<p>Its sad that people think we have to protect soldiers from each other, really sad, that people defending or freedom have to be protected from people who don’t like who their fellow soldiers are</p>
<p>that is a disgrace</p>
<p>and they have changed the rules for re enlistment, so who really knows what is going on</p>
<p>all you people that are so gung ho- sign up!!!</p>
<p>ha ha, yes SO true.</p>
<p>and joev, what does happen if you tell someone that you’re gay, do they dishonorably discharge you?</p>
<p>
Hate to burst your bubble, but those promises are NOT binding on the military. One very important part of getting a written contract is to read the small print. Military recruitment contracts have some loopholes:</p>
<p>1) If the promised program is not “available”, the recruit agrees to be reassigned. Guess who decides what is “available”? </p>
<p>2) If the government decides that for reasons of “military necessity” or “national security” that members must be available for immediate reassignment, then any guarantees may be “terminated” and the recruit may be reassigned according to military needs. Guess what “military necessity” means?</p>
<p>An informed recruit will not sign on unless he or she is willing and ready to take any assignment whatsoever that the military comes up with. The written guarantees in an enlistment contract mean absolutely nothing in a time of war and cannot be enforced in any court of law. So in a sense, the recruit who thinks he has protected himself by carefully getting everything in writing is more of a dupe than the the recruit who signed on without bothering to read the contract – at least the latter has a better concept of whose in charge. </p>
<p>I’d recommend this pamphlet to better understand the enlistment contract:</p>
<p>RECRUITING, THE ENLISTMENT CONTRACT AND YOU:
<a href=“http://www.citizen-soldier.org/media/CS-Enlistment%20guide2005.pdf[/url]”>http://www.citizen-soldier.org/media/CS-Enlistment%20guide2005.pdf</a></p>
<p>If your kids’ friends have not yet reported for duty, then they can still get out of their contracts by refusing to enlist. However, once they are inducted into the military, it is too late - at that point they become subject to the military code of justice and face court martial if they fail to report wherever they are ordered.</p>
<p>Oh… and about those signing bonuses. Little bit of a catch there, too… see the military doesn’t have to pay that until after the recruit gets back from Iraq… assuming the recruit gets back alive and uninjured. See: “You’re in the Army Now”, <a href=“http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Army.htm[/url]”>http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Army.htm</a></p>
<p>
Hayden, perhaps you could point to any of my posts where I deny that recruitment numbers are down. My point all along has been that recruitment numbers are down. My contention is that they are down because of the one-sided view of the war that they is being presented by the media. Anyone seeing this biased view who also doesn’t see the first hand benefits of serving their country and also helping the people of Iraq is not likely to sign-up. My point on the re-enlistment rate is to show that those who actually have this experience want to sign up and give more. It is proof that the anti-war view as portrayed by the media is only one part of a much bigger picture.</p>
<p>“It is proof that the anti-war view as portrayed by the media is only one part of a much bigger picture.”</p>
<p>Fundingfather, it’s funny. All the people on the left I know complain that the media are biased toward conservatives! I wonder what this says about human nature.</p>
<p>It probably is just indicative of how far left your friends are. Anyone on the “far” left would be inclined to say that views that are not as extreme as their’s are “conservative”. It works the other way too. To Rush Limbaugh, John McCain is a “liberal” even though he is pro-war, pro-life and against gay marriage. </p>
<p>There have been many, many studies of people in the media that shows that they are dominated by liberal Democrats. To think that political views don’t seep into how they portray the news is not realistic. Did your friends think that the Rather incident and the Newsweek incident were inspired by the “conservative” nature of the media?</p>
<p>I am wondering how joev views the military gay policy in light of the fact that translators of Arabic and Farsi have been discharged for their sexual orientation at a time when we clearly need more translators rather than fewer.
It isn’t just a matter of civil rights, it is a matter of national security, but apparently homophobia has a higher priority</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure whether the homophobia as you call it is endorsed and practiced by the military brass or rather an acknowledgement by them that it exists and that camaraderie of the military that has caused it to be so effective might be threatened. I’m not justifying their thinking but trying to see their point of view. We must remember that the primary mission of the miltary is defense of the country - not being a model for social norms. It would be nice if it could be both, but you wouldn’t want to sacrifice the former to achieve the latter.</p>
<p>Calmom, the kids mentioned - with the exception of one - reported last year and are pursuing what they were promised.</p>
<p>Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. Not the job promotions or raises that are promised, the extra credit the teacher talked about at the first of the year, departmental transfers are easy at our college if you will just come and start out in general studes, if you move here, the job will exist for many years, I’ll love you forever…</p>
<p>My bubble wasn’t burst, but my point was apparently missed. Informed recruits are better than uninformed ones. The military is here to stay - as will be the need to maintain one. How we approach the issue is what counts. I would not choose a military life for my son or daughter, but many find it is a good life for them. I am opposed to the war in Iraq as I have always been, and I am not in favor of this administrations foreign policy, but history shows us that there is a need for defense.</p>
<p>I promised myself I would not respond to the conservative bias presented on this thread by a few poster, but I need to. Blaming the messenger (press) is so lame and denies the real issues, it is laughable.</p>
<p>Regarding gays and the military:</p>
<p>During World War Two, the military was segregated. The "minority’ units have been recognized for the valor, heroism and extraordinary work. But white soldiers didn’t want to be around them. Hmmm. Those brave men and women fought for our country, even though their fellow soldiers forced them to be seperated. Would we have been better off not allowing them to fight? Our army is supposed to be the best, and if they themselves can’t represent freedom and democracy, then how can they fight for it?</p>
<p>The re enlistment #s are skewed because of changing policies and requirements. </p>
<p>As for liberal media bias, what a load of crock. Do we see the coffins, do we see real war footage, do we get facts, I don’t.</p>
<p>Blaming the Liberal Media is a cop out. There are so many more issues involved in people not wanting to join the military:</p>
<p>One is that minorities are not joining as much as they used to. Another is that many people don’t support this war. Another is that there are other options for poor people and the military is not the only option any more. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2005/usher051105.htm[/url]”>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2005/usher051105.htm</a> </p>
<p>Please come up with real arguments, not just media bias, if that is all the argument you have, well…</p>
<p>Part of me simply views the need for a military much like the need we have for a police force…the military is just on a vast scale. Do I wish we didn’t need to have an armed police force…well yeah, that would be great, but it’s not gonna happen anytime soon. Do I wish we didn’t have to have an Army, Navy, et.al to protect our country…well, yeah that would be great, too…but it’s not the real world we live in.</p>
<p>I’ve had several relatives serve in law enforcement…I wish they had jobs that were less risky and dangerous, but I’m very glad that there are people who are willing to choose them anyway.</p>
<p><a href=“U.S. Department of Defense”>U.S. Department of Defense;
<p>interesting, but not to clear - lots of cirlce talk from the general</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Despite the stated length of enlistment (usually four years), recruits can be kept in the military indefinitely, or called back from the reserves many years later as is being seen with the current back door draft (a.k.a. Stop loss).</p></li>
<li><p>Recruiters promise training that will lead to better jobs in civilian life. But several studies show that veterans typically earn 12% to 15% less than those workers who do not go into the military.</p></li>
<li><p>College benefits are a great exaggeration. Because of all the small print requirements to receive college benefits, only 15 percent ever receive a college degree – only 35% receive GI bill funds for college. Indeed, the average participant actually receives less money than a student who simply receives a Pell Grant and a Stafford Loan. And you pay $1,200 during your first year of service for the program, money you won’t get back when you aren’t part of the 35 percent getting some money from the GI bill.</p></li>
<li><p>Women in the military not only face a high incidence of harassment and rape, but have little recourse when such actions do occur. The machismo culture of the army makes it difficult for anyone to break the wall of silence. Survivors often get pressured and threatened to remain silent, and while this is prevalent in other professions, it’s much worse in the closed environment of military life.</p></li>
<li><p>Military life is very hard on families; family abuse and violence are three to five times higher than in the civilian population.</p></li>
<li><p>The hazards of military service include more than just getting killed or wounded. For instance, less than 300 U.S. soldiers were killed in the first Gulf War of 1991. But tens of thousands of Gulf War vets have reported chronic, debilitating physical and psychological disorders since serving in the Gulf.</p></li>
<li><p>1/3 of the homeless in this country are veterans. If you’re curious why, try asking a recruiter that question.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, the fine print on the back of the enlistment contract makes it clear that no promise made by the government has to be kept. The Military Enlistment/Reenlistment contract states: The following statements [in the contract] are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Suppose we had the following rules for this war: (1) All news coverage is subjected to strict censorship to only show positive aspects of the war (2) no atrocities committed by the US were to be allowed to be covered by the press (3) no foreign press from enemy sympathisers allowed to cover the war (4) civilains systematically targeted for firebombings (5) all letters and emails from soldiers went through censors to make sure that they were sanitized of any details of hardship and loss. (6) the government enlisted actors to create pro-war propaganda films.</p>
<p>Based on your comments, I’m sure you would be outraged. Yet, that is exactly the way FDR ran WW II (and I didn’t even mention the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans). The result was a legacy of “The Greatest Generation” and FDR listed as the one of the greatest Presidents of all time with a huge memorial in Washington to him.</p>
<p>Contrast that scenario to:
<p>So, yeah, I think the media are certainly showing a biased view of the war.</p>
<p>I’m now a former high school student (graduated yesterday), and have absolutely no problem with the military calling and sending me mail. After all, in the past year I have recieved several hundred letters from colleges that I didn’t solicit. My community must be very different from some of the parents on here, because where I live the military is very highly thought of, and if somebody isn’t going to college, enlisting is encouraged, and many of the kids who enlist do well and enjoy the military. It’s a Marine Corps town, so they all know that going to Iraq is quite possible. I’ve spoken to several recruiters, and they didn’t lie or sugarcoat anything to me. To me, keeping recruiters away from high schools is stupid. I have seen immature, aimless kids turned into disciplined, successful adults. SERVING IN THE MILITARY IS A GOOD THING!!!</p>
<p>p.s. fundingfather: we didn’t take prisoners in the pacific during WWII because the Japanese fought to the death. Also, have you seen what they did to our prisoners?! Ever heard of the Bataan death march?</p>
<p>magoo what was the military contact in your high school?
do they have a prearranged day or what?
What options did parents have who didn’t want their children contacted?
I would think that the military would still be interested in students who were going to college- wouldn’t they want people who are trying to make the most of themselves?</p>
<p>magoo09: You are misinterpretting my comments regarding WW II. Most people think of WW II as the “good war” in contrast with the Iraq war which to many is “bad”. They point to things like Abu Ghraib as if it represents the ultimate extreme in prisoner abuse. Some have even called it torture. My point in bringing up Okinawa was that in the “good war” bad things happened as well. But yet the media never reported it - they weren’t even allowed to. Yet the current media revels in Abu Ghraib and are most certainly scurrying around right now to “get the goods” on Koran abuse to absolve Newsweek of its poor reporting.</p>
<p>
The problem with that claim is that private employment contracts ARE different. A written guarantee in a private contract can be enforced in a court of law – and employees who are not protected by written promises can always quit their jobs or seek other employment if things are unsatisfactory. The military enlistment is unique, because at the moment the individual enters the service, he or she has given up many of the civil rights taken for granted in any other context. You can’t quit, you can’t refuse orders. If you refuse orders in the workplace, you may risk being fired; if you refuse them in the military, you risk imprisonment. </p>
<p>I am glad that most of your kids friends ended up with the assignments they wanted. But the point is, the terms of their contract specifically were not binding on the military. There are plenty of young people driving trucks in Iraq right now who signed on expecting something else. </p>
<p>If young people sign on knowing and fully understanding the implications of what they are doing - then more power to them. My point is that they shouldn’t make the mistake of confusing a revocable promise with a guarantee. I can see how military recruiters might tend to gloss over the parts of the contract that mention the fact these promises come second to “military necessity” and “national security”. (Isn’t <em>every</em> assignment the military makes arguably one of military necessity?). Getting it in writing is better than not having it written down, but the bottom line is that being fully informed is even better.</p>
<p>“What options did parents have who didn’t want their children contacted?”</p>
<p>In our state, teens are emancipated in traffic court at 17, tried as adults at 17. Seniors who are 18 have the vote and do not require parents’s permissions to do anything. In fact, when my son hit 18, I had to have his permission to view his grades and medical records. I would think you could only “protect” your younger students.</p>
<p>Our recruiters have an office and are at the school during certain hours on certain days. They often have the lunchroom conference center available for kids to ask questions on their lunch break. There’s no backroom armtwisting going on. I think our recruiters have been much like the recruiters at magoo09’s school.</p>
<p>Calmom, being fully informed was the point of my first post. Schools should be actively involved in the information process about the military - just like they are about the college application process.</p>
<p>thats interesting that they have an office at the school- our parent group doesn’t even have an office.
Who I am concerned about are the younger students, especially since written contracts and agreements mean little in a time of war. Students may be recruited for college and transfer if they really hate it- not so in the military.</p>