AHEM!!! Hint Hint.

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:39 pm

It looks like this is just a fad. They'll go to Basic and quit after two weeks.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:41 pm

If this is true I appauled their enthusiasm.

Lines of young wealthy / privileged volunteering - Why isn't this in our news.?

Don't say they won't last thru boot camp, don't under estimate anyone.

I wished there was more coverage on this - is this all since Bush's speech Wednesday night?

Patsy

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:47 pm

Patsy Warnick;515985 wrote: If this is true I appauled their enthusiasm.

Lines of young wealthy / privileged volunteering - Why isn't this in our news.?

I Agree, IF it is true.

Patsy Warnick;515985 wrote: Don't say they won't last thru boot camp, don't under estimate anyone.

I wished there was more coverage on this - is this all since Bush's speech Wednesday night?

Patsy

I only said this because I've seen it happen.

:)

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:52 pm

Whither the Warrior—the Truth About Wartime Recruiting

05/01/2006

By Tim Kane and James Jay Carafano

Excerpt...

Our research suggests that the all-volunteer force has proved highly resilient during the long war. Not only is reenlistment in the active and reserve components strong, but recruiting (once the Army replenished its ranks of recruiters and revamped its reenlistment programs) is proving adequate as well. Most important, the war is not being fought on the backs of the unwilling, underprivileged and unqualified. According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 conducted at The Heritage Foundation, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen.

In fact, there are 33 percent fewer recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods than there are from the richest neighborhoods. Finally, a common sense of disbelief stems from the dual observations that recruits come disproportionately from rural areas, and also disproportionately from richer areas. Both points are true, and proportion is the key word. Urban and suburban areas still provide four out of every five enlistees. And while rural areas tend to be poorer, not all are. The logic that “military equals disproportionately rural equals poor is no better than the logic that “military equals disproportionately black equals poor. Allegations that recruiters are disproportionately targeting blacks also don’t hold water. First, whites make up 77 percent of the nation’s population and 76 percent of its military volunteers.

More to the point, we explored the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks, which range from 24 percent black to 69 percent. These areas, which account for 14.6 percent of the adult population, produced 16.6 percent of recruits in 1999 and only 14.1 percent in 2003. This hardly means that blacks aren’t courageous. On the contrary, blacks serve in higher proportions in the military, but those who serve tend to be better educated and from wealthier neighborhoods than equivalent civilians.

Turning to education, 98 percent of enlistees join up with high-school diplomas or better. By comparison, 75 percent of the general population meets that standard. Among all three-digit ZIP code areas in the United States in 2003 (one can study larger areas by isolating just the first three digits of ZIP codes), not one had a higher graduation rate among civilians than among its recruits.

In fact, since the 9/11 attacks, more volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes and fewer from the lowest-income groups. In 1999, both the highest fifth of the nation in income and the lowest fifth were slightly underrepresented among military volunteers. Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top two-fifths of income levels but have decreased among the lowest fifth.

Complete article:

ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/KHYL-6NSR2U -

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:56 pm

Should we have the draft back?

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:06 pm

I have a question?

What happened to the method/gradual procedure where our leaders served our country in the military before becoming a elected official?

Eisenhower - Kennedy - Ford - Bush 41 and now that procedure is gone?

Patsy

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:11 pm

Patsy Warnick;516013 wrote: I have a question?

What happened to the method/gradual procedure where our leaders served our country in the military before becoming a elected official?

Eisenhower - Kennedy - Ford - Bush 41 and now that procedure is gone?

Patsy

George W. also served. He was a pilot. I'm pretty sure Pelosi didn't though.

I think it would be a good idea to start the draft again. All the gang bangers and freeloaders would go to Canada.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:17 pm

Not without a passport they won't.

Patsy

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:21 pm

Patsy Warnick;516020 wrote: Not without a passport they won't.

Patsy

They will manage somehow. Maybe Mexico will be the lucky country this time.

Bill Clinton...now there's a real war hero.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:28 pm

Clint - I'm with you if these gang bangers want to play shoot 'em up - then get their enthusiasm and energy at our war, and off our city streets.

You need a passport for Mexico now too, - there maybe some loop holes in Mexico but running away - options are slim.

Pres. Clinton - now, Clint your showing alittle disrepect to our Commander in Chief.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:33 pm

Everyone is beating around the "Bush" sort of speak.

Noyone answered my question?? Military rank before becoming a elected official?

Patsy

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:36 pm

Scrat;516025 wrote: Nice vague terms, that guy who raped the girl and killed her and her family south of Baghdad was one of these recruits. He had numerous covictions on his record, never finished HS. Thankgod for waivers, eh?

75% of what is going into the Army were not considered fit 3 years ago.

Don't try to feed me bulls**t Clint.

Where do you get your information Scrat?

I gave you reliable information an it was one of many sources with the same information.

What should we do about the Russian mob? You imply one soldier represents them all. Maybe we should deport all Russians.

You're the one that started this thread with a BS spoof?

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:38 pm

I like the idea of our President having to actually serve IN A WAR. I think they would really consider ALL of the consequences before starting one.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:38 pm

Scrat;516027 wrote: Bush defended the skies of Texas from the communist onslaught on the 1 or 2 occasions he actually flew a plane. When he actually showed up for his duties.

That guys a winner.

Clinton skipped out and never said otherwise.

You can't back up your claims about the President's military service because you are making it up. You fabricate anything that will support your hate.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:44 pm

Military service before becoming an elected official may help them understand what they are doing but it would be a huge mistake to require it. Civilian oversight prevents a military leader from becoming too ambitious.

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:48 pm

I can agree with that.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:54 pm

I always thought it was a prerequisite.?

Perhaps if it was a requirement - more respect would be shown.?

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:59 pm

I don't know - do you want a Commander in Chief with clothes alittle dirty or

Do you want a Commander in Chief that just stepped out of Macy's?

Patsy

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:05 am

The one with the dirty clothes.

It shows me that they dealt with real life. They would respect the Presideny more and they would be more in touch with the people.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:29 am

I think the Commander-in-Chief should wear clothes and bathe regularly. If he wears his clothes while bathing he should wait until they are dry before he receives dignitaries.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:35 am

OK Clint, I agree.

Do you think we should have the draft? - really ?

I think it'll probably surface - theres no way around it at this point.?

Patsy

alobar51 · Post by **alobar51** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:54 am

Scrat;515947 wrote: As if this will ever happen.

800,000 Privileged Youths Enlist To Fight In Iraq

'We've Been So Selfish'

January 10, 2007 | Issue 43•02

WASHINGTON, DC—Citing a desire to finally make a difference in Iraq, in the past two weeks, more than 800,000 young people from upper-middle- and upper-class families have put aside their education, careers, and physical well-being to enlist in the military, new data from the Department Of Defense shows.

"I don't know if it was the safety and comfort of the holidays or what, but I realized that my affluence and ease of living comes at a cost," said Private Jonathan Grace, 18, who was to commence studies at Dartmouth College next fall, but will instead attend 12 weeks of basic training before being deployed to Fallujah with the 1st Army Battalion. "I just looked at my parents in their cashmere sweaters and thought, 'Who am I to go to an elite liberal arts college and spend all my time reading while, in the real world, thousands of kids my age are sacrificing their lives for our country?' It's not right."

Added Grace: "Whether I agree with the war or not, our president needs us, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let our least advantaged citizens bear the brunt of this awesome burden."

At the on-campus temporary recruitment table at Reed College in Portland, OR, the line of students eager to sign up for active duty stretched around the block Monday. Recruiters across the country reported a similar trend, with scores of young people asking how soon they could be ready to go to battle in Iraq.

"They don't have these recruitment centers where I live," said Daniel Feldman, 26, who resides in the affluent neighborhood of Brookline, MA and recently passed his bar exam. "I didn't realize you could just sign up, but now that I do, all of my friends from law school, yoga class, and temple are going to join, too. And not the Reserves either. We're talking down and dirty, right on the front lines."

Drill sergeants at boot camps in South Carolina and San Diego, though at first skeptical of the recent crop of potential Marines, said they have been impressed by their work ethic, claiming the wealthy youngsters' desire to "do their part" is undeniable.

"They haven't complained once since getting here," Sergeant Greg Forenczek said of the new upper-crust recruits. "Usually, after the first two hours, you know who's going to get dismissed early, but not with these kids. There's a fire in their eyes—a fearless passion to become U.S. soldiers"

"They inspire me," Forenczek added.

New Marine Sierra Pettingill, a 22-year-old sociology major who left Duke University before her final semester, said she felt compelled to serve after realizing she did not have a single acquaintance who had died, or even served, in Iraq.

"I was sending out invitations to my champagne-brunch birthday get-together when I heard that U.S. military casualties in Iraq had reached 2,900," Pettingill said. "I decided then and there that I would not allow this inherently unequal system to perpetuate any longer, no matter how much I want to go have martini night at the Oak Room."

Though most of the privileged enlistee youths said they were motivated by a newfound concern that America's reputation could be permanently damaged with a loss in Iraq, others have cited the examples set by their relatives as instrumental in their decision to join.

"My great-great-great-great grandfather would not have been able to make a fortune in the fur trade and real-estate business had it not been for the brave people who fought in the Revolutionary War," said 24-year-old John Jacob Astor VIII, who has put all of his business ventures on hold indefinitely. "My children are going to know the importance of stepping up to the plate when their nation needs them."

"From this day forth, the Astor name will be synonymous with sacrifice," he added.

U.S. Gen. John Abizaid, who has in the past argued against a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, now says that with the influx of nearly a million troops expected to be on the ground Feb. 1, the region should be stabilized within six weeks

This is from the Onion, isn't it???

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:24 am

Yes I admire the sentiment that future leaders of a society should go out an proove themselves in battle, thats kinda the way the Britis, French, and Germans used to be as well. Of course unfortunatly in WWI the British lost most of the guys who were supposed to go on and be the leaders of the country and empire because they all got machine gunned in ditches in flanders, (35 years later, no empire) then in WWII the Russians lost most of their regular military leaders in about 2 months at the start (along with most of their army), the Germans of course also lost almost their entire army, leaders and troops who all winded up mostly dead and Germany has never persued a militarist policy since, which is probably for the best, though the times they are a changing too. I suppose the operatve thing is sure, temper your elites in battle, but just make sure you win, cause if you don't.