Skip to comments.Military meets, exceeds recruiting goals
Posted on 12/12/2006 2:28:38 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Seriously, Hydroshock is right. I'm in the Navy right now, but when I get commissioned I hope to be a Marine and his post was one of the funniest things I've read...I was literally laughing out loud.
If recruiting is good, the economy must be bad....is that it?
That's what Kinghorse was doing. Bringing his ideas in on the discussion. You're allowed to speak your mind, and he is allowed to speak his. It goes both ways.
You really think Norm is Jesus? Hey Norm! When did ya get the promotion???
Clinton hurt our Military, financially and otherwise. How many years were you in the service during the Clinton administration? He did almost as much damage to it as Carter did.
Heh. If that were the case then the Carter years should've been the proudest in Military history, eh?
Volunteer recruits in wartime show the purest form of patriotism, IMHO. What it means is that there are still plenty of people that "get it".
If you did not mean sarcasm, I pity you.
Very happy you were kiddin' around. It's just that sometimes it's hard to tell.
Bump for when leadpenny gets up in a few hours.
I guess that the new recruits for American Forces do not listen to or read the MSM propaganda.
Of course this fact makes recruits stupid and ignorant university drop outs, that the federal government is exploiting unfairly! Kerry thinks so. ( sarc.)
A president has to play the cards he's dealt. You're not going to get me to defend Carter or Clinton, but each were at the mercy of the times in which they served. Carter was pretty much the caretaker of the military that was trying to recover from the effects of Vietnam. Clinton had to manage what we commonly call "The Peace Dividend." The Reagan and Bush Administrations brought down the wall and Clinton had to deal with a World that was unaccustomed to having only one super power.
President Bush has had six years to prepare the country and the military for whatever has to be done. History will judge how well he has done and is doing, and it won't have anything to do with what Clinton did or didn't do with the military.
Did I serve under Clinton? No, but I have a son who spent almost the entire time as an enlisted man during the Clinton years. He made all the deployments beginning with Haiti. He's now a Captain serving in Kirkuk. If has opinions on politics in Washington and elsewhere, he pretty much keeps them to himself.
Me? I served during the last two years of the Kennedy Administration, the first two years of the Reagan Administration, and everything in between. Even after I began to become politically aware during the turbulent events of 1968, I still was busy looking out for the guys on my left and right. Soldiers don't usually have the time, nor do they care to get involved in politics.
I'm going back to bed.
"... dakine here makes punk comments and runs away."
Sorry to disappoint ya' pal, just wanted to start/see a discussion...not an echo chamber...I can't stay at the computer all day, the library kicks me out....
".. that is not what his paymasters at the DNC tell him to scream."
Do you believe the above? Or shall I replace DNC with RNC and apply it towards you? You're a tool.
Oh, I know there are good reasons for enlisting. I just like to try and look at the other side....
Only one reason for enlisting?
Military comes from higher-income backgrounds because the opportunities out in the economy do not support the continuance of that lifestyle?
Not saying all, for a small part of the enlistees it could be a factor.
The broad brush approach to the reasons for enlisting is wrong no matter what reason is chosen.
You continue to post....
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.