'Use these cities as training grounds'

ns503
Posts
4553
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies CA

Are all you supporters, still supporting? Still not finding even one tiny thing to be critical about?

There is not a trace of non-fascism in those words.

4
19
|
9/30/2025 9:46am

Was that your big takeaway from this speech? There’s a significant retooling of the American military in the works and I strongly support it. 

20
9
Joey Bridges
Posts
9210
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN US
9/30/2025 9:47am

Might want to pose that question to the DC residents who can now walk around safely. 

Or the people from Chicago, or better yet, Memphis, who have been wearing themselves out at council meetings asking for more law enforcement in their neighborhoods. 

Or even the parents of children who've been raped, murdered, or shot during random drive by gang bullshit. 

 

Ridding our nation of the millions of criminal illegal aliens, and the entrenched criminal elements, paid protesters, 

Getting the freaks out of our military. 

Getting illegals out of our healthcare system.

By whatever means necessary is what we voted for.

And exactly what's being deliverd.

 

And it's not even the end of year one !!!

51
14
9/30/2025 10:40am
Might want to pose that question to the DC residents who can now walk around safely. Or the people from Chicago, or better yet, Memphis, who have...

Might want to pose that question to the DC residents who can now walk around safely. 

Or the people from Chicago, or better yet, Memphis, who have been wearing themselves out at council meetings asking for more law enforcement in their neighborhoods. 

Or even the parents of children who've been raped, murdered, or shot during random drive by gang bullshit. 

 

Ridding our nation of the millions of criminal illegal aliens, and the entrenched criminal elements, paid protesters, 

Getting the freaks out of our military. 

Getting illegals out of our healthcare system.

By whatever means necessary is what we voted for.

And exactly what's being deliverd.

 

And it's not even the end of year one !!!

/End Thread

13
13
Alex814
Posts
1191
Joined
12/18/2014
Location
IL US
9/30/2025 11:14am
ns503 wrote:

Are all you supporters, still supporting? Still not finding even one tiny thing to be critical about?

There is not a trace of non-fascism in those words.

Do you have any clue what fascism is?

16
5

The Shop

Joey Bridges
Posts
9210
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN US
9/30/2025 11:35am
ns503 wrote:

Are all you supporters, still supporting? Still not finding even one tiny thing to be critical about?

There is not a trace of non-fascism in those words.

Alex814 wrote:

Do you have any clue what fascism is?

More than likely not.

It's just the catch phrase used by the throngs of anti Trumpers. 

Anything he's doing is facist in their eyes.

 

What's funny is, with the schumer shutdown looming, all of the video clips of him, hillary and others stating that illegal aliens are not worthy of getting our healthcare benefits. 

Pretty much saying they were MAGA before MAGA was cool.

12
10
9/30/2025 11:59am

Was that your big takeaway from this speech? There’s a significant retooling of the American military in the works and I strongly support it. 

No, he read the interweb and found out the buzz words of the day and raced to start a thread.

11
6
TeamGreen
Posts
36502
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
9/30/2025 12:02pm
ns503 wrote:

Are all you supporters, still supporting? Still not finding even one tiny thing to be critical about?

There is not a trace of non-fascism in those words.

Alex814 wrote:

Do you have any clue what fascism is?

I’ve enjoyed the ignorance from those that throw that word around along with Nazi, Gestapo…etc., etc., etc. …as they support the anarchy, crime and villainy that’s taking place in Big City America and they support policies that are, in themselves, fascist mandates that defy logic.

No worries. I’ll continue to call them what they are…

THEY

8
12
PNWMXer
Posts
1711
Joined
1/13/2022
Location
Washington, WA US
9/30/2025 12:06pm Edited Date/Time 9/30/2025 12:07pm

If you spent the last 20 or so years in the US, through the Floyd/Gray/Brown/et al riots, Antifa, social media censorship, social credit score/digital ID talk, ‘Rona shutdowns, various active shooter/sniper events, and on and on, and still think that the R’s are the fascists, seek professional help…because you’re not living in reality. 

29
9
LoudLove
Posts
2748
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
9/30/2025 12:07pm

Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands and traveled multiple time zones to pump Hegseth’s ego and hear Trump whine.  It’s objectively bad, and serves almost no practical or operational purpose. 

16
17
TeamGreen
Posts
36502
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
9/30/2025 12:15pm
LoudLove wrote:
Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands...

Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands and traveled multiple time zones to pump Hegseth’s ego and hear Trump whine.  It’s objectively bad, and serves almost no practical or operational purpose. 

Why are there soooo many 0-7 and up these days? 

What the actual fuck? 

6
8
olds cool
Posts
4149
Joined
1/17/2010
Location
Claremont, NC US
9/30/2025 12:24pm

What’s so embarrassing about telling the military to shape up, look, act and be professional and capable, or ship out? 🤷‍♂️

22
6
LoudLove
Posts
2748
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
9/30/2025 12:31pm
LoudLove wrote:
Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands...

Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands and traveled multiple time zones to pump Hegseth’s ego and hear Trump whine.  It’s objectively bad, and serves almost no practical or operational purpose. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Why are there soooo many 0-7 and up these days? 

What the actual fuck? 

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

3
Joey Bridges
Posts
9210
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN US
9/30/2025 1:22pm
olds cool wrote:

What’s so embarrassing about telling the military to shape up, look, act and be professional and capable, or ship out? 🤷‍♂️

Exactly, this isn't some drag queen parade, or hollywood red carpet poser group.

It's our "warriors".

The MEN, and badass women, who are tasked to defend our nation, and its interests.

And... all of these blue haired protesters have overlooked one key phrase in their creed.

All enemies foreign and domestic.

9
7
R66
Posts
1180
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA US
9/30/2025 1:42pm
IMG 3197 0.jpeg?VersionId=s8A4yLjh6m3KA5bEaUlIi0Ow9
19
8
TeamGreen
Posts
36502
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
9/30/2025 1:58pm Edited Date/Time 9/30/2025 2:00pm
LoudLove wrote:
Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands...

Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands and traveled multiple time zones to pump Hegseth’s ego and hear Trump whine.  It’s objectively bad, and serves almost no practical or operational purpose. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Why are there soooo many 0-7 and up these days? 

What the actual fuck? 

LoudLove wrote:
What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make...

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

7
2
Joey Bridges
Posts
9210
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN US
9/30/2025 2:12pm
TeamGreen wrote:

Why are there soooo many 0-7 and up these days? 

What the actual fuck? 

LoudLove wrote:
What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make...

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

Yep, too many chiefs.

And too many Indian's with jelly doughnuts in their foot lockers. 

6
3
Gmyersdork
Posts
317
Joined
2/16/2021
Location
Beverly Hills, FL US
9/30/2025 2:23pm
TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

It's nice your back

2
6
TeamGreen
Posts
36502
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
9/30/2025 2:53pm

I love that todays message was…

Woke is dead.

No more dudes in dresses.

No more beardos.

No more Fat Generals. 🤣

Meanwhile, the defenders of the old guard, including those that gave us Biden…and gave us KJP…and gave us…all that wonderful “Dudes swimming on the Women’s team” woke bullshit…

Those folks want us to care about their “feelings”?

Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa

You Can Not Make This Shit Up💩

 

17
8
TeamGreen
Posts
36502
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
9/30/2025 2:59pm
LoudLove wrote:
What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make...

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

Yep, too many chiefs.

And too many Indian's with jelly doughnuts in their foot lockers. 

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Holy Jesus! What is that? What THE FUCK is that? WHAT IS THAT, PRIVATE PYLE?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, a jelly doughnut, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
A jelly doughnut?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, yes, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
How did it get here?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, I took it from the mess hall, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Is chow allowed in the barracks, Private Pyle?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, no, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Are you allowed to eat jelly doughnuts, Private Pyle?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, no, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
And why not, Private Pyle?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, because I'm too heavy, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Because you are a disgusting fat body, Private Pyle!

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, yes, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Then why did you try to sneak a jelly doughnut in your foot locker, Private Pyle?

Private Gomer Pyle:
Sir, because I was hungry, sir!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Because you were hungry...

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Private Pyle has dishonored himself and dishonored his platoon. I have tried to help Private Pyle. I have failed. I have failed because YOU have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation! So, from now on, whenever Private Pyle fuckss up, I will not punish him! I will punish all of YOU! And the way I see it, ladies, you owe me for ONE JELLY DOUGHNUT! NOW, GET DOWN ON YOUR FACES!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
Open your mouth!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
They're payin' for it; YOU eat

5
4
APLMAN99
Posts
12155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
9/30/2025 6:07pm
TeamGreen wrote:

Why are there soooo many 0-7 and up these days? 

What the actual fuck? 

LoudLove wrote:
What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make...

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

The available numbers show that the total of O-7 and above is actually lower than 40 years ago. 

3
Sully
Posts
9147
Joined
8/24/2006
Location
JP
9/30/2025 6:39pm
LoudLove wrote:
What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make...

What’s the right number?  Serious question as I have zero involvement or engagement with BUPERS (or whatever it’s called now).  With zero intel I cannot make an assessment, and I’m hesitant to rely on a guy who’s had the gig less than a year. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

APLMAN99 wrote:

The available numbers show that the total of O-7 and above is actually lower than 40 years ago. 

"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).

During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.

Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).

These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

*I added the bold

APLMAN99
Posts
12155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
9/30/2025 6:44pm
TeamGreen wrote:

Go look at the acceleration of those ranks over the last 40 years…it’s insane. 

Remember when a 3 or 4 star was rare? I do.

 

APLMAN99 wrote:

The available numbers show that the total of O-7 and above is actually lower than 40 years ago. 

Sully wrote:
"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in...

"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).

During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.

Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).

These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

*I added the bold

Yeah, the percentage of those higher officers may be a bit higher. I was referring to the actual number of officers O-7 and above.  

5
Sully
Posts
9147
Joined
8/24/2006
Location
JP
9/30/2025 6:58pm
APLMAN99 wrote:

The available numbers show that the total of O-7 and above is actually lower than 40 years ago. 

Sully wrote:
"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in...

"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).

During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.

Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).

These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

*I added the bold

APLMAN99 wrote:

Yeah, the percentage of those higher officers may be a bit higher. I was referring to the actual number of officers O-7 and above.  

The overall force is smaller by over 50%, so using the percentages of the force is the only real way to compare them. You could argue that the officer corps has grown by almost 43% since 1965, but that increase doesn't keep pace with the percentage increase of GO/FO across the board.

I can't remember where I read it, but the overwhelming majority of GO/FO across the 5 branches are in staff positions, and don't actually have direct command over anything. 

1
APLMAN99
Posts
12155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
9/30/2025 7:14pm
Sully wrote:
"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in...

"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).

During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.

Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).

These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

*I added the bold

APLMAN99 wrote:

Yeah, the percentage of those higher officers may be a bit higher. I was referring to the actual number of officers O-7 and above.  

Sully wrote:
The overall force is smaller by over 50%, so using the percentages of the force is the only real way to compare them. You could argue...

The overall force is smaller by over 50%, so using the percentages of the force is the only real way to compare them. You could argue that the officer corps has grown by almost 43% since 1965, but that increase doesn't keep pace with the percentage increase of GO/FO across the board.

I can't remember where I read it, but the overwhelming majority of GO/FO across the 5 branches are in staff positions, and don't actually have direct command over anything. 

I didn’t look at the full number of officers, only the O-7 and up. If you look at the numbers in your original reply, the total of flag officers is down a little over 37%. I have the spreadsheets for the other ranks but it’d be at least tomorrow before I could look at them. 

I was originally replying to the statement about there being so many more O-7 and above officers and I suppose that it may seem like there are more of them because they are a slightly higher percentage of overall manpower. 

2
vet323
Posts
3554
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
9/30/2025 8:00pm
APLMAN99 wrote:

The available numbers show that the total of O-7 and above is actually lower than 40 years ago. 

Sully wrote:
"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in...

"A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).

During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.

Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).

These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

*I added the bold

APLMAN99 wrote:

Yeah, the percentage of those higher officers may be a bit higher. I was referring to the actual number of officers O-7 and above.  

Hahaha....seriously? C'mon, dude.

1
2
Kenny Banyan
Posts
3028
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA US
9/30/2025 8:39pm
Might want to pose that question to the DC residents who can now walk around safely. Or the people from Chicago, or better yet, Memphis, who have...

Might want to pose that question to the DC residents who can now walk around safely. 

Or the people from Chicago, or better yet, Memphis, who have been wearing themselves out at council meetings asking for more law enforcement in their neighborhoods. 

Or even the parents of children who've been raped, murdered, or shot during random drive by gang bullshit. 

 

Ridding our nation of the millions of criminal illegal aliens, and the entrenched criminal elements, paid protesters, 

Getting the freaks out of our military. 

Getting illegals out of our healthcare system.

By whatever means necessary is what we voted for.

And exactly what's being deliverd.

 

And it's not even the end of year one !!!

Good post!👍🏻💯

4
7
Kenny Banyan
Posts
3028
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA US
9/30/2025 8:43pm
LoudLove wrote:
Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands...

Watching a recap of Trump & Hegseth addressing military leadership at Quantico.  Hegseth was embarrassing, and Trump is borderline inappropriate. These admirals and generals left commands and traveled multiple time zones to pump Hegseth’s ego and hear Trump whine.  It’s objectively bad, and serves almost no practical or operational purpose. 

It’s your opinion and that’s great. I think you’re wrong.

5
3
eins4eins
Posts
220
Joined
10/2/2012
Location
DE
9/30/2025 11:14pm
ns503 wrote:

Are all you supporters, still supporting? Still not finding even one tiny thing to be critical about?

There is not a trace of non-fascism in those words.

People will only understand once these authoritarian methods affect them or people they care about. But that time will come rather sooner than later, as deporting immigrants or oppressing lgbtq people won't appease their crowd forever. 

3
13
10/1/2025 1:08am
olds cool wrote:

What’s so embarrassing about telling the military to shape up, look, act and be professional and capable, or ship out? 🤷‍♂️

It's about leading by example, the Commander in Chief should set the example.

2
9

Post a reply to: 'Use these cities as training grounds'

The Latest