Army Meets Its Retention Goal

Agree with this comment. I didn't favor the invasion, mainly because our military is much smaller now than in past years. But as you say, once any of our troops have died over there, then we have to finish the job.

As to why we went in to begin with, I think it had to do with the nature of the enemy. We were attacked over the years and on 9-11 by different terrorist groups, not a nation. So how to respond? By going into the enemy's own back yard and inviting him to a fight, as is happening now in Iraq. To the terrorist organizations, Iraq is the front line in their war against the West. We know this from statements by Al Queda, by Zarkawi and others. They come from all over the Middle East to fight us. So in that regard, we actually are fighting the real enemy.

 

From your link, I don’t see anything that shows where PFC Green would have been disqualified from enlisting under earlier standards.

According to the DoD, "Individuals who have exhibited antisocial behavior or other traits of character that would render them unfit to associate with military personnel" are disqualified, but apparently Green showed no such behavior prior to enlisting.

The Army’s standards have varied considerably over the years. At times, boys who got in trouble with the law have been given a choice of military service or prison. From 1964 – 1972, 68% of recruits had a high school education. In recent years they have tried to keep the level near 90%, which is higher than the number of HS graduates in the civilian US population of military age.

In WWII, only 45% of US troops had a HS diploma and many were virtually illiterate.

Think we got troubles? Look at what the Australian army is doing in an attempt to keep up their numbers:
"Overweight? Asthmatic? Australia's army wants you"

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-08-27T084435Z_01_SYD308550_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-AUSTRALIA-ARMY.XML&src=rss

 

I thought so, too. For the same reasons. But then, it turns out that what Bush told us wasn't the truth.

And he carefully selected the intelligence he wanted, to get his war, deleting the parts that would have cost him support for it.

And now that we know the truth, most of us who supported him have concluded that we were misled and led into war that is harmful to American interest.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 6:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Sounds a lot like the attacks on our planes patrolling the no fly zone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I guess I don't follow you Joseph, the no fly zone is America telling Iraq they can't fly their planes over Iraq. You are comparing that to Germany sinking American ships in international waters or off America's coast. If Iraq come and told us we can fly our planes over our country we'd shoot at them too.

Hitler has subs visible from the coast of this country ready to attack us at anytime vs. we are telling Saddam he can't fly his planes over his own country???

Ok, you find logic in that but I sure don't. The no fly zone did nothing to make America safe, only ones it protected was the Kurds and Shi'is. Having said that, this current war has nothing to do with making America safer, it gives the Kurds and Shi'is a chance for a better life. Is that worth American lives, I guess that's a question we each must ask ourselves??? I will say we have Americans dying for Kurds and Shi'is who want us out of their country...

 

Bottom line, of course, is that Germany attacked us, and declared war on us, before we declared war on them.

 

Closed per previous warning. LE