Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-10-2023, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Metro Seattle Area - Born and Raised
4,929 posts, read 2,074,607 times
Reputation: 8690

Advertisements

Yes, I’m sure the Europeans “LOVE” (Wink, wink) Biden since he is an idiot, but nothing they have done proves they take him seriously. Basically, it’s a case of “bless his little heart.”

Going back to the recruitment issue, I believe that there are many causes, that is pushing people away and I will have to admit, most are not 100% Biden’s fault either. I think that one of the many reasons is that many current and former military are not selling the benefits of serving in the Armed Forces these days. I say this since the 1980s, I’ve preached to anybody willing to listen of all the benefits of serving, but lately, I’ve noticed that I have stopped doing this. After serving a total of 30 years, 13 on Active and 17 in the Reserve, and serving twice to Iraq, I was ashamed of how we pulled out of Afghanistan, which reminds me of how we left Vietnam in 1975. I know I’m not the only one since a buddy of mine feels the same way when we talked about this subject.

Regardless of what anybody may think, the most effective “recruiters” are current and former military vets. If this group of current and former military vets are not blessing military service, it will affect enlistments. After seeing how the Army CID screwed over numerous National Guard members, innocent of any criminal wrong doing, I would NEVER get involved in any paid program from the Army to steer people to recruiters. With that said, my only motivation is selling what “I” believe in, which is the best recruitment tool out there. And right now, I can’t think of too many positive things to say since “I” wouldn’t want to be in today’s Army for way too many reasons.

No slick commercial or new uniform is going to magically fix the current image of the military, especially the Army, and this isn’t just a problem for the military since recruitment within law enforcement is also why down as well.

Sadly, in the end, both the military, mainly the Army, will have to lower standards to even get the bare minimum bodies needed to simply stop the bleeding. This will also go with civilian law enforcement as well, which often doesn’t work out too well in the end.

 
Old 04-10-2023, 07:20 PM
 
Location: U.S.
9,510 posts, read 9,110,504 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I remember how the last president treated our NATO allies. He was contemptuous of them while at the same time always acting like Vladimir Putin was a good man who just "misunderstood".

Its easy for me to believe that some in the administration observed his erratic behavior and concluded he did not have US interests at heart.
How NATO Allie’s are treated? Did you not understand how fast the U.S. surrendered and pulled out of Afghanistan? Here is a short video from the floor of the British Parliament on just how fast and without notice the Biden decision was to leave Afghanistan; without any notice to any of NATO.

'Shameful': British Lawmaker And Veteran Decries Biden's Afghanistan Withdrawal

https://youtu.be/rthKSEDw9TU

All the NATO countries lost all base of operations in the region after the U.S. abandoned Bagram Airfield.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,246 posts, read 13,534,754 times
Reputation: 19608
In terms of USAF recruitment, I saw this the other day -

* The Air Force is allowing recruits to have a higher percentage of body fat to broaden its pool of recruitment as it struggles to find new members

* Male recruits can have 26 percent body fat while females can have 36 percent

* It comes as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention says obesity among American youth is 'impacting national security'

Top Gut: US Air Force is loosening recruits' body fat requirements to 26% BMI for men and 36% for women to try to boost recruitment (despite growing military fitness crisis) - Daily Mail (7th April 2023)
 
Old 04-11-2023, 08:03 AM
 
28,692 posts, read 18,842,628 times
Reputation: 31003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
In terms of USAF recruitment, I saw this the other day -

* The Air Force is allowing recruits to have a higher percentage of body fat to broaden its pool of recruitment as it struggles to find new members

* Male recruits can have 26 percent body fat while females can have 36 percent

* It comes as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention says obesity among American youth is 'impacting national security'

Top Gut: US Air Force is loosening recruits' body fat requirements to 26% BMI for men and 36% for women to try to boost recruitment (despite growing military fitness crisis) - Daily Mail (7th April 2023)
The military has been decrying obesity in potential recruits for more than a decade.

I'm 69, and I've maintained less body fat than that. In fact, I'm still at the legal weight that I was when I retired from active duty.

But today's fat recruits are different from fat recruits in my day. Their fat is different...much harder to lose and keep off.

I suspect the factors are the quality of the fast and processed foods they've been eating all their lives (it's nearly impossible to be eating that food and keep off the fat), as well as the fact that fat recruits became fat much earlier in their lives.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 08:19 AM
 
Location: A coal patch in Pennsyltucky
10,379 posts, read 10,693,244 times
Reputation: 12711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
In terms of USAF recruitment, I saw this the other day -

* The Air Force is allowing recruits to have a higher percentage of body fat to broaden its pool of recruitment as it struggles to find new members

* Male recruits can have 26 percent body fat while females can have 36 percent

* It comes as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention says obesity among American youth is 'impacting national security'

Top Gut: US Air Force is loosening recruits' body fat requirements to 26% BMI for men and 36% for women to try to boost recruitment (despite growing military fitness crisis) - Daily Mail (7th April 2023)
Body fat percentage is not the same as BMI. BMI is an estimate of body fat, but does not take into consideration how muscular a person is. Very few NFL players have BMI's under 26.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 08:43 AM
 
28,692 posts, read 18,842,628 times
Reputation: 31003
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
Body fat percentage is not the same as BMI. BMI is an estimate of body fat, but does not take into consideration how muscular a person is. Very few NFL players have BMI's under 26.
The Air Force gave up strength requirements in PT long ago...before my time. I never had to demonstrate strength ability (such as pull ups or push ups) in PT testing.

So the Air Force hasn't cared about muscularity for a long time.

That's not a real problem for me...I think for the general airman, endurance is a more necessary factor to test for.

But they're never going to keep weight (and fat percentage) under control without demanding (or at least specifically teaching) a difference in how airmen eat day-to-day.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 09:54 AM
 
14,428 posts, read 14,352,180 times
Reputation: 45856
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsonkk View Post
How NATO Allie’s are treated? Did you not understand how fast the U.S. surrendered and pulled out of Afghanistan? Here is a short video from the floor of the British Parliament on just how fast and without notice the Biden decision was to leave Afghanistan; without any notice to any of NATO.

'Shameful': British Lawmaker And Veteran Decries Biden's Afghanistan Withdrawal

https://youtu.be/rthKSEDw9TU

All the NATO countries lost all base of operations in the region after the U.S. abandoned Bagram Airfield.
You picked one member of the British Parliament. You can find one person who will say anything. The general impression of our last president among Europeans was a poor one indeed. I heard it over and over again. It became so bad I was tempted to tell Europeans that I met that I was from Canada. Imagine my relief at being able to smile and say we now have a new President.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 10:14 AM
 
Location: A coal patch in Pennsyltucky
10,379 posts, read 10,693,244 times
Reputation: 12711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The Air Force gave up strength requirements in PT long ago...before my time. I never had to demonstrate strength ability (such as pull ups or push ups) in PT testing.

So the Air Force hasn't cared about muscularity for a long time.

That's not a real problem for me...I think for the general airman, endurance is a more necessary factor to test for.

But they're never going to keep weight (and fat percentage) under control without demanding (or at least specifically teaching) a difference in how airmen eat day-to-day.
This is a good article explaining the new Air Force body fat requirements. It is much different than the BMI calculator. In my opinion, it is extremely lenient. I would easily pass this requirement, but if the requirement was a BMI of 26, I would fail. With this new Air Force 0.55 ratio requirement, I could gain four inches in my belly before I hit the limit.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ses-its-rules/
 
Old 04-11-2023, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
5,052 posts, read 6,358,816 times
Reputation: 7205
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsonkk View Post
Nice response. It’s ridiculous to think there is some list of which generals and admirals retired due to disagreements with the president. It’s like asking someone to prove global warming; it’s ridiculous.
What's actually ridiculous is writing this precise statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wk91
But based on Obama forcing Flynn and McChrystal out, just to name only two of many examples, are you really going to pretend that politics doesn’t come into play on GO ascensions and retentions?
And when asked to name names of the purge, provide an exceptionally short list followed by tap-dancing about how the others were relieved but it really wasn't misconduct:


Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
General David McKiernan. Dismissed at CENTCOM. Obama didn’t like him.
General James Mattis. Pushed out of CENTCOM months early because Obama didn’t like him.

There is also a list of 9 GOs that were dismissed for alleged misconduct. I’m not going to name them all, but you can look them up
It's kind of hard for me to believe it wasn't their actual behavior, but rather Obama's seething hatred, because there was never a provided list of which 9 specific GOs-here, there is an actual reference to a list- were being referred to. A link or list would be helpful and it's not unreasonable to ask for one if a by-name list is referred to so we have a frame of reference. The ones I can easily find tend to be adultery or other sexual misconduct, with a handful of drinking, and a couple of physical altercation.

The saying is that those who make incredible claims must bring incredible evidence. The opinion that the reason for this so-called purge is political and not personal behavior is, indeed, incredible, but it's hardly evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wk91
There is also another list of 200 leaders forced out by Obama, but I don’t care enough to research that whole list.

I think it’s fair to say that Obama cleaned house and got his guys moved into the top positions. But of course, I’m able to see things clearly, I’m not like you guys who constantly carry water for your party.
200? Now THAT'S incredible that Obama was responsible for that. I don't think it's fair to say that at all. It's...something else, but it's certainly not fair and completely inconsistent with my own personal observations on what causes reliefs. Hint: it usually IS misconduct. Unscientifically, it appears to me that the preponderance of reliefs are related to sexual misconduct of one form or another, or alcohol and the results of its misuse. But it's not because they weren't woke enough for the President at the time.
 
Old 04-11-2023, 07:29 PM
 
28,692 posts, read 18,842,628 times
Reputation: 31003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
It's kind of hard for me to believe it wasn't their actual behavior, but rather Obama's seething hatred, because there was never a provided list of which 9 specific GOs-here, there is an actual reference to a list- were being referred to. A link or list would be helpful and it's not unreasonable to ask for one if a by-name list is referred to so we have a frame of reference. The ones I can easily find tend to be adultery or other sexual misconduct, with a handful of drinking, and a couple of physical altercation.

The saying is that those who make incredible claims must bring incredible evidence. The opinion that the reason for this so-called purge is political and not personal behavior is, indeed, incredible, but it's hardly evidence.



200? Now THAT'S incredible that Obama was responsible for that. I don't think it's fair to say that at all. It's...something else, but it's certainly not fair and completely inconsistent with my own personal observations on what causes reliefs. Hint: it usually IS misconduct. Unscientifically, it appears to me that the preponderance of reliefs are related to sexual misconduct of one form or another, or alcohol and the results of its misuse. But it's not because they weren't woke enough for the President at the time.
I've seen the list. It floated around the Internet about six or seven years ago. I was trying to locate it again, but I haven't been able to find it.

The list is bogus, however.

First, it's not a list of 200 senior officers who were fired by Obama.

It's a list of 200 service members, including junior officers and even a few enlisted men who retired during Obama's administration, supposedly by Obama's order.

Of course, anyone who knows how the military works with presidential administrations would know that sergeants, captains, majors, and even most colonels don't wield enough authority to have done anything that would earn the president's personal ire, unless they dumped coffee in his lap or something that immediately in his presence.

They may very well have disliked Obama and retired in ire. Fine. But retirement is a voluntary action to claim a reward. Once you go over 20, you're just in it for the laughs. When it's no longer fun...put in those papers.

That's not a big deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top