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.

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.

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.

i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

do what you have to do...

randy