aisle in Congress. |
|
19 May 05 - 03:26 PM (#1488391) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST Brothers, sons, and husbands are fighting this war for freedom, as are some sisters, daughters, and mothers. There was a related thread a few months back, and to me the most surprising thing to come out of that discussion was the initiative to reinstate the draft was spearheaded by Democrats ...Charles Rangle in particular, if memory serves. In this initiative there was to be no college deferment, no running off to Canada. The reason the Dems gave was to equalize the perceived class bias, i.e. most of the soldiers who joined were/are from the lower socioeconomic strata. Duh...I would guess there are a few these days who join out of a patriotic desire to defend their country, but most of the recruits fresh out of high school choose the military for the training, benefits and pay, especially when the other options are not much more than a notch above flipping burgers at McDonald's. Would the Republicans have us seriously believe that class bias in the military is of paramount concern to the average constituent? When has it ever been the case that those who stood to benefit the most went to war to defend what they had? Does the Democratic Party think that reinstating the draft with no provisions for sidestepping conscription would really force those of privilege to serve? Of course. Rangle is no different from anybody else. He likes cheap and abundant sources of oil as much as anyone on either side of the aisle in Congress |
|
20 May 05 - 12:29 PM (#1489272) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: DougR Thank you, GUEST, for that courteous response. DougR |
|
21 May 05 - 12:08 AM (#1489781) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: GUEST The editorial changes made to the post by GUEST 19-May-05 12:59PM make no sense. |
|
21 May 05 - 12:20 AM (#1489787) Subject: RE: BS: US troops going AWOL From: Peace AWOL stands for Absent Without Official Leave. I don't understand the thread title in relation to the thread. Should I be worried? |