New Age Limits for the Armed Services

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Looks like some of you older guys that are so gung-ho about Iraq can now get into the armed services to show your patriotic colors now that they have raised the age limits.




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Faced with major recruiting problems sparked by troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has asked Congress to raise the maximum age for U.S. military enlistees from 35 to 42 years old.

The request, sent to lawmakers this week, would apply to all active duty branches of the military services, said Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, on Friday. But it is aimed chiefly at the active duty Army, which has fallen far short of recruiting goals this year, by adding millions of potential enlistees.

The Army has provided most of the 140,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq and has also relied heavily on part-time soldiers from the National Guard and Reserve for year-long deployments there.

Krenke said the active duty Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, which are meeting their recruiting goals, were unlikely to change their current policy of declining to accept recruits older than 35.

The new proposal would not change the limit of 39 years old for those with previous military service who seek to enlist in the Army Reserves and National Guard.

The Army National Guard, struggling more than any other part of the U.S. military to sign up new troops amid the Iraq war, missed its ninth straight monthly recruiting goal in June.

The regular Army met its recruiting goal this month, but is still 14 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target and is in danger of missing an annual recruiting goal for the first time since 1999. The Army Reserve is 21 percent behind its year-to-date goal and also in danger of falling short for the year.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
God that's a bad sign. And I agree that the pro-war folks here should sign-up, since it's such an important cause. HEY MANSON, YOUR COUNTRY IS CALLING YOU, BUDDY!
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Be careful Kosar, they may figure out a way to call you back into service! :mj07:

If I was you, I'd start recruiting the high school grads and beef up the enlistment numbers as an insurance policy against possible "forced re-activation".
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
smurphy said:
Be careful Kosar, they may figure out a way to call you back into service! :mj07:

If I was you, I'd start recruiting the high school grads and beef up the enlistment numbers as an insurance policy against possible "forced re-activation".

Oh Christ, even these idiots couldn't find a way to get me back in there. That expired in 1998. Whether you join the active reserves after your active term is up or not, you're at risk of being recalled for 8 years from the day you sign up. So I was active from 1990-1994 and was at risk until 1998.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
kosar said:
God that's a bad sign. And I agree that the pro-war folks here should sign-up, since it's such an important cause. HEY MANSON, YOUR COUNTRY IS CALLING YOU, BUDDY!

Please explain to me why this cause in any less than ...lets say the D day invasion ? Yes you remember our invasion of the Soveriegn nation of Germany no ? This should be really good !!!
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Palehose said:
Please explain to me why this cause in any less than ...lets say the D day invasion ? Yes you remember our invasion of the Soveriegn nation of Germany no ? This should be really good !!!

Welcome to the forum!!
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Germany was actively gobbling up Europe - crucial trading and diplomatic partners to the United States. Iraq was gobbling up nothing. That's one major strategic difference.

HOWEVER - I don't think the soldiers care about the differences (except that European women were generally better looking and more receptive than Iraqi women).

Let's just win this thing and learn our lesson. The left should stop complaining and the Bush freaks should own up to a ridiculous strategic blunder. But instead everyone bitches about each other. One fool blames it on "the media", another says Clinton's blowjob caused everything. Fact is, we are where we are - the administration is always gonna paint a stupidly phony optimistic picture and the critics will hammer them for it.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Hardly a strategic blunder bud ! In fact it will go down as one of the most lopsided military defeats in the history of humankind .

Lets see casualty rates ...hmmm

WW1 1-17

WW2 1-17

Nam 1-17

Korea 1-13 worst in the history of US mordern warfare

Dessert Storm 1- 2100 or something close to that

Iraqi Freedom somewhere about 1 -2000
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
smurphy said:
Germany was actively gobbling up Europe - crucial trading and diplomatic partners to the United States. Iraq was gobbling up nothing. That's one major strategic difference.

HOWEVER - I don't think the soldiers care about the differences (except that European women were generally better looking and more receptive than Iraqi women).

Let's just win this thing and learn our lesson. The left should stop complaining and the Bush freaks should own up to a ridiculous strategic blunder. But instead everyone bitches about each other. One fool blames it on "the media", another says Clinton's blowjob caused everything. Fact is, we are where we are - the administration is always gonna paint a stupidly phony optimistic picture and the critics will hammer them for it.

Correction Germany was done gobbling up Europe had their ass handed to them by the Russians... 9 out of ten German soilders died by a Russian bullet . Of course the biggest hero of WW2 was the Britsh spitfire because if it werent for that plane Hitler would have ruled the world hands down no doubt about it and the German capital of the USA would have been Milwaukee . And being of Crow and Polish decent I wouldnt exist !
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Your all over the place, man. You can and will believe in the comparisons and hypotheticals. There is nothing I can do about that. :)
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Palehose said:
Please explain to me why this cause in any less than ...lets say the D day invasion ? Yes you remember our invasion of the Soveriegn nation of Germany no ? This should be really good !!!

Palehose, welcome to the forum.

Yes, this should be 'really good.'

I'll take it easy and assume that you're 18 years old or maybe younger.

D-Day was an event to push Germany out of France and basically save Europe. We did not invade Germany, my man. We landed in France to save their asses.

I'll keep this short, but comparisons of the Iraqi war to WW2 are beyond ridiculous.

Hitler was rampaging across Europe and Iraq was doing absolutely nothing.

Come on, guy. Don't mimic some of these guys here who compare this crap to WW2 and Korea. (who by the way have never shown even the simplest of examples of how they are similar)
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
BobbyBlueChip said:
Normandy, France

I'm right on the border of thinking this guy is just messing around. Just a couple more posts and i'll pretty much know for sure. Well, we all will. There *is*(I know how you love my asterisks) a post of his in another thread that makes me think he's actually being serious.

If he's not being serios, he's either

1. a 12 year old

2. semi-retarded

3. has read too many war comparisons by Wayne, who always ignores requests to cite examples of said comparisons.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Hell we had a good time in the civil war. We killed off over 600000 of our own we were so smart then. So they want old guys back in the service. I wonder what the bonus is for us already on S/S. Do we have to have our own teeth. War comparisons another neat subject. How can you compare them. Each has it's own dumb reason for starting.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
kosar said:
I'll keep this short, but comparisons of the Iraqi war to WW2 are beyond ridiculous.

Hitler was rampaging across Europe and Iraq was doing absolutely nothing.

True, back then the folks supported the actions against the enemy.

Mstt, at time you seem to be of the line of those who only oppose Irak because the resources could be used elsewhere to "invade" or pursue other geographical objectives. I'm OK with that.

But then one finds out that regardles of what the neo-cons do, you will find an excuse to criticize it. And, yes, no solution offered.
Son, you are like a grosshoppper, jumping from floating lilly pad to the next :)

We'll wait 'till Iran sends an army in to Afghanistan, and only take action if there is a strong internal "resistance" movement. Same with the others, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea...

Well, Irak sucks, there's like death and shit. Of course the left and, yes, the liberal media, won't allow bush or anyone else to bomb the terrorist strongholds to smithereens. So, tell me now, what is the immediate solution? Criticize Abu-Grahib or Gitmo? Of course, you're not allied with those types. As long as you can criticize without responsability, it's all good... no?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Nosigar said:
True, back then the folks supported the actions against the enemy.

Not sure what this means.

Mstt, at time you seem to be of the line of those who only oppose Irak because the resources could be used elsewhere to "invade" or pursue other geographical objectives. I'm OK with that.

Not true.

But then one finds out that regardles of what the neo-cons do, you will find an excuse to criticize it. And, yes, no solution offered.
Son, you are like a grosshoppper, jumping from floating lilly pad to the next :)

DEFINITELY not true. I don't jump around on any 'lily pads.' I think that i've been extremely consistent. I'll give credit where it's due, and I always have. I like the SS ideas he has, I don't believe we should be involved with Kyoto and I like Roberts, just for starters. PETA makes my skin crawl and I do not like in any way the ACLU.

Son? lmao

Seriously bro, even a dumbass like myself can see that you're, ummmm, a little out of sorts tonight. Sometimes it's better not to be guilty of a PUI.

That said, i'm over there an average of once a month. My mom, dad, sister and two nieces live in or near Boca and i'd love to have a brew with you sometime.

We'll wait 'till Iran sends an army in to Afghanistan, and only take action if there is a strong internal "resistance" movement. Same with the others, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea...


Not sure what this means.


Well, Irak sucks, there's like death and shit. Of course the left and, yes, the liberal media, won't allow bush or anyone else to bomb the terrorist strongholds to smithereens. So, tell me now, what is the immediate solution? Criticize Abu-Grahib or Gitmo? Of course, you're not allied with those types. As long as you can criticize without responsability, it's all good... no?



If we could indentify 'terrorist strongholds,' then it would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it? The problem is that there is no such thing. You can't bomb something that doesn't exist. It's a never ending stream of cockroaches.

And the 'media' has nothing to do with anything, just so you know.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
"I'll keep this short, but comparisons of the Iraqi war to WW2 are beyond ridiculous.
Hitler was rampaging across Europe and Iraq was doing absolutely nothing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You might consider this Matt--Islam fantics have been rampaging everywhere world wide--committing atrocities everywhere they exist AND did attack us on our own ground-unlike Germany.

Now considering that Muslims fanatics originate in middle east--and Iraq and Afgan are part of middle east---I can see that occupying and spreading democracy there might way to fight war to stop what maybe worse than Germany's crimes in long run--and with MUCH fewer casualties.Don't think anyone can say it hasn't swayed Pakistan-Egypt-Saudi ect into stepping in and joining fight.
So you tell me--Do you think we were better off when they were not helping us and looking the other way--better of with us having no military position in middle east--better off with terrorist training openly there--better off with Saddam in power and helping anyone that was against us.The way I see it is we needed to get foot in door in middle east and needed only legit reason to do so--and Saddam refusal to comply with resolutions was reason enough for me--though I can understand it not being for some.
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
yeah..all The Bush Supporters who are in love with his legacy can now get the chance to show their support. So belly up at your local recruiter.

George Bush, the man with no plan. Anyday that crook sidekick of his , Cheney , should be needing a heart donor. With any luck , the search will be hard. :mj07:

:)
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
You might consider this Matt--Islam fantics have been rampaging everywhere world wide--committing atrocities everywhere they exist AND did attack us on our own ground-unlike Germany




Your kidding right? How many of these fanatics that were rampaging throughout the world and attacking the US came from Iraq? ZERO is the correct answer!
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top