October 5th, 2005 3:34 pm
Army to Lower Bar for Recruits
By Mark Mazzetti / Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — Facing recruiting shortages brought on by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.
Coming off a recruiting year in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.
The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch.
The continuing violence in Iraq has made the Army's annual mission to bolster its ranks especially difficult in recent months. The Army fell nearly 7,000 recruits short of its goal for the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Friday. Army officials have said that recruiters might be faced with an even bigger challenge during the current fiscal year.
Harvey insisted that the Army was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.
Yet one Army official said that the policy change is also a concession to reality. The Army failed to meet its benchmark for 2005, and decided to widen the pool of recruits it could target during the 2006 fiscal year. The Army official spoke on condition of anonymity because the 2005 recruiting figures would not be formally announced until next week.
Before being admitted into the military, a potential recruit takes a group of tests known as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The recruits fall into categories based on their performance on the aptitude tests.
Harvey said he saw no reason why the Army standards should be more stringent than Pentagon guidelines, and pointed out that the Army already allows more Category IV troops to join the National Guard than it does the active duty ranks.
"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines," he said.
Harvey spoke to reporters during a convention of the Assn. of the U.S. Army, a private organization that supports active duty and reserve soldiers.
Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense Department benchmarks.
The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.
Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.
The Army's recruiting problems have become more pressing as the violence in Iraq has intensified, scaring potential recruits away. Recruiters in 2005 accepted more individuals whom they might have rejected previously.
Harvey denied Monday that the Army was in the midst of a recruiting crisis, pointing to a series of new initiatives — including increasing the Army's advertising budget by $130 million and putting 3,000 more recruiters on the streets — that he hoped would reverse the downward trend.
...end article
Source: found at MMsite link:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=4418
comments:
Living in denial only works to keep things tumbling down. Harvey's hope that his/their continued denial + $130 million will reverse this 'downward trend' is sadly misplaced and amounts to another error added to their ever growing pile of errors. Instead ... with this track, the slide downward will continue on down, while making a certain advertisers richer. That the money would be/could be better spent elsewhere is a no brainer; except for folks like Harvey. ~ d
LA Times article: Army to Lower Bar for Recruits
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
-
hester_prynne
Man oh man, it just goes on and on doesn't it?
Pretty soon they'll be giving murderers a choice of death row or Iraq enlistment.....
Deb, I'm very concerned, about everything. Denial is exactly it. And greed, and arrogance.
Watching it all is so painful.
Seeing the US go down like this, well, i'm just so frustrated, I feel so small, invisible. Like a pair of open eyes in strait jacket.
Most of all, I'm tremendously sad.
So much down the drain now, and the denial of the clog goes on and on. And the complacency of Americans, well the government just rotbasks in that........
I feel such an urgency to do something, but I have no idea what....
H
Pretty soon they'll be giving murderers a choice of death row or Iraq enlistment.....
Deb, I'm very concerned, about everything. Denial is exactly it. And greed, and arrogance.
Watching it all is so painful.
Seeing the US go down like this, well, i'm just so frustrated, I feel so small, invisible. Like a pair of open eyes in strait jacket.
Most of all, I'm tremendously sad.
So much down the drain now, and the denial of the clog goes on and on. And the complacency of Americans, well the government just rotbasks in that........
I feel such an urgency to do something, but I have no idea what....
H
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
I saw this article too, Deb:
And I'm glad you posted it.
The decline in the quality of a nation's soldiers, and their lack of commitment to the nation they serve, as opposed to "just doing their jobs" plagued empires as far back as the Romans, of course.
Here's an imaginative lesson from history. One that the current US leaders ( if they could read and understand it) might take to heart:
(paste)
A Lesson from Roman History
An Earlier Empire's War on Iraq
By GARY LEUPP
The Roman emperor Trajan reigned from 98 to 117 and brought the empire to its maximum extent. He is generally considered to be one of the “good emperors” who ruled from 96 to 180, and indeed his administration was marked by relative tolerance (towards Christians, for example) and efficiency. Among his mistakes, however, was an attack on the Parthian Empire beginning in 115 or 116. He personally led his troops into Mesopotamia (what we now call Iraq) capturing the capital of Ctesiphon on the Tigris near modern Baghdad. He reached the Persian Gulf and in Edward Gibbon’s words, “enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated that remote sea.” A man of boundless ambition, he dreamed of sailing from there to far-off India.
Iraq was Persian (Iranian) territory then. We call its people “Arabs” today because they speak the Arabic language, just as we call Moroccans and Egyptians and Syrians “Arabs” for the same reason. But the original Arabs inhabited the Arabian Peninsula and what today is the kingdom of Jordan. Trajan had annexed the later (then called Arabia Petraea) about 106, bringing a large Arab population into the empire for the first time. Meanwhile he drew other Semites into the fold. By conquering Mesopotamia, with a population of perhaps a million Jews, he brought almost all the world’s Jews under Roman rule. (See Norman F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, 1994).) (We tend to assume that the Jews were all concentrated in Judea, but there were according to Philo one million Jews in Alexandria, Egypt in the early first century, while Josephus writing later in the same century wrote that the Syrian cities of Antioch and Damascus had huge Jewish populations. At the time there were at least 10,000, and perhaps as many as 40,000 Jews in Rome itself.)
These Middle East conquests did not turn out well for Trajan. The Mesopotamians rose up in rebellion; a nephew of the king (who had fled beyond the Zagros Mountains) organized Parthian resistance, attacking Roman garrisons. According to F. A. Lepper (Trajan’s Parthian War, 1948) “traders and middlemen of all kinds” opposed the invasion. Local Jews who had been comfortable under Parthian rule constituted a key component of the uprising. Meanwhile Jews in Roman Judea, having revolted in 66-70, were again rebelling in what historians call the Kitos War (115-17).
Elsewhere too Semitic monotheism attached itself to political upheaval. In Cyrene (in what is now Libya) Jews revolted under the leadership of a self-styled messiah, Lukuas, in 115. His forces destroyed the Roman temples and government buildings in Cyrene, slaughtering Greeks and Romans, and advanced on Alexandria where they destroyed more pagan temples and the tomb of Pompey. Jews on the island of Cyprus rebelled as well, under one Artemion. (New Testament readers will recall reference to Jews in these far-flung locales: Simone of Cyrene who carries Jesus’ cross, and Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas, a Jew of Cyprus.)
Religious-based terrorism became the order of the day, if we’re to believe the third century Greek historian Dio Cassius, who records (no doubt with some exaggeration) that Jewish rebels killed 220,000 in Cyrene and 240,000 on Cyprus. Rome, having invaded Mesopotamia, was unable to contain the fighting to that one front. The war exacerbated simmering anti-Roman resentments, fanned religious fanaticism and intolerance, and produced terror as far away as Northern Africa. But with great effort Trajan’s forces suppressed the several Jewish revolts, although some fighting continued about a year after the emperor’s death. (As a result of this episode, according to Dio, Jews were expelled from Cyprus entirely.)
Trajan had not gone in to the war intending to provoke rebellions or terrorism. His ostensible reason was to punish Parthia for political interference in the kingdom of Armenia, which Rome considered part of its sphere of influence. But Dio Cassius called this a “pretext” and declared that Trajan simply wanted “to win renown.” Julian Bennett in his recent biography of Trajan agrees with this assessment (Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, 1997).
In 117 the proud emperor wisely elected to withdraw from Mesopotamia, and died in retreat in Cilicia. His adopted son and successor, Hadrian, returned Mesopotamia to Parthia the following year. “Thus it was,” wrote Dio, “that the Romans, in conquering Armenia, most of Mesopotamia, and the Parthians, had undergone severe hardships and dangers for naught.” But as historian B. W. Henderson put it, “it was very wise to abandon what could not be kept.” Mesopotamia resumed its former status as a prosperous part of Persia. The citizens of Rome didn’t suffer from the loss of a couple of briefly-held eastern provinces, or the revival of Parthian power up until that empire’s fall over a century later. Nor did it suffer when Hadrian, on the island of Britain at the other end of the empire, elected to build his famous barrier between Rome and “barbarian” Celtic tribes. Hadrian’s Wall, marking the boundary of Roman Britain, denoted the realistic recognition of the limits of imperial power.
* * *
Ibn Khaldun, that fine fourteenth century North African Arab Muslim scholar, one of the greatest historical thinkers of all time, cautioned against judging “by comparison and by analogy.” Many, he observed, “draw analogies between the events of the past and those that take place around them, judging the past by what they know of the present. Yet the difference between the two periods may be great, thus leading to gross error.”
Point well taken. I draw no analogies here. The current empire is mired in Iraq, drawn there by an emperor using a pretext to win renown, producing by his invasion widespread outrage conditioned by religious fanaticism. The empire’s troops face what the Romans faced in Mesopotamia---in Gibbon’s words, the legionnaires were “fainting with heat and thirst, could neither hope for victory if they preserved their ranks, nor break their ranks without exposing themselves to the most immanent danger. In this situation they were gradually encompassed by the encompassing numbers, harassed by the rapid evolutions, and destroyed by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. ”
Yes, there are parallels. But if America is comparable to Rome, George Bush is surely no Trajan, and to draw an analogy between the two would indeed produce gross error.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
And I'm glad you posted it.
The decline in the quality of a nation's soldiers, and their lack of commitment to the nation they serve, as opposed to "just doing their jobs" plagued empires as far back as the Romans, of course.
Here's an imaginative lesson from history. One that the current US leaders ( if they could read and understand it) might take to heart:
(paste)
A Lesson from Roman History
An Earlier Empire's War on Iraq
By GARY LEUPP
The Roman emperor Trajan reigned from 98 to 117 and brought the empire to its maximum extent. He is generally considered to be one of the “good emperors” who ruled from 96 to 180, and indeed his administration was marked by relative tolerance (towards Christians, for example) and efficiency. Among his mistakes, however, was an attack on the Parthian Empire beginning in 115 or 116. He personally led his troops into Mesopotamia (what we now call Iraq) capturing the capital of Ctesiphon on the Tigris near modern Baghdad. He reached the Persian Gulf and in Edward Gibbon’s words, “enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated that remote sea.” A man of boundless ambition, he dreamed of sailing from there to far-off India.
Iraq was Persian (Iranian) territory then. We call its people “Arabs” today because they speak the Arabic language, just as we call Moroccans and Egyptians and Syrians “Arabs” for the same reason. But the original Arabs inhabited the Arabian Peninsula and what today is the kingdom of Jordan. Trajan had annexed the later (then called Arabia Petraea) about 106, bringing a large Arab population into the empire for the first time. Meanwhile he drew other Semites into the fold. By conquering Mesopotamia, with a population of perhaps a million Jews, he brought almost all the world’s Jews under Roman rule. (See Norman F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, 1994).) (We tend to assume that the Jews were all concentrated in Judea, but there were according to Philo one million Jews in Alexandria, Egypt in the early first century, while Josephus writing later in the same century wrote that the Syrian cities of Antioch and Damascus had huge Jewish populations. At the time there were at least 10,000, and perhaps as many as 40,000 Jews in Rome itself.)
These Middle East conquests did not turn out well for Trajan. The Mesopotamians rose up in rebellion; a nephew of the king (who had fled beyond the Zagros Mountains) organized Parthian resistance, attacking Roman garrisons. According to F. A. Lepper (Trajan’s Parthian War, 1948) “traders and middlemen of all kinds” opposed the invasion. Local Jews who had been comfortable under Parthian rule constituted a key component of the uprising. Meanwhile Jews in Roman Judea, having revolted in 66-70, were again rebelling in what historians call the Kitos War (115-17).
Elsewhere too Semitic monotheism attached itself to political upheaval. In Cyrene (in what is now Libya) Jews revolted under the leadership of a self-styled messiah, Lukuas, in 115. His forces destroyed the Roman temples and government buildings in Cyrene, slaughtering Greeks and Romans, and advanced on Alexandria where they destroyed more pagan temples and the tomb of Pompey. Jews on the island of Cyprus rebelled as well, under one Artemion. (New Testament readers will recall reference to Jews in these far-flung locales: Simone of Cyrene who carries Jesus’ cross, and Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas, a Jew of Cyprus.)
Religious-based terrorism became the order of the day, if we’re to believe the third century Greek historian Dio Cassius, who records (no doubt with some exaggeration) that Jewish rebels killed 220,000 in Cyrene and 240,000 on Cyprus. Rome, having invaded Mesopotamia, was unable to contain the fighting to that one front. The war exacerbated simmering anti-Roman resentments, fanned religious fanaticism and intolerance, and produced terror as far away as Northern Africa. But with great effort Trajan’s forces suppressed the several Jewish revolts, although some fighting continued about a year after the emperor’s death. (As a result of this episode, according to Dio, Jews were expelled from Cyprus entirely.)
Trajan had not gone in to the war intending to provoke rebellions or terrorism. His ostensible reason was to punish Parthia for political interference in the kingdom of Armenia, which Rome considered part of its sphere of influence. But Dio Cassius called this a “pretext” and declared that Trajan simply wanted “to win renown.” Julian Bennett in his recent biography of Trajan agrees with this assessment (Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, 1997).
In 117 the proud emperor wisely elected to withdraw from Mesopotamia, and died in retreat in Cilicia. His adopted son and successor, Hadrian, returned Mesopotamia to Parthia the following year. “Thus it was,” wrote Dio, “that the Romans, in conquering Armenia, most of Mesopotamia, and the Parthians, had undergone severe hardships and dangers for naught.” But as historian B. W. Henderson put it, “it was very wise to abandon what could not be kept.” Mesopotamia resumed its former status as a prosperous part of Persia. The citizens of Rome didn’t suffer from the loss of a couple of briefly-held eastern provinces, or the revival of Parthian power up until that empire’s fall over a century later. Nor did it suffer when Hadrian, on the island of Britain at the other end of the empire, elected to build his famous barrier between Rome and “barbarian” Celtic tribes. Hadrian’s Wall, marking the boundary of Roman Britain, denoted the realistic recognition of the limits of imperial power.
* * *
Ibn Khaldun, that fine fourteenth century North African Arab Muslim scholar, one of the greatest historical thinkers of all time, cautioned against judging “by comparison and by analogy.” Many, he observed, “draw analogies between the events of the past and those that take place around them, judging the past by what they know of the present. Yet the difference between the two periods may be great, thus leading to gross error.”
Point well taken. I draw no analogies here. The current empire is mired in Iraq, drawn there by an emperor using a pretext to win renown, producing by his invasion widespread outrage conditioned by religious fanaticism. The empire’s troops face what the Romans faced in Mesopotamia---in Gibbon’s words, the legionnaires were “fainting with heat and thirst, could neither hope for victory if they preserved their ranks, nor break their ranks without exposing themselves to the most immanent danger. In this situation they were gradually encompassed by the encompassing numbers, harassed by the rapid evolutions, and destroyed by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. ”
Yes, there are parallels. But if America is comparable to Rome, George Bush is surely no Trajan, and to draw an analogy between the two would indeed produce gross error.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
from z's article ... the limits of imperial power.
Hi z...
…. imperial power has it's limits. Yes, that’s true. Bush&Co’s success has it's limits.
I guess ... my philosophy is to hold things together as best I can until their (this) cycle of power ends … doing things where I can, as I can while hoping I’m not holding unto a foolish philosophy. Example: the current authorization form that my son’s school offers for him to work part time as students authorizes his home address, phone info to be released to potential employers and “Recruiters!” I refused to sign the document until the authorization for the recruiters has been removed. This was in September – it’s a currently a work in progress. (The school was not opposed.) How many other nameless parents/guardians etc., in so many other schools across this nation are doing the same thing. I’d bet … many. Sometimes much is happening underneath these situations, but yet none of it is worthy of a newspaper article … yet it will have an effect.
The picture is simple; the majority of people (parents & young adults) do not want to be “Recruited” or have our children “Recruited” for a war we do not want … period. And no amount of advertising ‘spin’ will change our minds.
If the Harvey’s of this world think we can’t possibly mean the message we are saying …or that fancy advertisements will get us all to change our minds; then they are the ones receiving their wake up calls. As they should be.
I find I agree with Cindy Sheehan that Katerina is Bush’s Monica .. And with this, he’s finally at/meet his limit, and begun his downward spiral. She’s certainly been correct about more & more Republicans turning against him. But we probably won’t see much of it in the papers; at least right away. And if history is repeating itself … Well, Clinton still has a place after Monica – then we can expect Bush will as well.
And again, this article confirms (to me) how Bush&Co's reign in falling/failing.
As for our military … We need our military; but not for war - instead for ready, fast recovery efforts when disasters strike. So many places I read where our military personnel (low & high ranking) were upset with the delays. Standing by ready … but never called.
With the tsunami, so many stories came out about how happy, how fulfilling our military personnel felt to be of true help to others in need …instead of what they had been feeling while in/about Iraq. I’d say the majority of our military wants to help others; not harm… not just ‘randomly’ kill. And this administration has lied and mislead them; equal (if not more!) as they to us. Referring to your other thread: yes – Generals are people too, many whom have also reached their limits concerning Bush&Co … and now are coming out stronger saying so.
Which brings me to some questions … which I hope I can ask this well (not come off arrogant or insulting because I certainly don’t meant too.)
This article says it’s going to lower it’s standards … but what exactly does that mean? Having never taken this test personally … is it geared, is its bias written towards finding the “top people” willing or more likely to follow orders “without question” … or is it strictly intelligence?
If it is intelligence, and if by some our own persistence to bright change to our military … just how bright does anyone need to be to drive a truck, or a bus, or help pass out supplies to those in need? And … if this is a government by the people for the people … how many of those tested as ‘low’ are products of our lacking education system for poor people?
It was pointed out years ago that intelligent tests were flawed based on class distinctions due to money: example …
If you ask a child from a wealthy/upper middle class family what best goes together with cup: a)table b)saucer c)coffer d)plates with the answer being b saucer ~ they’ll answer saucer because they are used to using/seeing them … but it’s highly likely a child of poverty say table because cups with saucers are simply not used as part of their lifestyle growing up.
So, if lower standards simply means ‘poor people’ … who are scoring low on this test due to lack of exposure to other ways of life … that situation is easy to remedy. But if it means these really are the people who are a few (or more) cards shy of a deck -- then we have another problem to deal with. How do we help them; without marginalizing them?
I don't know ... it's a big mess; bigger than my brain can handle. And I've found when I start asking to many question; it's time for me to personally back off and stick with what I do know. Which is this ...
I know; and this article shows it plainly to me … that obviously I am not alone in not wanting to have my child “recruited.” And... that those of us thinking this way have some how been pretty successful so far in getting our message across to the powers that be. So much so, that they are scrambling to keep going on as before, as if all is 'well' ...and to that I say ... I plan to just keep on saying NO and seeing how far this collective "NO" can go.
I feel like that verizon commerical...
Can you hear us now? ... Good!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hester wrote:
Deb, I'm very concerned, about everything. Denial is exactly it. And greed, and arrogance.
Watching it all is so painful. Seeing the US go down like this, well, i'm just so frustrated, I feel so small, invisible. Like a pair of open eyes in strait jacket. Most of all, I'm tremendously sad.
Hi Hes;
I don’t know if this will be of any comfort, I hope so: but ... we’re supposed to be sad … and I’m sad too. What’s not to be depressed about? That’s why many a day I leave this board, and these discussions alone ~ it all becomes just too much because for just us alone; it is (too much.)
During those times, I do other things - preferably fun, and read things that help me understand, or lift me ... this is one, maybe it will lift you as well...
Source:
http://www.edepot.com/tao15.html
Tao Te Ching
Translation by: J. McDonald
31
Weapons are the bearers of bad news;
all people should detest them.
The wise man values the left side,
and in time of war he values the right.
Weapons are meant for destruction,
and thus are avoided by the wise.
Only as a last resort
will a wise person use a deadly weapon.
If peace is her true objective
how can she rejoice in the victory of war?
Those who rejoice in victory
delight in the slaughter of humanity.
Those who resort to violence
will never bring peace to the world.
The left side is a place of honor on happy occasions.
The right side is reserved for mourning at a funeral.
When the lieutenants take the left side to prepare for war,
the general should be on the right side,
because he knows the outcome will be death.
The death of many should be greeted with great sorrow,
and the victory celebration should honor those who have died.
~~~~
we are sitting on the right
with great sorrow
honoring those who have died
Hi z...
…. imperial power has it's limits. Yes, that’s true. Bush&Co’s success has it's limits.
I guess ... my philosophy is to hold things together as best I can until their (this) cycle of power ends … doing things where I can, as I can while hoping I’m not holding unto a foolish philosophy. Example: the current authorization form that my son’s school offers for him to work part time as students authorizes his home address, phone info to be released to potential employers and “Recruiters!” I refused to sign the document until the authorization for the recruiters has been removed. This was in September – it’s a currently a work in progress. (The school was not opposed.) How many other nameless parents/guardians etc., in so many other schools across this nation are doing the same thing. I’d bet … many. Sometimes much is happening underneath these situations, but yet none of it is worthy of a newspaper article … yet it will have an effect.
The picture is simple; the majority of people (parents & young adults) do not want to be “Recruited” or have our children “Recruited” for a war we do not want … period. And no amount of advertising ‘spin’ will change our minds.
If the Harvey’s of this world think we can’t possibly mean the message we are saying …or that fancy advertisements will get us all to change our minds; then they are the ones receiving their wake up calls. As they should be.
I find I agree with Cindy Sheehan that Katerina is Bush’s Monica .. And with this, he’s finally at/meet his limit, and begun his downward spiral. She’s certainly been correct about more & more Republicans turning against him. But we probably won’t see much of it in the papers; at least right away. And if history is repeating itself … Well, Clinton still has a place after Monica – then we can expect Bush will as well.
And again, this article confirms (to me) how Bush&Co's reign in falling/failing.
As for our military … We need our military; but not for war - instead for ready, fast recovery efforts when disasters strike. So many places I read where our military personnel (low & high ranking) were upset with the delays. Standing by ready … but never called.
With the tsunami, so many stories came out about how happy, how fulfilling our military personnel felt to be of true help to others in need …instead of what they had been feeling while in/about Iraq. I’d say the majority of our military wants to help others; not harm… not just ‘randomly’ kill. And this administration has lied and mislead them; equal (if not more!) as they to us. Referring to your other thread: yes – Generals are people too, many whom have also reached their limits concerning Bush&Co … and now are coming out stronger saying so.
Which brings me to some questions … which I hope I can ask this well (not come off arrogant or insulting because I certainly don’t meant too.)
This article says it’s going to lower it’s standards … but what exactly does that mean? Having never taken this test personally … is it geared, is its bias written towards finding the “top people” willing or more likely to follow orders “without question” … or is it strictly intelligence?
If it is intelligence, and if by some our own persistence to bright change to our military … just how bright does anyone need to be to drive a truck, or a bus, or help pass out supplies to those in need? And … if this is a government by the people for the people … how many of those tested as ‘low’ are products of our lacking education system for poor people?
It was pointed out years ago that intelligent tests were flawed based on class distinctions due to money: example …
If you ask a child from a wealthy/upper middle class family what best goes together with cup: a)table b)saucer c)coffer d)plates with the answer being b saucer ~ they’ll answer saucer because they are used to using/seeing them … but it’s highly likely a child of poverty say table because cups with saucers are simply not used as part of their lifestyle growing up.
So, if lower standards simply means ‘poor people’ … who are scoring low on this test due to lack of exposure to other ways of life … that situation is easy to remedy. But if it means these really are the people who are a few (or more) cards shy of a deck -- then we have another problem to deal with. How do we help them; without marginalizing them?
I don't know ... it's a big mess; bigger than my brain can handle. And I've found when I start asking to many question; it's time for me to personally back off and stick with what I do know. Which is this ...
I know; and this article shows it plainly to me … that obviously I am not alone in not wanting to have my child “recruited.” And... that those of us thinking this way have some how been pretty successful so far in getting our message across to the powers that be. So much so, that they are scrambling to keep going on as before, as if all is 'well' ...and to that I say ... I plan to just keep on saying NO and seeing how far this collective "NO" can go.
I feel like that verizon commerical...
Can you hear us now? ... Good!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hester wrote:
Deb, I'm very concerned, about everything. Denial is exactly it. And greed, and arrogance.
Watching it all is so painful. Seeing the US go down like this, well, i'm just so frustrated, I feel so small, invisible. Like a pair of open eyes in strait jacket. Most of all, I'm tremendously sad.
Hi Hes;
I don’t know if this will be of any comfort, I hope so: but ... we’re supposed to be sad … and I’m sad too. What’s not to be depressed about? That’s why many a day I leave this board, and these discussions alone ~ it all becomes just too much because for just us alone; it is (too much.)
During those times, I do other things - preferably fun, and read things that help me understand, or lift me ... this is one, maybe it will lift you as well...
Source:
http://www.edepot.com/tao15.html
Tao Te Ching
Translation by: J. McDonald
31
Weapons are the bearers of bad news;
all people should detest them.
The wise man values the left side,
and in time of war he values the right.
Weapons are meant for destruction,
and thus are avoided by the wise.
Only as a last resort
will a wise person use a deadly weapon.
If peace is her true objective
how can she rejoice in the victory of war?
Those who rejoice in victory
delight in the slaughter of humanity.
Those who resort to violence
will never bring peace to the world.
The left side is a place of honor on happy occasions.
The right side is reserved for mourning at a funeral.
When the lieutenants take the left side to prepare for war,
the general should be on the right side,
because he knows the outcome will be death.
The death of many should be greeted with great sorrow,
and the victory celebration should honor those who have died.
~~~~
we are sitting on the right
with great sorrow
honoring those who have died
militaries have always adjusted entry requirements to meet recruiting targets...when there are lots of recruits and low demand, they raise the bar...when there are few recruits and high demand, they lower it
this has always been the way in every country in every military
always
did i mention 'always'?
this has always been the way in every country in every military
always
did i mention 'always'?
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
~chuckling~
did you?... only a bit!
you're right they have always done this, and most likely always will...
what's that song ...oh yes; always and forever - by heatwave ... (ummm) a romantic song; and the allusion fits ... like dating… or(!) like shot down old pickup attempts in a bar as the evening is wanning …
(“no, I’m not interested in going home and getting in on with you?”
… ‘okay’ (they reply) … I’ll try they try the next one, then the next, and next …)
recruiter's recruit because they love (are in love with) what they do
or they wouldn’t be doing it. however, the majority of the people they're “wooing” don't want anything to do with them, or have them messing around with their children. period …
the message is there …
we aren't falling for the same ole lies; nor any new ones they can dream up ... we are not lowering our standards just because they are lowering theirs. and i won't be surprised at all that even with these 'lower standards' (on their end) ... that their numbers will still continue to drop
and drop
and drop ...
thanks knip
did you?... only a bit!
you're right they have always done this, and most likely always will...
what's that song ...oh yes; always and forever - by heatwave ... (ummm) a romantic song; and the allusion fits ... like dating… or(!) like shot down old pickup attempts in a bar as the evening is wanning …
(“no, I’m not interested in going home and getting in on with you?”
… ‘okay’ (they reply) … I’ll try they try the next one, then the next, and next …)
recruiter's recruit because they love (are in love with) what they do
or they wouldn’t be doing it. however, the majority of the people they're “wooing” don't want anything to do with them, or have them messing around with their children. period …
the message is there …
we aren't falling for the same ole lies; nor any new ones they can dream up ... we are not lowering our standards just because they are lowering theirs. and i won't be surprised at all that even with these 'lower standards' (on their end) ... that their numbers will still continue to drop
and drop
and drop ...
thanks knip
yeah, i think you're right...here in canada, we are having the hardest time we ever had recruiting...they want to expand the forces from 55,000 to 60,000, and just started their massive recruitment push
the september returns?
8 above normal levels...that's it...8 above normal
at this rate, by the year 2630 we should reach our target
the september returns?
8 above normal levels...that's it...8 above normal
at this rate, by the year 2630 we should reach our target
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests