Achtung! Papers...Papers....Please: No Child Left Behind Act aids Military Recruiters - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-08-2005, 12:09 AM

1595 American Military Dead: http://icasualties.org/oif/

Quote:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...oped-headlines
mirror link here: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0506-20.htm

Originally published May 6, 2005

Jules Witcover
WASHINGTON - Here are just some of the things that have happened regarding the U.S. involvement in Iraq over the last several days:

The Pentagon released the names of 12 more American soldiers killed in Iraq, bringing the total U.S. fatalities there as of yesterday to 1,591, of which 1,215 resulted from hostile action.

A new Army report said the death in Iraq of Army corporal and former pro football star Pat Tillman was intentionally not reported to his family or the public as having been caused by friendly fire until weeks after the nationally televised memorial service for him.

The judge in the trial of Army Pfc. Lynndie R. England, the Army reservist photographed holding a naked Iraqi detainee on a leash at Abu Ghraib prison, declared a mistrial when Private England's former lover, convicted Abu Ghraib guard Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr., testified that she was just following his instructions and didn't think she was doing something wrong.

The mistrial came after the Army inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Greene, exonerated Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former U.S. commander in Iraq at the time of the Abu Ghraib incidents, and other top officers of any wrongdoing in the scandal. His report also recommended only a reprimand for Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, the head of the military police unit there at the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, issued an annual risk assessment saying that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would put more strain on the U.S. military establishment to deal with other responsibilities elsewhere.

The Army reported that it had failed to reach its recruitment quota for the third straight month, signing up only slightly more than half of the 6,600 new soldiers sought for April. The Army Reserve and the Marine Corps also reported recruiting shortfalls.

An audit of reconstruction spending in Iraq kicked off an investigation by a special inspector general of suspected fraud in nearly $120 million allocated, of which $7.2 million could not be accounted for and nearly another $90 million had insufficient documentation.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician whose U.S. support was cut off after allegations of providing false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was named minister in charge of oil in the new Iraqi Cabinet. He received one of several courtesy calls from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Cabinet members.

The overall picture that emerges from all of this is that the U.S. presence in Iraq continues to be not only a tragedy but a comedy of errors that is nothing to laugh about. That's especially true because over the same period, more than 150 Iraqis were killed in various insurgent and suicide attacks.

Countering all of this was the swearing-in Tuesday of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and his Cabinet. But several Cabinet posts were left vacant, including the defense ministry, which was set aside for a Sunni Arab.

U.S. officials reported killing 24 insurgents believed to be followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the reputed al-Qaida leader in Iraq. They said Mr. al-Zarqawi may be ill or injured. Such are the signs of progress proffered by the Bush administration.

But the public isn't buying. In the latest Gallup Poll, 57 percent of those surveyed said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, 49 percent called it a mistake, 56 percent said they thought the war was going "badly" and 25 percent said "very badly."

The news from Iraq gives a good idea why President Bush, according to Gallup, has the lowest rating ever - only 45 percent approval - for a president embarking on his second term.

Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Wednesdays and Fridays.

As Bush spins it:

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news
April 28 (Bloomberg
................... ``I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society,'' Bush said. ``They saw a government form today.''..........................

As mentioned in the Baltimore Sun, military recruiters are not meeting their recruiting quotas, just 3 years and 8 months after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=722391
May 2, 2005 — By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the Iraq war straining the all-volunteer U.S. military, the Army has missed its recruiting goals in April and expects to do so again in May, while the Marines also fell short, officials said on Monday.

The Army and Marines provide the ground forces fighting rebels in the two-year-old Iraq war that has killed nearly 1,600 U.S. troops. At least 51 American troops died in April.............

Not widely known to most Americans is this recruiting "aid". written into the
"No Child Left Behind Act":

Quote:

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$33891
<h3>No recruiter left behind

Groups raise issue with federal law opening students' data to military</h3>

Chris Graham
chris@augustafreepress.com

Punk rocker Pat Thetic considers himself to be somewhat knowledgeable with what is going on in the world.

But when the drummer for the Pittsburgh-based band Anti-Flag read a few months ago that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires school districts across the country to provide military recruiters access to personal information on their high-school students that they have on file, he was taken aback.

"The scary thing about this is, before I read something about this a few months ago, I didn't know anything about it, and I consider myself to be up to date with current events and that kind of thing. I mean, I hadn't even heard of this, and No Child Left Behind has been in effect for what, three years now? I think a lot of people out there who will read this story will say the same thing," Thetic said.

"It's a classic example of how these kinds of things are done. The less people know about what's going on, the better," Thetic told The Augusta Free Press.

Thetic and his bandmates have taken the lead in getting the word out to music fans and the world at large about the provision in NCLB that opens up school records to military recruiters.

The law, passed in 2001, took effect in January 2002. Under Section 9528 of the legislation, "each local educational agency receiving assistance under this act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary-school students' names, addresses and telephone listings.

"Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary-school students as is provided generally to post-secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students," the code section continues.......

.................The St. Louis, Mo.,-based Veterans for Peace organization works to tell students the rest of the story.

"We don't call recruiters liars. We just think that many recruiters only tell one part of the story," said Michael McPhearson, the 4,500-member organization's executive director and a Gulf War veteran.

Veterans for Peace sends volunteers out to schools across the country to engage in what the group calls recruitment education to tell a more complete story of what life in the military is like.

"Recruiters will only tell you the positives about what life is like in the military. Don't get me wrong, we don't want to tell you only about the negatives. We'll share the good things about our experiences in the military, and the not-so-good things," McPhearson told the AFP. "We try to tell the whole story so that high-school students being presented with this choice about their future are armed with as much information as possible."

Veterans for Peace and Anti-Flag are also working to let parents and students know about a line in Section 9528 of NCLB that gives them the ability to opt out of having personal information shared with recruiters.

"A secondary-school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing ... not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request," the code section reads.

Several school districts, including the Santa Cruz, Calif., district, attempted early on in the Section 9528 era to take opt-out one step further into the direction of opt-in. Josh Sonnenfeld, a second-year student at the University of California-Santa Cruz, led a campaign while attending Santa Cruz High School to turn around the opt-out provision included in NCLB to make it an opt-in - meaning that parents would have to sign paperwork stating that they would give their permission for their children's information to be shared with recruiters.

The U.S. Department of Education quickly stepped in and threatened to take away the school district's federal funding, Sonnenfeld told the AFP, leading to a shift in focus from opt-in to public awareness.

The Santa Cruz school district now sends information about the opt-out provision in NCLB home to parents on emergency-information cards.

"The thinking behind that is that emergency cards are the one thing that students are required to take home, get their parents to fill out, then return. So it's something that is a guarantee that everybody will see," Sonnenfeld said.................

(Published 04-28-05/News)

There has been no denial by the Blair Admin. in the UK concerning the following report, even in the midst of a close national election campaign:

Quote:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...igence-ON.html

British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy

Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder Newspapers
May. 6, 2005 10:55 AM

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war........

Could it be coincidence that the NCLB act contains a requirement, later enforced by the Bush admin. cabinet dept. of education, that became law in 2002, that the personal contact info of all public high school students is supplied to military recruiters? (And presumably; to recently reconstituted local draft boards? http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/draft-boards.htm

As the days go by and more of our young soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians fall in this contrived war, will those who posted arguments of support for Bush and his administration's policies, almost all of whom have fallen silent on these threads, post their justifications for their continued support, or withdrawal of it. Seeing the continuing stream of reports, and knowing that some people still support Bush et al, I am moved to keep this discussion active and updated.

Seaver · 05-08-2005, 07:37 AM

Um... I'm pretty sure this has been happening for a long time now.

First you complain about greater access given to recruiters about students, then you imply local drafts. Well, I hate to break it to you but right now you have it one of two ways. You give recruiters greater access to information (hopefully to produce a higher quality soldier), or they can not keep operational numbers and a draft opens up.

My justification for continued support is this, the good in the end will outnumber the bad. It may seem simple to you, but that's how I see it. Pulling out would rip that country apart and tens of tousands would die as a result. The "continuing stream of reports" is actually pretty good if you listen. The new Iraqi government is all sworn in minus one in the cabinet. While attacks continue, there have been numerous protests AGAINST terrorism in the streets (information given to by a Marine friend fighting there... no papers show those protests though).

My question is, even with all the evidence of Iraq and Afghanistan showing signs of becoming a working, free, and democratic state where they once were among the most brutal regiems.... why do you still oppose it?

djtestudo · 05-08-2005, 06:13 PM

Back when I was in high school (not THAT long ago, but before NCLB) I got calls from recruiters all the time, plus mailings from every branch. Since I never signed up for anything military, my guess is that they got it from my school (in addition to all of the colleges that got info on me). Unless I am mistaken on how they aquired the info.

What's the difference now?

jonjon42 · 05-08-2005, 06:21 PM

I think now the schools are compelled to let the recruiters in, before they could turn them away, as my school did.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-08-2005, 06:52 PM

Public schools cannot turn recruiters away. In fact right now there is a big brewhaha in the SC because certain colleges recieving government aid have started doing so because they say the military's gay policy is discriminant.

As for my suport of the war, yeah I still support our presence their, things are better now with us there and will continue to get better.

Hardknock · 05-08-2005, 07:33 PM

Could've fooled me.

host · 05-08-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um... I'm pretty sure this has been happening for a long time now.

First you complain about greater access given to recruiters about students, then you imply local drafts. Well, I hate to break it to you but right now you have it one of two ways. You give recruiters greater access to information (hopefully to produce a higher quality soldier), or they can not keep operational numbers and a draft opens up.

My justification for continued support is this, the good in the end will outnumber the bad. ........................

....My question is, even with all the evidence of Iraq and Afghanistan showing signs of becoming a working, free, and democratic state where they once were among the most brutal regiems.... why do you still oppose it?

I disagree.....by most accounts, this invasion is a disaster. Here is a simple barometer to measure the idea that "progress" is moving in reverse. The U.S. added 40,000 troops to the occupation force since last fall, spent over $1 billion on this one goal in the last two years....and:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043001121.html
.....Thousands of roaring generators in Iraqi back yards, driveways and street corners demonstrate that after two years and at least $1.2 billion, the U.S. effort to resuscitate Iraq's electrical system is still very wide of its mark. In fact, the national grid's average daily output of 4,000-4,200 megawatts falls below its prewar level of about 4,400 megawatts.

The shortage is a huge source of public anger and dissatisfaction, as seen in a recent poll by the International Republican Institute, a U.S.-funded nonprofit organization that promotes democracy. Asked what the government's priorities should be, Iraqis put "inadequate electricity" first, ahead of "crime," which was fourth, "the presence of coalition forces," which ranked seventh, and "terrorists," which ranked eighth..................

......Although current output averages 4,000 to 4,200 megawatts, the level on many days is lower because of unplanned outages or shutdowns for scheduled maintenance. During the second week in April, for example, average output was 3,517 megawatts, according to the Iraq Index, which is compiled by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"I have concerns about this summer," said Rick Whitaker, who oversees power-related projects in Iraq for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Whitaker estimated that by midsummer, the national grid might be able to produce "slightly less than 6,000 megawatts daily peak.".......

Compare to this report:

Quote:

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplish...ectricity.html
Electricity

USAID's goals include the emergency repair or rehabilitation of power generation facilities and electrical grids. Teams of engineers
from the Ministry of Electricity, USAID and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working since May of 2003 to restore the capacity
to Iraq's power system.
Major Accomplishments to Date:

* By October, 2003, rehabilitated electric power capacity to produce peak capacity greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW.
By October, 2003, rehabilitated electric power capacity to produce peak capacity greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW.
Hit 5,365 MW on August 18, 2004.

.And other reports, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...68&postcount=4

40,000 additional U.S. troops, Seaver, and absolutely no forward progress on a primary issue central to improving the lives and opinions of urban Iraqis.

host · 05-09-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

.........As for my suport of the war, yeah I still support our presence their, things are better now with us there and will continue to get better.

Reminds of the lyrics from the timbuk3 mid 80's song, "doin' all right, gettin' good grades, the future's so bright.....I gotta wear shades....."

Here's a reality check:

Quote:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004...5711_24_04.txt
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/223149/925
Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5% of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.
<img src="http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall041129.gif">

Quote:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...5/cr040605.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005

<b>Who’s Better Off?</b>

.......................................The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.....................................

Seaver and Mojo_ , my sincere thanks to both of you for the civility displayed by both of you in your posts. I've lived through the experience before of secretive, U.S. administrations misleading the American people while waging an unjust and unnecessary war. I perceive it to be happening again, not unlike the plot in Bill Murrays' "Groundhog Day". My past experience and my current opinion cause me to be irritated and sadly discouraged. This did not have to happen. I want these militaristic policies to stop. Please consider how little that these policies have and will potentially accomplish, vs. the damage to our stated foreign policy goals, and to human life, that they result in.

Seaver · 05-09-2005, 06:06 AM

You point out the mistakes of the war as if there has ever been a flawless war ever. Yes, there was a vast disparity between the aftermath of the invasion and what many were thinking was going to happen. Yes, the WMD's had not been found. Yes, thousands killed on both sides.

I'm not denying these things, but that being said you can not deny the positive accomplishments so far achieved. Democracy to a country which had lived in the grip of tyranny for 30-some years, an end to the government sponsored slaughter of civilians. General peace in Afghanistan for the first time since before the 80's invasion by Russia.

Lebell · 05-09-2005, 06:15 AM

So.....

How again do items 1, 2 and 4 have anything to do with item 3?

Item 3 is independent of the current administration and has been going on for years.

hrandani · 05-09-2005, 08:15 AM

I live at home and I've been going to college from home for about 18 months now.

During that time military recruiters have called at least once a month, sometimes twice, attempting to get me to sign me. They called my mother's house as well, where I do not live, and tried to convince her to get me to sign up. My mother is not a big supporter of the Iraq war, so she researched this no child left behind act where it has a proviso for this sort of thing. The recruiters are not truthful when they talk about the compensations for joining up, and leaving, and they straightout lie about the reenlistment shenangians the military is doing.

I brought up several issues whenever the recruitment officer would call, about forced reenlistment, national guard serving in a foreign country, under-funded military supplies for humvees, body armor etc and they just completely blew me off, and having read a confessional by one recruitment officer from conneticut, I think...they are forced to sign up 2 kids a month or they find themselves in Iraq.

It's pretty fucked. This is not the way to run a volunteer army.

I

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-09-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Reminds of the lyrics from the timbuk3 mid 80's song, "doin' all right, gettin' good grades, the future's so bright.....I gotta wear shades....."

Here's a reality check:

Seaver and Mojo_ , my sincere thanks to both of you for the civility displayed by both of you in your posts. I've lived through the experience before of secretive, U.S. administrations misleading the American people while waging an unjust and unnecessary war. I perceive it to be happening again, not unlike the plot in Bill Murrays' "Groundhog Day". My past experience and my current opinion cause me to be irritated and sadly discouraged. This did not have to happen. I want these militaristic policies to stop. Please consider how little that these policies have and will potentially accomplish, vs. the damage to our stated foreign policy goals, and to human life, that they result in.

Host, the thing is when it comes to politics, idealism is all fine and good, but alot of the time it really has no place, moreso in the realm of Foreign politics. You lived through Vietnam, which was admittedly a fucked up useless war, Iraq in my mind is way different. The insurgency is waivering right now, as it stands the population of Iraq may largely not be pleased with our presence there, but it is only a small minority that is "hostile" to our presence. It seems most Iraqi's have the presence of mind to do things the right way to get us out of there as fast as possible.

But paying homage to reality, this war greatly helps our foreign policy goals, more so in the long term, which is a key aspect. The reality is this war did have to happen in the current scheme of global politics, I admit that this is a war of Imperialism, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Our presence in Iraq now will dramatically effect and dictate the world political scheme for years to come.

On top of that, my primary position has always been, and always will be, that Saddam and his regime were the biggest collective group of sociopathic douchelanders of the modern world. Iraq is a better place with him gone, especially the people. Same goes for the Mideast and the world at large. This guy should've been taken out in 91'. Shame on the whole world for letting him stay in power and for placing those sanctions on the Iraqi people.

Seaver · 05-09-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

I live at home and I've been going to college from home for about 18 months now.

During that time military recruiters have called at least once a month, sometimes twice, attempting to get me to sign me. They called my mother's house as well, where I do not live, and tried to convince her to get me to sign up. My mother is not a big supporter of the Iraq war, so she researched this no child left behind act where it has a proviso for this sort of thing. The recruiters are not truthful when they talk about the compensations for joining up, and leaving, and they straightout lie about the reenlistment shenangians the military is doing.

I brought up several issues whenever the recruitment officer would call, about forced reenlistment, national guard serving in a foreign country, under-funded military supplies for humvees, body armor etc and they just completely blew me off, and having read a confessional by one recruitment officer from conneticut, I think...they are forced to sign up 2 kids a month or they find themselves in Iraq.

It's pretty fucked. This is not the way to run a volunteer army.

They're easy to deal with. Whatever they tell you, you ensure it's in writing when you sign it. While they cant be punished for what a recruit says they were told (many people have tried to grab the enlistment bonus and then demand to be let out afterwards cause they didnt get what they were promised (could be true but that's litterally a $50k question). They HAVE to give what the contract entitled because it is legally binding.

"Forced Reenlistment" is nothing new, it was in the contract that they signed. You can call me a dick, but I dont feel that sorry for them. I knew what I was signing when I joined the military because I actually read everything. I feel NO pity, only animosity for those that fled to Canada when they were stop-gapped.

bigwolf · 05-12-2005, 12:55 AM

So by reading this i am to assume that you do not like the fact that the military has the right to public records of students.

If I am correct in that statement.

Is it the fact that you are not happy with a percived violation of the students freedoms, or are you disenchanted with the whole military/industrial complex, and hence not happy with any actions they take for recruitment.

Let me put it in this light.

The military being a valid choice for student to persue as a career after high school is just like any other post secondary facility. They have to recruit to get the best. Colleges have access to loads of student data to recruit student for sports and academic scholarships. The military being a competing entity to get the best and the brightest should have the same access.

I look at it from that light. It is then up to the one being recruited. to make up their mind weather the want the education to continue in a 4 year learning institution or the school of life where the penalties for failing are a bit higher.

One final comment to consider also. In the past almost 4 years since 9/11 all branches of the military have been at or near the goals for recruitment. Most of it has been by people walking into enlistment offices not recruiters going out to them.

Just the way I see things from my side of the glass.

05-08-2005, 06:13 PM	#3 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Back when I was in high school (not THAT long ago, but before NCLB) I got calls from recruiters all the time, plus mailings from every branch. Since I never signed up for anything military, my guess is that they got it from my school (in addition to all of the colleges that got info on me). Unless I am mistaken on how they aquired the info. What's the difference now? __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

05-08-2005, 06:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	I think now the schools are compelled to let the recruiters in, before they could turn them away, as my school did. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

05-09-2005, 06:15 AM	#10 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	So..... How again do items 1, 2 and 4 have anything to do with item 3? Item 3 is independent of the current administration and has been going on for years. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-12-2005, 12:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
bigwolf Upright Location: arizona	So by reading this i am to assume that you do not like the fact that the military has the right to public records of students. If I am correct in that statement. Is it the fact that you are not happy with a percived violation of the students freedoms, or are you disenchanted with the whole military/industrial complex, and hence not happy with any actions they take for recruitment. Let me put it in this light. The military being a valid choice for student to persue as a career after high school is just like any other post secondary facility. They have to recruit to get the best. Colleges have access to loads of student data to recruit student for sports and academic scholarships. The military being a competing entity to get the best and the brightest should have the same access. I look at it from that light. It is then up to the one being recruited. to make up their mind weather the want the education to continue in a 4 year learning institution or the school of life where the penalties for failing are a bit higher. One final comment to consider also. In the past almost 4 years since 9/11 all branches of the military have been at or near the goals for recruitment. Most of it has been by people walking into enlistment offices not recruiters going out to them. Just the way I see things from my side of the glass. __________________ "Never take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive" --- Eldred Hubbard

05-08-2005, 07:37 AM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Um... I'm pretty sure this has been happening for a long time now. First you complain about greater access given to recruiters about students, then you imply local drafts. Well, I hate to break it to you but right now you have it one of two ways. You give recruiters greater access to information (hopefully to produce a higher quality soldier), or they can not keep operational numbers and a draft opens up. My justification for continued support is this, the good in the end will outnumber the bad. It may seem simple to you, but that's how I see it. Pulling out would rip that country apart and tens of tousands would die as a result. The "continuing stream of reports" is actually pretty good if you listen. The new Iraqi government is all sworn in minus one in the cabinet. While attacks continue, there have been numerous protests AGAINST terrorism in the streets (information given to by a Marine friend fighting there... no papers show those protests though). My question is, even with all the evidence of Iraq and Afghanistan showing signs of becoming a working, free, and democratic state where they once were among the most brutal regiems.... why do you still oppose it?

05-08-2005, 06:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Public schools cannot turn recruiters away. In fact right now there is a big brewhaha in the SC because certain colleges recieving government aid have started doing so because they say the military's gay policy is discriminant. As for my suport of the war, yeah I still support our presence their, things are better now with us there and will continue to get better.

05-08-2005, 07:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Could've fooled me.

05-09-2005, 06:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	You point out the mistakes of the war as if there has ever been a flawless war ever. Yes, there was a vast disparity between the aftermath of the invasion and what many were thinking was going to happen. Yes, the WMD's had not been found. Yes, thousands killed on both sides. I'm not denying these things, but that being said you can not deny the positive accomplishments so far achieved. Democracy to a country which had lived in the grip of tyranny for 30-some years, an end to the government sponsored slaughter of civilians. General peace in Afghanistan for the first time since before the 80's invasion by Russia.

05-09-2005, 08:15 AM	#11 (permalink)
hrandani Insane	I live at home and I've been going to college from home for about 18 months now. During that time military recruiters have called at least once a month, sometimes twice, attempting to get me to sign me. They called my mother's house as well, where I do not live, and tried to convince her to get me to sign up. My mother is not a big supporter of the Iraq war, so she researched this no child left behind act where it has a proviso for this sort of thing. The recruiters are not truthful when they talk about the compensations for joining up, and leaving, and they straightout lie about the reenlistment shenangians the military is doing. I brought up several issues whenever the recruitment officer would call, about forced reenlistment, national guard serving in a foreign country, under-funded military supplies for humvees, body armor etc and they just completely blew me off, and having read a confessional by one recruitment officer from conneticut, I think...they are forced to sign up 2 kids a month or they find themselves in Iraq. It's pretty fucked. This is not the way to run a volunteer army. I