The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Undue disrespect > Comments

Undue disrespect : Comments

By John E. Carey, published 8/11/2006

Senator John Kerry's remarks were unfunny and disrespectful.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Why is an aussie discussion site giving a seconds attention to a yank has-been making a gaffe over US soldiers? Bizarre, unless you admit we are no more than a pimple on the US arse.
Posted by Liam, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 5:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the pimple on the Yanks arse gets attacked they will have to defend it.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:12:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I second an earlier poster. What the hell is this article doing here? Who cares?
Posted by WhiteWombat, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most likely because there are American students in Australia.

If you watch the tapes of the supposed gaffe, Kerry was not talking about the men in the defence forces, he was having a go at the top of this food chain.

In amazement the Republicans tried to capitalise on it via their controlled media, convincing even some of the Democrats to publically distance themselves from him without consulting him personally as a political team over the negative press.

The democrats including the popular Hilary Clinton, who was elected back in, slammed him.

Mighty fine team of democrats!

Cut throat positioning for power of the top job in their own party even at the expense of one of their own who may be a threat later on down the road.

It is about time the average person voted against this type of political behaviour.

The average citizen needs representatives who are focused on our backyard and not their own individual ones.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 9 November 2006 11:41:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005
By Tim Kane, Ph.D.
The Heritage Foundation
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-09
October 27, 2006

A pillar of conventional wisdom about the U.S. military is that the quality of volunteers has been degraded after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Examples of the voices making this claim range from the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Daily News [1] to Michael Moore’s pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Some insist that minorities and the underprivileged are over­represented in the military. Others accuse the U.S. Army of accepting unqualified enlistees in a futile attempt to meet its recruiting goals in the midst of an unpopular war.[2]

A report published by The Heritage Foundation in November 2005 examined the issue and could not substantiate any degradation in troop quality by comparing military enlistees in 1999 to those in 2003. It is possible that troop quality did not degrade until after the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, when patriotism was high. A common assumption is that the Army experienced difficulty getting qualified enlistees in 2005 and was subse­quently forced to lower its standards. This report revisits the issue by examining the full recruiting classes for all branches of the U.S. military for every year from 2003 to 2005.

The current findings show that the demo­graphic characteristics of volunteers have contin­ued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality. Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context. Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organiza­tion can be assessed only by using measurable cri­teria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics. In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteris­tics accurately reflect what really matters: cour­age, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership.

Read it all:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
Posted by Jecarey2603, Thursday, 9 November 2006 7:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Check this out. The US are are tricking their own. These recruits are too young to make these kind of choices.

http://www.militaryfreezone.org/recruiters_lie
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 10 November 2006 2:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy