Damned anti recruiting movement

Status
Not open for further replies.
But note that AT&T's salesmen are selling you a service, not four (or MORE...) years of your life. As much as I pity anyone who takes what a recruiter says at face value, the recruiter's job should be more of a "well, yeah, here's how it is and while some people say it sucks, it's really good because..." and then all the good things that come with military service. That's why Be All You Can Be was such a better slogan, I think... At least Army Strong is getting back to those roots.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and agree that recruiters should give the good and the bad, but in this day and age of the internet, news available in 30 seconds or less and liberal news agencies continually painting the military with a broad brush of evil. There is plenty of info available about the negative aspects of the military and many kids that I talk to when I'm in places without a military installation nearby to see and interact with military personnel don't know any of the good things because all they hear about is how you have to be poor, under educated and morally corrupt to join the military.


You'd think that anybody would be against recruiting anyone under false pretenses. It's just worse in the military when the recruit is not legally allowed to say "you know boss, this just isn't working out for me. I'm not showing up for work tomorrow: I quit as of now, and will be seeking employment elsewhere."
Click to expand...

Good order and discipline come before your personal wants and wishes. If an AT&T employee decides he doesn't want to do his job, generally no lives are in jeopardy and they just replace him with the next guy in line. When a member of the military decides he doesn't want to do his job, national security is affected as well as the safety of his team mates and unit. It also affects morale and discipline.
 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.
Click to expand...
...city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.
Click to expand...
My opinion stands. Screw'em. Let them live without the military they DO hate so much. The people elect the officials who pull stunts like that. So screw'em.
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in the quoted passages that suggests that they hate the military. I see opposition to our current war, and disdain for the military's policy regarding gays (again, a significant portion of SF voters and residents).

Are you suggesting that anybody that thinks DADT is a horrible policy and that our operation in Iraq is and was misguided hates the military? Because that would mean that supposedly I hate the military (despite nearly a decade of service, including combat service, and now two re-enlistments)...because I agree on both counts.

You simply cannot equate opposition to the war our military is fighting, or opposition to individual military policies, to hatred for the military in general. It's intellectual dishonestly at it's worst, trying to capitalize on pro-military sentiment to support unrelated issues. And, as a veteran, I really don't appreciate it. Please stop disrespecting our servicemen and women in this manner.


But this isn't about San Francisco and gays anyway. We're talking about requiring, at the risk of losing federal funding (which comes from local taxpayers), that schools pimp out their students' info to military recruiters. I still don't see why, given the ethical track record of military recruiters (particularly Army recruiters), we should be requiring this of our schools (or why any school would voluntarily do so)...and this is, again, aside from my general opposition to the "cut federal funding" bat that the feds use to enact de facto laws that they don't have the power to enact for real.
 
And snubbing one of the most well-known and legendary battleships to take part in every war from WWII to Gulf War I is not hating the military how?

That was a deliberate snub of all the heroes who have walked her decks, and all that she stood for and fought for. Freedom.

Which they enjoy. Ships like that and the men who fought on them are why the "local population" in SF isn't speaking another language, or being herded into execution chambers for their lifestyle choices.

And they snubbed it. On purpose. They said it was because of military policies on homosexuals and because of Iraq, but they turned away a ship that people fought and died on for their freedom. Unacceptable, and blatant hating on all things military.
 
Most public schools I come in contact with view the military as the bottom ladder and yet they fail to teach children other alternatives to college.

Patriotism is a dirty word in many education intuitions,as is words such as protectionism, nativism, etc, etc, etc. The idea of being proud to be American and show support is looked down on, what a shame.

Honestly I believe in the draft especially in long term conflicts, two years service and if you decide to re-enlist then you have an all volunteer military much like we had in the past. As a Vietnam vet some of the best soldiers were draftees, many were natural leaders who remained for 20+, but America needs a cross section of young people on a rotating basis for at the very least basic training in the end it is boots on the ground that win wars and keeps nations free.
 
But then being somewhere you didn't intend on being doesn't do much for morale either. :p Best to let somebody know what they're getting into if they can't get out easily.

Anyway, I don't see what the big fuss about a mandatory reservist draft is about. Sure it'd be expensive, but do you have any idea what a shot in the arm that would be to our standing military strength? Mandatory training plus two years in the army, plus obligatory reservist service afterwards? (Oh good grief, how expensive I can imagine that being...) I'd figure that the government's natural desire to use the military as a tool of policy big time would be balanced out by the public's newfound interest in reining in unnecessary military ventures, but I've been unpleasantly surprised in the past...

I never understood how rewarding soldiers with a good education for civilian life was considered abusive... They render a service, receive a reward, everybody goes home happy. Much worse, I think, would be to coerce these poor people (i.e. people sans money) into ten year enlistments without the college benefits with the promise of a much-needed signing bonus now.

Sometimes I wonder if all the hate recruiters get is because of them all being perceived like the slimy used car salesman subset of recruiters, or because they represent the military. I've talked a bit with a guy who recruits in Massachusetts. Yeah, he says it's kinda tough, but I haven't gotten any horror stories from him (most of his horror stories center around the kinds of braindead recruits he'd have to turn away with knowledge that some recruiters would have done some fudging to let them in).
 
BTW, if you live in a non-leftist area, see if this show is coming to your area next year...it's VERY impressive.

http://spiritofamerica.mdw.army.mil/

Spirit of America is performed by more than 300 Soldiers from the United States Army Military District of Washington. This breathtaking show reviews the history of military service given to the nation through drama, musical entertainment, historical reenactments and narration. Active duty Soldiers, not actors, perform the show.

It is the inspiring story of Soldiers past and present, generations of men and women who, for more than 230 years, in times of war and peace, have left families and friends behind to serve their country as Soldiers in the United States Army.
These historical accounts, taken directly from Soldiers' letters and diaries are a powerful drama designed to entertain while encouraging all citizens to think about how history relates to them today.

Since 1975, Spirit of America has presented the history and development of the U.S. Army from its very origins through the wars, conflicts and missions that have molded the Army and the nation. Spirit of America performances are open to the general public and admission is FREE, however, a ticket is needed to attend.

Spirit of America has completed its tour for 2007. Please revisit this web site in April 2008 for locations and show dates for Spirit of America 2008!
Click to expand...

20,000 people in southern NH went to it. Local schools took their classes to see it. Makes me proud to live in NH. :)
 
And they snubbed it. On purpose. They said it was because of military policies on homosexuals and because of Iraq, but they turned away a ship that people fought and died on for their freedom. Unacceptable, and blatant hating on all things military.
Click to expand...

Hating of all things military? So if I were to tell somebody I was a soldier in San Francisco, I suppose I'd get spit on, too...all things military, and all. Oh wait, that isn't the case.

While you probably can't wrap your mind around it (because you lack the same empathy that myself and many other human beings possess) that ship doesn't just represent "freedom," it also represents the systematic and official discrimination against a significant portion of the population of that city. I'd not be surprised if crewmembers from that actual ship were drummed out of the military for their lifestyle choices. But you've probably never considered that, now have you?

This is, of course, beyond the whole absurdity of "olol National Guard shouldn't help San Francisco in a disaster," which ignores the fact that not every citizen there feels that way and those citizens would be put in danger as well. Which you run the risk of any time you try to paint pretty much any population as entirely homogeneous to demonize them...whether it be San Francisc..cisco...ciscoans?* Heck if I know. Or liberals, or gun owners, or soldiers, or Americans, or Scrubs fans. Makes for better use of exclamation points though, I suppose.

* - I'd wager it's San Franciscans...but I figured it made for a good joke.

EDIT: As a side note, I'd actually agree that turning down the ship was probably a bit petty...but at the same time, I understand why they would and I'd not say it's totally without cause.
 
While you probably can't wrap your mind around it (because you lack the same empathy that myself and many other human beings possess)
Click to expand...

Yay, ridiculous ad hominem. Because I'm not a pansy handwringing bedwetting liberal. Whatever.

that ship doesn't just represent "freedom," it also represents the systematic and official discrimination against a significant portion of the population of that city.
Click to expand...

Okay. You stepped WAY over the line with that one. :mad: I won't say what I'd like to, because it'd be out of character for this board.

But I suggest you walk into a naval base and tell anyone what you think the USS Iowa represents. You'd be seeing the ground very quickly.

I wouldn't blame them, either. If someone walked up to me and said what you just said, JuanCarlos, that an honored battleship represents discrimination against gays, I'd really have a hard time not belting them in the face. I mean, what the HELL?! :mad:

WAY over the line!
 
If someone walked up to me and said what you just said, that an honored battleship represents discrimination against gays, I'd really have a hard time not belting them in the face.
Click to expand...
I'm with you! But you'd probably get charged with a hate crime.
 
Manedwolf, don't let what he said annoy you. He is just trying to push your buttons to get a reaction out of you. Many people on internet forums like to play the devils advocate. It is all part of a game they play. Why else would he make a comment like he did on this site, which is overwhelmingly pro military but to get a reaction. You took the bait, and he reeled you in. He likes to create controversy probably because he has a boring life. Personally I try to ignore posters like him/her, though it can be tempting at times. But no matter how you reasoned you are with them, they will only try harder to get you off balance. The more you make sense, the harder they try to come up with outrages comments.
 
Perhaps because he believes it to be true.

The military does have an official stance of discrimination against an entire group of people. The Iowa doesn't represent freedom alone, it represents many things. Some good, some bad. Unfortunately in a city like SF where much of the population is officially and publicly discriminated against by the US armed forces there are many who believe that any aspect of the military is representative of that discrimination. I happen to agree. However I also happen to believe it does represent that freedom. It also represents war. And technology. And courage. And death. It represents many different things to many different people.

I'm one of those people discriminated against yet I still enlisted. Figure that one out.
 
Why else would he make a comment like he did on this site, which is overwhelmingly pro military but to get a reaction.
Click to expand...

Yes, because God forbid somebody represent an unpopular opinion here. There is simply no other reason to advocate an unpopular opinion other than trolling.

Alternately, what Redworm said.

He likes to create controversy probably because he has a boring life.
Click to expand...

Alternately I like to spend a bit of time shooting the breeze about politics on forums, and I stick around this one because I figure there is some value in having the "other side" (on issues aside from guns) represented. Otherwise I'd have left you all to cheerlead each other long ago.

But feel free to keep the personal attacks coming.

EDIT: Also, I'm not "playing Devil's advocate." That would suggest that I don't actually hold any of these positions, but argue them for argument's sake. The only thing I've said here that isn't my personal feeling (but rather one others have shared with me...not about the Iowa, but another symbol) is the potential symbolism in the Iowa...I'm not gay, I'm in the military, and looking to join the Navy...so personally it's not something I see. But I can understand how others would. As for the rest, as hard as it is to believe as a gun rights advocate and TFL member I still manage to hold those positions. The Iraq war is/was a mistake, DADT is a horrible policy, and I don't want schools handing out my kids information to military recruiters that are often, at best, predatory.

Who knew, people hold opinions that aren't popular on TFL. Yet still post here. Amazing.
 
Somebody somewhere is signing up I just got an e-mail form our higher ups and all our goals were met.

I have inprocessed four prior service people who signed up for a $ 20,000 bonus who had gotten out because of the deployments. In some specialties you can get over $100,000 for reenlistment incentives.

The Reserves has come up with a new 48 month education stabilization program that exempts them from deployment for 48 months. The strength problem has been countered by a serious inflow of incentive cash.

They are even offering mid career officers incentives to stay in. Yes there were strength problems but it looks like the flow of cash has cured that.

Service members can make $2,000 dollars for every referral that goes to training and graduates. A National Guard soldier made $100,000 doing this and quit his full time job.

You can make some serious dollars for education now also. If you get deployed those benefits can be added to kicking them up substantially.
Deployment isn't a problem with all the distance learning offered by bunches of traditional colleges and other institution. I have a distance learning class I can do at home in my underwear..lol.

While still in I was working on an MBA....the cost to me $75.00. Which wouldn't include GI Bill payments which would go straight into my pocket if I had them. Name me a fully accredited University you can get a MBA at for $75.00.

How about a $10,000 or $20,000 student loan repayment incentive. GI Bill money, a GI Kicker incentive that adds more money to your education $$$.

The military is what you make out of it. If you join just to put some money in your pockets to go party on the weekends you are missing the boat. Does the military expect stuff in return? You bet

can you get killed in the military...yes you can. You could die in a car wreck on the highway or in a fire too.

I don't see a draft anytime soon. Yes there was a dry spell for a while but the drought is over.

I deal with the aftermath of some recruiters on a daily basis. Some tell them what benefits they get in a quick summary but forget to point out the fine print which says your mileage may vary.

My advice..read the fine print in the bonus addendums and the cap on total bonus payments. Also make sure any promised things are in writing on your contract. If it ain't in writing it isn't going to happen. If it is and the military didn't live up to its bargain you have a door to leave by.

There are homosexuals in the military. I have worked with some over the years. The issue with them was about being the best you could be in the military, not what they did in the bedroom. My concept was leave what happens in your bedroom at home...come to work to soldier not make a political statement. Don't ask and don't tell. They didn't make a big drama out of being gay and I did the same.

I folks who have left the service but then get a dose of working underpaid civilian jobs and go back in to get the incentives.

No draft is going to happen.
 
Manedwolf, don't let what he said annoy you. He is just trying to push your buttons to get a reaction out of you. Many people on internet forums like to play the devils advocate. It is all part of a game they play. Why else would he make a comment like he did on this site, which is overwhelmingly pro military but to get a reaction. You took the bait, and he reeled you in. He likes to create controversy probably because he has a boring life. Personally I try to ignore posters like him/her, though it can be tempting at times. But no matter how you reasoned you are with them, they will only try harder to get you off balance. The more you make sense, the harder they try to come up with outrages comments.
Click to expand...







I'm the polar opposite of Juan and Redworm, but neither are trolls. They hold unpopular opinions, most of which I'll never agree with, but they can and do argue their point in an educated as they see the facts manner.
 
I've been active duty army since 1992 and I was a recruiter in Hamburg, NY (a suburb of Buffalo) from 2000-2001.
Here are somethings about recruiting and military policy you need to keep in mind. When enough people in a stations foot print dosen't join, USAREC dosen't blame the recruiting pool, they blame the recruiters. Some recruiters (very few) do unethical things to get the company/battalion off thier back. Unfortunately, things that get you a counseling statement in the "real" army almost always ends in a field grade Article 15 or a courts martial in USAREC. Its always been a challenge to keep up manning requirements and for the past couple of years they've been adding to the army's total end strength by several thousand each year. The pressure is high. Lots of depression. Lots of suicides.
Stop loss: When a SGT with 9 years in is kept past his ETS date, I feel sorry for them, just as I do when a more senior NCO or officer is kept past thier retirement date. An E4 that ends up doing 5 years instead of the 4 years they (thought) signed up for, I do not. Reason being everyone has an 8 year minimum service obligation. When they signed up for 4 years it was a 4x4 contract. 4 years active duty, 4 years inactive ready reserve. Most don't bother reading that part of the contract.
Don't ask, don't tell: Seems to be a big topic on this thread. The army does have a policy against homosexuality/bi-sexuality. It also has a policy against adultery. Both go totally unenforced if your smart enough to keep your personal life personal. If I took my girlfriend to a unit function or had her put on an FRG roster before my divorce finalized (no such thing as legal separation in the military) I'd be punished.
The draft: I like the all volenteer force, but I think it's days are numbered. It may be a good thing actually. The Pentagon may hate the idea, but about half the miltary population think it would be a good idea. That goes double for the Iraq/Afghan vets. There is a huge disconnect between the military and the people we defend. Most americans dont know me or anyone like me. Totally clueless as what we do, how we do it or how we think, feel, or behave. I thinks what makes a lot of us mad is the fact that America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
 
"Thanks for the recruiters view."

I'm not a recruiter anymore. I'm an operations NCO in the 10th Mountain division at FT Drum, NY
 
Deployment isn't a problem with all the distance learning offered by bunches of traditional colleges and other institution. I have a distance learning class I can do at home in my underwear..lol.
Click to expand...

Depends what kind of degree you're working on. Earning an engineering degree long distance, for instance, is a bit harder.

Don't ask, don't tell: Seems to be a big topic on this thread. The army does have a policy against homosexuality/bi-sexuality. It also has a policy against adultery. Both go totally unenforced if your smart enough to keep your personal life personal. If I took my girlfriend to a unit function or had her put on an FRG roster before my divorce finalized (no such thing as legal separation in the military) I'd be punished.
Click to expand...

Not to completely topic-jack, but there is a difference here. Heterosexual soldiers are free to talk about their sex lives, and need make no attempt to hide them, as long as they aren't adulterous (as in, with a married partner or if they are married). It may not be professional, but I've heard more than I'd ever care to about the sex lives of single heterosexual soldiers in my various units. A gay soldier, on the other hand, could very easily find himself shown the door if he spoke even one word regarding his.

Definite double standard. I've known quite a few people who put up with it anyway, because they wanted to serve (and you know the post-9/11 recruits weren't likely just doing it for money)...but I'd imagine it'd make pursuing it as a long-term career incredibly unlikely. 3 years of it is one thing, but 20?

And yeah, while I may seem like I've been making a full-time job of bashing recruiters here, I've known some that were stand-up guys and I also know the insane expectations and stress put on them. It doesn't excuse the bad apples, of course, just saying that I feel for them.


Also, as for what Eghad said, I agree with most of it. I've actually talked to quite a few people about signing up...I think I talked a couple out of it, and talked a couple into it. There are benefits, tons of them...and tons of drawbacks as well. You have to want to be a soldier nowadays, that's for sure...the days of signing up just to pay for college are gone for a while. But I'd not discourage anybody from joining active-duty, and even the reserve components can be a good fit depending on the person. I just like to make sure people know the bad as well as the good...as there are plenty of both.

And yes, huge cash bonuses and other incentives have done wonders for recruiting and retention. I had planned on taking a couple years off then going back in active-duty (just taking time off to finish my degree...not war related, other than not wanting to get deployed again before finishing), but the incentives offered suddenly made a break in service sound like far too much of a hassle. :D
 
yknow y'all keep mentioning those fat signing bonuses but the very words out of my recruiter's mouth: "dude, if being a marine isn't enough of an incentive then this probably isn't the branch for you" :p
 
yknow y'all keep mentioning those fat signing bonuses but the very words out of my recruiter's mouth: "dude, if being a marine isn't enough of an incentive then this probably isn't the branch for you"
Click to expand...

Well, they are the few and the proud...Army's got a lot more slots to fill!

But yeah, I think I'd have done my first enlistment for nothing more than the GI Bill (and all the other "standard" benefits")...if that. Actually, come to think of it, all I got for that one was the GI Bill (and the rest). Go figure.

And I still consider it a damn fine deal. You mean you are going to pay me to drive tanks? I felt like I was ripping the government off! :D

EDIT: And, back on topic (maybe), I know I'm kind of a broken record here but are the people who favor this policy actually comfortable with the idea of the federal government withholding money they've taken from a state's citizens in order to pass de facto laws that are outside their power? Or comfortable with the idea of the federal government just straight-up passing a law requiring this if they could? Should this be left up to, at the least, the states to decide this for their school systems...if not the local level (so that individual administrators could blackball individual recruiters that have proven to be unethical, for instance)?

We know that I don't think schools should be sharing this info at all...but if they are to do so, I just don't think it should be compelled by the federal government. I don't like it when it's used to set the drinking age, I don't like it when it's used to try and require libraries to filter content, and I don't like it when it's used to require this of schools. Just because it's the military doesn't make it better, no matter how much you "support the troops." Even setting aside the discrimination issues, or the unethical practices (many) recruiters have resorted to in the past, even assuming both of those were fixed (or didn't matter), I just don't like the abuse of power here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top