But they did waver for a time? I could look that up if you like.
Refer back to what I told GMST. You're doing it again. :coffeepap
yes, but you still had to have a GED...whatever that is worth. that's the sad part, they were so desperate for numbers that they accepted people who had no business being in the military. and they have so pussified basic training that it no longer weeds out the undesirables and misfits. you don't even have to pass a PT test to get out of basic these days.
So say it now then. And well be clear. Burning korans or juggling dead savage terrorist bodyparts on you tube are not "attocities".
Agree?
Yes or no.
Thanks
You are not an Afghan, nor have you ever been....that is the critical fact that you cannot escape.
If an Afghan says that the treatment of a fellow Afghans' body, even if than Afghan is on the other side in civil war, is atrocious (appalling, horrifying), I will value his opinion over yours. It is his cultural view that has more subjective validity over yours.
That is in no way an ad hominem against you, it is simply a fact of LIFE.
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.
I suppose it's mostly socialism....
or at least what some people call socialism.
How is it an atrocity, it's inappropriate, it's wrong, it should be dealt with, however calling it an "atrocity". is silly hyperbole. The dead savages in this case, I believe blew themselves up building a bomb to attack, US troops. Sorry, if I don't care they posed with the body parts.
It's not an atrocity. To call it such, is the typical silly nonsense of haters trying to paint the US military as the other "taliban"
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity.
Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.
Yeah, in the 80's....it went away far before 9/11. But you should look it up anyway. For the record...it's "waiver".
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.
atrocity? no.
violation of their code of conduct? certainly.
these guys clearly need a psych. eval. and maybe a few weeks off, to regain their sense of purpose, mission, and decency.
Can you define the Code of Conduct?
Did the soldiers you say "juggled body parts" claim a moral high ground while doing it? Are medical students guilty of this "atrocity" when they goof around with body parts?
I'm not gonna address your silly red herring.
In reality, the Army is in the midst of a disturbing trend that threatens not only our immediate goals in the current conflicts, but, more importantly, the long term health of the organization. The fact is, while the Army has been lowering its entrance standards with regard to education, physical fitness, and crime since the end of the Cold War, that process has accelerated since the invasion of Iraq. And this is something that the incoming Army Secretary should address.
Reclaiming Army Standards
he longer the war continues, the harder it's proving to fill the U.S. Army's ranks. A strong economy also means there are easier jobs around.
So the Army is accepting a growing number of new recruits with everythging from health and weight issues to lower academic test scores to criminal records.
The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.
Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks - CBS News
Strained by the demands of a long war, the Army and the Marine Corps recruited significantly more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006, including people convicted of armed robbery, arson and burglary, according to data released Monday by a House committee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html
Just so you know, I didn't say waiver, as in a waiver. I said waver:
wa·ver
1 [wey-ver] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to sway to and fro; flutter: Foliage wavers in the breeze.
2.
to flicker or quiver, as light: A distant beam wavered and then disappeared.
3.
become unsteady; begin to fail or give way: When she heard the news her courage wavered.
4.
to shake or tremble, as the hands or voice: Her voice wavered.
5.
to feel or show doubt, indecision, etc.; vacillate: He wavered in his determination.
Waver | Define Waver at Dictionary.com
I highlighted the definitions that apply to my meaning. So while I appreciate snarky replies, and am far from being above a typo in a rushed response (not something I care much about), I do want you to get the meaning of what is being said. I said the military wavered, became unsteady, fail to keep their standards. I hope that helps for clarity.
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.
Don't you like...live in the whitest, most anglo country in the world?
Anglos? In England? Never heard of such a thing.
Why the non sequiter?
Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles, England, the English people, or the English language, such as in the term Anglo-Saxon. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to people of British Isles descent in The Americas, Australia and Southern Africa. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins.
Anglo is a Late Latin prefix used to denote English- in conjunction with another toponym or demonym. The word is derived from Anglia, the Latin name for England, and still the modern name of its eastern region. Anglia and England both mean Land of the Angles, a Germanic people originating in the north German peninsula of Angeln.
Anglo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The standards for granting enlistment waivers for minor offenses has not changed, much less lowered. There are roughly 75k more personnel in the Army now than in 1997 (which your article uses as comparison). The Army would not need to lower it's standards for there to be more people currently enlisted with "moral waivers". However, if you read in that article it mentions a Pvt. Green. You should read about him...that is an atrocity....just so you know what one is.
Waivers are what we are talking about, nice backpeddle though.
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.
I have linked evidence to the contrary. Sorry. :coffeepap
No, in that sentence, I was not. Don't call your inability to comprehend a back peddle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?