Navy Halts Up or Out Rules in Bid to Keep Ranks Filled
- Thread starter ptif219
- Start date
You show your ignorance
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sis...with-adhd-other-behavioral-challenges-n520398
Under Bush, the Army was accepting people with criminal records.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Really? I don't remember that.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
No they weren’t. Agreed they’re not very selective but they weren’t accepting those with criminal records.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Incorrect. During Bush's war the Army accepted some felons. Obviously it depended upon the specific crime and it required a waiver.
Same for excessive tattoos. People were accepted with a waiver depending upon the needs of the service.
https://www.ncesc.com/does-the-army-accept-felons/
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/what-is-the-army-tattoo-policy/
The Army is now officially allowing more tattoos
The change comes amid what one official called the "most challenging recruiting market" in 20 years.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Another reason to have a national employee verification system that screens for legal to work, criminal status and prior service.
Even now, you can get accepted into the army with a criminal record. You simply need a waiver, which depending on the severity of the crime can be easy, or impossible.
During the Bush Era, they were making the waivers much easier to get. Obama tightened the standards, because the uniform services were complaining they would rather have no one than some of the criminals they were getting.
But they were, and are accepting some with criminal records.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Not sure where or how I got it instilled in me but for as long as I can remember joining the army was the last (legally allowed) thing to do with your life, even if it was temporary.
Then it was confirmed when I contracted with them for three years.
The good get lost in the useless masses in that organization.
Almost always, you sign up for a 8 year commitment in the US Army. That is split between several years of active duty, reserves (or National Guard), and finally individual ready reserves. Individual ready reserves is almost like being out of the army, but you need to keep in touch with the army, and can be called up easily. At the end of those 8 years, usually you get a honorable discharge, but in theory the President can hold you for longer. Bush was one of the few Presidents who took advantage of that technicality, and held soldiers for longer.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
That sounds like a looong time to be committed to anything. Especially for an 18 year old.
I find that hard to believe.
If true, that’s insane.
More reason to not join.
Bush had to rebuild it because Clinton did not care about the military. I notice you show no proof
Uhm... You do not believe that army enlistment obligations are 8 years? Really? You seem out of touch to me.
To an 18 year old it is sold as two years of active duty. A bachelors degree is 4 years, so that really does not seem like a long commitment to a lot of people. How old are you that this all seems like too much of a commitment?
There are people who expect to serve in the Air Force, and reserves for 20 years. Much of that might be individual ready reserves, which is practically not serving, but you can be called up. John Kerry full contract was 12 years, but again most of that was individual ready reserves. People make major commitments of time, and think it is a good idea.
Clinton built a military capable of invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, easily. Bush demolished that military through extended deployments occupying both countries. I have friends(PLURAL) who served 5 year long deployments in combat. It is hard to find any soldier in American history who have served 5 years in combat.
You show you know nothing about it. the equipment was falling apart. Clinton had cut the military almost in half
https://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/12/07/weinberger.cnna/
This equipment that was falling apart was able to invade two countries?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Ummm....no, he didn't. I was part of the Democratic Party turning "guns to butter" after the Cold War ended. Clinton and the Democratic Congress decimated the United States military. Sure, some was justified, but it left us weak.
Then, after the whacking, Clinton turned the US military into "World Police" by sending them to Bosnia and Haiti plus expanding our role in Somalia.
The military that went into Iraq and Afghanistan was the military that had been built over the previous 8 years. Clinton looked at what worked, what did not, and what was needed, and built a military that could invade countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. He moved away from a military that could challenge the USSR on the plains of Northern Germany, because that was no longer needed.
We might be moving back to a military that can challenge Russia in Europe, but we moved away from that in the 1990's for a good reason.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Yes, I'm aware of the history. I remember training being cut and grounding aircraft due to lack of money while the budget was spent in Haiti and Bosnia.
There's no need to either have a shoestring military...which is what GW Bush went into Iraq with if you pause to think about it, or Reagan's "Peace through Strength" military. There's a realistic middle ground.
The fact remains, a Democratic President and Democratic Congress cut the military and intelligence budgets so much that we ended up with 9/11.
Post-9/11, of course, the budget went up dramatically. If Clinton's military was so great, why did the US have to increase the military and intelligence budgets following September 11th, 2001?
serendipity
Verified User
He never does, that's Salty for you.