masterblaster72 0 #1 August 29, 2006 from here Quote"Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, head of the Australian army, said he was confident new recruitment targets that amounted to 500 new troops a year would be met, even if it meant lowering recruitment standards on health and weight. "Sure some people might be a bit overweight, but we're good at getting people fit and taking the weight off them," Leahy told Australian Broadcasting Corp. television." Given that we're in a similar situation with our military being stretched thin, maybe this isn't such a bad approach for the USA to take given that 1 of 3 people in this country is obese? Extrapolating on Australia's projected 500 additional troops per year, and USA's population being well over ten times that of Australia's, we'd have 5000+ more troops per year, which is no small gain. A win/win situation for both ends of the deal -- more troops for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc., and an almost guaranteed way to get and stay in shape for the overweight recruits. Not sure why no one has thought of this one already... Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 August 29, 2006 So that's the GI-joe diet then (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #3 August 29, 2006 That would require a draft. Getting the slobs off the couch, and to the recruiter's office would be a major task. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #4 August 29, 2006 QuoteThat would require a draft. Getting the slobs off the couch, and to the recruiter's office would be a major task. US recruiters should be getting desparate enough now to start making house calls. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #5 August 29, 2006 Well, at least they can look at taking people who require daily medication. They can station them places where they will have access to their meds, freeing up people without such restrictions for other duties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #6 August 29, 2006 Quote A win/win situation for both ends of the deal -- I wonder if they will take an American.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #7 August 29, 2006 QuoteThat would require a draft. Getting the slobs off the couch, and to the recruiter's office would be a major task. I doubt it. Most people will do anything for enough money, which would include taking up running. We spend so much on other things that even "high" salaries would be a drop in the bucket. 500,000 troops at $100K per head would be just $50 billion, which isn't even 2% of our federal budget. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #8 August 29, 2006 you mean PAY THE MILITARY WHAT IT IS WORTH??? rotflmao.. never happen.. apparently having a military composed (largely, but not entirely) of those with few other options is more desired.. IMO Military service should be something the best and brightest COMPETE to be a part of... not a 'last refuge' for those generally to incompetent to find meaningful employment elsewhere... unfortunately breathing is enough to get accepted, remaining breathing in your pay grade is grounds for promotion.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 August 29, 2006 QuoteNot sure why no one has thought of this one already... Because recruiting goals are already being met as-is, so lowering standards is neither desirable nor necessary. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20060814.aspx Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #10 August 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteNot sure why no one has thought of this one already... Because recruiting goals are already being met as-is, so lowering standards is neither desirable nor necessary. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20060814.aspx The Army only met its 2005 goals by lowering those goals in May 05. The Army has ALREADY raised the maximum age for new recruits twice, as of June '06 it's 42.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #11 August 30, 2006 A win/win situation for both ends of the deal -- more troops for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc., and an almost guaranteed way to get and stay in shape for the overweight recruits. Not sure why no one has thought of this one already... Quote Absolutely not, there's already enough fat slobs in the military without lowering the standards, they slip through the cracks for multiple reasons. Everything from their chain of command not having the balls to enforce the Army's policy on weight and fitness, to people riding out injuries and profiles so the Army can't chapter them out because they haven't fully recovered. I get so pissed off every time I walk across post and see countless soldiers bulging out of their uniforms, and unfortunately you are no longer allowed to tell a soldier they are fat, that might hurt their delicate little feelings. I'm sick of seeing people make it in because of lowered standards, we could do twice as much with an Army half this size that consisted of nothing but the most dedicated, physically fit, and agressive of those in service now. I'm ashamed to be seen in uniform when there are people like this in the vicinity.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
