Army raises enlistment age

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefforaby

Daemon Poster
Messages
1,262
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Army, stung by recruiting shortfalls caused by the Iraq war, has raised the maximum age for new recruits for the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard by five years to 39, officials said Monday.
What do you think of this? I think 39 is simply too old for combats. Most of aren't quick enough at this age... I am against the action Pentagon is taking.
 

luckyduck1

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,411
agreed. i mean if you're recruited at 39 that means you're in the field at 40 and then what? retired in 5 years?! that doesnt make sense
 

airiox

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,692
reuters is a commie organization.

Guessing you got this off of yahoo.com? thought so.

its meaningless so it really doesnt matter they just tried to make a story out of it.
 

Giancarlo

Banned
Messages
4,836
CNN isn't credible either.

At any rate, this isn't raising the recruitment age. You people aren't paying attention. This is raising the retirement age. Some people fucked up in the media again.

Now how about some good news the media loves to ignore!

And national guard units are not as well trained as regular army units.. not..

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050322_278.html

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 22, 2005 – A Kentucky National Guard unit is being credited with responding in “textbook” fashion during an ambush here March 20, killing 27 insurgents and capturing a sizable weapons cache and valuable intelligence.

"The insurgent death toll is the highest in Iraq since the Fallujah operation in November 2004 and, according to Army Capt. Todd Lindner, commander of the Richmond, Ky.-based 617th Military Police Company, represents “without a doubt, one of the most significant impacts an MP company has had in this war.”

Lindner credits his unit’s dogged commitment to training and unwillingness to cut corners with preparing his soldiers for the firefight along an alternative supply route about seven miles southeast of Baghdad.

Three squads from the 617th MP Company were providing security for a convoy along the supply route when it came under attack by 40 to 50 insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons.

According to Lindner, the soldiers positioned themselves between the convoy and the attackers, “putting down a heavy volume of fire” and flanking the enemy, when they began receiving fire from the rear.

“They were armed to the teeth, and looked like they were ready to fight for a long time,” Linder said of the insurgents.

Ultimately, the unit killed 27 of the insurgents and captured several more. After the attack, they recovered a cache of RPGs, rockets, machine guns, assault weapons, hand grenades and ammunition.

Three unit soldiers were wounded, two seriously.

“These guys were amazing,” Linder said of his soldiers. “This proves what we’ve been saying all along: These guys rock.”

Lindner credits training with making the vital difference in his unit’s ability to respond under fire.

“We’ve been training for this mission for the last year before we got here,” he said. “Once we knew we were coming (to Iraq), we changed our training to focus specifically on this mission.”

That training, he said, “absolutely made a difference” in his unit’s response during the weekend attack, sharpening its ability to maneuver while firing.

Sgt. 1st Class Marshall Ware, platoon sergeant for the squads involved, agrees the training the unit received “absolutely” made a difference during the attack.

“From Day 1, there was an emphasis on training,” he said. “We trained and trained and trained.”

Equally critical, he said, was the unit’s strict adherence to standards — conducting precombat inspections, making sure weapons are clean, and requiring use of body armor, Kevlar helmets and eye and hearing protection.

These steps have protected his company against numerous attacks, Ware said. “You can’t completely take the risk out of what we’re doing, but you can mitigate it,” he said.

Ware, who served 10 years on active duty before becoming a full-time National Guardsman, said he came to the Guard with prejudices that its members played second string to the active force. But he said the Guard members he worked with quickly proved him wrong.

“The Guard is not the same Guard it was two years ago,” he said. “They’re as good as any active duty unit.”"
 

Jefforaby

Daemon Poster
Messages
1,262

Giancarlo

Banned
Messages
4,836
Jefforaby said:
Alright I'll give you partial credit, it was recruitment age, but not for army regular forces.

"WASHINGTON Mar 22, 2005 — The Army is tapping into a new pool of potential recruits for the National Guard and Army Reserve by raising the maximum enlistment age from 34 to 39, officials said Tuesday. "

Simply for SOME units of the national guard and army reserve... I would believe engineer units and otherwise.

Nor are physical requirements changing either.

So you aren't totally telling the truth to begin with. So no, I'm not entirely wrong.

And tell me, why the hell are you against the Pentagon taking this action? The media has grossly overstated the minor shortfalls, and what is wrong with doing this? Remember this is a volunteer force, not one of conscription.
 

ACES WILD

Daemon Poster
Messages
833
actually alot of people 39 and older are really fit, Xp beasts step dad Evan is a full time Air guard, and he's like 42 or so, he's wicked fit, he can carry about twice as much as me, and could kick mine and Xpbeasts a$$s' in a two on one fight anyday, he's a cool old man, I dont see waht the problem is about age, I mean if your physically fit enough would you deny a person his/her right to join the military if they wanted to go fight for their country? even if they were that age, they need to pass a physical fitness test to see if they can hold up to the rigors of the army, if they want to join the army and fight for our freedom, I say let them do it, it's better than reopening th draft.
(Go SEALS)
 

Jefforaby

Daemon Poster
Messages
1,262
Giancarlo said:
Alright I'll give you partial credit, it was recruitment age, but not for army regular forces.
I deserve full credit plus two extra credit points! :D
I never said anything about the army regular forces. I pointed out and quoted articles about the army raising the recruitment age.
Lets not start an argument... So what do you think people?
 

jack22

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,124
The draft is wrong. People shouldnt be forced to fight in something they dont neccesaily belief in. Even in time of danger we have enough weapons to wipe out the world...no need to have infantry die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top