Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim
33% are ineligible. So who cares what percentage is what?
My experience was in another military so I can't be sure how it translates to this one but perhaps someone in this military can explain this.
If the candidate is obese and cannot and/or will not lose the weight and we say that he is either lacking discipline and or the body to do the job, what good is such a candidate in the military?
If the candidate cannot and/or will not pass the HS level and we surmise that he/she lacks the discipline to do the classwork and/or intelligence, what good is that candidate in the military?
So, is a loss?
|
Maybe you missed the fact that the earlier posters had without substantiation inferred that the entire 33% was due to excessive BMI and not the combination of that and no diploma. It was a rhetorical devise used to illuminate the falicy of their misconception, posed as a question rather than coming straight out and as aresult being accused of insulting someone possibly hurting some delicate feelings in the process.
And you might want to rethink your arguement because as I read it MacChrystal said the 33% would be ineligible and therefore excluded from military service, I take that to mean they would be excluded from even being a candidate so your hypothetical "what good would such a candidate be to the military", exercise is ridiculous on it's face.
Sounds like your military service was compulsery whereas since the early 70's the US is an all volunteer military, eligibility criteria separate the wheat from the chafe first step in the process.