It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have you heard what's been happening to the US military?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So,
What about these Articles:....


All of them Signs, that US Military is in Trouble in Keeping the Soldiers on the Front as the Pentagon Demands.


O I don't have any doubt that recruitment level is suffering a little, I was just addressing the issue of where the recruits were coming from. Economically the recruits are mirroring the economic break-down of the US. The one article you quoted even enforces this opinion. Blacks don't make up over 20% of the US population, so a decrease in their numbers shows that everyone is pulling their weight.

As far as total recruit levels are going, There was a fine summary at the end of the article I quoted earlier.


Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08
Nevertheless, the Army is facing a shortage of new recruits for the recruiting year that ended in September. The shortage is minor—about 7,000 less than the goal of 80,000 new recruits—in a mil­itary with over 1 million members, but it will fuel ongoing calls for a military draft. Policymakers should remember that recruiting was also difficult in 1999 (when the economy was strong), but not so difficult in 2002–2004, in the immediate wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The Department of Defense reported 352,839 appli­cants for active component enlistment in fiscal year 2003, and it accepted 176,408.[


Very interesting that they are currently only accepting half of the volunteers. In a way it sort of makes you proud to be in such a fine county, on the other hand I feel like, "Man! What kind of idiots are volunteering if they reject half of them?"
So the number of volunteers is still up. The US is just picky about who they accept. Rightly so. You wouldn't expect anything else from the finest military in the world.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Thats all Fine and Dandy, but what Troubles me is this:



Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

This Souce Page, the Heritage Foundation is a little bit too much neo-con for me. Yet another Washington based think-tank, that is significantly infulenced by the US Goverment and its foreign Policies - like in the Reagan Era:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the Reagan Doctrine, by which the United States government channeled overt and covert support to anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua and generally supported global anti-communism during the Cold War.

Heritage foreign policy analysts didn't restrict themselves to research, but became active in efforts to provide political and military guidance to rebel forces in Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua, and to dissidents in Eastern bloc nations and Soviet republics.


en.wikipedia.org...

Angonal? Cambodia? Nicaragua? Those some Places they should NOT be proud of. During the Cold War Soviet Union was the Foundation of the "Evil Empire" - and I think Today that Role was repalced by the Great Terrorist Threat. So, ofcourse they did not find anything wrong with the US Military! IMHO, these neo-con think-tanks, like the PNAC, are just too Dangerous, because they would do anything for some good Money...

[edit on 16/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
Nice anti-war propoganda piece. Better yet, nice slap in the face to those who are being wounded and dying in Iraq.


This is what war supporters and Bush sympathisers don't get is that being anti-war isn't the same thing as being anti-army or anti-american.


The American Army is all volunteer. No-one twisted their arms to join the military. Even a 5 year old boy would understand that ' hey, I'm a soldier; hey, I fight in wars!'. That's their job, that's what they get paid to do.


Five year olds can't understand having to go to college to get a decent job. They can't understand being born into poverty, with the only feasable way to pay for college being through the army.

Some will argue that in order to reap the benefits of the army (college) it's part of a soldier's contract with the army to fight it's wars. This is true, but we have never waged an (openly) pre-emptive war before. If I had signed up with the army before the Iraq war I would have had a certain expectation from my government, that I would only be deployed if it was absolutely necessary. War is a last resort but this administration looks at it as a first resort, callously throwing away the lives of our soldiers and then down playing their sacrifice by disallowing photographs of the coffins to be taken. This should come as an insult to any serviceman. If I were killed in combat I would want a photograph of my coffin on the front page of my local newspaper. I would want people to know about and honor my sacrifice for my country, not try to sweep it under the rug and downplay it as much as possible for fear of getting bad publicity.


Instead of pointing out the horrors of war, maybe what those men and women need is a little more support, and little less debate on whether or not what they are doing there is wrong. They are they, at least for the time being. Let them do wehat they have to do, and when they all come back home, let the debates begin.

At least give them that much


I beleive what those men and women need is the voice of the American people saying "bring them back" so that they don't have to risk their lives in a war that the majority of Americans don't beleive in.

As an American (I'm assuming you are American) you should know that expressing dissent with your government is never unpatriotic. As Americans we are not bound by any type of duty to unquestionably follow and support our leadership during times of war. Just the opposite, it is during times like these that dissent is needed the most, to keep our increasingly imperialistic government in check.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Are you playing the old song?

"What will the men in power pay?"


I wonder if we would have world peace if all of the congressman who voted in favor of going to war had their eighteen year old and above children mandatorily serve on the front lines. Maybe at least they would think twice about sacrificing other people's children.

Oh and one last thing everyone, this might be somewhat unrelated, but stick to real words:



[edit on 16-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join