Army missed its recruiting drive target for Feb.

[Akaran_D]

Even the marines were short, first time since 1999.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/06/milita ... index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Staff Sgt. Richard Guzman is on the front lines of one of the U.S. Army's toughest battles in years, and he's not in Iraq.

He's an Army recruiter trying to coax young men and women into volunteering to serve at a time when U.S. ground forces are engaged in a war halfway around the world.

"To me, recruiting used to be easy. Right now, you really have to hunt for those ones who really want to" serve, said Guzman, who recruits in New York City's Harlem section.

Nearly two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1,500 U.S. troops dead and another 11,200 wounded, recruiters like Guzman are having to work hard as the Army strives to sign up 80,000 recruits this year to replace soldiers leaving the service.

The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999.

Recruiting for the Army's reserve component -- the National Guard and Army Reserve -- is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short.

The Marine Corps, the other service providing ground forces in Iraq, has its own difficulties.

In January and February, the Marines missed their goal for signing up new recruits -- the first such shortfall in nearly a decade -- but remained a bit ahead of their target for shipping recruits into basic training.

Iraq marks the first protracted conflict for U.S. forces since the end of the draft in 1973, which ushered in the era of the all-volunteer military.

If the military fails to attract enough recruits and America maintains a large commitment in Iraq, the nation may have to consider some form of conscription, said Cato Institute defense analyst Charles Pena. "This is getting dicey," said Pena.

Lt. Col. John Gillette, who commands the Army recruiting battalion in New York City, said young people and their families are asking questions about the war.

"Instead of just talking specifically to the applicant, we're talking to the applicant's parents, and, in some cases, extended family -- aunts, uncles -- just to answer their questions and concerns as well," Gillette said.

Guzman said he reassures families that a recruit will get the normal nine weeks of basic training and further individual training and not just be shoved in a uniform and sent into combat. "They think that after two weeks in basic training, they will be deployed overseas," Guzman said.

Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said recruiters do everything they can to allay the apprehension of recruits and families. "But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

The improving economy and civilian job opportunities also are factors in recruiting, Smith said.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the active-duty and reserve components have added 3,000 recruiters since last year and increased enlistment bonuses to try to lure new soldiers.

"So we've got a challenge, but we're certainly not going to give up," Harvey told a congressional panel.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said there has been a migration of recruits away from the ground forces toward services less likely to be in harm's way in Iraq -- the Navy and Air Force.

"There's a bottom line to the recruiting debate. People don't want to die," Thompson said.

The problem is even more dire than it appears because the Army, through "stop-loss" orders, has forced thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to remain in uniform when their volunteer service commitment ends, thus keeping recruiting needs artificially low, Pena said.

Some of these soldiers may remain in the Army involuntarily for up to 18 months beyond when they were scheduled to leave.

"The military can hold things together on a relatively short-term basis through some fairly extreme measures like 'stop-loss' and making much greater use of Reserve and Guard units to fill the requirements in Iraq," Pena said.

"But you cannot do this indefinitely. At some point, you break the force. And the question is: how close are we to that breaking point?"

Discussion time.
What do you think would be viable methods of conscription to allow the US Army to remain at its current opperating strength over, say, the next 5 years?

Draft? Increased military benifits to draw in college students? Or do you think a program that would recruit directly from the Penal System would work for what we need it to do?

[Winnow]

I don't know but thank your lucky stars Kerry isn't in office. He wanted to increase our forces by two divisions.

Democrat President = Draft.

Don't be fooled.

[Aabidano]

Or do you think a program that would recruit directly from the Penal System would work for what we need it to do?

Some of the best folks I had work for me in the service were "encouraged" to join by the judicial system. None of them would be allowed to join now. Me neither for that matter.

People coming from a classroom enviroment are much more averse to working in poor conditions than someone who's been digging ditches. A number of folks I went to boot camp with were happy they were fed 3 times a day. Pay too, woohoo!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Most people join because they think they will never be deployed. If I was in the government and looking for a way to beef up the military, I would institute a second chance program for drug or violent offenders in our prisons. Give them a 10 year duty in the military for a clean slate when their tour is up. Any incidents while in the armed forces and they go back to the slammer for their full term.

[Truant]

I know that back home, enlisting is the only practical way to get off the farm for nearly anyone. When instant deployment and combat comes into the equation, the farm just doesn't look that bad anymore.

[Fash]

Most people join because they think they will never be deployed.

[Marbus]

That's true but I don't think that means we have a bunch of wussies in the Military.

Look at who is hurting the most, National Guard, these people joined up GUARD the Nation, not be deployed to some other country to fight a needless bullshit war for the President's ego.

THAT same feeling is what is causing these numbers. When WWII happend, even when Vietnam first started people signed up to fight because they felt is was a good and just cause. People don't see that about this, they see it was Bush's ego trip with little chance of success and a high level of death.

At least those are my opinions...

Marb

[Acies]

I know a few people in the military, in Iraq right now, who's family is barely cutting even financially. I feel that in order to insure we have a strong military arm for tommarow, we would need to fix the combat pay and benefits issue. Frankly, if I was a career soldier, I would be looking for another job, since the military right now is not finacially taking care of it's own.

[Kelshara]

I don't know but thank your lucky stars Kerry isn't in office. He wanted to increase our forces by two divisions.

Democrat President = Draft.

Don't be fooled.

I am all for you being drafted!

[Sueven]

As far as recruiting from the penal system goes:

It's an interesting and functional idea.

But...

We need to be very careful not to create a permanent American underclass. We have a very hierarchical society with much less equality than most of our democratic counterparts. This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the stratification doesn't get out of control. Combining our already overinflated penal system with our virtually class-segregated military could be a recipe for disaster. The plan would need to be very, very carefully studied, and contingency plans would have to be in place in the event that the plan were to backfire economically or socially.

[Zaelath]

No but really.. where do you think the shortfall will be made up?

We all recall what "No New Taxes" meant.

I wonder what "No draft" means.

[Aabidano]

We need to be very careful not to create a permanent American underclass. ... Combining our already overinflated penal system with our virtually class-segregated military could be a recipe for disaster.

Class segregated? I'm not sure what country's military your refering to, it isn't the US's. It's probably the most balanced and integrated portion of our society.

Joining the military was always a way out for many people, it's a job and (usually) training for a trade of some sort, and assistance with college tuition after you've done your time. Also, the VA mortage program allows an opportunity for home ownership for many who would have had a hard time otherwise.

Frankly, if I was a career soldier, I would be looking for another job, since the military right now is not finacially taking care of it's own.

Very junior folks with a large family have always had a hard time, they weren't forced to have children. It's no different than anyone else in that situation. People working a second job to pay for "frills" had a hard time when we'd deploy and that income was gone. Sucks to be them.

My employer will supplement my military pay to my current salary level if I was recalled to active duty. A reservist that didn't get that sort of compensation would have a very hard time I'd think. I don't think I'd be in the active reserves in that situation.

I never made "good" money, but it wasn't terrible either. Towards the time I retired it was decent enough money, it's all a matter of living within your means.

[Sueven]

I don't get it. I claimed that the military was "virtually class segregated," implying that it's generally filled with people from less wealthy families. You denied my claim, and then made the following points:

Joining the military was always a way out for many people, it's a job and (usually) training for a trade of some sort, and assistance with college tuition after you've done your time.

Correct. Please note that for most young members of wealthy families, a "way out" is not necessary. A dangerous job is not necessary, and assistance with college tuition is not necessary. So guess who has an incentive to join to receive these benefits? That's right, people from poor families. Guess who doesn't? People from wealthy families.

Also, the VA mortage program allows an opportunity for home ownership for many who would have had a hard time otherwise.

Further reinforcing the point: This sort of financial incentive has more value to the poor than the rich.

After that you went on to talk about how members of the military often struggle financially but are given enough to get by, which is interesting and true but in no way proves the point that our military is not "virtually class segregated."

Thus, after you specifically denied the truthfulness of my claim, you went on to make a number of points that either supported my claim or were irrelevant. On the strength of what fact or argument does your disagreement rest?

[Aabidano]

I claimed that the military was "virtually class segregated," implying that it's generally filled with people from less wealthy families.

I was thinking internally rather than the source pool. The second part wasn't addressed to your post.

Won't argue your point at all on the source pool, but that isn't anything new either. Pretty standard for any country with a volunteer military. By and large people from families that have money have never served in the military except in "leadership" positions. I wouldn't expect that to change unless they implement a draft. We've seen how sucessful that it.

[Brotha]

I doubt "counter-recruiters" have been much of a factor in the low number of recuirts, but still pretty disturbing:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ters_x.htm

NEW YORK — The Marines didn't have to recruit Greg McCullough. He signed a promise to enlist last year, while he was still in high school. But now McCullough has had second thoughts, and he's talking to a different kind of recruiter.

Jim Murphy is a "counter-recruiter," one of a small but growing number of opponents of the Iraq war who say they want to compete with military recruiters for the hearts and minds of young people. (Related story: For Guard recruiters, a tough sell)

"I don't tell kids not to join the military," says Murphy, 59, a member of Veterans for Peace. "I tell them: 'Have a plan for your future. Because if you don't, the military has a plan for you.' "

Since the advent of the all-volunteer military three decades ago, the armed services have used an array of tools, from recruiting in schools to TV advertising, to successfully sell careers in the military. But with ground troops in Iraq still under fire, the Army and Marines are struggling to get enough enlistments.

The armed services need many recruits each year — the Army and Army Reserve alone need more than 100,000 — and less than 10% come knocking on the door. The rest must be recruited.

Anti-war activists such as Murphy charge that to fill their quotas, some military recruiters make promises they can't guarantee, such as money for college or training in a particular specialty, and give misleading descriptions of military life.

Murphy says high school graduates don't need to join the military to learn a skill, pay for college, see the world or learn discipline.

Building a network

Counter-recruiters formed a national network at meetings in Philadelphia in the summers of 2003 and 2004. They range from Vietnam War veterans, such as Murphy, to high school students trained to talk to their peers about enlistment.

The American Friends Service Committee, one of several peace groups opposed to what it calls "militarization of youth," has prepared a brochure titled Do You Know Enough to Enlist? In a tip of the hat to the opposition, it's deliberately designed to look like a military recruiting brochure.

Using a 1986 federal appeals court decision that supported the rights of draft registration opponents to equal access to students, the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers union has helped get counter-recruiting into some schools regularly visited by military recruiters in the nation's second largest public district. The counter-recruiters make public address announcements, distribute literature, show documentaries and give classroom presentations.

In the San Francisco area, members of a group called the Raging Grannies dress up in flamboyant old-lady attire (big hats, long, flowered dresses) and visit high schools. They offer a selection of political buttons and make their pitch while students are choosing. Sometimes the Grannies sing peace songs and dance.

"When you kick up your heels, it gets their attention," says Ruth Robertson, a 52-year-old Granny.

But in most places, the contest between military recruiters and counter-recruiters is a mismatch. The former are full-time, uniformed servicemembers; the latter are volunteers working on a small budget, if any.

While military recruiters often enjoy free rein in high schools, anti-war activists say it's difficult just to get in the door.

Off school grounds

Eric Peters is an anti-war organizer in Chicago, where most public high schools have Junior ROTC programs. He says some administrators think counter-recruiters are unpatriotic, and others fear parental or public criticism. As a result, his group must distribute fliers off school grounds.

"Where the need is greatest, it's hard to find groups committed to go into schools," says Bob Henschen of the Houston Action Committee for Youth and Non-Military Options. He says it's so hard to get permission to enter schools that he won't say where his group has access. He says he's afraid publicity would jeopardize the arrangement.

Nationally, says Maj. Dave Griesmer, spokesman for the Marines' national recruiting command, counter-recruiters aren't much of a factor: "We don't spend a lot of time thinking about these people."

A change of mind

Jim Murphy does not look like a recruiter of any kind. His untucked shirt covers a pot belly, his gray hair reaches his shoulders, and he favors blue jeans and windbreakers. But he has two credentials for counter-recruiting: He's a high school administrator who knows how to talk to kids, and he's an Air Force veteran who served in Vietnam in the mid-1960s.

When Greg McCullough met Murphy, he had already joined the Marines' Delayed Entry Program, which allows high school students to sign up for the Corps before graduation.

McCullough seemed a perfect candidate. He was a member of the Junior ROTC honor guard at his Brooklyn high school. He loved everything about the Marines, from the lore to the uniform. After being rebuffed twice because he was too young, McCullough passed a physical and an entrance exam last June.

But McCullough says he has concluded, after talking with Murphy and other veterans, that military life is not for him.

For one thing, Murphy helped convince him that he could go to college to pursue his interest in criminal justice, and that there was no guarantee he'd get his request for assignment to military police. For another, he's worried about combat in Iraq.

Murphy told him that even for Americans from the most violent neighborhoods, combat is a shock. "It's gonna change you forever, and not necessarily positively. Think of all the civilians killed in Fallujah. You're gonna see something like that for the rest of your life," he told him.

"Poor kids listen to recruiters because they're scared about what's going to happen to them," Murphy says. "They know they need to get out of the neighborhood, but they're afraid to leave the corner. In the military, they know they won't have to make any decisions for four years, and they'll make their parents proud."

But McCullough had signed up for the Delayed Entry Program, which the Marines told him was a binding commitment, and which Murphy told him was not.

Murphy gave him a form letter to send to the commander of the Marine recruiting station, saying he'd changed his mind and was going to college. Murphy told McCullough that the armed services don't consider recruits to have joined until they go to basic training — "until they shave your head," as he put it.

People like Murphy annoy Maj. J.J. Dill, commander of Marine recruiters in metro New York. "These counter-recruiters don't know what they're talking about," he says. "But saying that we're tricking and lying, that certainly has an impact on a young person. A lot of them are influenced by these counter-recruiters or by negative media coverage (of Iraq)."

Discussing their concerns

When he gets a form letter like the one Murphy recommends, he says, "We call the recruit in and talk about it: 'What's your concern? What's changed?' We generally have a good success rate at turning them around." But, he adds, "We're not going to force anybody to go to (basic) training. I will discharge them."

McCullough, 19, knows he'll get the call, but says it won't do any good. He's going to attend John Jay College and major in international criminal justice and Arabic.

He says he appreciates Murphy's assistance: "Jim showed me the options."

This school year, Murphy says he'll counsel about 20 students. He's proud of his record — he says that four years ago he got six students to change their minds about joining the Marines.

But, he adds, "I don't always win. I lose a kid for every one I get into college or a union (training) program. I've got one in Iraq right now."

[Zaelath]

What, and you don't find:

He signed a promise to enlist last year, while he was still in high school.

disturbing?

[nobody]

"I don't tell kids not to join the military," says Murphy, 59, a member of Veterans for Peace. "I tell them: 'Have a plan for your future. Because if you don't, the military has a plan for you.' "

Being in the military I can't underscore this statement enough! I was lucky enough to have a friend high up in the ranks and with over 20 yrs of experience to give me good advice. I don't care what the Army says, you ARE just a number to them. If you are not proactive in your career you will become their little bitch. BUT...if you have a plan and use the tools that the Army is more than willing to provide you, then it can become one of the greatest assets to you. In just a few years I will be out of the military and making six figures even if I don't get a degree (which i will) and it is all thanks to the Army.

That said, I don't plan on re-enlisting b/c I don't agree with long deployment cycles. I have friends that have been to Afghanistan three times since OEF began. It's not easy to put your life on hold for that long. If my country NEEDS me I will be there but in the mean time I have plans for my future.

[Brotha]

What, and you don't find:

He signed a promise to enlist last year, while he was still in high school.

disturbing?

No, I don't find it disturbing that he entered the Delayed Entry Program while he was still in high school. Do you even know what that is? It doesn't sound like it.

If, for instance, he enlisted and was yanked out of high school to go to bootcamp yeah I'd have a problem with it, but it's nothing like that. Also, as noted in the article, it's not an iron-clad commitment.

The DEP is something people can enter into when they don't fully meet the requirements (haven't graduated HS yet, are too overweight, etc) to go off to bootcamp. In the program they have events, workouts, meet with their recruiter, that sort of stuff. It also keeps kids out of trouble and is a big motivator to help them graduate high school; recruiters check with the recruits often to make sure they are keeping their grades up, as you do need a high school degree to join the marines (or 12 hours of college credit and they accept a very small number of GEDs a year). I think you need to be classified as a senior in high school (don't quote me on that) to join it, they aren't taking 14 year olds or anything. Yeah, I find this really disturbing .

[Zaelath]

Hey look, if you think having a kid under 18 sign a contract (and that's what they clearly think it is) isn't a problem, that's your opinion.

And if it's not a contract, why does it need a signature? I don't know of any other contract that's binding on a minor, so I assume these aren't either, but giving children a rousing speech, and clearly blowing sunshine up their ass about how likely they are to get their choice of assignment to get them to sign bogus contracts seems pretty reprehensible to me. That's my opinion.

Not that it's clear how old he was when he signed up, but regardless, the kind of active recruiting and bullshit they use to get bums on seats is pretty ordinary.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

You can't sign a legal binding contract under the age of 18. Therefore, you are talking out your ass. It is no different than a kid signing a letter of intent to attend the college that offered the most cash and then not honoring that committment to play in the minor leagues after getting drafted. There is no legal recourse anyone can make as they are not enforceable binding contracts.

[Kelshara]

I have no problem with counter-recruiters since I believe you should hear more than one side of a story before making up your mind about something as important as this.

Also, military recruiting in high school is ridiculous and pathetic. At that time kids don't have a clue what they want, they are (mostly) clueless about anything outside of their small group of friends and a lot of guys are enamored with guns/military/etc. Too damn young!

[Brotha]

Hey look, if you think having a kid under 18 sign a contract (and that's what they clearly think it is) isn't a problem, that's your opinion.

And if it's not a contract, why does it need a signature? I don't know of any other contract that's binding on a minor, so I assume these aren't either, but giving children a rousing speech, and clearly blowing sunshine up their ass about how likely they are to get their choice of assignment to get them to sign bogus contracts seems pretty reprehensible to me. That's my opinion.

Not that it's clear how old he was when he signed up, but regardless, the kind of active recruiting and bullshit they use to get bums on seats is pretty ordinary.

It said it was in June right after his Jr. year (when he was classified as a Senior) that he signed up. Unless he skipped a grade he was most likely 17.

They don't tell them "if you sign up now you can get your choice of assignment." What he was referring to is in, in the marines atleast, you can choose what MOS (job) you want to have before you even sign up, and they can put that in your contract before you sign it. Whether that's 100 percent guaranteed or not (I doubt it's guaranteed if they REALLY need you somewhere else), I don't know.

I'm pretty sure people need parental consent to enter the DEP. With parental consent in Texas a 17 year old can get married. In some other states (LA I think), it's even lower. For the life of me I can't see anything wrong with a 17 year old being allowed to enter this program, I only see positive benefits.

/agree with what Kilmoll said.

Honestly I laughed at my naivety this morning. I expected to not see a reply from you since it was so obvious you had no idea what you were talking about. I guess I'll never learn...

[Aruman]

The Delayed Entry Program allows a 17 year old senior in High School to enlist with parental consent, which means both the individual and the parent must sign the enlistment contract before being allowed to go through the process.

The individual must meet the same requirements during the enlistment process as anyone else: Meeting physical, mental, and moral qualifications.

If any of those three are not met, you will not be enlisted. Some things can be mitigated with a waiver, but that takes additional paperwork prior to the person being sent down to the processing center, and mostly consists of moral waivers. From my experience there are no waivers for Physical and mental issues.

For example: You cannot get a waiver for being over-weight nor can you get a waiver for scoring low on the ASVAB.

Murphy gave him a form letter to send to the commander of the Marine recruiting station, saying he'd changed his mind and was going to college. Murphy told McCullough that the armed services don't consider recruits to have joined until they go to basic training — "until they shave your head," as he put it.

This is true as far as the entire process goes, you are not actually enlisted until you go to basic training, but as far as the numbers go, you are counted in the 'quota' of the service once you complete the contract at the processing station.

Anti-war activists such as Murphy charge that to fill their quotas, some military recruiters make promises they can't guarantee, such as money for college or training in a particular specialty, and give misleading descriptions of military life.

This is a blatant attempt to mislead people. All people who join the military and receive an honorable discharge are entitled to the GI Bill, which is no small amount of money for school. Some people who enlist for specific specialties are entitled to a much larger amount of money for school.

You are also able to be guaranteed training in a specific specialty. It is the responsibility of the individual to complete that training successfully though.

As far as giving misleading descriptions of military life, all a recruiter can do is give general descriptions and relate their own experiences. I am sure that there are some recruiters who embellish certain aspects, but deliberately giving misleading descriptions of military life is hogwash.

There are a great many opportunities available while you are on active duty, you just have to take advantage of them. If you don't, then there is no one to blame, except yourself.

[miir]

I doubt "counter-recruiters" have been much of a factor in the low number of recuirts, but still pretty disturbing:

How exactly is that disturbing?

What is so disturbing about someone speaking to kids who might want to enlist and presenting a different perspective?

[Brotha]

I doubt "counter-recruiters" have been much of a factor in the low number of recuirts, but still pretty disturbing:

How exactly is that disturbing?

What is so disturbing about someone speaking to kids who might want to enlist and presenting a different perspective?

I find anti-war activists trying to persuade people not to enlist while the military is running short on recruits and at a time when they're really needed pretty disturbing. And don't give me this "they're just trying to give them other options" BS. Read the article, that's a nice way of them trying to sugarcoat their agenda.

[miir]

Again, I fail to see what exactly is disturbing about it.


If there was a draft and these folks were 'educating' kids on how to avoid the draft, then perhaps I could see your point.

don't give me this "they're just trying to give them other options" BS. Read the article, that's a nice way of them trying to sugarcoat their agenda.

So it's ok for the armed forces to 'sugarcoat their agenda' but not ok for someone else to do the same? You're an idiot if you think the recrutiers don't spin and hype their propaganda. It's their job to sell a product. If they can't sell their product then they are either shitty salesmen or they are selling a shitty product.

[Brotha]

So it's ok for the armed forces to 'sugarcoat their agenda' but not ok for someone else to do the same? You're an idiot if you think the recrutiers don't spin and hype their propaganda. It's their job to sell a product. If they can't sell their product then they are either shitty salesmen or they are selling a shitty product.

Yes, the recruiters are salesmen that try to minimize the negative effects of the military while focusing on the positive, that's their job. I'm not trying to deny that.

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

[miir]

Instead of being 'disturbed' by these counter recruiters, maybe you should look at the root of the problem... why are so few young americans enlisting these days?

The occupation of Iraq is making it pretty easy for these counter recruiters to do their 'jobs'.

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

What exactly is the moral issue?
Recruiters are paid by the government to do a job.
Counter recruiters are doing it based on their beliefs.

One could argue that the counter recruiters are standing on higher moral ground.

[Brotha]

I guess it all depends on where you stand concerning the situation we're in now.

As I said earlier, I find it "disturbing" that these anti-war people would go to schools and try to get people not to enlist at a time when their country really needs them (shortage of recruits, wars going on, etc.). I'm sure if you're anti-war you view it in a totally different light, but I see nothing constructive about what these anti-war activists are doing.

[Toshira]

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

Simple. The military recruiters are moral, because they are focusing on low-income people to pay them to kill people.

The anti-war activists are immoral because they can't rally behind the flag.

See? Moral = killing people, immoral = not agreeing with the majority. What's so hard to fathom about that?

[nobody]

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

Simple. The military recruiters are moral, because they are focusing on low-income people to pay them to kill people.

The anti-war activists are immoral because they can't rally behind the flag.

See? Moral = killing people, immoral = not agreeing with the majority. What's so hard to fathom about that?

you're fucking stupid i have known many recruiters and have as much respect for most of them as i do for used car salesmen. but to say they are recruiting to kill people is fucking stupid.

i think people should be able to hear from someone else besides a recruiters for a pov on joining the military. i see nothing wrong with it.

[Brotha]

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

Simple. The military recruiters are moral, because they are focusing on low-income people to pay them to kill people.

The anti-war activists are immoral because they can't rally behind the flag.

See? Moral = killing people, immoral = not agreeing with the majority. What's so hard to fathom about that?

As I said in my last post, it just depends on how you view the situation we're in right now. Obviously we view it in completely different lights.

[Brotha]

To put it into perspective, let's agree on something I'm sure you find a just and good cause- tsunami relief.

What if the tsunami relief agencies were attempting to recruit people that were desperately needed, while people who you saw as wrong and serving no purpose other than obstruction were demanding equal access to the tsunami relief recruits to try to convince them that tsunami relief is immoral and they shouldn't volunteer. Sure, the tsunami relief people are portraying the job as more glamorous than it really is, but that's their job. Would you find the people who were going around attempting to convince people not to help with the tsunami relief "disturbing?"

I know your perspective, I'm just trying to make mine a little clearer...and no I don't want to get into a debate concerning the Iraq war right now.

[Chidoro]

why on earth would you equate someone making life difficult for something like tsunami relief efforts to people making life difficult for honchos trying to send people to die for what can be considered a questionable war based off of questionable pretenses?

the logic makes no sense whatsoever

[Brotha]

why on earth would you equate someone making life difficult for something like tsunami relief efforts to people making life difficult for honchos trying to send people to die for what can be considered a questionable war based off of questionable pretenses?

the logic makes no sense whatsoever

Who said I was equating the two?

I'm equating my view of the Iraq War (a just and good cause IMO) with their view of the tsunami relief (a just and good cause in their, and my, opinion) to give them a better idea of where I'm coming from with my opinion regarding the anti-war activists trying to get people not to enlist.

[Chidoro]

and that's why people say you're either a moron or seriously misguided or both.

Seriously, your take on this is so far gone, and to be completely honest, so twisted, it's why I rarely even entertain glancing at this particular forum any longer.

[miir]

What if the tsunami relief agencies were attempting to recruit people that were desperately needed, while people who you saw as wrong and serving no purpose other than obstruction were demanding equal access to the tsunami relief recruits to try to convince them that tsunami relief is immoral and they shouldn't volunteer. Sure, the tsunami relief people are portraying the job as more glamorous than it really is, but that's their job. Would you find the people who were going around attempting to convince people not to help with the tsunami relief "disturbing?"

I fail to see how bringing up something so completely and utterly irrelevant can put things into perspective.



Let me put things into perspective:
Let's say the Democrats are going around to universities and colleges trying to recruit young adults to do volunteer work..
Would that be disturbing?
Now lets say the Republican launched a 'liberal awareness' campaign and started trying to recruit these same young people as the democrats.

Would anyone in their right fucking mind say that the Republicans actions were disturbing?

and no I don't want to get into a debate concerning the Iraq war right now.

Maybe you should because that is the root of the problems the military is having with recruiting.... it's probably the main reason these counter-recruiting groups have started popping up.

[Brotha]

Chidoro- tell Teeny I said hi.

Let me put things into perspective:
Let's say the Democrats are going around to universities and colleges trying to recruit young adults to do volunteer work..
Would that be disturbing?
Now lets say the Republican launched a 'liberal awareness' campaign and started trying to recruit these same young people as the democrats.

Would anyone in their right fucking mind say that the Republicans actions were disturbing?

You just can't compare how I view those with how I'd view the situation regarding counter-recruiters. Concerning the Republicans and Democrats, it's a partisan issue where I think both sides should be on equal ground. When it comes to convincing people not to join the military, I see what the counter-rectuiters are doing as detrimental to our country and serving no purpose other than obstruction, and not in anyway a partisan issue.

Look, you might have gotten the wrong impression from things I've said. I'm completely for people who are thinking of joining the military getting views from others before they sign up, it's a big commitment. I'm not for anti-war activists going to our schools and polluting youth with their partisan agendas under the guise of "just trying to show someone all their options." Here's where you will no doubt try to equate them with the recruiters, but I don't see the equivalence.

Maybe you should because that is the root of the problems the military is having with recruiting.... it's probably the main reason these counter-recruiting groups have started popping up.

I know the reasons why they've sprung up.

[Chidoro]

You don't know shit. You're just a putz with a keyboard

[Brotha]

You don't know shit. You're just a putz with a keyboard

So put me on ignore, call me stupid, own me, whatever, but don't get all pissy that I'm willing to express my opinions.

[Alfan]

Why are you so scared of what they have to say?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Hey dumbass, you DO realize that the US military also handles about half of the humanitarian relief work around the globe right? When someone's fucking city collapses into rubble from an earthquake, I don't see you liberal fags rushing to get your people into helicopters to fly in people and food/water to help out. But the US baby killers do.

You need to wake the fuck up and stop being such a tunnel visioned asshat.

[Chidoro]

your "opinion" is trying to create a likeness between trying to block something questionable (a war people may view unjust) and trying to block something noone would find questionable (helping someone after a natural disaster).

It's not even in the same ballpark. That's why you're a putz. I mean your example of relevance has none. Your example is like saying -I'm against capital punishment so I'm going to protest against it and saying -I'm going to protest outside the bloodbank because I don't think someone should be giving blood for the potential survivors of 9/11. They have nothing to do with each other.

[miir]

I see what the counter-rectuiters are doing as detrimental to our country and serving no purpose other than obstruction, and not in anyway a partisan issue

How is it detrimental?
For the past 3 decades, involment in the military has been voluntary.
As I said, if they were providing information to kids on how to avoid the draft... well that would be detrimental and most likely illegal.

These counter-recruitment activists can't make people not join, much in the same way peace protesters can't stop wars.



There are no laws requiring people to be patriotic, or to join the military... nor are there any laws supressing an individual's freedom of speech. Why are you disturbed by these individuals excercising their rights as americans.

Doesn't that make you anti-american?

[Brotha]

you're "opinion" is trying to create a likeness between trying to block something questionable (a war people may view unjust) and trying to block something noone would find questionable (helping someone after a natural disaster).

Ok, I said as clear as I can I'm not equating tsunami relief to the Iraq war. What I was trying to do was get them to see the situation how I'm seeing it (the Iraq war being a good thing)- which IMO they weren't able to because they're so strongly against the Iraq war. If you're trying to view it as anymore than that you're over-analyzing it.

There are no laws requiring people to be patriotic, or to join the military... nor are there any laws supressing an individual's freedom of speech. Why are you disturbed by these individuals excercising their rights as americans.

Doesn't that make you anti-american?

The anti-American card, I was just waiting on this one to be pulled. Like I said I have no problem with people getting other points of view, in fact I think it's a good thing. I do, however have a problem with these counter-recruiters going into schools preaching their partisan agendas to youth under the guise of "looking out for them," especially given the circumstances that our country is in right now.

[miir]

The anti-American card, I was just waiting on this one to be pulled. Like I said I have no problem with people getting other points of view, in fact I think it's a good thing. I do, however have a problem with these counter-recruiters going into schools preaching their partisan agendas to youth under the guise of "looking out for them."

So you're saying that it's ok for recruiters to go into schools and 'preach their partisan agendas to youth' but not ok for counter-recruiters to do the same.

So you promote freedom of speech for some... and automatic weapons for all!


Seriosuly dude, that's some pretty fucked up reasoning.
There is nothing 'partisan' about conter-recruiting. These groups will still be around regardless of which party is in power... or are you trying to say there werent peace activists trying to help kids dodge the draft during the vietnam war? As memory serves, Johnson was a democrat, but we can make believe he was a republican so you can cling to your 'partisan agenda' argument.

k?

[Brotha]

I'm not saying partisan as in Republican or Democrat. Partisan means more than just political parties:

A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

Again you're trying to equate these people with the recruiters, and again I'm going to disagree with you, because I see the goals and purposes of both in a completely different light than you do.

[miir]

I'm not saying partisan as in Republican or Democrat. Partisan means more than just political parties

Well of course it's 'partisan'.
Taking the literal meaning of the word, every fucking thing we discuss is partisan. Are you really that dense or are you just pitifully backpeddaling.

Again you're trying to equate these people with the recruiters, and again I'm going to disagree with you, because I see the goals and purposes of both in a completely different light than you do.

They are doing the exact same thing.

Recruiters are presenting youth with biased information in hopes that they will enlist in the armed forces.

Counter-recruiters are presenting youth with biased information in hopes that they will think twice about joining the armed forces.

[Brotha]

Well of course it's 'partisan'.
Taking the literal meaning of the word, every fucking thing we discuss is partisan. Are you really that dense or are you just pitifully backpeddaling.

Ok, did you just post this or did someone hack your account and post it:

There is nothing 'partisan' about conter-recruiting. These groups will still be around regardless of which party is in power... or are you trying to say there werent peace activists trying to help kids dodge the draft during the vietnam war? As memory serves, Johnson was a democrat, but we can make believe he was a republican so you can cling to your 'partisan agenda' argument.

I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans, you did. I'm the one "pitifully backpedalling?"

They are doing the exact same thing.

Recruiters are presenting youth with biased information in hopes that they will enlist in the armed forces.

Counter-recruiters are presenting youth with biased information in hopes that they will think twice about joining the armed forces.

Recruiters are open about who they are and what they do, these counter-recruiters aren't.

Recruiters are serving our country (not Bush, the country), counter-recruiters aren't, they're serving their own personal opinions. That might make them MORE qualified to talk to the youth in our high schools in your opinion, but I'm of the opposite opinion.

[Aruman]

However, I don't see a moral equivalence between what recruiters do and what these anti-war activists do.

Simple. The military recruiters are moral, because they are focusing on low-income people to pay them to kill people.

Sorry Toshira, but all applicants/enlistees do not come from 'low income families. Sure, I'll admit it's where a good percentage come from, but I know from personal experience that a large percentage came from middle income, and some from upper income families.

I also don't see where you get the gall to say everyone in the military is put into the situation where they may have to harm others. Try taking a real look at how many different specialties there are in the military. I also find it somewhat offensive that you suggest that the US Military is full of mercenaries.

I spent a large part of my time in the combat arms. I can assure you that there wasn't one single person that relished the idea of getting sent to a place where we would be shot at or be placed into life threatening situations. We were, however, prepared to do what we were trained to do if we were called upon to do it. That is what we enlisted for, and what we chose to do when we enlisted. That does not mean we would enjoy it in the fashion you suggest.