<p>^^ I agree with doubleplay. To even bring up the ‘relative intelligence’ question in the absence of compelling data is offensive. I see it only as another attempt on the part of some to knock the military although for some I think it’s due to their own ignorance of the people who make up the military and inexperience with the military.</p>
<p>“I see it only as another attempt on the part of some to knock the military although for some”</p>
<p>actually if you check the source it came from it was trying to do just the opposite.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm[/url]”>http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm</a></p>
<p>It isn’t really a knock on the military, it’s a knock on those who use questionable statistics to drum up things. (now this is not a shot at the young man who brought this here, it is more at a group the heritage foundation) </p>
<p>Lies, Damned Lies and statistics…</p>
<p>My point was depending on the parameters you set you can statistically prove…</p>
<ol>
<li>all people who enter the milltary are smarter than the population.</li>
</ol>
<p>or</p>
<ol>
<li>all people who enter the millitary are NOT smarter than the population.</li>
</ol>
<p>Where do you want to go today?</p>
<p>This is sickening.</p>
<p>You obviously don’t understand why someone would feel an obligation to protect anything but themselves. We get that. </p>
<p>What I, for one, don’t get is, why are you completely incapable of accepting the fact that you can’t understand someone else’s motivation for doing something without rationalizing it by reducing their intelligence to a level much lower than your perception of your own? </p>
<p>And don’t quote Patton, it makes you look stupid.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>cue John Philip Sousa.</p>
<p>Opie was clear that he was addressing the methodology of the analysis that purports to show the volunteer Army cohort is as or more “able” (I will not use intelligent) than the general population. You may find this as insufficiently patriotic for your taste; others may consider this as a reasoned rebuttal to an analysis done by a Foundation with a clear political agenda. Personally, I think it is all irrelevant, as the question is the demographic of the volunteer Army in 2007, not 2003.</p>
<p>The “reasoned rebuttal” was in response to the figures used to issue a rebuttal to the statement that members of the military are not as well educated as those who do not serve.</p>
<p>Responding to arguments not yet made is now the same as responding to arguments that have been made?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>Huh? FF contended in post #47 that the Army was better educated than the general public. That was the first allusion to education (except in the Boston Globe quote that lower aptitude scores were accepted in order to maintain recruitment levels). Opie disputed that, as well as the follow-on citation of the Heritage Fdn study.</p>
<p>Not sure what any of this has to do with ice cream.</p>
<p>I guess this is directed at me… so I’ll bite.</p>
<p>“This is sickening.”
Why?</p>
<p>"You obviously don’t understand why someone would feel an obligation to protect anything but themselves. We get that. "</p>
<p>How so? How do you come to this conclusion based on this thread? </p>
<p>"What I, for one, don’t get is, why are you completely incapable of accepting the fact that you can’t understand someone else’s motivation for doing something without rationalizing it by reducing their intelligence to a level much lower than your perception of your own? "</p>
<p>You got that out of this? Are you sure you read my stuff? Where did I lack or criticize a person’s choice to join up? Did I question the statistic used? yes, still do. Do I question current command? yes, still do. So how is that a shot at anybody who would decide to join up? Should command be subject to reveiw? Absolutely. If you want to cede responsibility for the lives of ground troops without accountability to those who command… well I guess that’s your issue isn’t it? </p>
<p>“And don’t quote Patton, it makes you look stupid.”</p>
<p>Really? 
</p>
<p>I guess when all else fails, you have to resort to cheap shots. Bully for you, I’ll go cower in the corner. sport.</p>
<p>Well…
what does the current Army look like?</p>
<p>*Recruiters may not explicitly target “the poor,” but there is mounting evidence that they target those whose career options are severely limited. According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, “nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.”</p>
<p>It perhaps should come as no surprise that the Army GED Plus Enlistment Program, in which applicants without high school diplomas are allowed to enlist while they complete a high school equivalency certificate, is focused on inner-city areas…
NOT ALL RECRUITS, of course, are driven by financial need. In working- class communities of every color, there are often long-standing traditions of military service and links between service and privileged forms of masculinity. For communities often marked as “foreign,” such as Latinos and Asians, there is pressure to serve in order to prove that one is “American.” For recent immigrants, there is the lure of gaining legal resident status or citizenship.*
<a href=“http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0706&article=070628[/url]”>http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0706&article=070628</a></p>
<p>
Because reading this makes me feel nauseous. Didn’t think that was hard to understand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(73)
</p>
<p>Alludes to a perception (yours) of a current condition of complete irresponsibility that you (as an outsider) see as obvious, and those who would enlist/reenlist lack the mental capacity to notice, thus elevating yourself above them. Likewise, according to your view of things, anyone who would be in the same intelligence bracket as you and would choose to ignore this obvious current condition would be lowering themselves to a moral tier far below yours. Either way, when all opinions have been voiced the only people that stand with you on your self-proclaimed pinnacle of intelligence and morality are those who share your exact viewpoint.</p>
<p>And yes, when you mis-quote Patton to prove a point that cannot be proven using his words if the quote is correct, it makes you look stupid. Unless, of course, your view of all history is the same as your view of statistics.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>
It is amazing that you do not see that this applies as much to your own posts as to anyone elses.</p>
<p>“Alludes to a perception (yours) of a current condition of complete irresponsibility”</p>
<p>I guess that perception would be shared by 70% of the population at this point, no? </p>
<p>" that you (as an outsider) see as obvious"</p>
<p>And anyone who studies military conflict history knows… you don’t beat the ememy with less troops, you do it with more… While the 300 Spartans were brave and couragous at the end of the day, they lost, and Athens was burned to the ground. </p>
<p>AND if we applied todays military strategy (more with less) to WWII we’d all be speaking german as our primary language. Check your history. War is not a game of “name that tune” with the least amount of notes. It is having more men, machines and rounds than the other guy. 10 Shermans to 1 tiger. Lose 4 to take out a tiger, still have 6. If fewer and better win the day in conflict, ach tung, baby. How many bombers and fighters did we produce, compared to the other guy? </p>
<p>This administration’s underarmoured, undertrooped venture into Iraq is ilresponsible from a military stand point. “you fight with what you’ve got… (rummy)” was one of the stupidest remarks for a leader of an attacking army. You fight with what you got, when you’re on the “defensive”. You go in to an offensive unprepared… well who’s responsible smart guy? We were under no pressure to hurry…were we? Where were they going? </p>
<p>“those who would enlist/reenlist lack the mental capacity to notice, thus elevating yourself above them” </p>
<p>That’s just silly to imply, your back to name calling. </p>
<p>“Either way, when all opinions have been voiced the only people that stand with you on your self-proclaimed pinnacle of intelligence and morality are those who share your exact viewpoint.”</p>
<p>And that would be the 70% of the population? 
</p>
<p>“And yes, when you mis-quote Patton to prove a point that cannot be proven using his words if the quote is correct, it makes you look stupid”</p>
<p>Here’s the actual quote…</p>
<p>"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other ■■■■■■■ die for his. "</p>
<p>Here’s my post…</p>
<p>“As “patton” (george C.) said… “We want the other poor ■■■■■■■ to die for his country””</p>
<p>I guess that’s sooooo far off that you can slam me for a misquote… jeese louise… </p>
<p>What you may have to realize is some of the folks out there that aren’t “dove’s”, aren’t all that happy with how the volunteer army is being used up. </p>
<p>You can continue to believe that this is the best use of the military, by the brightest leadership since valley forge, that’s your right. I think you’ll be mighty lonely at the VFW though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The US conscripted fewer men, as a percentage of population, than any other major combatant in WWII. Even in the final days of the European war, Germany had more men on the western front than the western Allies. The US has followed a “technology before manpower” strategy since at least the first World War. The tendency of the US to lean on technology instead of manpower might be a poor strategy in Iraq, but it is completely consistent with historical tendencies. (Since the whole war was a poor strategic decision from the beginning, this might just be an argument about how to paint the deck chairs.)</p>
<p>“Now I want you to remember that no ■■■■■■■ ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb ■■■■■■■ die for his country…”</p>
<p>May 31, 1944</p>
<p>No time, back tomorrow.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>“The US conscripted fewer men, as a percentage of population”</p>
<p>No offense WADAD, but aren’t we getting back to the fun with numbers again to challenge my point (percentage of population ;))? This is the funny thing about statistics isn’t it? going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. Going from 100 to 110 is less than ten percent so you could argue that the first IS a greater increase than the second, in terms of percentage. Now if they each had a rifle? which percentage would be made immatterial?</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I really don’t think I am, but the allies had more troops than the axis when we joined up…no? Actual numbers now, not percentages… boots on the ground, not percentages. </p>
<p>You can support your arguement simply by parameter, which was my point in this venture. </p>
<p>And… I think you get my drift about this. We didn’t perform the soviet or Iranian mass rush onto to fixed positions to overwhelm the ememy simply by making them run out of rounds… It’s the wise use of man and machine in battle.</p>
<p>It is a combination of more manpower, more equipement and more ammo isn’t it? Outside of the bomb, we built a hell of alot more than the other guy. Again correct me if I’m wrong but the true historical strength of American military history is it’s ability to mass produce via conversion of the private sector. Fords to Shermans and Boeing and their bombers… that when viewed by our opponents in time is the secret to our success. More good weapons of war, not fewer perfect ones. </p>
<p>“just be an argument about how to paint the deck chairs”</p>
<p>You’re probably right. Until 636 jumped in, it really was a question of how statistics are used to frame an arguement or point. In 636’s mind by questioning a statistic produced by the heritage foundation, I committed an unamerican act. When really it just a question of does the information jive with what my eyes see?</p>
<p>“Now I want you to remember that no ■■■■■■■ ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb ■■■■■■■ die for his country…”</p>
<p>Now are you quoting George C Scott or George S Patton. I just pulled his quote from a Patton’s quote website. I’ll look up movie quotes and let you know…;)</p>
<p>No ■■■■■■■ ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ■■■■■■■ die for his country.
George S. Patton </p>
<p>The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other ■■■■■■■ die for his.
George S. Patton</p>
<p>Looks like he said it twice, just slightly different. </p>
<p>“I want you to remember that no ■■■■■■■ ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ■■■■■■■ die for his.” from Patton, 1970.</p>
<p>George C Scott as George S. Patton… </p>
<p>Now don’t ya wish you’d let that slam go???</p>
<p>washdad, in the spirit of this thread’s attempt to understand the use of statistics: does the US’s smaller percentage of conscriptions in WWII take into account 1) the fact that the other major combatants were at war beginning in September 1939 whereas the US only came in after December 6, 1941 ?; and 2) does “conscriptions” include only persons who were drafted, or does it count those who enlisted?</p>
<p>Here are some numbers for you: I believe that the US had landed over 1.4 million men in Europe within a couple of months after D-Day. (Of course, our allies had done the same.) Germany’s population was about 70-80 million in 1944. Iraq’s population is about 27 million today.</p>
<p>Another difference - during WWII the US was fighting entire nations. During Iraq the US is no longer fighting an entire nation (it was at first but is no longer) - only the subset of insurgents. It’s difficult to compare numbers between the wars of WWII and Iraq since they’re completely different cases.</p>
<p>"Another difference "</p>
<p>I think your statement is true, hence part of the problem. Using armed forces as a police force isn’t necessarily the best use of an army. </p>
<p>“It’s difficult to compare numbers between the wars of WWII and Iraq since they’re completely different cases”</p>
<p>Well, one was a win, the other???</p>