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

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:
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.

Yes, we saw it.

yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

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.

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

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.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

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.

....which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

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.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

Dave Hinz

"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

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:
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.

Yes, we saw it.

yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

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.

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The
re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?


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.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true. and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...


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.

...which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.

maybe, maybe not. im just going on the proof todd gave.


i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.


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.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

randy

"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

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing.
he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...

he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

I NEVER SAID THIS!! show me where i said re-enlistment was going down.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

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.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...

randy

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored
the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you
wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

todd specifically issued me a challenge. the challenge was that he could
prove re-enlistment was high. the only thing i am accusing him of is not
being able to prove it.


he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article
he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless.

well it has become pointless g

but he said he could prove it. i dont see the proof to back up his
statement. neither do you.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

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.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...

When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.

"Todd Fatheree" writes:

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.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.

---

If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.

scott

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

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.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal.
are
you saying thats not true? probably...

When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.

so my statement isnt false. in fact its absolutely true according to the
article.. is it irrelevant? considering the article was used to show troop
re-enlistment is high, i think it is completely relevant. at best the ONLY
information you can get from the article at all is that its falling compared
to last years goal (which is exactly what i said, and considering the title
of the article and the numbers provided, it was clearly the point of the
article, do you hate the writer too?), and at worse, no information at all.
clearly there is no proof there that re-enlistment is high.

come on dave... the article was titled "iraq duty deters re-enlistment'

let's get your position clear. do you think the article provided proves
that troop re-enlistment is high? let down your guard for 1 minute and
answer honestly.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)

todd

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
m...
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

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.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their
feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.

So, your source is a disgruntled colonel who isn't even in the Army any
more?

If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.

Maybe they just feel like they need every person that they have available.
The reason we got onto this whole business in the first place was Randy
asserting that the troops believe they are wasting their time. I asserted
that based on the re-enlistment numbers I heard that there wasn't a lot of
evidence for that. After looking for backup on the reported numbers, I
can't find any good, raw data. But let's say for the sake of argument that
the re-enlistment rate is not what we want. Based on soldiers I have heard
that have been in Iraq, they are proud of the job they're doing and believe
it is important. That said, many of them, especially Guard troops and
reservists who didn't think they would be deployed for as long as they have,
want to get back home, and I don't blame them for that. For those men and
women, I don't believe it is a reflection on their commitment to our cause
as it is a desire to get back to their civilian lives. I'm sure few of them
would rather be in Iraq than back home, but most of them understand they are
doing a very important job.

todd

scott

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"xrongor" wrote in message
...
for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we
would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)

ill put little green wigs on the asparagas. you wont notice the difference
g

but seriously. its easy to get caught up in internet arguments, but the
forum isnt very good for extended discussion, and what takes 10 pages to try
and make clear so nobody is misunderstanding each other would probably take
1 minute in real life. i dont hate you, and i hope you dont hate me. we
just dont agree about iraq. and we arent alone... i certainly dont have
all the answers.

ok ok. ill get the brocoli, but it will have to be from the store!

ttyl
randy

(Scott Lurndal) writes:
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

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.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.


Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

scott

Dave Hinz writes:

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.


Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army.
In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army
were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with
U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note
Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming
under fire with any kind of regularity.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

In article , Charlie Self
wrote:


snipped

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer
Army.
In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army
were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with
U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note
Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming
under fire with any kind of regularity.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

Although the vast majority of the Navy is not under direct fire there
is some evidence that the extended. and more often deployments, and
more back to back sea tours is effecting USN retention. Part of this is
the experiment of not bringing ships home but leaving them deployed
then swapping the whole crew out in an overseas location. On the plus
side it keeps an asset in theater much longer by cutting off the month
transit time on each side but it cuts down on port calls and makes the
crew do more in depth maintence on the ship.

A significant reason for me getting of active duty was getting married
and looking at the previous three years I had been gone 150 days year
one, 210 year two and 270 year three. Of course, in my 9 years in the
Naval Reserve I got recalled for Bosnia, Kosovo, three trip to Northern
Watch and one to Southern watch but such was the bureden for getting to
fly a high demand low density asset.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting snip

OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?

Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg

"J T" wrote in message
...
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting snip

OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?

Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.

JOAT


to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
U.S.

randy

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz writes:

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored
the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you
wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.


Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment
rates were low (which i never did), and used the exact same arguments i made
to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then
he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im
picking on a slow child or something...

as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap
my way around it.

so anyway. i dont know who im trying to convince.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

....and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On 14 Jul 2004 21:18:28 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army.

Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling
into the wind.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:53:13 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment
rates were low (which i never did),

Now wait just a second here. I said that you bringing this up when we
were talking about enlistment rates was, what were the words, "irrelevant
at best and disingenous at worst" I think. It's like seeing this:

Todd: "Idaho farmers claim that potato sales are doing well."
Randy: "But McDonalds has missed their french fry sales goal this year, but
beat it last year".

Why bring up french fry sales goal performance in the context of potato
sales, if not to try to argue against the original statement?

and used the exact same arguments i made
to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then
he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im
picking on a slow child or something...

There ya go, go for the personal attack, that always helps your cause.

as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap
my way around it.

Riiiiight. Counter a statement with a fuzzy response, and _I_ am the
one spewing garbage when I call you on it.

Doug Winterburn writes:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

...and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm


These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about
soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).

scott

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:08:19 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:


These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about
soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).

The second is about the Air Force. The first link was about the military
in general. Take a minute and read all four parts in the first link.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)

to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
U.S.

randy

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2004 21:18:28 GMT, Charlie Self
wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.

is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i
brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it. i simply
carried it over to this thread. it was his 'proof' that enlistment rates
went down. i know you read the other thread because of your tap dancing
references. did you simply forget or are you being purposefully obtuse?


Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the
all-volunteer Army.

Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling
into the wind.

duh

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:06:07 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.

is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i
brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it.

FFS, Randy, "quoted it" rather than "cited it" then?

Seems it's always word-games with you, Randy. I can't see the point.

call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
say if they use a nice font. then we have to make letterheads and fancy
sigs to promote our image of worthiness. im not going to change the way ive
posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
respectability.

that said, you're probably right g

randy


"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)

to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make
sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence
you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us
means
U.S.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:16:41 -0600, xrongor wrote:
call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
say if they use a nice font.

While I'm the last person to post a grammar, speeling, or punctuation flame,
I must say that it doesn't make your message more likely to convince
anyone if you can't be bothered to at least attempt to get those right.
Hard to tell if the writer is ignorant, or just careless, but either way
it doesn't add anything to the effectiveness.

Before you jump all over me for this, I've more than several times
said the same sort of thing to people I agree with - "You're not helping
our cause with that sort of message" kind of posts.

im not going to change the way ive
posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
respectability.

Your choice, of course. The reader's choice on how to interpret the
lack of whatever, of course.

I can't see the point.

duh

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:26:46 -0600, xrongor wrote:
I can't see the point.

duh

....in continuing to play word games with someone who uses the same
article to make their points, as they criticize another for using.

Nice creative snipping, by the way. I notice you completely ignored
the french fries analogy. Why would that be, Randy, because I called
you on it and you don't care to acknowledge same?

I can't speak for the Army and what their personnel force is at or headed,
but the Navy has just released a message allowing personnel to exit the
service 12 months early due to overmanning concerns. What was really
unusual about this message was that there were very few restrictions placed
on any of the Navy "ratings", just about any and all could be eligible.
Re-enlistment is up, recruiting up, reserve requests to convert to active is
up
(which has all led to promotion rates dropping) and a need to let some
people
go. But like I said this is the Navy not the Army.


"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.

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

Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip of a bunch of stuff, mostly speculation it would seem, that I'm
totally ignoring for starters the title of the article is: 'iraq duty
deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip off right there. snip

Dunno about that. I reenlisted just before I voluntered for Nam.
In fact, might have reenlisted to volunteer, don't really recall. All
of the people I had deep respect for had been, at least once, some
twice, and several were going back, for second, or third tours. They
thought pretty highly of me, so seemed like the proper thing to do at
the time. Found out it was a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want
to live there. I would suspect the reasons for a lot of the present
day reenlistments are for similar reasons. It's always nice to to get
out of the house for a bit.

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg

Doug Winterburn provides:
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm

Air Force reenlistment rates are always significantly higher than those for the
Army. There are a variety of reasons for that, including more technical
training, no need for grunts, less need for front line discipline, and on.
Oddly enough, Marine Corps rates are also higher, usually significantly.

I'm not sure reenlistment rates reflect satisfaction within the military as to
their mission as much as they reflect the economy at a particular period, along
with visible opportunities to advance within any of the services...added to
pride of service. Reenlistment bonuses help, too, though not as much as the
military might like.

Oddly enough, the Air Force and Navy are both planning reductions in personnel
numbers next year--I seem to recall the Air Force getting ready to drop 5600
people from their overall roles. The Army is looking to, as they say, turn
"Blue To Green". They want anyone over E5 who is released in the program.

For a general look at military matters, try military.com.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

Doug Winterburn responds:

The second is about the Air Force. The first link was about the military
in general. Take a minute and read all four parts in the first link.

The first link was about a draft, written by a former AF 1st Sgt., who served
his entire time in the volunteer military. Given that combination, I'm not at
all sure he's the best source for an opinion stating the draft will never come
back. He can't see how it would be done, but, then, he doesn't appear to know
how it WAS done for upwards of 30 years. When it comes back, expect the same
screw-ups and dissatisfactions and complaints, tripled, because women will now
be included.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

Well, not to diminish their efforts, but becoming a rifleman is hardly a
career choice. It's a young, single man's field.

Promotions and bonuses tied to the "needs of the service" are used to
overcome shortages in the skilled fields, as well as lowering the testing
threshold for entry into them. This almost guarantees an ebb and flow as
incentives fill a field at a certain level, then shed personnel at the next
level because it is overmanned. The service has an up or out policy which
denies reenlistment to those who fail promotion, even though it will not
promote unless the position exists.

Add the outside world into the equation, and it becomes even more
complicated.

Then there are the purely bone-headed policies which drive people out. One
of the best co-pilots I even had was an EE by training. As the end of his
commitment approached, the Air Force was offering bonuses for EEs, since
there was a shortage. Long story short, the wings he wore were more
important than the "needs" of the service. With no shortage of UPT grads to
take his place, he could not work in his preferred field, but left the
service. Even happened to a navigator I flew with. All he wanted to do was
change aircraft, not "waste his expensive training."

I, for one, am amazed at the levels they're able to maintain with long
unaccompanied tours and more in the offing.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

...and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm