OT us soldiers re-enlisting at a high rate?

Page 1 of 5  
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished here in this one.
in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.
this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments: "I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA Today story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96% fall into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-15-iraq-troops_x.htm . The story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year before, but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they would be reenlisting at that rate."
yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip off right there.
but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96% of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be made.
todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt proof that re-enlistment is high.
todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to defend my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the answer is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd backing up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing up my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to convince todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in. sorry todd. im not taking your bait.
and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you are about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if you want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your other thing true.
i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high re-enlistment.
do what you have to do...
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, we saw it.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The re-enlistment goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

...which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the stop-loss order.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

are
96%
was
re-enlistment
so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless numbers?

numbers
be
all i said is the % is falling. this is true. and yes i agree. the numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

think
were
short
maybe, maybe not. im just going on the proof todd gave.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are meaningless.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will you...'
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers. You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal) showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down". How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means anything, Randy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

considering
he
because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...
he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down. This has become circular and pointless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
wouldnt...
todd specifically issued me a challenge. the challenge was that he could prove re-enlistment was high. the only thing i am accusing him of is not being able to prove it.

he
well it has become pointless <g>
but he said he could prove it. i dont see the proof to back up his statement. neither do you.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz writes:

Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army. In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming under fire with any kind of regularity.
Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped

Although the vast majority of the Navy is not under direct fire there is some evidence that the extended. and more often deployments, and more back to back sea tours is effecting USN retention. Part of this is the experiment of not bringing ships home but leaving them deployed then swapping the whole crew out in an overseas location. On the plus side it keeps an asset in theater much longer by cutting off the month transit time on each side but it cuts down on port calls and makes the crew do more in depth maintence on the ship.
A significant reason for me getting of active duty was getting married and looking at the previous three years I had been gone 150 days year one, 210 year two and 270 year three. Of course, in my 9 years in the Naval Reserve I got recalled for Bosnia, Kosovo, three trip to Northern Watch and one to Southern watch but such was the bureden for getting to fly a high demand low density asset.
Allen Catonsville, MD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
wouldnt...
dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment rates were low (which i never did), and used the exact same arguments i made to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im picking on a slow child or something...
as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap my way around it.
so anyway. i dont know who im trying to convince.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now wait just a second here. I said that you bringing this up when we were talking about enlistment rates was, what were the words, "irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst" I think. It's like seeing this:
Todd: "Idaho farmers claim that potato sales are doing well." Randy: "But McDonalds has missed their french fry sales goal this year, but     beat it last year".
Why bring up french fry sales goal performance in the context of potato sales, if not to try to argue against the original statement?

There ya go, go for the personal attack, that always helps your cause.

Riiiiight. Counter a statement with a fuzzy response, and _I_ am the one spewing garbage when I call you on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.

Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling into the wind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it. i simply carried it over to this thread. it was his 'proof' that enlistment rates went down. i know you read the other thread because of your tap dancing references. did you simply forget or are you being purposefully obtuse?

all-volunteer Army.

duh
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FFS, Randy, "quoted it" rather than "cited it" then?
Seems it's always word-games with you, Randy. I can't see the point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

duh
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...in continuing to play word games with someone who uses the same article to make their points, as they criticize another for using.
Nice creative snipping, by the way. I notice you completely ignored the french fries analogy. Why would that be, Randy, because I called you on it and you don't care to acknowledge same?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

jeez, the irony is so thick here i cant stand it any more... he dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot now does he.
but lets get back to the heart of it. what started it all: me:

96%
was
dave: Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The re-enlistment goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.
me again: i never said anything about the raw numbers. if it was 106% of their goal one year, then 96 the next year, the conclusion to be drawn is that the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down, hence it is falling. this what i said to begin with as you can see clearly in the paragraph above as copied from my original post, and have continued to try and drum into your head dave. i NEVER claimed the actual numbers were falling, or that the article proved they were falling, and in fact pointed this out in the next paragraph in my original post:

numbers
do you see that dave? i said myself that the numbers are not pure and that no further comparason can be made.
here's an analogy that is actually relevant: todd: its sunny outside randy: no its not, the article you provided doesnt not prove it is sunny. dave: see randy, you cant prove its raining beacuse that article doesnt prove it randy: i never claimed it was raining, it might be snowing or hailing. its just not sunny. dave: yes you did randy: no i didnt repeat...
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Falling relative to an unknown variable, is meaningless. Can you at least see that?

So why would you bring up McDonalds french fry sales goal performance when the topic is Idaho farmer income? From here, it looks like you are bringing up an irrelevant measurement to distort the issue.

And yet you keep making it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

goal
the variable i am referring to is not unknown. the variable reffered to in this statement is the % of their goal. we know that variable in both situations and it went down from one year to the next.
just to be clear dave, are you disagreeing with the statement 'the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down? are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate term?
i am not claiming this means more or less actual people. never did. in fact i think i this it very clear. lets see what happens when i put back in what you snipped:

numbers
what part of that statement is unclear to you?

above
that
the
i really have no idea what basis you are using to draw this conclusion. this is all in your head.

that
no dave, you just keep accusing me of it.
if there is anything else to be said, please answer these questions:
are you disagreeing with the statement 'the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down? are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate term? what part of the statement 'no further comparassons can be made' is unclear? do you think the article supports todds case that re-enlistment rates are high?
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't know the _VALUE_ of the variable. FFS, Randy, it's all word-games with you, isn't it.

I'm not disagreeing with anything, Randy. You're completely right, about everything. Your words are unambiguous, your intentions are completely pure, and you're free to have the last word. You win, O wise and glorious Randy. Gosh, I'm so impressed by your wisdom.

Missing a sales goal is equivalent to the 106% vs. 96%. Farmer income is equivalent to the hard number which is re-enlistment rate. Got it now? It's not really that tough, Randy. Two different things.
I'm sure you have a really good response to all this, but I won't see it. Go ahead and crow about how I couldn't handle you or whatever, you probably can't help yourself. <plonk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.