Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 92 of 92
  1. #81  
    ...and if you have never served, baby-arm, I understand that the military is falling short of its recruitment goals... The soldiers could use your energy and enthusiasm at the front. To heck with the salute and lip service.

    yours truly,
    another 'damn libby'
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    What planet do you live on?
    I live on the same planet as Lebanon which has had huge pro-democracy rallies and Egypt which has been facing growing pressure to run actual fair elections this time around. I live on a planet where it is only a matter of time before the oppressed people of Iran stand up to the theocrats in Teheran in large enough numbers to make a difference and the people of Syria dance on the grave of the Assad regime.

    Why, what planet do you live on?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #83  
    Oh... almost forgot the Palestinians - just held an election recently, too.

    Also on this planet.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by perditac
    ...and if you have never served, baby-arm, I understand that the military is falling short of its recruitment goals... The soldiers could use your energy and enthusiasm at the front. To heck with the salute and lip service.

    yours truly,
    another 'damn libby'
    Though I have to admit the Air Force has been probably the most challenged with recruiting this year, it is still interesting that retention is never mentioned when trying to show how bad recruiting is going. Here are some of the latest stats with the Army, the arm of the forces that has by far the largest presence in Iraq:

    Despite Recruiting Shortfall, the Army has Increased in Size

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyj...ndstrength.htm

    There are those who might focus on the fact that the Army missed its self-imposed recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005, yet ignore the fact that the total end strength and capabilities of the Army are what matter most.

    ---------------

    The U.S. Congress typically funds the Active Army manpower program to support a 482,400 force. The Congressionally authorized end strength, however, is now 502,400 with authority to grow to 512,400 through FY09. Using emergency authority provided by Congress, the Army has increased the size of the active Army by nearly 13,000 troops since Sept. 11, 2001.

    With 123,000 Army Reserve and National Guard Soldiers activated, the Army currently has 616,000 Soldiers on active duty - and is successful at keeping Soldiers once they enlist.

    --------------

    The size and power of the Army is measured in total capability and the Army is more capable today than it was last year.

    “We have increased numbers of combat brigades, support units of action, and deployable, ready units -- the new brigade combat teams are much more powerful units than previous brigades,” Harvey said.
    Here are some of the actual numbers for the Army and the National Guard for the Fiscal Year 2005:

    Army Announces Retention, Recruiting Numbers for FY 2005

    http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/

    •Sept 05 recruiting was the highest month since 9/11
    •Last 4 months of active duty recruiting exceeded 100 percent each month

    Retention
    On October 11, 2005 the Army announced that the active-duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve exceeded Fiscal Year 2005 retention goals for the year, with annual recruitment numbers falling short of projected enlistments.

    • The active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 108 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,162 Soldiers and 69,512 Soldiers actually reenlisted.
    • The Army Reserve closed out fiscal year 2005 at 102 percent of its retention mission, with 16,485 Soldiers reenlisting. The goal was to retain 16,248 Soldiers.
    • The Army National Guard finished 2005 at 104 percent. The Guard reenlisted 33,804 Soldiers, surpassing its goal by 1,233.

    Recruitment
    September’s recruitment numbers for the Army components could indicate a stronger fiscal year in 2006 in terms of overall recruitment. Actual recruitment numbers in 2005 fell slightly short of projected enlistments for all three Army components.

    • The active-duty Army gained 8,710 new Soldiers into its ranks in September, exceeding that month’s goal of 8,365 by 345. Fiscal year 2005 active-duty Army recruitment goals stood at 92 percent complete, with 73,373 new Soldiers joining the force. The mission goal was to recruit 80,000.
    • The Army Reserve accessed 2,208 Soldiers into its ranks during September, exceeding its goal by 190 Soldiers. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Reserves Army accessed 23,859 Soldiers, 84 percent of its mission goal of 28,485.
    • The Army National Guard gained 6,048 Soldiers in September, 98 percent of its monthly goal of 6,148. A total of 50,219 Soldiers joined the Guard’s ranks by the end of the fiscal year, 80 percent of its recruitment goal of 63,002.

    The size of the active-duty Army has increased by 13,000 Soldiers since Sept. 11, 2001. The number of active-duty Soldiers is approximately 492,600. The Army Reserve end-of-year strength was roughly 189,000 Soldiers, and the National Guard’s forces numbered about 333,200.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/01/2005 at 12:43 AM.
  5. #85  
    Thank-you for your post.
    I always encourage angry youths like baby_arm to step up to the plate. We don't need him here guarding the flagpole. We need him over there...
    But since you brought it up
    Are you suggesting that the current troop level is adequate for the stated goals?
    Are you suggesting that the current troops are adequately paid and equipped?
    Are you suggesting that curent troops are free to walk away when their USUAL tours are up?
    Are you suggesting that our National Guardsmen aren't fighting and dying beside 'regular' enlisted personnel in high numbers?
    (please don't quote the fine print of their contracts to me - you would be missing my point)
    Are you suggesting recruitment standards have not been lowered?

    p
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by perditac
    Thank-you for your post.
    I always encourage angry youths like baby_arm to step up to the plate. We don't need him here guarding the flagpole. We need him over there...
    p
    Would love to enlist or seek a commission. However, due to medical disability, I wouldn't be eligible. I'd gladly step up to the plate if it were allowed.
  7. #87  
    Not if anything to say about it I have. Named must your fear be before banish it you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Sir, you do not frighten me. While I do not put violence beyond you, I am not going anywhere voluntarily. At my age, the worst you can do does not frighten me very much. While you measure your time in years, I measure mine in weeks. I am much more concerned about what you will do to innocent women and children than the little you can do to me.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Not if anything to say about it I have. Named must your fear be before banish it you can.
    Yoda??...is that you??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #89  
    One called Yoda not am I.

    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Yoda??...is that you??
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    One called Yoda not am I.
    k...it's just you have a similar accent
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    k...it's just you have a similar accent
    Help you he will.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by perditac
    Thank-you for your post.
    I always encourage angry youths like baby_arm to step up to the plate. We don't need him here guarding the flagpole. We need him over there...
    But since you brought it up
    Are you suggesting that the current troop level is adequate for the stated goals?
    Are you suggesting that the current troops are adequately paid and equipped?
    Are you suggesting that curent troops are free to walk away when their USUAL tours are up?
    Are you suggesting that our National Guardsmen aren't fighting and dying beside 'regular' enlisted personnel in high numbers?
    (please don't quote the fine print of their contracts to me - you would be missing my point)
    Are you suggesting recruitment standards have not been lowered?

    p
    No...you are now bringing up totally different issues. You said:

    "I understand that the military is falling short of its recruitment goals... "

    And I responded with the realities that where recruiting is falling short, retention is exceeding it's goals, with a net increase in the size of the army. Which is the opposite reality of what you attempted to present.

    You then took my answering your direct question to assuming a whole list of separate issues, which are questions that I think are good questions to ask at anytime during a war situation.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions