Anonymous wrote:Being fat is a little over 10% for military rejections.
Most are medical, being arrested or drug use.
Not being able to do a push up is not a driving factor to being ineligible.
Anonymous wrote:Being fat is a little over 10% for military rejections.
Most are medical, being arrested or drug use.
Not being able to do a push up is not a driving factor to being ineligible.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Today’s Republicans seem to be adamantly against things like free school lunches and universal health care. I had thought that many of these types of measures were originally put into place decades ago by Republicans— concerned that large percentages of the population were physically unfit, and if a military draft were instituted, the US would be hampered in their objectives due to the lack of available, fit potential draftees.
So, are my assumptions wrong? If not, then what’s changed? Does military effectiveness no longer require the same levels of physical fitness? Is the distaste for anything resembling social supports or income distribution so high that the Republicans would prefer having a physically unfit population that is possibly also unfit in other ways when it comes to military service? I’ve read (Military.com) that 77% of today’s young people would be considered unfit to serve for various reasons. Are the Republicans concerned about this at all? What am I missing?
This post makes no sense.
The draft is for 18 and older; and you have to be out of high school so free lunches are not an issue.
More people do not qualify as a lot more pre-existing conditions eliminate large parts of population from serving….drug use (consistent), asthma, autism, epilepsy, etc.
All much more prevalent and diagnosed these days than during Vietnam when we last had a draft.
Anonymous wrote:Today’s Republicans seem to be adamantly against things like free school lunches and universal health care. I had thought that many of these types of measures were originally put into place decades ago by Republicans— concerned that large percentages of the population were physically unfit, and if a military draft were instituted, the US would be hampered in their objectives due to the lack of available, fit potential draftees.
So, are my assumptions wrong? If not, then what’s changed? Does military effectiveness no longer require the same levels of physical fitness? Is the distaste for anything resembling social supports or income distribution so high that the Republicans would prefer having a physically unfit population that is possibly also unfit in other ways when it comes to military service? I’ve read (Military.com) that 77% of today’s young people would be considered unfit to serve for various reasons. Are the Republicans concerned about this at all? What am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:Let me try to put this delicately: the youth today don’t appear to suffer from a lack of food. They aren't turning away recruits for being malnourished.
Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.
Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?
Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.
Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?
Anonymous wrote:My son's APUSH teacher did a poll on what the students would do if a draft happened and only 2 people in his class of 28 said they'd enlist. Others said they would either claim to be trans or draft dodge. I love it.
Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.
Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?