If this was a barrage, istead of a discussion, how do you account for the series of posts begun by military veteran, "Tully Mars", in his post #57 ?

How do you broach a subject such as this, a symptom of what happens in a "this is my country, right or wrong, no matter what policies it's government pursues", political atmosphere?

Consider the negative references towards Berkeley, historically, all the way back to Reagan's first campaign for California governor, in the mid 1960's.

Consider the fact that even with the US leadership "lying us into war in Iraq", the expose of military recruiting abuses in the film, Farenheit 911, the outrageous and grievously counterproductive and offensive military decisions and practices exposed via photoraphic evidence at Abu Ghraid prison (the US military decided to continue using the most dreaded and torture associated prision of the regime it ousted, for the same purpose, holding Iraqis indefinitely without trail or charges and abusing them in heinous ways...), consider that only ENLISTED US military personnel were jailed for the offenses at Abu Ghraib, and the overriiding consideration:
The conduct and deceit of the US commander and chief and the military, in justifying war, conducting war, in accountability, or not, and in abusive, deceitful recruiting, is still considered acceptable, the norm, and the reaction to recruiters in Berkeley is said to be, by the majority....fringe. extreme left thinking and action.

How should I have worded the title, to balance upside down thinking? Who's sensibilities was I supposed to tread more softly on, the people who take offense about the description of military recruiters, as described in the title, even though the description is accurate and the background is, if it encompassed the deeds of belligerence done by another country, an assault on even the value systems of those blinded by the flag and 9/11?

Is THAT what you garnered by my post? Talk about subjective....

If, by the age of 18, a kid doesn't know that they need to be responsible by reading fine print of a contract before signing one, then the parents FAILED. What I hear you saying is that parents shouldn't HAVE to be responsible...that everyone else should just be trustworthy and honorable and while that would be nice, it's a fools dream to believe that possible.

So if I started a thread saying "Do liberals hate America or just the Military" based on the code pink actions in Berkly, you wouldn't complain about questioning your patriotism?

Please host, just stop.

I dont see anything wrong with the thread title.

The fact that some recruiters use deceptive practices is irrefutable. DoD has acknowledged it as well as acknowledging that they dont have the process or the capacity in place to investigate every allegation.

Given those facts, the thread title is completely appropriate.

I'm guessing at least one person in every occupation lies. Recruiters? Yep. Does that make the entire US military a liar? Is it DoD policy to lie?

What about DoD internet sites, posters, fliers? Those are "methods," too. Do they lie through deceptive display of the job / false promises?

It's DoD policy not to do anything about the lying that they're aware of.

Sarcasm aside, I sincerely doubt that's in the books.

Seriously, it's not illegal for the recruiters to lie. The DoD doesn't have to do shit, and they don't. No sarcasm about it.

I'd imagine it's not illegal for the 1% of recruiters that do lie to do such because regardless of what they say... if it isn't on the enlistment contract... you aren't getting it.


(insert stereotypical car salesman analogy here)

I totally get it. I'm trying to protect idiots. It happens a lot. It's a big part of being a liberal.

What idiots? Oh, you mean adults signing a thick, binding document without reading it?

Sorry, you can't protect all of them. We still live in a free country.

...

This is what happens when the TeeVee becomes the country's religion.

Maybe I should ask you this: did you real the whole thing? Every word? I don't read all the crap on software before I hit "accept", so I could be agreeing to slavery for all I know for installing a new version of iTunes.

Yeah, I read every last word. Ya believe that? :D It was long and boring, too. I have four copies of it printed out in a folder with all of my other DoD papers. Want a copy for giggles? You'd get a laugh from all the legalese.

When they say that you're signing away your life? They aren't kidding. It sobers you up really quick and most mature types take it very seriously. They actually read the documentation before signing it. I racked up like $20 on my cell phone just calling the E-7 at the station to ask questions about MOS choices / bonus info / dates of training / jump school / unit selection, etc.

I signed up for 3 years active duty, 5 years reserve... with the possibility of being extended. I knew it when I signed up. When I got SL/SM? I was pissed but I wasn't going, "Man, those motherfuckers lied to me!" Why? Because I knew it when I signed up.

...

My experience is a fallacy.

You know about the "No WMD clause" in iTunes, right?

I honestly don't think that's true. In fact I believe there are policies and UCMJ articles in place that contradict your statement. What DoD policy states what you're claiming?

I sure as hell do. Broke it within 15 minutes of downloading it.
Media contact, actually. I'm repeating what they've said, not what's written.

I think a title to convey a mirror opposite opinion from mine would be:
<i>Is this reasonable if US military is carrying out, "by the book", it's mission of recruiting youths?</i>

It would be a difficult title to defend though, judging by what has been posted in this thread, and by other information that I've heard and read.

I think you missed the point.

Nope, Seaver's assuming the title is biased. It's not. The reasonable case has already been successfully made that makes it clear that military does use deceptive methods. The title is factual. The question would be: is Berkeley being reasonable about it?

Saying 'that the military does use deceptive methods' is to imply its systemic and condoned by the high command.

A few 'my recruiter said this and this happened' doesn't establish it.

Plus you do miss the point as well, its an inflammatory title and I do not believe that 'blatantly deceptive methods' have been proven just because you said so.

Halx posted what he did with good reason.

There's no implication. They (military recruiters, who are part of the military) do use deceptive methods in recruitment as is demonstrated by witnesses in this very thread. Did you miss those posts?
Here:
Post #57
Post #86
Post #88
It has been proven because military officers have told you. If you choose to believe that this whole case is based on "because I said so", do you believe that I am posting under the names Tully Mars, dksuddeth, and quasimondo?

Oh god, those are your blatantly deceptive methods?

I guess 'they didn't have a job for me as the cold war ended'
They didn't kick me out for former drug use when I wanted to use it as an excuse.
And a semi-joking post are those awful deceptive methods.

Christ, now I know why I got the PM I did.

Enjoy the mockery this thread is.

They lied intentionally. Lying intentionally is a blatantly deceptive method.
BTW, you may want to read these before your ditch gets too deep:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in692361.shtml
http://www.wlwt.com/news/4508233/detail.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542907/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/na.../27duluth.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/10000

Who can forget this thread, where information was posted about the repugnant practice of military recruiters' attempts to "harvest" our youth, still attending high school, via not generally publicized requirments of the "No Child Lett Behind Act" ?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88666

That thread was started back when some of the posters in this thread were certain that the war in Iraq was "going well", back when 2200 fewer of our soldiers had lost their lives there, than today.

wait, I post a dozen seperate incidents of police misconduct, brutality, and rights violations and they get called 'isolated incidents', yet you want to use 3 peoples experience on a message board to define military recruitment deception as systemic and prolific? :orly:

I base it more on 6,660 alleged incidents of recruiter irregularities (by just over 13,000 recruiters) noted in the GAO report.

As well as an internal DoD survey in 2005 which reported that about 20% of active duty recruiters believe that recruiter irregularities occur frequently.

Personally, I think the bigger concern should be over military using dirty tricks to prevent people from leaving the military.. like overriding medical officers opinion and redeploying injured men. Things like this are happening alot now.

If someone joins the service under with unrealistic notions, they didn't do their due diligence. Its their fault.

I think if we question military recruiters we also need to question union organizers and how they get people to sign up. Or, for that matter, headhunters who try to get people to switch jobs.

Very few bag boys at Safeway are at risk of driving over an IED. Also, if you quit Safeway.... you're out of the union.

Not the same.

:shy: I can't believe you're a liberal. You have such a good heart inside.

I'm trying to prevent recruiters taking advantage of the uninformed, the naive, and the simple. If you are told and believe that you won't go to Iraq and you go to Iraq, someone has been victimized. Yes, it's all in the contract, but the contract is not just a half a page of reading and some people do trust the recruiters' word. It's those people who are victimized by the lies.

Comparing that situation to unions is silly.

I agree that's a bad analogy. Private enterprises and tax paid governmental agencies are in no way equal.

Actually, my point (which people here decided to miss) is that recruiters often try to benefit themselves rather than the people being recruited. That's why it should surprise no one that it happens in the military, which is composed of human beings just like every other human endeavor is. Obviously the military isn't like a union - the military is the one government function that everyone (even hardcore libertarians) agrees is something that government should be handling rather than private enterprise. That doesn't mean there won't be human failings associated with it just as there are with anything else.

I think the point which some here decided to miss is that the Pentagon has acknowledged that recruiter irregularities are a problem and they dont have the process in place nor the manpower to effectively oversee the practices of their recruiters.

well, dc_dux, then they should have some kind of program put into place, right? It's not like the military is the first organization to have, um, "overenthusiasm" in the lower ranks. (how's that for a euphemism?)

Right.

And until they do, IMO its reasonable for cities to act in the manner that Berkeley did.

BTW, beyond the "overenthusiam" of recruiters, Berkeley's action was also a protest against the military's discriminatory "hiring practices" (hows that for a euphemism?) that are illegal in any other "industry".

uh, no, it's not reasonable for Berkeley to behave that way for anyone. Nor is it reasonable for them to single out the Marine Corps based on a small sample of bad apples unless they're prepared to do it to every organization that has some bad apples in it.

You're looking for retroactive justifications for bad behavior, and I'm sorry, but it's just not persuasive.

Its not unreasonable for a city council to act in a manner that reflects the wishes of a majority of its constituents unless if would result in an illegal act.

I didn't decide to miss anything. You've mentioned the union before in a less than stellar light, your wording was clear, and I was building off that. This looks like backpedaling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So to summarize your clarified point: it's okay for military recruiters to lie to recruits because the recruiters are just human.

You know these just-humans are taught to kill right? And that the job of these humans is to get someone to sign away the next 4+ years of their life? Are you sure you want to excuse their actions with "they're just human"?

It's not responsible to protect your 18-22 year olds who are in a good school from predatory and dishonest tactics by the Marines? BTW, I am not aware of any other organization with bad apples in Berkeley that makes you sign a contract that includes jail time for leaving early.

uh, no. I didn't say it was all right to lie. I said it's silly for you to expect that all military recruiters will be paragons of moral perfection if you're not willing to hold other organizations to the same standards.

And yes, 18-22 year olds are adults - they can decide to buy a car, have an abortion, buy cigarettes or do all sorts of other things. Like all other adults, they have a right not to be lied to - by anyone, whether military recruiter or used car salesman. There are plenty of contracts adults can sign that will subject them to very adverse consequences. And many contracts don't give signatories the sort of experience, training and benefits that soldiers get (for which they risk their lives, yes, but you'd have to be a moron not to know that if you sign up for the frickin' MILITARY you might get shot at).

Fact is, will, you're trying to impose standards on the military that you're not willing to impose on organizations toward which you feel more warmly. What I'm saying is that you have to recognize that no organization of any kind will ever be perfect because it's populated by humans. I'd hope the military would be better - and maybe it is, I'm not aware of studies that compare rates of deception - but hope and expectation are not the same. I'd want the military to be better, but again, what I want and what I expect are two different things. And we certainly should try to make the military better. That doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

By law, Berkeley (or any city) cant throw military recruiters out ...they can only express the "sense of the city" that they are "unwanted guests".