"Army Secretary Noel Harvey and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army is using looser Defense Department rules that permit it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied this means it is lowering standards."

Joseph L. Galloway - Knight-Ridder News Service


Upon reading this article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today I immediately had the image of Jon Stewart doing his wonderful triple take and saying "Huh?".

Living in their own world.

The Army hasn't done well in recruiting this past year (shorty by 7,000) despite massive incentives to sign up, and with the likelihood of a protracted occupation still at even odds, they need bodies in uniform. The age requirement has also increased, and they're considering increasing it again.


Given this difficult time, it falls to the eligible war supporters among us to sign up, ship out, and support the their cause.

Honestly, thank god there's a war in Iraq right now. I'd hate to think about all those who couldn't pass "mental-qualification tests" running around the states with government issued automatic weapons and training.

My girlfriend's response, a lot more insightful than my own: "I don't get it. It makes me so sad. Its like adult abortion."

+rep to Girlfriend of Kelraz

Nothing new here. Hell they used to take High School drop outs. I really don't see the problem with it actually. Funny how some on the board support the "draft"..must think they only draft the elite, smart people of this country?

My brother inlaw served two terms in Vietnam..hes the most ignorant s.o.b I have ever met..but I am quite sure he has a lot of blood on his hands and he came back alive.

For our friend from Milwaukee, a brief recap:

1. They admit to using looser rules.
2. They admit to recruiting more folks of lower education/mental ability.
3. They say they have not lowered standards.

This is called a contradiction: i.e., 'we have lowered our standards but we have not lowered our standards.'

Hence, the image of the head jerking around and the word "Huh?".

For the record, I joined the Army at 17, before finishing high school and it was common in those days to have as much as 1/4 of the platoon without diplomas. The point is not the education level, but the contradiction.


"I have never made a mistake; once I thought I did, but I was wrong."

Ah well I read through the B.S. and took it as...the standards have always been low.

Yesterday in Bush's press conference he made a comment about "no child left behind." He said he doesn't belive it is ok to lower the standards to get kids through school. Apparently he thinks it's ok for the military though.

Define standards. Unfortunately the military looks at physical standards alot more the GT scores in most cases. Sure, there are certain MOS's that require high line scores, but you can score pretty low and still be a grunt. Now before my infantry brothers get upset, there is a difference between the soldiers who have high scores but still want to pound sand, and those that cannot score high enough for the "techinical" skills. (even though most of them are able to be taught to any level).

I do believe that the military puts too much emphasis on the physically fit side of standards. For example, I am 6"1' 230pounds. My knees take a pounding from running, but I can hump a ruck with the best of them. But since the army looks at the running on a PT test, my physical standards are not at the top.

I did score over a 120 on my test, so they say that I was intelligent and I was able to choose what I wanted to do. Unfortunately not every soldier can do that. Does that make me a better soldier then those individuals? No.

How is it a contradiction to allow more people to apply and yet not lower your standards for passing? Just because they changed what it means to be automatically failed doesn't mean they've changed the passing score.

Today Yale announced they are going to let C students (whose last names arent Bush) in , but arent going to make the courses any less difficult.

They claim they havent lowered standards.

Edit: nm, I'm tired and read something wrong :/

They claim they havent lowered standards for earning a Yale degree.

And they would be making an entirely true statement.

It really doesn't matter. Some things in the military require zero intelligence. Alot of things. The concern is finding those canidates to fill those niches that do require intelligence and are willing to use their gifts for a cause that is not always going to bring wealth and prestige when compared to what they can do as a civilian.

And lets not forget the end result of this. When these soldiers are dead, injured or leave the service Bush will wash his hands of them. Bush the draft dodging coward that he is has no compunctions against fucking over veterans.

Draft Dodger? Last I checked, being in the National Guard (even back in Vietnam) was not "dodging" the draft. Now going to Canada was... but that was not this President. I am pretty sure if my history lessons serve me right, that there were National Guard troops in Vietnam, and every other war, so going into the Guard is by no means a safe way to avoid combat.

As for Bush washing his hands of veterans, what exactly has he done to do that? Educate me so I can better understand what to expect when I get out. Has Bush Vetoed some bill that was designed to help Veterans? Has he closed Walter Reed? Eliminated our retirement? Cut back about 40% of the Active and reserve force? (no.. that was the two previous administrations).

Now, has he done all he can do? No. It is a shame when you have active duty soldiers who have to get food stamps for thier families. Even though I see the same soldiers with pimped out cars and better surround sound systems in thier houses that what I have. (But that is another issue).

Has he closed Walter Reed?
Working (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/15/bush.baseclosings.ap/) on it (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166704,00.html).

Getting into the National Guard during the Vietnam war was a well known way to "dodge" the draft. That's why people's politically connected family often had to pull strings.

Getting into the National Guard during the Vietnam war was a well known way to "dodge" the draft. That's why people's politically connected family often had to pull strings.

I hate to rehash this one, but it has been well covered on numerous talk shows and newspaper articles way back when that Dubya was slotted in ahead of others already on waiting lists for the Guard and placed in a flight training program using obsolete aircraft, that his father's cronies had a hand in getting the placement ahead of others, and that this was done solely to keep him out of active duty much the same as many other well-connected were doing at the time......

/shrug

He will always be a coward in my eyes, regardless. There are very few politicians over the last thirty years I view any better, so it is irrelevant.

Thor,


Re-read the foxnews article. Moving it to a new and BETTER site and RENAMING it walter reed is not the same as "fucking" the veterans as was posted. Nice try though.... The same services and actually better service will be provided at a new site called..... Walter Reed. That is no different then any corporation upgrading facilities.

shanno,

Read your own post. Your parenthetical can be viewed as applying to the instances that precede it, which is how I took it. Also, I didn't say that closing Walter Reed "fucked the veterans," only showed that Walter Reed was indeed being closed.

In any case, you can get some perspectives on whether veterans are being "fucked" here (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Bush_cuts_vet_benefits_041503.htm) and here (http://www.vetsforjustice.com/), though Bylimet and Fandros (and perhaps Lummus) may be able to provide first hand knowledge. I seem to recall an earlier thread that touched on reduction and/or alteration of benefits that Bylimet had input on. The real screwing right now is for troops in the field who still lack effective body armor, and whose families are having problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03equip.htm) getting reimbursement for their purchases of combat equipment.

BTW, Senator Clinton has proposed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/) expanding the size of our military forces (by 80,000 troops, I believe), a move opposed by Rumsfeld, who favors a smaller, lighter army more dependent on technology than troop strength.

EDIT: Clarified first paragraph.

This is great... I got this off your link to support your argument. One the website http://www.vetsforjustice.com/ , the following quote is great...



Veterans that have went to the Court of Appeals for Veterans, with its 12 Judges appointed by the Bush Family, are fully aware of how dishonest, and corrupt that Court is.


well... lets look at this Court of Appeals... http://www.vetapp.gov/ . To Start.. I see 7 judges.. and looking at the first one.. Chief Judge Greene. It says he was appointed in 1997... by... William J Clinton... So, this website is a joke. Not to mention the guy sueing GM because of engine knock... glad that got on the front page.

I to can find stuff that supports Bush and he treatment of Vets.. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/images/20031216-5_d121603-1-515h.html

or

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Do I think that Bush is doing all he can do? Maybe not. But to say that he is shitting on the Vets is a joke also. I have visited the Veteran Hospitals here in Michigan, and it appears they do a damn good job.

In addition, I did not say that YOU said "fucking the veterans". Stop being so defensive. I was referring to another.

Added:

As for Hillary, the ONLY reason she wants to increase the military is because of election reasons. She saw that when Kerry used it, he got a positive response. So please do not give me crap from a woman who's husband was directly responsible for the current state we are in. How do you think he balanced the budget?

Also, as for people getting "reimbursed" for things they bought and took to Iraq, should I get money back for the air mattress that I took over? It helped my back and made it easier to sleep at night. There is too much room for fraud there, and that is the main reason for the delay I am sure.

Regarding the links, I did say judge for yourself.
I have visited the Veteran Hospitals here in Michigan, and it appears they do a damn good job.
Is Bush an administrator there? A good effort on their part doesn't rely on or denote a good job by Bush. From what I understand, VA hospitals have improved over the last few years -- certainly a good thing -- but let's keep in mind cause and effect.
As for Hillary, the ONLY reason she wants to increase the military is because of election reasons. She saw that when Kerry used it, he got a positive response. So please do not give me crap from a woman who's husband was directly responsible for the current state we are in. How do you think he balanced the budget?
Heh, okay Kreskin (http://www.amazingkreskin.com/), you know Hillary's thoughts. And she's the only politican to propose an idea because it could appeal to her constituency, which in turn may get her elected. One thing I'm curious about, has Bush significantly increase the military's size since 2000? Balanced budgets...boy, those were the days, huh?
Also, as for people getting "reimbursed" for things they bought and took to Iraq, should I get money back for the air mattress that I took over? It helped my back and made it easier to sleep at night. There is too much room for fraud there, and that is the main reason for the delay I am sure.
Are you comparing an air mattress to body armor? Here's the reason given:
Officials in the Defense Department initially opposed the program last year, arguing that it would be a financial burden and could undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment used in combat.
And remember, a lot of our servicemen have families too poor to provide the kinds of items that would benefit our troops. 2.5 years into the war, and not only are troops under-equipped, but the reimbursement program is still non-functional. I'd think a serviceman of all people would find this abominable.

No I am not comparing air mattresses to body armor. The point I am saying is that who determines what should be re-embursed? There is alot of room for error. For example, in the article it mentioned a soldier that wanted to be re-embursed for a scope. What happened to that scope, and where is it now? There are alot of unanswered questions that we simply do not know. Was that scope essential to his safety? I will concede the goggles... (which I did get issued while I was there), but how was the scope a safety item?

You might consider the scope an "I'll get him before he gets me" safety item.

But here's my answer to your primary objection: Is the possibility of fraud on a scope worth the possibility of saving a soldier's life or increasing his combat effectiveness? Is the chance that Bob didn't deserve that scope of his tantamount to the very real non-existence or worn frailty of your body armor?

Ok,


Is the Army keeping the scope, or the body armor that these soldiers are buying? If so, then yea.. they need to be paid back. But are these soldiers keeping the items then demanding to be paid back? There are alot of unanswered questions. Did I say that they should not be allowed to buy this stuff? Nope.

Now, lets say that this has been going on for a few years, then the NY Times comes out with a article about how people have been filing false claims and bilking the government out of millions of dollars... then I am sure that then the story would be how fucked up the administration is for not forseeing this.

On a side note, I would be interested in seeing how goggles saved a marine for being shot in the face by a sniper... damn good goggles.

Maybe Shanno can make use of the medical services he is entitled to and have his tunnel vision treated, to allow him to see a wider picture (of course, taking the blinders off would be much simpler).

If you want to be a cheerleader for your commander in chief, by all means do so and believe many of us will appreciate your patriotism; however, appreciating your patriotism does not mean supporting your refusal to take an objective look at material presented to you. You want to keep saying Bush has not screwed vets, but you seem to have a different definition than most Vets I know. Bush has only granted pay increases to the military after initially refusing them, and then being castigated by folks in Congress and by vet's groups. He has looked for ways to reduce benefits to vets consistently. He would rather cut spending on veteran's medical benefits than cut subsidies paid to oil companies, tobbacco farmers, or agriculture in general.

Is the Army keeping the scope, or the body armor that these soldiers are buying? If so, then yea.. they need to be paid back. But are these soldiers keeping the items then demanding to be paid back?
So...our soldiers should pay for body armor? Pay for combat equipment? How many soldiers keep their equipment anyway? Did you keep -- and pay for -- anything?

If we came out of this war short just a few million in questionable expenditures and losses, I'd declare it a miracle and head to church. Protect the soldiers.

God damn right I have to pay for equipment that I LOSE or keep. If I "lost" my Kevlar, then they do a report of survey and I pay for it. You do not get to "keep" shit except for old uniforms and they are now taking those also. As a Company Commander I signed for 6.4 million worth of equipment. I do not get to keep it, and if anything is missing when I leave command, then I am ultimately responsible. If sensitive items (like weapons) come up missing, I can go to jail.

And for the record, I never seen a soldier over there without some type of body armor. Was it top of the line shit? Nope. In fact for 6 months I wore a flack jacket. Would not stop a larger caliber round, but did provide some protection. Later I was ISSUED a newer type that included SAPI plates. I was also over there in the first year, and there was alot of things that we did not have. But we made due and survived. Was I pleased that we did not have uparmored humvees? hell no, but we managed.

Also, there is the preception that body armor is the savoir. Body armor does not protect the head and face, which is usually exposed the most when a IED goes off. Body armor does not stop the kinetic energy from a roadside bomb from tearing the flesh and muscle off you arms and legs. Yes, it helps, and I know it has saved some lives, but in most cases the bomb is bigger then the kevlar. I know a fellow soldier who was killed when a sniper shot him under the arm. That is the weak part of body armor, and he had brand new stuff..

So your question on whether they keep what they buy is pertinent in the long run but avoids the primary issue of protecting soldiers, enabling them to be better combatants, and reimbursing family members that want to help. Note again that the Pentagon hasn't cited possible fraud as a reason behind their sloth in implementing reimbursement.

was also over there in the first year, and there was alot of things that we did not have. But we made due and survived.

You may have survived, and I am glad you did. Tell that to the families of the close to 2,000 soldiers that have died though. Tell them their child made due. I am aware that war results in casulties, but your casual look at this shows me you have some blinders on.

No. 1018-05
Oct 07, 2005
IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

DoD Announces Issuance of Reimbursement Policy
The Department of Defense announced today the issuance of a policy and procedures for reimbursing members of the armed forces for privately purchase protective, safety or health equipment for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom as required by Public Law 108-375, section 351.


According to this policy, the individual services shall reimburse members of the armed forces for the cost, including shipping, of any protective, safety or health equipment that was purchased by either the member or by another person for the member's personal use in these operations.


There are certain requirements for this reimbursement. First, the equipment must be included on a list of shortage equipment that certifies the items were critical to the protection, safety or health of its members. The Department of Defense has already certified a basic list that includes ballistic vests, components of ballistic vests, helmets, ballistic eye protection and hydration systems. The services can request that additional items be certified for reimbursement.


The service member must complete a Department of Defense Form 2902, "Claim for Reimbursement for Privately Purchased Protective, Safety or Health Equipment used in Combat" form, which must be submitted to his or her chain of command. Former members, who have separated from the service, may submit this form to an authorizing official designated by their former service at an address on the form. All claims must be submitted by Oct. 3, 2006. Forms will be available at http://www (http://www/). dtic. mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd2902. pdf .


The protective, safety or health equipment must have been purchased after Sept. 10, 2001, and before Aug. 1, 2004. Congress may decide to extend this statutory deadline.

Reimbursement for any one item is limited to the actual purchase price and shipping cost, supported by receipts, which cannot exceed $1,100. If service members do not have receipts, they will be reimbursed a standard estimated cost for each item, as provided on the list of certified items.


All reimbursed items become property of the U. S. government and must be turned in to the unit logistics officer or as otherwise directed by service instruction, unless they were destroyed in combat or are otherwise no longer available for good reason.


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

-- News Releases: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/ (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/)
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html)
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail)
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/ (http://www.defenselink.mil/today/)

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil/ (http://www.defenselink.mil/)
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism - http://www.defendamerica.mil/ (http://www.defendamerica.mil/)

Thanks Oss, that's very good news.

It is not a casual look... It is called doing what you have to do with what you have. I could not sit cowering in a corner for fear of what might have happened to me. I did not have all the protection I wanted, but I was not about to let it hamper me on completing my mission. And as for me telling the 2000 families, I will start doing that when you can prove that if everyone had the proper equipment, then there would be ZERO deaths or injury. I hate when people use the death number and say it was because we were ill prepared... I am sure that the 4 individuals that died when thier Bradley was blown in half would have survived with the proper equipment.

Being in the military is a dangerous job. Everytime I see the news that someone died or was injured I get sad and a sick feeling in the stomach. But you have to deal with it and move on. Call me cold and callous... or have blinders on... whatever...

Osg.
Thanks for the news post... I guess that there is nothing to bitch about now...

Well, other than the fact that we've been doing this for 2.5 years now. =)

Thanks for the bulletin, Osg.

And as for me telling the 2000 families, I will start doing that when you can prove that if everyone had the proper equipment, then there would be ZERO deaths or injury.

So, by that logic, one death is no better than two thousand?

You beat me too it Roliel. If one death could have been prevented by proper equipment that's too many. The simple fact is, many of our soldiers in Iraq still don't have what they need to effectively do their job. While being prepared and properly equipped won't save everyone, and I'm not saying it will, if it prevents one family from losing a loved one, we should do everything in our power to make sure they are prepared.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal or whatever pleases you, but I think it's idiotic to go into a war ill prepared. Be that through our troops not having proper equipment, not enough troops, or a feasible exit strategy.