"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers
are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm.
The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
be reenlisting at that rate."


yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the
title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
off right there.

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean
96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal
was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what
the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any
numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can
be
made.

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not
think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me
backing
up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.

Translation: I don't have any basis for my argument, but that won't stop
me
from shooting off.

and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion
is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
thing true.

You're the one who supports a near-immediate pullout and tells us you know
more than anyone in a position of authority on the subject. I'm just
trying
to find out if you're just blowing smoke up everyone's keister (or is it
"kiester"?) or if you really know what that will mean on the ground.

todd

todd, you have nothing to say. you started with very high re-enlistment, it
fell down to only high, and you havent made your case at all.

goodbye.

randy