Posted on 05/29/2005 9:17:05 PM PDT by Crackingham
I don't care what they say about the Air Force, you're ok.
:)
Your assumption is false, reread the post I just sent you. The point is no more and no less than what I said. As previously mentioned, "consider the source". It would be illogical not to factor in who is responsible for the article, which will help one understand the political bent to the "facts" presented. Do you not agree this to be true??
The Army and Marines are not hitting their numbers while the softer services are having no problems. If that's the fact then what does it matter where it's printed?
It matters in how those facts are presented. Once again, do you not agree that (as with all things) one can present "facts" in a negative or positive manner, gloss over important "facts", omit details and obfuscate as one wishes to, depending on ones political bent? Just as with all news, how one interprets, presents and dispenses said news is just as important as the so-called facts.
And, why discourage a sober look at the facts because of the politics of the presenter? What does that serve?
Once again, you are being intellectual dishonest. If you can show me where I "discouraged a sober look at the facts", I will most humbly apologize. It is always important to actually look at the facts and one of those factors should be the intent of the presenter of said facts. Or do you really believe the source of the "facts" is completely unimportant?
Still at your service, WhiteKnight
We need to attract people the same way the private sector does. We will need to pay people better and compensate them with better housing, medical care, etc. Half of today's military is married. With today's mission, we will also need more people, no getting around that.
The number of volunteers is also affected by the fact that we are at war. It's a dangerous job. There are other dangerous jobs such as law enforcement and firefighting. It is all about recruitment, compensation, and retention. The military has the advantage of appealing to patriotism and national service.
It is ironic that the NYT laments (not really) the downward spiral at the same time the newspaper has done everything possible to denigrate our involvment in Iraq, to question the legitimachy of the war and its winnability, and to highlight incidents like Abu Garib, and to print a steady stream of negative and inaccurate reporting of what is going on over there.
The NYT and the Left would love to reinstitute the draft so they could get more support in undermining the war. It is hard to play up the casualties with an all-volunteer force that generally supports the mission.
I'm retired now, so you can say all you want.
;^)
WhiteKnight
I'm sure any future draft would work the way it did before it was thrown out with the bath water. (Aren't you clever, leadpenny?)
You draft for the lower skill jobs. At the time of induction and testing, the draftee is given a choice; take what you are given, or take a burst in years to get what you are qualified for. Many draftees made a career out of the military once they got a taste of it.
The recent highly publicized prosecution of Armed Forces personnel does not help ...
-------------------------------------------
Nonsense, anytime one employs the "consider the source" phrase the intention is to belittle or discount a priori what is being said because of who is saying it. That changes, intentionally, the subject of discourse away from facts. That is discouraging honest debate. Save your apologies please, considering that you hace called me dishonest twice I would question their sincerity.
_______________________________________________________
WK: " do you really believe the source of the "facts" is completely unimportant?"...
Yes. If the fact is that the dollar is up against the yen or that the Yankees lost their last game or that the more challenging branches of the service are experiencing problems meeting their enlistment goals while the softer branches are not (all quantifiable by definition) then it matters not one bit if the presenter is the NYT or the John Birch Society....if it's a fact that the numbers are short it's a fact.
And, some of us would rather consider the fact than the source.
Not so clever I am afraid. Although I was not drafted, I was a member of the draft military for almost eight years during the Vietnam war. I have seen today's all volunteer military up close and there is no comparison. The professionalism and morale today is decidely better.
You draft for the lower skill jobs. At the time of induction and testing, the draftee is given a choice; take what you are given, or take a burst in years to get what you are qualified for. Many draftees made a career out of the military once they got a taste of it.
I don't know what statistics you have to support the assertion that "many draftees made a career out of the military once they got a taste of it." That aside, you still have the problem of administering the draft, i.e., who gets drafted and for how long. The devil is in the details.
As the NYT indicates, there are over 60 million American men and women between 18 and 35. Even assuming you need 150,000 annually (vice 80,000), the number of personnel who are drafted make up a very small percentage of the eligible cohort. Do you have a lottery? Do you include women? Do you allow for exemptions like college, or those in critical civilian jobs? What are the age parameters for the draft?
The idea that you can get a first rate, high-tech military force by giving the draftee choice; "take what you are given, or take a burst in years to get what you are qualified for" is nonsense. It is also wasteful in terms of training resources, group cohesion, etc. If pay and benefits are appropriate and families cared for properly, Americans will answer the call to service. We also need a MSM that supports our military instead of denigrating them every chance they get.
Amazing......... they run NOTHING but negative stories about our MILITARY [mostly lies and half-truths] then site the negative story particulars as the reason for the recruitment problem.
Leftists really do believe we are all stupid.
This is what is known as a gross generalization and therefore by default an invalid assumption. Objectively the weigth one gives to facts and their conclusions is proportionally based on the veracity of the source giving the news. This is simply common sense.
Save your apologies please, considering that you hace called me dishonest twice I would question their sincerity.
No apology for the truth and I am always sincere when I apologize for anything. But there is no need to apologize for a reasoned position and a rational discussion. Additionally, I did not call you dishonest, the claim (which I hold to be true) was one of intellectually dishonest (a fine point, but one none-the-less). By unintentionally making the insinuation that I said or implied something I did not, you crossed into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. I believe you truly think you have read something into what I said that simply does not exist, more the pity. As to your overall character, I cannot vouch for it one way or the other, as I don't personally know you. The statement I made stands on its own merit and I stand by it. Based on your use of gross generalization and assumption, I believe anyone else reading these posts will conclude the same.
If the fact is that the dollar is up against the yen or that the Yankees lost their last game or that the more challenging branches of the service are experiencing problems meeting their enlistment goals while the softer branches are not (all quantifiable by definition) then it matters not one bit if the presenter is the NYT or the John Birch Society....if it's a fact that the numbers are short it's a fact.
Except when not all the "facts" are presented or are skewed (for example how much the dollar is up or that it is really down or whose fault the dollar is up/down or how badly the Yanks lost or in fact the Yanks won or whose to be fired because of the loss...etc..) then it is paramount to be fully cognizant of the truthfullness/honesty/integrity/judgment/ability/expertise of the source. I believe any rational thinker would agree to this concept. Especially if the so-called "facts" have been spun to make them appear worse than they are or to cast blame or to insinuate guilt...etc..
And, some of us would rather consider the fact than the source.
IMHO, I believe you will find yourself in the minority, regardless of which side of the political fence you find yourself. Additionally, without consideration of the veracity of the source of the facts, you remove all critical thinking and accept the "facts" and any associated spin blindly. I believe this is logically inconsistent with the way one should approach all subjects presented to one, but you know yourself better and I leave it to your judgement.
In closing, I have the impression you now hold some personal animosity for myself; there is none on my side and if I am wrong, disregard the assumption. It has been a stimulating discussion but I believe your objectivity in this matter has gone astray.
Still at your service, WhiteKnight
There was a time in living memory when there were even patriotic Democrats in Congress, and -- yes -- Democrat kids then enlisted for the same reasons Republican kids and Independent kids did.
http://www.sss.gov/viet.htm
"How the Draft has changed since Vietnam"
I don't have any statistics on the number of draftees staying in for more than two years - just personal experience. I served 12 of my 21 years in the Army while Americans were drafted. I trained some of the last draftees as a BCT Company Commander in 1973.
Call it nonsense if you like but General Shalikashvila was notable only because he made four stars. I'd like to know the numbers too, but have no idea where to find them.
As far as pay and benefits, they've been throwing money at the problem. They are not volunteering in the numbers needed. That's not the MSM's fault. That's individuals not buying what is being sold to them.
In the current climate the last thing a young guy or gal is going to do is hold out until they offer them more money. If someone has decided they don't want to end up in Iraq, they just don't sign up.
BTW, I didn't think I was clever either.
_______________________________________________
Wrong. The facts, quantifiable in every example I cited, are not subject to skewing. the dollar is op or not. The Yankees lost or didn't. The Army is hitting its numbers or it isn't. Those are facts. The rest is conjecture.
---------------------------------------------
" I have the impression you now hold some personal animosity for myself......"
Nah, I enjoy being called dishonest. Maybe I should just consider the source.
Enjoy your memorial day, WhiteKnight
those joining the NG aren't "lied to"...you would have to be blind not to know it.
Most join for the training and the payment of college tuition.
They don't like it? Fine. Get a job and save up tuition..
My training was mediocre at best and what's with this bit about payment of tuition?
All I got was 8 years of never being a soldier and never being a civilian. And except for giving me time to go to college while I was in the Guard, there were no benefits whatsoever.
I still say a person is stupid to join the Guard these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.