Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on June 03, 2005, 03:53:10 PM
-
After the recruiter horror stories, you'd think they'd be more careful what they tell reporters.
WASHINGTON -- Faced with a long, tough war in Iraq, the U.S. Army has struggled mightily with recruiting. Now the service is battling to keep the new soldiers it has brought into the force.
More of the new Army recruits are washing out of the service before completing their first enlistment, which typically runs three or four years. One recent memorandum from a senior Army personnel official branded the problem "a matter of great concern."
The Army's answer: Figure out a way to keep more of the soldiers who are now being forced out. "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend," reads the internal Army memo, which was directed to senior commanders. "By reducing attrition 1% we can save up to 3,000 initial term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."
The memo comes in the wake of a string of recruiting problems for the service. Last month, the Army announced it was 6,659 soldiers short of where it wanted to be this year, on its way to a goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers. Not long after it announced the recruiting shortfall, the service suspended recruiting operations for one day. The pause came after a series of incidents in which recruiters were found bending or breaking rules to meet their quotas of new enlistees.
To keep more soldiers in the service, the Army has told battalion commanders, who typically command 800-soldier units, that they can no longer bounce soldiers from the service for poor fitness, pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse or generally unsatisfactory performance. Typically such decisions are made at that level. Instead, the battalion commanders must send the problem soldiers' cases up to their brigade commander, who typically commands about 3,000 soldiers.
"Basically it is another set of eyes reviewing cases. It lessens the chance that we will separate people who might still make good soldiers," says Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Army officials say the move isn't unprecedented. The service made a similar decision in 1998, when the strong economy and lack of a clear mission left the military struggling to meet recruitment goals.
Still, some Army battalion commanders are less than pleased with the Army's decision to try to keep more problem soldiers in the service. "It is the guys on weight control ... school no-shows, drug users, et cetera, who eat up my time and cause my hair to gray prematurely," says one Army battalion commander. "Often they have more than one of these issues simultaneously."
And some battalion commanders question whether it makes sense for brigade commanders to make decisions about which soldiers can cut it and which must go because the brigade commanders have less daily interaction with the soldiers and their immediate commanders.
One commander says the growing attrition problem can be traced to a slip in the quality of new soldiers as recruiters have increasingly struggled to hit their monthly quotas. "There are guys showing up at units with physical problems or other issues who you would not have seen a couple of years ago," says the commander.
In March, 17.4% of all new Army recruits failed to make it through training. Another 7.3% didn't finish their first three years with their unit. The Army's goal is to keep training losses below 12% and first-term enlistee losses below 5%.
Army officials say they haven't lowered quality standards in an effort to bring in more recruits or keep those soldiers they have already got. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, "has been adamant on the subject of maintaining high standards," says one Army official.
Moreover, Army personnel experts say there is nothing in recent recruiting data to suggest that the service has taken a higher percentage of borderline soldiers, who either lack high-school degrees or score low on Army aptitude tests. "The kids who are coming into the Army are pretty high-quality kids," says Henry Leonard, the deputy director of manpower and training at the Rand Corp.'s Arroyo Center, which regularly analyzes personnel data for the Army.
Mr. Leonard says that part of the increase in attrition could be tied to the more rigorous training that soldiers are getting today because the Army is at war. In boot camp and unit training, the Army has stressed that every soldier -- from the front-line infantryman to the supply clerk -- could come under enemy fire and must be able to defend himself or herself.
When training is tougher, less-motivated soldiers tend to wash out of the service in higher numbers, Mr. Leonard says. Harder exercise and field training also could lead to more career-ending injuries, he adds.
At least one military-personnel expert questions whether the Army's changes will make much of a difference. "The higher quality the recruits, the lower the attrition," says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University and architect of the Clinton administration's policy on gays in the military. "The whole story is that quality counts."
(http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/MK-AE571_ATTRITION06022005202426.gif)
-
Hmmm... is it irony if the Army/Navy/USAF won't allow gays in the military while their recruiting number steadily decline?
-
This is the end beautiful friend. This is the end my only friend, the end.
Of our elaborate plans, the end; of everything that stands, the end. No safety or surprise, the end; I'll never look into your eyes...again.
Can you picture what will be so limitless and free?
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand in a...desperate land.
Soon, Canada will invade us and leave us prostrate and ruined.
-
How many divisions of gays you think the Army could raise, Sandman?
-
Originally posted by Toad
How many divisions of gays you think the Army could raise, Sandman?
According to the GAO, 1500 gays are kicked out per year, on average.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_report.html
How many soldiers in a division?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... is it irony if the Army/Navy/USAF won't allow gays in the military while their recruiting number steadily decline?
No.
-
The mind boggles...
-
Spartans, Romans, Cretians, Celts, and many others througout history have been of three stage sexuality. The Spartans would pair up in combat (as this would make them stay in the fight for the preservation of their partner), and when the war was over, they would get married, have children, and when that was done, they would seek out young men as sexual partners. The Romans were the same and so on. This lifestyle was considered normal for women at anytime. I'm sure that this did not apply to every individual, but for most of the history of warfare, homosexuality and bisexuality has been dominant.
-
A US division has about 10K-15k soldiers depending on the division.
-
The Big pink one? The FUrious faq Division?:D
-
Ah.. it's just a light brigade, sandy.
Enuff to get the attention of the french...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Soon, Canada will invade us and leave us prostrate and ruined.
Fear not, for we will be benevolent masters. Nay not masters, but strong and true caretakers of the great nation that was once called Amerilandia.
-
Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003
Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969 - Total 17,969
Injection Drug Use Male 6,353 Female 3,096 Total 9,449
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,877 - 1,877
Heterosexual contact Male 5,133 Female 8,127 Total 13,260
Other* Male 281 Female 276 Total 557
Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2003
Male-to-male sexual contact 440,887 Total 440,887
Injection Drug Use Male 175,988 Female 70,558 Total 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use Male 62,418
Total 62,418
Heterosexual contact Male 56,403 Female 93,586 Total 149,989
Other* Male 14,191 Female 6,535 Total20,726
-
"Fabulous 5:th" :D
-
From the American Red Cross:
Since 1981, the Centers for Disease Control has been collecting information on AIDS. Approximately 95 percent of the persons with AIDS belong to one of the
following groups:
* Sexually active homosexual or bisexual men (73 percent)
* Present or past abusers of intravenous drugs (17 percent)
* Patients who have had transfusions with blood or blood products (2 percent)
* Persons with hemophilia or other coagulation disorders (1 percent)
* Heterosexuals who have had sexual contact with someone with AIDS, or at risk
for AIDS (1 percent)
* Infants born to infected mothers (1 percent)
From the CDC:
The cumulative estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2003 in the United States is 929,985. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 920,566 with 749,887 cases in males and 170,679 cases in females. Through the same time period, 9,419 AIDS cases were estimated in children under age 13.
*********
About a million cumulative estimated diagnoses of AIDS, probably 73% are sexually active homosexual or bisexual men.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Fear not, for we will be benevolent masters. Nay not masters, but strong and true caretakers of the great nation that was once called Amerilandia.
Phew! That's a relief!
Just don't try to make us speak French when your Quebecois masters order you to do so.
;)
-
I really don't understand why there is such a shortage, especially when the prisons are brimming. How much does it cost to house the average prisoner? What do they do all day?
-
What makes you think felons would make good soldiers? Their innate respect for authority?
-
He has prolly seen the dirty dozen to many times.
his plan wont work, Lee Marvin is dead and who would train them?
-
Originally posted by Toad
What makes you think felons would make good soldiers? Their innate respect for authority?
There have been many divisions in the past that were composed of criminals. I'm not shure, but I think that the ANZAKS were of that nature, and they proved to be damn fine soldiers. You don,t have to worry about them killing each other, as they depend upon one another for survival, and even if they do, so what.
-
Well, if there were many then you should have no trouble giving me a few examples in WW1 or WW2?
I'd like to read about those.
-
(http://www.emailajoke.com/images/ver4/funny_pics/general/no_gays_in_military.jpg)
-
I'm not shure about those wars, but many cultures in the past gave their violent offenders the option of death or enslavement into the military, especially back in the times low tech warfare, when they needed as many bodies as could be counted. Besides, it's all a matter of semantics. When a violent crime is committed there is also an act that proves talent for violent behavior.
-
Wouldnt that be considered cruel and unusaul punishment? Hell if the libs have a problem with the death penalty, they would hatch baby cows over that.
-
Gays should be able to at least serve in the US navy.
Give them their own ships.
The USS Fabulous and the USS Felcher should be built and commissioned immediately.
RTR
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wouldnt that be considered cruel and unusaul punishment? Hell if the libs have a problem with the death penalty, they would hatch baby cows over that.
The people that cry about the treatment of prisoners are just people that have not experienced the divine pleasured of living around them or being one of their victims. I think their tune would change if those prisoners were to be relocated to their neighborhood, or better yet, let them live with them for awhile.
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
I'm not shure about those wars... times low tech warfare, ...talent for violent behavior.
Yeah, see I don't really think there are very many if any examples of divisions or brigades of felons making real effective combat units in times of modern, technical warfare.
Discipline, responsibility, unity, selflessness, willingness, intelligence.... these are not qualities exemplified by the vast majority of felons but they are required of modern soldiers.
The ability or propensity to perform violent acts really isn't a primary qualification of today's soldier.
Further, I have yet to see any military professionals, folks that deal directly with training today's modern high tech forces, propose that felons would make good starting material for them.
Still, if you can come up with even a single example, I'd be ready to educate myself.
-
Hang, given the statistics on AIDS, maybe the military figures it really doesn't need to introduce that degree of risk into the rather narrow confines of our military units?
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
Spartans, Romans, Cretians, Celts, and many others througout history have been of three stage sexuality. The Spartans would pair up in combat (as this would make them stay in the fight for the preservation of their partner), and when the war was over, they would get married, have children, and when that was done, they would seek out young men as sexual partners. The Romans were the same and so on. This lifestyle was considered normal for women at anytime. I'm sure that this did not apply to every individual, but for most of the history of warfare, homosexuality and bisexuality has been dominant.
so. now that enough time has past for us to make an honest and acurate assesment of that policy. how's it working out for those nations today?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, see I don't really think there are very many if any examples of divisions or brigades of felons making real effective combat units in times of modern, technical warfare.
Discipline, responsibility, unity, selflessness, willingness, intelligence.... these are not qualities exemplified by the vast majority of felons but they are required of modern soldiers.
The ability or propensity to perform violent acts really isn't a primary qualification of today's soldier.
Further, I have yet to see any military professionals, folks that deal directly with training today's modern high tech forces, propose that felons would make good starting material for them.
Still, if you can come up with even a single example, I'd be ready to educate myself.
I think you're right. I'm having a difficult time finding a modern example. I still think that there would be nothing wrong with arming them by separate container, and dropping them off in the middle of enemy territory, and if they find they way home, just drop them off a little further next time.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so. now that enough time has past for us to make an honest and acurate assesment of that policy. how's it working out for those nations today?
I figured the underlying question was wheather they made good soldiers or not, and the answer is yes. In there day they were great conquerers. For the second part, those empires are long gone now, so no assesment can be done. There are new cultures there with new forms of government
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hang, given the statistics on AIDS, maybe the military figures it really doesn't need to introduce that degree of risk into the rather narrow confines of our military units?
Hell, I don't want gays in the military.. would lend a whole new confusing meaning to the term 'friendly fire'. i wuz just havin fun with the concept.
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
The people that cry about the treatment of prisoners are just people that have not experienced the divine pleasured of living around them or being one of their victims. I think their tune would change if those prisoners were to be relocated to their neighborhood, or better yet, let them live with them for awhile.
Hmmm good logic.
So those who support the war should probably be in IRAQ right now?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so. now that enough time has past for us to make an honest and acurate assesment of that policy. how's it working out for those nations today?
Well the Roman Empire was around for a lot longer than we have been so far. So I guess choices in sexuality wasnt a problem:)
Gay relationships didnt scare them like it does this administration:)
-
.. the romans WERE gay.
that's why there's no more romans.
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
I think you're right. I'm having a difficult time finding a modern example. I still think that there would be nothing wrong with arming them by separate container, and dropping them off in the middle of enemy territory, and if they find they way home, just drop them off a little further next time.
though there were a couple of good WW2 movies on that concept, i wonder how real?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
.. the romans WERE gay.
that's why there's no more romans.
Yeah well..........they got it from the Greeks yanno..........wait.......... .Romans..........Greeks...... .......*sounds of paper shuffling and a calculator*
I'm not sure of much else, but I think I've found a link to explain Roman Catholic priests who like boys. Egad!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hang, given the statistics on AIDS, maybe the military figures it really doesn't need to introduce that degree of risk into the rather narrow confines of our military units?
You think only gays get AIDS? I'm sure none of the prostitutes the straight guys frequent are a source.
-
What I think? What I think doesn't matter.
What the CDC thinks... that probably matters.
Approximately 95 percent of the persons with AIDS belong to one of the
following groups:
* Sexually active homosexual or bisexual men (73 percent)
* Present or past abusers of intravenous drugs (17 percent)
* Patients who have had transfusions with blood or blood products (2 percent)
* Persons with hemophilia or other coagulation disorders (1 percent)
* Heterosexuals who have had sexual contact with someone with AIDS, or at risk for AIDS (1 percent)
* Infants born to infected mothers (1 percent)
73% vs 1%.... what do you think?
-
waitaminute.. gay guys go to prostitutes?... no.. wait.. the prostitutes are gay?? no wait, I almost got it.. gay cheerleaders give it to monkies....
oh damn. I almost had it.
-
Don't worry, it'll come round again.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well the Roman Empire was around for a lot longer than we have been so far. So I guess choices in sexuality wasnt a problem:)
Gay relationships didnt scare them like it does this administration:)
Yeah, the veiw on sexuality in those days was not as cut and dry as it is today. I'm not even sure if they had a word for homosexuality, as they thought nothing of it. I personally don't care what other people do behind closed doors, as long as I don't have to watch. Even if I did care, there is nothing I could do about it anyways.
-
yah.. it's no biggie if the priests are buggering the altar boys.
I ain't catholic either.
-
The Romans held slaves and thought nothing of it either. Did you have an actual point?
-
Well, he's only at 142 posts... give him a chance. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
What I think? What I think doesn't matter.
What the CDC thinks... that probably matters.
73% vs 1%.... what do you think?
Where's the figures on men that frequent prostitutes? Ya left that stat out.
-
Sorry. Let me make it more clear for you.
* Heterosexuals who have had sexual contact with someone with AIDS, or at risk for AIDS (1 percent)
That would be your straight men (or women) that frequent prostitutes.
1%
-
Bzzzzt. You're cherry picking the data.
-
LOL. Really?
You're not reading it.
They account for 95% of people with AIDS.
You tell me then. They've CATEGORIZED 95% of the AIDS case.
Where's the figures on men that frequent prostitutes?
It's likely in that 95% don't you think? At best, if it's not in there at ALL and EVERY other case in the missing 5% is "men that frequent prostitutes" you're left with.......
uh.... 5%.
Against 73% Sexually active homosexual or bisexual men.
Maybe you were thinking "men that frequent prostitutes" is mysteriously mis-categorized in "infants"?
Quit digging... you can still climb out.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL. Really?
You're not reading it.
They account for 95% of people with AIDS.
You tell me then. They've CATEGORIZED 95% of the AIDS case.
Where's the figures on men that frequent prostitutes?
Gimme a link. I've been looking thru the CDC site and can't seem to find your data.
-
Still looking and nothing so far to support your data. Where's that CDC link?
-
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidscases
That's not the exact one but it gives the raw numbers in the categories shown here.
There's another one at CDC that reduces the numbers to percentages but I'd have to look a while. I took a wrong turn at CDC.
-
Here is the only relevant statistic that deals with AIDS:
It is possible to be 100% sure that you will not contract AIDS as an adult.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The Romans held slaves and thought nothing of it either. Did you have an actual point?
We have millions of slaves, we just keep them as distant caretakers and think nothing of it.
-
Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969
Injection Drug Use 6,353
Heterosexual contact 5,133
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,877
Other* 281
Odd, that does not work out to 73% vs 1%.
-
OK, found it.
Raw numbers on CDC site, percentages here
http://www.textfiles.com/sex/aids02.txt
listed as sourced by the Red Cross.
-
Well, even if 100% of those with aids are homosexual men, try as hard as you can to refrain from having sex with them, and if your partners noodle tastes like poop, he is most likely gay.
-
LOL, yeah that'd be one clue I guess. Especially if you're a guy. ;)
-
AIDS-1 Rev. May 1986
A 20 year old report during the height of Reagan's homophobic AIDS campaign. Wasn't the original title "The Gay Plague"? Nice try.
-
Awww.. poor boy.
You didn't looke at the CDC site and run the percentages yourself did ya?
And you think the Red Cross is homophobic and not to be trusted with stats?
-
I posted the CDC numbers from 2004, not 1986 like you did.
Oh, and in 1986 the Red Cross was definitely homophobic, just like 90% of the country was then.
-
The 2003 only CDC estimates show
16.2 % Heterosexual contact
56.8% Male-to-male sexual contact
The Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2003 stats show:
7.5% Heterosexual contact
58.7% Male-to-male sexual contact.
I stand corrected but the point is still valid.
-
I'll admit gays are at higher risk, but there are many risk groups. My point is still valid as well.
The military does a pretty good medical screening of recruits. I don't think they will be admitting any HIV+ boots, male or otherwise.
-
They're the greatest risk by a factor of about 8 in the total stats.
Yeah, there are other risk groups but there is ONE major risk group.
-
The canadian military has operated under that "dont fire anyone no matter how lame they are" attitude for generations.
-
keep the gays and women together, should cut down on the sexual assaults.