True patriotic Americans might be intereseted in some good old fashioned subversion that can start with high schoolers and college students undermining the efforts of Guard,J- ROTC, ROTC and all other Military recruitment.
http://www.notinourname.net/~youth/arhome.html
http://www.notinourname.net/youth/
Flyer to post....
http://www.notinourname.net/downloads/anti...entflyerpg1.pdf
The best way to stop the war duopoly is to deprive them of the human cannon fodder they need. And give kids a positive experience for a change, as they can help keep us out of Iraq and Syria, and quicken the departure from Iran.
Full Version: Not in our name Youth And Student Anti-Recruitment
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
QUOTE(real_democrat @ Feb 9 2005, 06:01 PM)
snip***
The best way to stop the war duopoly is to deprive them of the human cannon fodder they need. And give kids a positive experience for a change, as they can help keep us out of Iraq and Syria, and quicken the departure from Iran.
The best way to stop the war duopoly is to deprive them of the human cannon fodder they need. And give kids a positive experience for a change, as they can help keep us out of Iraq and Syria, and quicken the departure from Iran.
--------------
I don't know if that's really a viable plan.
Certainly making kids aware of the new programs that are out there & the fine print are important.
I recall an NPR report a year or so ago that discussed the recruitment of high schoolers for the new program which allows them to split the training while still attending H.S. Finishing with the 2nd phase of boot camp after they graduate.
I don't think the advanced specialized training promised is an absolute lock.
If they don't measure up, or if the areas of expertise aren't needed, or if the training budgets not there - they are average boots on the ground per their contract, if I am correct.
But I doubt its sold that way. Anyone serving their country deserves the whole story, not spin.
In rougher days it was called "shanghai-ing" & involved actual kidnapping.
Suppose a traveling salesman came to your door. He said he was representing a foreign country that had a bad government. He would like for your son to volunteer to overthrow that government and possibly get killed in the process.
What would you do? I'd slam the door in his face. There is no way I would allow my son or daughter to sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of some foreigners I don't even know.
You should keep that in mind if some military recruiter latches on to your son or daughter. Under the present circumstances, it's practically a certainty that the young men and women in the armed forces will not be used to defend the United States or Americans. They will be used as mercenaries to advance the interests of other countries and multinational corporations, but unlike the mercenaries in civilian clothes, they will be paid a pittance.
The politicians in Washington have turned patriotism into a racket. The last time we went to war in defense of our own freedom was in 1941. Since then, we've died for Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans and big corporate interests. The American people ought to say "Enough." One way to do that is to just say "no" to military recruiters. If some multinational corporation wants to exploit the resources of a foreign country, let it hire its own mercenaries. If Israel is afraid of Syria or Iran, let it declare war on that country. If the two Koreas want to contest who will control the Korean peninsula, let them have at it with their own soldiers, not ours.
I'm glad the American people are supporting the troops, rather than spitting on them and calling them names as they did during the Vietnam War. But Americans ought to make a distinction between supporting the soldiers and supporting the politicians and the policies that put the soldiers in harm's way for an unconstitutional purpose.
Despite the political baloney out of Washington about our troops being "the best-trained, the best-equipped in the world," these young people were sent into Iraq with insufficient body armor and with thin-skinned vehicles that made killing and maiming them a snap. Americans ought to be outraged that with all the billions of dollars spent on defense, soldiers had to scrounge in dumps, and parents and loved ones had to raise money to buy them personal equipment. They ought to be outraged that their sons and daughters are paid $1,200 a month to provide security while private mercenaries in Iraq are knocking down $100,000 a year.
Americans also ought to be outraged by politicians complaining that our Army is "stretched thin" by having 150,000 troops in Iraq. There are 1.3 million men and women in the U.S. armed forces. We ought to be asking why the National Guard and Reserve are being used when there are 69,000 active-duty people in Germany, 40,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea and thousands more scattered around the world. The wars with Germany, Japan and Korea have been over for a long time. The Cold War has been over for more than a decade.
In case you haven't guessed it already, the war on terrorism is as phony as the war on drugs. It's just an excuse for a perpetual expansion of government power and perpetual expenditures. The United States was attacked by one – I say again, one – organization: al-Qaeda, which has at most a few thousand adherents. We have enough special-operations people to wipe al-Qaeda off the map if the president were serious instead of using terrorism as an excuse to expand the empire.
Unfortunately, Americans are so incessantly bombarded with propaganda and lies, it's hard for many of them to see the elephant at the tea party. War is a racket. The common folks die and get maimed, and the big corporations and the politicians prosper. Don't let the liars in Washington abuse your children and their patriotism.
What would you do? I'd slam the door in his face. There is no way I would allow my son or daughter to sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of some foreigners I don't even know.
You should keep that in mind if some military recruiter latches on to your son or daughter. Under the present circumstances, it's practically a certainty that the young men and women in the armed forces will not be used to defend the United States or Americans. They will be used as mercenaries to advance the interests of other countries and multinational corporations, but unlike the mercenaries in civilian clothes, they will be paid a pittance.
The politicians in Washington have turned patriotism into a racket. The last time we went to war in defense of our own freedom was in 1941. Since then, we've died for Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans and big corporate interests. The American people ought to say "Enough." One way to do that is to just say "no" to military recruiters. If some multinational corporation wants to exploit the resources of a foreign country, let it hire its own mercenaries. If Israel is afraid of Syria or Iran, let it declare war on that country. If the two Koreas want to contest who will control the Korean peninsula, let them have at it with their own soldiers, not ours.
I'm glad the American people are supporting the troops, rather than spitting on them and calling them names as they did during the Vietnam War. But Americans ought to make a distinction between supporting the soldiers and supporting the politicians and the policies that put the soldiers in harm's way for an unconstitutional purpose.
Despite the political baloney out of Washington about our troops being "the best-trained, the best-equipped in the world," these young people were sent into Iraq with insufficient body armor and with thin-skinned vehicles that made killing and maiming them a snap. Americans ought to be outraged that with all the billions of dollars spent on defense, soldiers had to scrounge in dumps, and parents and loved ones had to raise money to buy them personal equipment. They ought to be outraged that their sons and daughters are paid $1,200 a month to provide security while private mercenaries in Iraq are knocking down $100,000 a year.
Americans also ought to be outraged by politicians complaining that our Army is "stretched thin" by having 150,000 troops in Iraq. There are 1.3 million men and women in the U.S. armed forces. We ought to be asking why the National Guard and Reserve are being used when there are 69,000 active-duty people in Germany, 40,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea and thousands more scattered around the world. The wars with Germany, Japan and Korea have been over for a long time. The Cold War has been over for more than a decade.
In case you haven't guessed it already, the war on terrorism is as phony as the war on drugs. It's just an excuse for a perpetual expansion of government power and perpetual expenditures. The United States was attacked by one – I say again, one – organization: al-Qaeda, which has at most a few thousand adherents. We have enough special-operations people to wipe al-Qaeda off the map if the president were serious instead of using terrorism as an excuse to expand the empire.
Unfortunately, Americans are so incessantly bombarded with propaganda and lies, it's hard for many of them to see the elephant at the tea party. War is a racket. The common folks die and get maimed, and the big corporations and the politicians prosper. Don't let the liars in Washington abuse your children and their patriotism.
I support kids fighting to keep ROTC off their campuses,and off the channels they watch. Military recruiters can have an office in the cities,and kids interested in military careers will find them, they don't need to be selling some of their macho garbage with video games and MTV commercials. I focus mostly on gay/lesbian youth that I don't want even a single one lost under Bush's crusades, you straight adults can speak to the straight kids.
btw. Kids you can see for yourselves once the military has it's claws on your lives it's FOREVER, you can see reservists being extended,and extended,and men up to 60 years old getting call backs.The way to avoid this is to JUST SAY NO TO ROTC!
btw. Kids you can see for yourselves once the military has it's claws on your lives it's FOREVER, you can see reservists being extended,and extended,and men up to 60 years old getting call backs.The way to avoid this is to JUST SAY NO TO ROTC!
I agree...The commercialism of the Armed Forces recruiting, is getting out of hand.
If someone wants my son or daughter to become a an oil rig tech, a cop, a fireman, a fireworks developer then he can come to the school to recruit...but if someone wants my son or daughter to serve their country they can't recruit? What's up with that?
My son is in Jr. ROTC, and my son wants to be there. I'm really glad there are people who want to grow up to be soldiers just like I'm glad there are people that want to grow up to be teachers. Freedom is not free!
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
My son is in Jr. ROTC, and my son wants to be there. I'm really glad there are people who want to grow up to be soldiers just like I'm glad there are people that want to grow up to be teachers. Freedom is not free!
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Teachers have contracts that are honored, they can decide to quit teaching when they choose.Teachers also aren't being led to their deaths by an idiot, who lied to the country to put them in harms way. If you want kids to be soldiers,fine, take the straight white rich ones FIRST,preferably sons and daughters of Congress.
Many people sign contracts that don't allow them to "quit" without serious consequences. The issue though is recruitment and people trying to stop young people from joining the military and I think that's wrong. The military is a good thing, and I thank those young men and women every single day that they are out there making the world better, and protecting the interests of the USA even if they don't even AGREE with the reasons. That's even more heroic to me than doing it because your country is invaded.
But, you know, no army anywhere gets to decide whether they like or do not like the reasons for going to war. This country is great, because we have volunteers that know full well that if the government sends them they have OFFERED to go. In a draft situation, they have no choice, but it's more fair.
You would think that with all of this overextended tourse and stop losses that we would care more for them and encourage other young people to join so those troops can be relieved. Instead, it seems like we want to make it harder on them in an unrealistic belief that if we do that, the war will stop. It won't....just puts more stress on our troops and makes it more probably that the dirt poor will enlist because they have to. If the culture turns against the military, and harrasses them for joining, then those who have a choice will opt out, and those that just have to eat will join. That's the only end result of real_democrat's ideas.
But, you know, no army anywhere gets to decide whether they like or do not like the reasons for going to war. This country is great, because we have volunteers that know full well that if the government sends them they have OFFERED to go. In a draft situation, they have no choice, but it's more fair.
You would think that with all of this overextended tourse and stop losses that we would care more for them and encourage other young people to join so those troops can be relieved. Instead, it seems like we want to make it harder on them in an unrealistic belief that if we do that, the war will stop. It won't....just puts more stress on our troops and makes it more probably that the dirt poor will enlist because they have to. If the culture turns against the military, and harrasses them for joining, then those who have a choice will opt out, and those that just have to eat will join. That's the only end result of real_democrat's ideas.
QUOTE(underbear1 @ Feb 27 2005, 05:20 PM)
Teachers have contracts that are honored, they can decide to quit teaching when they choose.Teachers also aren't being led to their deaths by an idiot, who lied to the country to put them in harms way. If you want kids to be soldiers,fine, take the straight white rich ones FIRST,preferably sons and daughters of Congress.
This isn't indentured servitude, ub...It's volunteerism.
I am fine with people choosing a military career,if that's what they want,and those people aren't going to not join because they have to drive 5 miles to sign up.
I would rather some other federal service program like Unicef,Peace Corps,or some such non military organization would produce college tuition for poor kids that otherwise sign up for military just to pay for school they can't afford any other way.
Even with both my first two premises, I don't want young lives put in danger under Bush, he's a liar, and listens to world dominion nuts like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Heart,
I'm sorry for those that are already under Bush's domination, but I won't sacrifice more, to give those already serving relief. So my best advice to would be soldiers, wait 4 years.
I would rather some other federal service program like Unicef,Peace Corps,or some such non military organization would produce college tuition for poor kids that otherwise sign up for military just to pay for school they can't afford any other way.
Even with both my first two premises, I don't want young lives put in danger under Bush, he's a liar, and listens to world dominion nuts like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Heart,
I'm sorry for those that are already under Bush's domination, but I won't sacrifice more, to give those already serving relief. So my best advice to would be soldiers, wait 4 years.
Recruiters have $4 Billion+ to work with. This to recruit young people to fight for our "freedom" , so it falls to ordinary citizens to fight the considerable influence that the government can bring to bear on them. Wars fought for the powerful few who benefit while decimating the very freedoms they say we should be willing to send our sons and daughters to die for, should be opposed by all lovers of freedom. BTW, it is not your government that gives you "freedom", you are born with it. Governments can only take it away in lesser or greater amounts.
I admire that people who join the military do so in the name of freedom, but I despise those that use them for anything but.
Fight the power, its your freedom to lose, your kids to the grave as the price. Be free. Just say no.
I admire that people who join the military do so in the name of freedom, but I despise those that use them for anything but.
Fight the power, its your freedom to lose, your kids to the grave as the price. Be free. Just say no.
Military Recruiters Target People of Color and the Poor
Off Our Streets! Out of Our Schools!
The US military is bogged down in Iraq. It is overstretched throughout the world, and the US ruling elite needs more troops to do Corporate America's dirty work. The rich and powerful certainly don't want to send their own kids off to war, so they have intensified efforts to recruit working-class young people, especially people of color, into the military.
Military recruiters have even attempted to hijack hip-hop culture in order to recruit high school and college students. Young recruiters have set up "information tables" equipped with huge speakers blaring rap tunes. Trendy-looking army hats and tank tops are given to anyone who will give their personal information to the army. A hip-hop army recruitment tour was even set up with Nappy Roots headlining.
Military recruiters use gross exaggerations and outright lies to attract young people. They tell you that you'll be given money for college if you join; what they don't tell you is that to qualify for any of it, you have to pay a non-refundable $1,200 deposit to the military. Only one in three people who pay the deposit receive a penny in return.
Recruiters promise job training, but the training is designed for military jobs, not for jobs in the "real world." 31% more veterans are unemployed than non-veterans.
New recruitment methods specifically target people of color, but they don't tell you that racism is prevalent in the military. 75% of enlisted Blacks reported experiencing racially offensive behavior, according to a 1999 report.
The recruitment contract guarantees absolutely nothing regarding rights for the new recruit. The contract says, "laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowance, benefits, and responsibilities...regardless of the provisions of this enlistment agreement." The signer is guaranteed nothing.
The lies and exaggerations mentioned above are only the tip of the iceberg. The ruling elite will resort to nearly anything to get working-class kids to fight wars to maintain the American Empire.
A small section of Congress (mostly Democrats) has even brought up reinstating the draft as a potential "solution." A draft is not likely in the near future because it would provoke enormous political backlash. But we should organize now against the possibility of a future draft. This needs to be combined with a fight to get military recruiters off our schools and campuses.
During the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement got military recruiters kicked off many high school and college campuses. This was only achieved through mass campaigning, involving workers and people of color alongside students. Military recruiters were permanently banned at many schools, including the entire City University of New York system.
However, when reforms are won under capitalism, they are never permanent. When struggles die down, the rich and powerful always attack the gains won through struggle. Military recruiters now appear, more aggressive than ever, at high schools and colleges throughout the country.
Through Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, information about all high school students is now handed over automatically to military recruiters unless parents specifically request otherwise. No public school is currently allowed to ban military recruiters, but we can build a movement to kick them off our schools.
Students are beginning to organize around this issue. For example, a hundred people, many of them young people of color, gathered on May 22 at a church in a primarily black Brooklyn neighborhood to talk about military recruitment. The meeting was lively and energetic; connections were drawn between many issues affecting young people, such as unemployment, police harassment, and the occupation of Iraq.
Committees need to be formed in every high school and college where military recruiters are present. We should help educate young people about the lies of the recruiters. Counter-recruitment demonstrations, forums, and informational pickets need to be organized, with the aim of kicking the recruiters off our schools and campuses.
Hom
Off Our Streets! Out of Our Schools!
The US military is bogged down in Iraq. It is overstretched throughout the world, and the US ruling elite needs more troops to do Corporate America's dirty work. The rich and powerful certainly don't want to send their own kids off to war, so they have intensified efforts to recruit working-class young people, especially people of color, into the military.
Military recruiters have even attempted to hijack hip-hop culture in order to recruit high school and college students. Young recruiters have set up "information tables" equipped with huge speakers blaring rap tunes. Trendy-looking army hats and tank tops are given to anyone who will give their personal information to the army. A hip-hop army recruitment tour was even set up with Nappy Roots headlining.
Military recruiters use gross exaggerations and outright lies to attract young people. They tell you that you'll be given money for college if you join; what they don't tell you is that to qualify for any of it, you have to pay a non-refundable $1,200 deposit to the military. Only one in three people who pay the deposit receive a penny in return.
Recruiters promise job training, but the training is designed for military jobs, not for jobs in the "real world." 31% more veterans are unemployed than non-veterans.
New recruitment methods specifically target people of color, but they don't tell you that racism is prevalent in the military. 75% of enlisted Blacks reported experiencing racially offensive behavior, according to a 1999 report.
The recruitment contract guarantees absolutely nothing regarding rights for the new recruit. The contract says, "laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowance, benefits, and responsibilities...regardless of the provisions of this enlistment agreement." The signer is guaranteed nothing.
The lies and exaggerations mentioned above are only the tip of the iceberg. The ruling elite will resort to nearly anything to get working-class kids to fight wars to maintain the American Empire.
A small section of Congress (mostly Democrats) has even brought up reinstating the draft as a potential "solution." A draft is not likely in the near future because it would provoke enormous political backlash. But we should organize now against the possibility of a future draft. This needs to be combined with a fight to get military recruiters off our schools and campuses.
During the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement got military recruiters kicked off many high school and college campuses. This was only achieved through mass campaigning, involving workers and people of color alongside students. Military recruiters were permanently banned at many schools, including the entire City University of New York system.
However, when reforms are won under capitalism, they are never permanent. When struggles die down, the rich and powerful always attack the gains won through struggle. Military recruiters now appear, more aggressive than ever, at high schools and colleges throughout the country.
Through Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, information about all high school students is now handed over automatically to military recruiters unless parents specifically request otherwise. No public school is currently allowed to ban military recruiters, but we can build a movement to kick them off our schools.
Students are beginning to organize around this issue. For example, a hundred people, many of them young people of color, gathered on May 22 at a church in a primarily black Brooklyn neighborhood to talk about military recruitment. The meeting was lively and energetic; connections were drawn between many issues affecting young people, such as unemployment, police harassment, and the occupation of Iraq.
Committees need to be formed in every high school and college where military recruiters are present. We should help educate young people about the lies of the recruiters. Counter-recruitment demonstrations, forums, and informational pickets need to be organized, with the aim of kicking the recruiters off our schools and campuses.
Hom
QUOTE(heart @ Feb 27 2005, 06:06 PM)
If someone wants my son or daughter to become a an oil rig tech, a cop, a fireman, a fireworks developer then he can come to the school to recruit...but if someone wants my son or daughter to serve their country they can't recruit? What's up with that?
My son is in Jr. ROTC, and my son wants to be there. I'm really glad there are people who want to grow up to be soldiers just like I'm glad there are people that want to grow up to be teachers. Freedom is not free!
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
My son is in Jr. ROTC, and my son wants to be there. I'm really glad there are people who want to grow up to be soldiers just like I'm glad there are people that want to grow up to be teachers. Freedom is not free!
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
When your uniformed cadet reaches 17, offer him up for the fortunate sons and daughters of this country heart. Sign the papers and no REMF MOS - front row, a grunt. That should make you proud and very happy. (LOL)
Who knows you might even get a folded flag out of the situation to put on your wall. And if not that groovy bennie, hey your military oriented cadet might end up in the VAMC system getting the screws put to him for the rest of his free-kin life.
Now thats what you call a deal heart! And the freedom and profits for your kids life or blood will be deeply appreciated by the elite profiteers - guaran-free-kin-teed.
Freedom isn't Free is an old propaganda scam phrase sold by Uncle Sammy to the sheople of this country to persuade their kiddies to fight for their dinaro. You buy that BS? I got some free-kin waterfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Make the "SHRUB" proud and offer your son up for his ego and power trip. Who knows, the ROTC cadet just might get some trinkett to pin on his chest. (LOL) Hey- you can put a few yellow magnetic ribbons on your rig as well and be a real patriot! LOL
I fought and seen many a good G.I. die or bleed for these vulture politician SOB'S. You have a point - Freedom is not free if your not a free-kin fortunate one.
The big time War "Prez" has this country in a no win situation and you want to involve your son. Now that is what I call un-selfish at the free-kin least. Maybe he will even take some ears or notch his rifle with his confirmed kills, who knows. Thats if he does not get "Aced" or whacked first.
But, like you said - "Freedom is Not Free" for the un-fortunate sons and daughters of this land of ours.
So I guess the implication of the initial post in this thread is that "true Patriotic Americans" should think that nobody should serve in the military, and that any organization besides the US military should be allowed to recruit in schools.
Amusing theory. Silly, but amusing.
Amusing theory. Silly, but amusing.
I didn't state recruiters shouldn't be able to be in schools, I support students that are fighting to remove the ROTC.They are ROTC's target audience,so they should have say in who is trying to cajole them into joining.It was a MAJOR fight getting ROTC off college campuses, I was sprayed with tear gas at those rallies.So I expect the young people today to make the same fight for themselves,they are fortunate they have some adults that agree with them this time,we didn't.
Yes, it was a major fight to get ROTC off college campuses; it had the net result of contributing to the lack of upper-class kids joining the military, so I don't think it was a net gain in the social justice department.
Today, my child has made a decision to not be cannon fodder for the DEFENSE INDUSTRY. HIS decision may change if RUSSIA, CHINA, NORTH KOREA etc decide to take advantage of our current military situation.
My husband and I both served and retired from the military. Either one of us could be recalled. If called we both decided we will report. I don't agree with our current war policy but I also don't believe that recruiters should be calling my house EVERY DAY trying to get my ONLY son. Of course, the only son rule that has existed before was only applicable during the draft.
The seniors were required to TAKE the military ASVAB test in school during instructional periods.
If my son goes, it will because he wants to participate in our voluntary military not because his is coerced into joining or promised college aid!!! If he makes that decision I will support him. I think he has learned the difference between right and wrong. He undertstands that if you carry a GUN you must be willing KILL, see Killing and hopefully you won't be killed. Real war is not the same as playing Jr. ROTC and presenting the colors during graduation.s
I do not have that much compassion for ANY PARENT that's GUN HO for their child to join but feels violated when that same child is KILLED. I may be sorry they lost a child but the death of that child should not be the turning point for that same parent to learn about the real WAR.
The LIES that were told before the war are the same LIES that will exist when your child is KILLED.
You can't have it both ways. The whole purpose of the military is to KILL the enemy before the enemy KILLS YOU.
The military is not an auxiliary of the Boy Scouts and as we can see “NO ONE” is throwing flowers at their feet.
P.S. North Korea stated they have a Nuclear Bomb and Iran is well on their way to GETTING a bomb via RUSSIA. GWB has worked hard to UNDO 50 years of benefits derived from the cold war.
My husband and I both served and retired from the military. Either one of us could be recalled. If called we both decided we will report. I don't agree with our current war policy but I also don't believe that recruiters should be calling my house EVERY DAY trying to get my ONLY son. Of course, the only son rule that has existed before was only applicable during the draft.
The seniors were required to TAKE the military ASVAB test in school during instructional periods.
If my son goes, it will because he wants to participate in our voluntary military not because his is coerced into joining or promised college aid!!! If he makes that decision I will support him. I think he has learned the difference between right and wrong. He undertstands that if you carry a GUN you must be willing KILL, see Killing and hopefully you won't be killed. Real war is not the same as playing Jr. ROTC and presenting the colors during graduation.s
I do not have that much compassion for ANY PARENT that's GUN HO for their child to join but feels violated when that same child is KILLED. I may be sorry they lost a child but the death of that child should not be the turning point for that same parent to learn about the real WAR.
The LIES that were told before the war are the same LIES that will exist when your child is KILLED.
You can't have it both ways. The whole purpose of the military is to KILL the enemy before the enemy KILLS YOU.
The military is not an auxiliary of the Boy Scouts and as we can see “NO ONE” is throwing flowers at their feet.
P.S. North Korea stated they have a Nuclear Bomb and Iran is well on their way to GETTING a bomb via RUSSIA. GWB has worked hard to UNDO 50 years of benefits derived from the cold war.
"it had the net result of contributing to the lack of upper-class kids joining the military"
During Viet Nam these upper-class kids weren't joining PERIOD!
I doubt they are joining now either,their parents can pay their tuition.
It's poor kids like Jason Tharp they are getting to enlist,then they drown him when he doesn't live up to some sadistic drill instructor's standards.
During Viet Nam these upper-class kids weren't joining PERIOD!
I doubt they are joining now either,their parents can pay their tuition.
It's poor kids like Jason Tharp they are getting to enlist,then they drown him when he doesn't live up to some sadistic drill instructor's standards.
QUOTE(random_dana @ Feb 28 2005, 06:20 PM)
Yes, it was a major fight to get ROTC off college campuses; it had the net result of contributing to the lack of upper-class kids joining the military, so I don't think it was a net gain in the social justice department.
Last I looked that same upper class kid could easily join their local reserve and national guard unit. They ELECTED NOT to because they didn't have to financially.
Not having someone hold the door open for them while they were in college is a poor EXCUSE for NOT volunteering.
True, but someone with the intellectual capability and inclination to finish college is far more likely to want to join as an officer anyway rather than enlisting.
I've made no secret here of the fact that I'm a military officer; what most don't know is that I also completed the Peace Studies program when I was in college. The Peace Studies chairman was a vocal advocate of keeping ROTC on campus. His rationale - "I'd rather have America's military officers educated in a liberal arts environment, where they are exposed to a wide variety of ideas, lifestyles and viewpoints, than to have all officers trained in insular military academies."
I've made no secret here of the fact that I'm a military officer; what most don't know is that I also completed the Peace Studies program when I was in college. The Peace Studies chairman was a vocal advocate of keeping ROTC on campus. His rationale - "I'd rather have America's military officers educated in a liberal arts environment, where they are exposed to a wide variety of ideas, lifestyles and viewpoints, than to have all officers trained in insular military academies."
QUOTE(random_dana @ Feb 28 2005, 06:58 PM)
True, but someone with the intellectual capability and inclination to finish college is far more likely to want to join as an officer anyway rather than enlisting.
I've made no secret here of the fact that I'm a military officer; what most don't know is that I also completed the Peace Studies program when I was in college. The Peace Studies chairman was a vocal advocate of keeping ROTC on campus. His rationale - "I'd rather have America's military officers educated in a liberal arts environment, where they are exposed to a wide variety of ideas, lifestyles and viewpoints, than to have all officers trained in insular military academies."
I've made no secret here of the fact that I'm a military officer; what most don't know is that I also completed the Peace Studies program when I was in college. The Peace Studies chairman was a vocal advocate of keeping ROTC on campus. His rationale - "I'd rather have America's military officers educated in a liberal arts environment, where they are exposed to a wide variety of ideas, lifestyles and viewpoints, than to have all officers trained in insular military academies."
I'm sure all those good OFFICERS in the National Guard and Reserve will feel slighted by your belief that they are not leading their soldiers or even exist.
ROTC is not the only way to get a commission in the military!!!
I'm not remotely insulting any comissioning source (nor the officers who are commissioned from them - you've got good people coming from all walks of life, after all), but the facts are that the OTS/OCS comissions a tiny percentage of all officers; ROTC and the academies are the prime source (in addition, most OTS/OCS folks are prior enlisted rather than coming in from the outside, so it's a bit insular). I was quoting a professor I respect rather an beginning a dissertation on military demographics.
But the point still stands - do we as a society want the majority of our officer corps to be educated in civilian universities, or in military academies? My contention is that we're better off to maintain the perspective on life that's gained by going to a civilian school, and that, therefore, maintaining ROTC on college campuses is a good thing.
But the point still stands - do we as a society want the majority of our officer corps to be educated in civilian universities, or in military academies? My contention is that we're better off to maintain the perspective on life that's gained by going to a civilian school, and that, therefore, maintaining ROTC on college campuses is a good thing.
"I'd rather have America's military officers educated in a liberal arts environment, where they are exposed to a wide variety of ideas, lifestyles and viewpoints, than to have all officers trained in insular military academies."
These ROTC recruiters weren't attending classes in liberal colleges, they were sitting in Student Union Halls, trying to sign up kids.
For once I'm glad the military doesn't want queers, cuz this lousey president is losing kids daily, and I'll be damned if he's getting his hands on our best and brightest, btw........our youth have the language skills you are begging for!
These ROTC recruiters weren't attending classes in liberal colleges, they were sitting in Student Union Halls, trying to sign up kids.
For once I'm glad the military doesn't want queers, cuz this lousey president is losing kids daily, and I'll be damned if he's getting his hands on our best and brightest, btw........our youth have the language skills you are begging for!
ROTC recruiters go to high schools and colleges; that's where the students are, after all. There are ROTC detachments (and cross-town arrangements) at a wide variety of schools, but it's worth noting that they've been eliminated by leftist pressure at a lot of the more prestigous schools - Harvard, for example.
As to the "Don't ask, don't tell rule," don't blame the military for that one - the ban on openly gay military members comes from Congress, not an internal rule. (And I'm not going to debate you on the merits or lack thereof of the rule, because I suspect you and I agree on it. I don't see a lot of Constitutionally sound reasons for the ban; one could argue that it's disruptive to morale, but that argument didn't fly as a support for segregation, and I don't think it works any better in this regard).
As to the "Don't ask, don't tell rule," don't blame the military for that one - the ban on openly gay military members comes from Congress, not an internal rule. (And I'm not going to debate you on the merits or lack thereof of the rule, because I suspect you and I agree on it. I don't see a lot of Constitutionally sound reasons for the ban; one could argue that it's disruptive to morale, but that argument didn't fly as a support for segregation, and I don't think it works any better in this regard).
"As to the "Don't ask, don't tell rule," don't blame the military for that one"
Uh....who do you think Sen Nunn and others were having testify against openly gay people serving in submarines? Clinton wanted gays to serve openly, and the military forced Congress to accept this stupid compromise.The military still beats suspected queers to death while sleeping on their bunks, with BATS, big brave friggin' soldiers.
Uh....who do you think Sen Nunn and others were having testify against openly gay people serving in submarines? Clinton wanted gays to serve openly, and the military forced Congress to accept this stupid compromise.The military still beats suspected queers to death while sleeping on their bunks, with BATS, big brave friggin' soldiers.
Well, if I recall correctly, there's been one reported murder since 1998. That's one too many, of course, but it's hardly epidemic. (If I'm off on my stats, then I'll happily accept the rebuke, but I think the guy depicted in the movie "Soldier's Girl" was the only such victim).
Yes, the military viewpoint is very much homophobic, and if the military did make the rules they'd probably still have a ban, but as it stands now it's a matter of federal law, which should be taken up with members of congress rather than the military should one wish to change it.
Yes, the military viewpoint is very much homophobic, and if the military did make the rules they'd probably still have a ban, but as it stands now it's a matter of federal law, which should be taken up with members of congress rather than the military should one wish to change it.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=19
Despite a call by members of Congress for the military to implement and enforce its 13 Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan designed to help prevent future anti-gay attacks and murders, a study by the Department of Defense Inspector General in 2000 found that 80 percent of the 71,570 servicemembers surveyed had heard offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes, or other disparaging remarks against gay and lesbian people in the last year, and 85 percent believed such comments were tolerated by members in the chain of command. Over 37 percent reported that they had witnessed an "event or behavior" against another servicemember that they considered to be anti-gay harassment, with 15 percent reporting that the event was tolerated by other unit members or members of the chain of command.
According to the Service Member's Legal Defense Network (SLDN), by the end of 2003 the U.S. military discharged over 10,000 people as a result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a number that is more than two full brigades and one-third of the 30,000 new recruits the military claims it needs to fight the war on terrorism. The policy has also been costly, requiring between one quarter billion and 1.2 billion dollars to train replacements for personnel who have been discharged.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hit a high point of 1,273 personnel in 2001, an increase of more than 100 percent over total discharges in 1994, the first year the policy was implemented. Women are disproportionately impacted by the ban, comprising over 30 percent of all discharges despite the fact that they represent only 14 percent of the military. Often, female service members who reject sexual advances or complain about harassment from male servicemembers are accused of being lesbians.
Despite a call by members of Congress for the military to implement and enforce its 13 Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan designed to help prevent future anti-gay attacks and murders, a study by the Department of Defense Inspector General in 2000 found that 80 percent of the 71,570 servicemembers surveyed had heard offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes, or other disparaging remarks against gay and lesbian people in the last year, and 85 percent believed such comments were tolerated by members in the chain of command. Over 37 percent reported that they had witnessed an "event or behavior" against another servicemember that they considered to be anti-gay harassment, with 15 percent reporting that the event was tolerated by other unit members or members of the chain of command.
According to the Service Member's Legal Defense Network (SLDN), by the end of 2003 the U.S. military discharged over 10,000 people as a result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a number that is more than two full brigades and one-third of the 30,000 new recruits the military claims it needs to fight the war on terrorism. The policy has also been costly, requiring between one quarter billion and 1.2 billion dollars to train replacements for personnel who have been discharged.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hit a high point of 1,273 personnel in 2001, an increase of more than 100 percent over total discharges in 1994, the first year the policy was implemented. Women are disproportionately impacted by the ban, comprising over 30 percent of all discharges despite the fact that they represent only 14 percent of the military. Often, female service members who reject sexual advances or complain about harassment from male servicemembers are accused of being lesbians.
QUOTE(random_dana @ Feb 28 2005, 03:03 PM)
So I guess the implication of the initial post in this thread is that "true Patriotic Americans" should think that nobody should serve in the military, and that any organization besides the US military should be allowed to recruit in schools.
Amusing theory. Silly, but amusing.
Since I was the originator, what is amusing is I did not say or imply that "any organization besides the US military should be allowed to recruit in schools" , but I did say that right now is a bad time to join the military since you will likely suffer and die for some duboius cause.Amusing theory. Silly, but amusing.
Apparently you are opinion this is a war worth fighting and expanding into Syria and Iran, all for the benefit of Bushco.
There is no such thing as an only child rule in the current draft laws. I went to the Selective Service site and read it months ago. That is what i remember from my review. I could be wrong.
QUOTE(The_Bammo @ Feb 28 2005, 06:21 AM)
When your uniformed cadet reaches 17, offer him up for the fortunate sons and daughters of this country heart. Sign the papers and no REMF MOS - front row, a grunt. That should make you proud and very happy. (LOL)
Who knows you might even get a folded flag out of the situation to put on your wall. And if not that groovy bennie, hey your military oriented cadet might end up in the VAMC system getting the screws put to him for the rest of his free-kin life.
Now thats what you call a deal heart! And the freedom and profits for your kids life or blood will be deeply appreciated by the elite profiteers - guaran-free-kin-teed.
Freedom isn't Free is an old propaganda scam phrase sold by Uncle Sammy to the sheople of this country to persuade their kiddies to fight for their dinaro. You buy that BS? I got some free-kin waterfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Make the "SHRUB" proud and offer your son up for his ego and power trip. Who knows, the ROTC cadet just might get some trinkett to pin on his chest. (LOL) Hey- you can put a few yellow magnetic ribbons on your rig as well and be a real patriot! LOL
I fought and seen many a good G.I. die or bleed for these vulture politician SOB'S. You have a point - Freedom is not free if your not a free-kin fortunate one.
The big time War "Prez" has this country in a no win situation and you want to involve your son. Now that is what I call un-selfish at the free-kin least. Maybe he will even take some ears or notch his rifle with his confirmed kills, who knows. Thats if he does not get "Aced" or whacked first.
But, like you said - "Freedom is Not Free" for the un-fortunate sons and daughters of this land of ours.
Who knows you might even get a folded flag out of the situation to put on your wall. And if not that groovy bennie, hey your military oriented cadet might end up in the VAMC system getting the screws put to him for the rest of his free-kin life.
Now thats what you call a deal heart! And the freedom and profits for your kids life or blood will be deeply appreciated by the elite profiteers - guaran-free-kin-teed.
Freedom isn't Free is an old propaganda scam phrase sold by Uncle Sammy to the sheople of this country to persuade their kiddies to fight for their dinaro. You buy that BS? I got some free-kin waterfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Make the "SHRUB" proud and offer your son up for his ego and power trip. Who knows, the ROTC cadet just might get some trinkett to pin on his chest. (LOL) Hey- you can put a few yellow magnetic ribbons on your rig as well and be a real patriot! LOL
I fought and seen many a good G.I. die or bleed for these vulture politician SOB'S. You have a point - Freedom is not free if your not a free-kin fortunate one.
The big time War "Prez" has this country in a no win situation and you want to involve your son. Now that is what I call un-selfish at the free-kin least. Maybe he will even take some ears or notch his rifle with his confirmed kills, who knows. Thats if he does not get "Aced" or whacked first.
But, like you said - "Freedom is Not Free" for the un-fortunate sons and daughters of this land of ours.
That picture is worth a 1000 words, Bammo.
Too bad they don't use pictures like that in the recruiting offices.
The truth might be harder to swallow than the kool-aid!
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Mar 1 2005, 02:14 AM)
That picture is worth a 1000 words, Bammo.
Too bad they don't use pictures like that in the recruiting offices.
The truth might be harder to swallow than the kool-aid!
Too bad they don't use pictures like that in the recruiting offices.
The truth might be harder to swallow than the kool-aid!
Big Sky
There it is Bro' and we said it "Don't Mean Nothin' " LOL. One ugly skinny azz kid carrying that pig (M-60) LOL.
I could see them using that picture recruiting kids into the military. This kind of life makes you a man and will get you top billin' in the VFW stool sitters club after a few stays in the nut ward at your local VA if you free-kin make it ! LOL
Like I always said Bro' - no da_n rules in war - none at free-kin all. Now that greased dude on the dirt was a good Bro' - can you picture what was going down when we hit the vill about 300 meters in the direction we were going. We were definately thinking about the flag, freedom, democracy, Mom, chevy and free-kin apple pie. LOL Hang Tough Bro' - keep the faith - check out the link Bro' - http://d21c.com/Bammo/GI_Deathland.html - All free-kin honor and glory---BS!!! LOL
'Counter-recruiters' shadowing the military
Rick Hampson
USA Today
Mar. 8, 2005 08:51 AM
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.
"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 new recruits each year - the Army and Army Reserve alone need more than 100,000 - and less than 10 percent 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 service members; 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 of 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 persuade 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."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/030...cruiter-ON.html
Rick Hampson
USA Today
Mar. 8, 2005 08:51 AM
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.
"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 new recruits each year - the Army and Army Reserve alone need more than 100,000 - and less than 10 percent 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 service members; 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 of 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 persuade 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."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/030...cruiter-ON.html
QUOTE(david sobien @ Feb 28 2005, 10:00 PM)
There is no such thing as an only child rule in the current draft laws. I went to the Selective Service site and read it months ago. That is what i remember from my review. I could be wrong.
No, you're absolutely right - there is no "only child" rule.
Back during WWII, a man could keep from being drafted by claiming the "only male child" exemption if he was the only son in his family. The idea was that if the son was killed in battle their family lineage would not continue on.
I don't know if the "only male child" exemption to the draft was in effect for the Vietnam War.
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Mar 12 2005, 01:59 AM)
No, you're absolutely right - there is no "only child" rule.
Back during WWII, a man could keep from being drafted by claiming the "only male child" exemption if he was the only son in his family. The idea was that if the son was killed in battle their family lineage would not continue on.
I don't know if the "only male child" exemption to the draft was in effect for the Vietnam War.
Back during WWII, a man could keep from being drafted by claiming the "only male child" exemption if he was the only son in his family. The idea was that if the son was killed in battle their family lineage would not continue on.
I don't know if the "only male child" exemption to the draft was in effect for the Vietnam War.
In 1964, recognizing that sons of World War II veterans were reaching draft age, Congress changed the law to include the sole surviving son of a family where the father, or one or more sons or daughters, died as a result of military service. At this time the peacetime-only restriction was also added to the law.
A further change was made in 1971, expanding the exemption to any son, not necessarily the sole surviving son, of a family where the father, brother or sister died as a result of military service. This provision was recently expanded to include mothers. http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm --- Only thing there is no draft going on, just a "Back Door Draft" - so no holds barred!
QUOTE(The_Bammo @ Mar 13 2005, 03:26 PM)
In 1964, recognizing that sons of World War II veterans were reaching draft age, Congress changed the law to include the sole surviving son of a family where the father, or one or more sons or daughters, died as a result of military service. At this time the peacetime-only restriction was also added to the law.
A further change was made in 1971, expanding the exemption to any son, not necessarily the sole surviving son, of a family where the father, brother or sister died as a result of military service. This provision was recently expanded to include mothers. http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm --- Only thing there is no draft going on, just a "Back Door Draft" - so no holds barred!
A further change was made in 1971, expanding the exemption to any son, not necessarily the sole surviving son, of a family where the father, brother or sister died as a result of military service. This provision was recently expanded to include mothers. http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm --- Only thing there is no draft going on, just a "Back Door Draft" - so no holds barred!
All of the men in my fathers family with the exception of my father were killed in WW2, my mom lost her father in the Pacific. I went in the Army 8 months after my brother and only sibling went in to the Army. I went to Vietnam 6 months before my brother did. When he came in country I talked to him and I told him he didn’t have to be there, and I told him to do the paperwork necessary so he could go home. He initiated the paperwork right away, long story short, we ended up being in Vietnam for a year at the same time and we came home within a month of each other. To make matters worse, after his second purple heart he was reassigned to the same brigade I was in, even though it was a different battalion. In march of 69 our brigade commander sent the two of us to R&R in Hong Kong together.
The point is this, the military will make up or change the rules as they go if the times are not being favorable for their mindset, end of story. Worse yet, today they have a coward for a president who is so week the military runs roughshod over this whitehouse.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.