9,000 US soldiers killed so far in Iraq?

[jGilder]

However, if all recruits to the army had lawyers and the power to negotiate terms, their conditions would be a whole lot different.

And I'd just like to add here that if they belong to a corporate oil empire and political dynasty they can get enlisted in the Air National Guard, receive special treatment, and never have to serve at all during war time complete with all the necessary certifications to become a warmonger president some day and send unsuspecting high school dropouts into battle in illegal preemptive invasions and occupations of other countries.

[Denny]

...and send unsuspecting high school dropouts into battle in illegal preemptive invasions and occupations of other countries.

Whaddabout sending National Guard?

[NicoMoreno]

However, the difference that I see is that while the widow needs heat or AC, the 18 year old boy does not need to enlist.

Well, the gas company can argue that the widow is free to convert to an oil furnace if she doesn't like their terms.

However, no 18 year old boy *needs* to be a professional baseball player or a rock star, either, but there is ample caselaw which has ruled that lifetime (or ten year) contracts signed by teenagers to record compnaies or major league teams were adhesion contracts. These date, mostly, from the days before teenagers in this routinely had agents looking after their interests.

However, if all recruits to the army had lawyers and the power to negotiate terms, their conditions would be a whole lot different.

Well, that seems reasonable, but I would argue the same thing for those sports and rock star contracts. That they should have thought about it before signing, and that if they are age of majority than it is their responsibilty to make sure they understand what they are getting into.

I understand what you are getting at, though.

[NicoMoreno]

However, if all recruits to the army had lawyers and the power to negotiate terms, their conditions would be a whole lot different.

And I'd just like to add here that if they belong to a corporate oil empire and political dynasty they can get enlisted in the Air National Guard, receive special treatment, and never have to serve at all during war time complete with all the necessary certifications to become a warmonger president some day and send unsuspecting high school dropouts into battle in illegal preemptive invasions and occupations of other countries.

But wasn't that when the draft was still in effect? How is it relevant to volunteering?

[missy]

jGilder wrote:
"missy wrote:
If you want me to be "sympathetic" to a deserter, you really need to find someone other than a high school drop out that has no concept of how the real world operates. If Canada wants this guy - more power to them, they are welcome.

So are you saying that if they're a "high school dropout" it's ok to lie to them and fool them into signing over their life to the military?
******************
My response:
You are putting words "in my post". I said "a high school drop out that has no concept of how the real world works." That includes the intelligence to know IF you sign a military contract, your butt is theirs to do with however they want. It seems to me this person is lacking in this concept.
************************
Remember now, here's what he was told:
Quote:
AMY GOODMAN: Did they say you would go to Iraq?

RYAN JOHNSON: Well, actually my father is deceased, and I told them that, and they said, “Oh, well, you know, since your father's deceased, you won't have to go, because there is a clause that says that if you have a family member that is deceased, you won't have to go.” But that’s only if it’s after you join the military they died and they had to have died in combat. They didn't tell me that. So I was under the impression that I wouldn't go.
*********************
Me again:
I don't know what the policy is for a deceased parent. So I can't answer this, as to whether he was lied to or not.
****************************************

If it's ok to deceive high school dropouts, then I can see why recruiters are hanging around on high school campuses preying on potential dropouts.
****************************
ah - if you want to find dropouts, hanging around a high school campus isn't gonna help you. Those at the high school are (probably) under age to serve, and if they are drop outs, they won't be AT a high school.


Now - let's get to some of the other "points" of what he was supposedly told:

Attend college:
Yes, you can attend college while enlisted - PROVIDED it works into your job schedule. The Army and Air Force have their own college, and have the option of on-line classes. The Navy takes their college "with" them when they are on ship (carriers and destroyers). All three have some reciprical agreement with other colleges for transfer of credits.
But - a recruit is certainly NOT going to attend college while in basic - every minute of a recruits existance is scheduled while they are in basic. Afterwards, again - it depends on what their job is. Some of the training they received can go toward college credit, too.
On the $40,000:
This is what is possible AFTER four years of service, and it depends on how much a recruit PAYS INTO the program. In other words, it's a matching fund arrangement. This is all spelled out on any of the services website, as well as detailed in all the literature that is handed out at recruiting stations.

Job promise:
The Army is known for NOT promising jobs. All the Army commits to is saying that if there's an opening at the end of basic, they will try to see that the recruit gets that job. But they will try to get a recruit to go into whatevery they have the greatest need for (right now, it's medical equipment repair). The Air Force will promise the area of interest, but not the particular job. The Navy is the only branch that will "promise" a job (especially nukes because you have to sign up for 6 years at the get-go for that). And even then, on the papers that are signed, it states "The Navy is under no obligation to provide a specified job to the recruit". I know. I saw and signed the papers for my son.

And as to being in supply and thinking you aren't going to be shipped to Iraq? Well, here's the definition straight from the Army's website:
The right supplies, delivered at the right time, can ensure the safety of Army troops in the field. Maintaining and distributing the Army's large inventory of food, medicines, ammunition, spare parts and other supplies is an incredibly important job. The Unit Supply Specialist is an integral member of the Army's supply and warehousing specialist team.

The Unit Supply Specialist is primarily responsible for supervising or performing tasks involving the general upkeep and maintenance of all Army supplies and equipment. Some of your duties as an Unit Supply Specialist may include:

Receiving, inspecting, inventorying, loading, unloading, storing, delivering and turning in organization and installation supplies and equipment
Operating unit level computers
Preparing all unit/organizational supply documents
Maintaining automated supply system for accounting of organizational and installation supplies and equipment
Issuing and receiving small arms and crew served weapons
Securing and controlling weapons and ammunition in security areas
Scheduling and performing preventive and organizational maintenance on weapons
Performing inventory and financial management procedures, including ordering, receiving and storing supplies
Locating and cataloging stock
Performing or supervising inventory management, storage and preservation
Performing quality control, property management and repair parts management
Segregating and accounting for medical supplies and equipment
Selecting the correct stock for issue
Loading, unloading and moving stock using equipment such as forklifts and hand trucks
Keeping records on incoming and outgoing stock

Be a little hard to inspect and repair weapons, repair parts management, load and unload trucks, etc. if you WEREN'T IN THE FIELD. So, if you think you are going to go into supply and not have a great possibility of being in Iraq (or at least Kuwait - a friend just got back from there - she's in Army Guard) you're sadly mistaken.

Who's to say this recruit was "lied" to? He had access to all the same papers and pamplets I've had access to. He could ask the same questions my son and I asked. He could find out the same details my son and I did.
Just because he didn't take the initiative to DO so, doesn't mean he was lied to.

[jGilder]

ah - if you want to find dropouts, hanging around a high school campus isn't gonna help you. Those at the high school are (probably) under age to serve, and if they are drop outs, they won't be AT a high school.

If that's so, then why did Congress pass two major pieces of legislation that generally require local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to give military recruiters access to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings when requested?

================================

No Child Unrecruited


High School cadets in Mariette, Georgia

Should the military be given the names of every high school student in America?

By David Goodman
Mother Jones Magazine
November/December 2002 Issue

Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."

But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.

"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."

The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."

To many educators, however, requiring the release of personal information intrudes on the rights of students. "We feel it is a clear departure from the letter and the spirit of the current student privacy laws," says Bruce Hunter, chief lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators. Until now, schools could share student information only with other educational institutions. "Now other people will want our lists," says Hunter. "It's a slippery slope. I don't want student directories sent to Verizon either, just because they claim that all kids need a cell phone to be safe."

The new law does give students the right to withhold their records. But school officials are given wide leeway in how to implement the law, and some are simply handing over student directories to recruiters without informing anyone -- leaving students without any say in the matter.

"I think the privacy implications of this law are profound," says Jill Wynns, president of the San Francisco Board of Education. "For the federal government to ignore or discount the concerns of the privacy rights of millions of high school students is not a good thing, and it's something we should be concerned about."

Educators point out that the armed services have exceeded their recruitment goals for the past two years in a row, even without access to every school. The new law, they say, undercuts the authority of some local school districts, including San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, that have barred recruiters from schools on the grounds that the military discriminates against gays and lesbians. Officials in both cities now say they will grant recruiters access to their schools and to student information -- but they also plan to inform students of their right to withhold their records.

Some students are already choosing that option. According to Principal Shea-Keneally, 200 students at her school -- one-sixth of the student body -- have asked that their records be withheld.

Recruiters are up-front about their plans to use school lists to aggressively pursue students through mailings, phone calls, and personal visits -- even if parents object. "The only thing that will get us to stop contacting the family is if they call their congressman," says Major Johannes Paraan, head U.S. Army recruiter for Vermont and northeastern New York. "Or maybe if the kid died, we'll take them off our list."

[jGilder]

Who's to say this recruit was "lied" to? He had access to all the same papers and pamplets I've had access to. He could ask the same questions my son and I asked. He could find out the same details my son and I did.
Just because he didn't take the initiative to DO so, doesn't mean he was lied to.

So I guess potential enlistees should be told up-front not to believe anything the recruiter says to them. Maybe there should be a banner over their booth with a statement printed in big red, white & blue letters that says something like, "Don't believe anything the recruiter says -- read the fine print -- the recruiters are liars!"

[jGilder]

However, if all recruits to the army had lawyers and the power to negotiate terms, their conditions would be a whole lot different.

And I'd just like to add here that if they belong to a corporate oil empire and political dynasty they can get enlisted in the Air National Guard, receive special treatment, and never have to serve at all during war time complete with all the necessary certifications to become a warmonger president some day and send unsuspecting high school dropouts into battle in illegal preemptive invasions and occupations of other countries.

But wasn't that when the draft was still in effect? How is it relevant to volunteering?

It's relevant to the rights or privileges of enlistees depending on their status and representation.

[NicoMoreno]

Could you explain more jGilder?

[jGilder]

Could you explain more jGilder?

Simon was talking about how different it would be if every poor enlistee had the same legal representation that rich ones might get if needed. I added that status, wealth, lineage, etc., could get you quite a bit when it comes to the pitfalls of military service. The draft vs. volunteer military is what's irrelevant.

[NicoMoreno]

Could you explain more jGilder?

Simon was talking about how different it would be if every poor enlistee had the same legal representation that rich ones might get if needed. I added that status, wealth, lineage, etc., could get you quite a bit when it comes to the pitfalls of military service. The draft vs. volunteer military is what's irrelevant.

Well, I see how different standards for different draftees is unfair, but the fact that it is draft vs volunteer is not irrelevant.

Have you ever gotten something for free (or cheaper) because you knew somebody? Is that fair? Should it be allowed?

I'm talking anything: A job, a car, a discount on a computer?

Say everybody was required to buy a car. Would it be fair if someone was getting it for less than someone else? (Same car) No. Should it be allowed? No.

But not everyone is required to have a car. So should it be allowed? Sure. Otherwise we are moving away from the society I know, to something I wouldn't want.

So bringing it back to the military, I think it is very important to reflect on the fact that volunteering is not the same thing as being drafted. So I agree, it isn't fair that someone get a better postion when being drafted because of who they know. But it's different when they volunteer.

Bottom Line: It may not be fair, but it is not the same as the draft.

[NicoMoreno]

No offense, but I don't think that was what Simon was talking about. I understood that he was comparing enlisting to having a sports or music contract. I don't think that's the same as rich vs poor.

[missy]

oh, another of the "ohmygawdtheyaregoingtofindoutaboutmy - kidandhe'sgonnafindoutaboutthem"..........

you DO know that all 18 years old males have to register via Selective Service?
And that all branches of the service can get names and addresses from SAT and ACT, just as any college can do.
You also realize that going into the service, for some, is a CAREER choice, and as such, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be able to come onto a high school campus, just as any college does, or be represented at career days, etc?

As to believing what the recruiters say - again, with anything in life - DO HOMEWORK! Seniors visit colleges (sit through one of those "sell" jobs lately???) Before they decide to go, they need to research and ask questions. Same goes for the service.

I am NOT saying that recruiters lie - not by any way, shape or form. But as was already stated - they ARE selling something. As with anything in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Car salespersons hate me, cuz I won't be a part of their bull. All three of the recruiters I had personal contact with were totally up front with me, and answered any question I asked them. Plus - both my son and I did our homework and knew what was what before we stepped in the door (same as when I buy a car and why salespersons hate me).

Taking this all the way back to the original posts - you had a young man who unfortunately made some pretty stupid choices in his life. He found that things weren't going to come to him as easy as he may have thought (8 jobs in 2 years) so he looked for another easy avenue. He heard what he wanted, and either didn't ask questions or ignored the rest. Or - again - proved that his intelligence was lacking. He enters the service and balks when the going gets hard. He already has one episode of possible AWOL. When it came time for him to pony up - he bolts and runs.

Yep - someone to really look up to................

For myself, I'll take my son and his friends any day...........

[jGilder]

Could you explain more jGilder?

Simon was talking about how different it would be if every poor enlistee had the same legal representation that rich ones might get if needed. I added that status, wealth, lineage, etc., could get you quite a bit when it comes to the pitfalls of military service. The draft vs. volunteer military is what's irrelevant.

Say everybody was required to buy a car. Would it be fair if someone was getting it for less than someone else? (Same car) No. Should it be allowed? No.

But not everyone is required to have a car. So should it be allowed? Sure. Otherwise we are moving away from the society I know, to something I wouldn't want.

So what do you figure Bush got for free, a beetle, BMW, limousine, or a hummer?

[jGilder]

As to believing what the recruiters say - again, with anything in life - DO HOMEWORK! Seniors visit colleges (sit through one of those "sell" jobs lately???) Before they decide to go, they need to research and ask questions. Same goes for the service.

I am NOT saying that recruiters lie - not by any way, shape or form. But as was already stated - they ARE selling something. As with anything in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Too bad some of the kids who get fooled by this won't live to appreciate the valuable lesson that recruiters provide in demonstrating how easy it is to lie about something concerning life and death. :roll:

Taking this all the way back to the original posts - you had a young man who unfortunately made some pretty stupid choices in his life. He found that things weren't going to come to him as easy as he may have thought (8 jobs in 2 years) so he looked for another easy avenue. He heard what he wanted, and either didn't ask questions or ignored the rest. Or - again - proved that his intelligence was lacking. He enters the service and balks when the going gets hard. He already has one episode of possible AWOL. When it came time for him to pony up - he bolts and runs.

He was LIED to. Is that what you mean by the "going gets tough"? I'm sorry missy, but you can't convince me that just because someone is a high school dropout and can't hold a job it's ok to fool him into putting his life on the line. I don't think you'd be justifying it this way if you were in his shoes and had been lied to only to find yourself dodging car bombs and rocket grenades in a country far far away.