Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a former VOLUNTARY member of the Armed Forces who was very happy with my service and got exactly what I was promised (no more no less) I am disgusted with the condescending attitude of MOST of the people in this thread toward the VOLUNTARY members of the military. We are not a bunch of uneducated poverty stricken dolts who are coerced into something we are too "simple" to understand. I read my contract when I signed up and if you can read you have no excuse for saying you didn't know what you were getting into. (And you must be able to read to join!) Have any of you read the enlistment oath?
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
The oath of service mentions defending the Constitution. The president and his administration have often demonstrated that they have little regard for the Constitution. Abusing the Constitution is more like it.
The troops are being MISUSED for the administration's ulterior motives. The troops are put in harm's way to accomplish the (secret) objectives of the administration, not to defend the Constitution.
clinton was smart enough not to start a ground war with little international support.
Ah, the old change the subject routine.
Why is it liberals have such a hard time admitting that Bush didn't invent the idea of WMD's, nor was he the one who came out with tons of sources "confirming" WMD's? It was the same information that was simply reaffirmed from 1998-2002.
Before someone pulls the old "you duped, brainwashed neocon pawn" card, lets just say I am not one sided on this (and surpisingly many other issues also) I think the Republicans totally impeded many of Clinton's attempts to deal with international threats by playing the "wag the dog" card. Clinton could have done more as president, and the Republicans could have helped by not playing the same games that the Dems are playing right now.
[quote=tnbound2day;1110778]Ah, the old change the subject routine.
Why is it liberals have such a hard time admitting that Bush didn't invent the idea of WMD's, nor was he the one who came out with tons of sources "confirming" WMD's? It was the same information that was simply reaffirmed from 1998-2002. /QUOTE]
Lets' bring it back to the topic then. Putting aside a lot of the testimony of George Tenet and other senior intelligence officials that the Bush administration favored the intelligence driving towards a WMD conclusion in their march to war...
Let's say the intelligence was correct and Iraq was making WMD. We still should not have invaded Iraq. India has WMD, Pakistan has WMD, North Korea has WMD, China has WMD. England has WMD and we have WMD.
Saddam never threatened us with WMD and never would have. He would have used WMD as a deterrent against Iran...like Pakistan and India use WMDs as deterrents against each other.
Buh was the one that combined the supposed WMD threat with a nonexistent link to al queda and 9/11. Some of the posters in this forum still are under the perception that this connection existed.
Bush used the emotion of the country after 9/11 and its desire for justice to follow him into this mess. Bush also was the guy that forgot to plan for after Saddams' takedown, and thought democracy would bloom like a flower in the spring or a young maiden blossoming into womanhood. Or are the Democrats responsible for that as well?
Let's say the intelligence was correct and Iraq was making WMD. We still should not have invaded Iraq. India has WMD, Pakistan has WMD, North Korea has WMD, China has WMD. England has WMD and we have WMD.
[/QUOTE]
I'm with you on your take on this bily4 and for good measure must not forget that Isreal, Russia and France have WMD. Now with that in mind seems strange that the holders of these WMD are seeking to prevent Iran from having it's own Nuclear industry. Double standards or good policing?
if you can read you have no excuse for saying you didn't know what you were getting into. (And you must be able to read to join!)
I'm pretty sure I stated exactly these sentiments in an earlier post.
But you still can't really argue with the fact that recruiters DO target lower income kids. Which is NOT anything near the same thing as saying that the military is full of uneducated poverty-stricken dolts, it's recognizing reality. Of COURSE kids who aren't able to pay for schooling are prime fodder, because the GI Bill is a hook. Recruitment ads play that rationale up, themselves, it's not really a secret, and it's assuredly not an untruth.
I'm pretty sure I stated exactly these sentiments in an earlier post.
But you still can't really argue with the fact that recruiters DO target lower income kids. Which is NOT anything near the same thing as saying that the military is full of uneducated poverty-stricken dolts, it's recognizing reality. Of COURSE kids who aren't able to pay for schooling are prime fodder, because the GI Bill is a hook. Recruitment ads play that rationale up, themselves, it's not really a secret, and it's assuredly not an untruth.
Recruitersare NOT targeting lower income kids, because on average they don't qualify for enlistment so it's a waste of time for recruiter.
The poor are the minority demographic in the U.S. Military and their percentage in teh Military continues to go down.
The Heritage Foundation did the most comprehensive study on the demographics of U.S. Military recruits. More than 500,000 recrutis were analyzed for the study.
Quote:
The household income of recruits generally
matches the income distribution of the American population.
There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle
class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets.
However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a
disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism
began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees.
Quote:
We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas.
Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees
is more similar to than different from the income
distribution of the general population.
On average the U.S. Military Recruits come from a higher income demographic and have a higher education level than the general public"
Quote:
We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more
highly educated than the general public and
that this education disparity increased after
the war on terrorism began.
Quote:
If one single statistic could settle this issue, it is this: 98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national aver*age of 75 percent.[5]
In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans.
Quote:
The current findings show that the demographic characteristics of volunteers have continued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality.
Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context.
Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organization can be assessed only by using measurable criteria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics.
In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteris*tics accurately reflect what really matters: cour*age, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership.
Those who have been so quick to suggest that today’s wartime recruits represent lesser quality, lower standards, or lower class should be expected make an airtight case. Instead, they have cited selective evidence, which is balanced by a much clearer set of evidence showing improving troop quality.
Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees.
For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence.
Our review of Pentagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor.
The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.
So the demographic from the poorest percentile went down from 18% to 13.7% while the largest demographic is the Upper Middle Class went up.
I find it amazing that the American media does not give much coverage to a higher percentage of Democrat and Republican politician's sons that are serving or have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and that the quality of an American Soldier has gone up!
This is a higher percenatage of U.S. Politicians with sons in the military than the general U.S. population!
Talk about a personal decision. Amazing young men, who could have done anything with their lives, but have chosen to join the U.S. Military.
The quality of an American Soldier has never been higher. The percentage from the poor continues to go down while the percentage from the Upper class continues to go up.
*Senator Tim Johnson (D- South Dakota)
(son, Brooks, Served in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and now works as an Army recruiter. )
*Former Senator & Attorney General John ******** (R- MO)
His son, Andy, is in the Navy and has served in the GulF in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
This is a little known fact, because ******** did not want to bring unwanted attention to his son and of course the left-leaning media never did a story on it, because that would hurt their agenda of hurting him.
*Senator Christopher Bond (R - Missouri)
(son, Sam, is in the U.S. Marines and is currently serving in IRAQ.)
Kit Bond’s son leaves for Iraq Marine duty (http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Feb/20050223News028.asp - broken link)
Rep. John Kline, (R-Minn)
(son, Dan, is a Black Hawk Helicopter pilot in the 101st Airborne and serving in IRAQ)
Power Line: A message from the Kline campaign (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012218.php - broken link)
*Senator Joseph Biden (D- Delaware)
( has a son who is a Lawyer and a First Lieutenant in the Delaware Army National Guard.) Delaware Grapevine
are SOLIDERS OF FORTUNE fighting and dying for the interests of American Oil and Military Industrial Complex. Is my analysis correct?
No. I know why American Soldiers are reenlisting to stay in Iraq. They are willing to give their lives for something bigger than them. They are willing to sacrifice themselves to allow innocent Iraqis to get to enjoy the same FREEDOM they are willing to die for.
They see the innocent Iraqi children EVERYDAY in Iraq. They see the innocent peace loving Iraqis come up to them and shake their hand and say "thank you".
That's why they reenlist so get a grip. I actually don't blame you for feeling the way you do. I blame our damn biased media.
You people think this is a freaking political game. Real lives are on the line over there. The Iraqi people are TERRIFIED America is going to pull out too soon.
Shame on all of you who don't care about innocent Iraqi children's futures. American Soldiers are willing to give their lives for them.
Do you not understand this simple concept? It isn't about Politics to them, only to the far-Left.
Are we really gonna play the "Find something on the internet and post it in support of my opinion" game? Sigh...okay. I'll play. It's fun to sleuth.
But before I start, I never suggested that the military is comprised of lower income recruits. Just that students lacking in the resources to educate themselves beyond high school are, in fact, heavily heavily recruited.
Anywho...
POMFRET, Md. -- Military recruiting saturates life at McDonough High, a working-class public school where recruiters chaperon dances, students in a junior ROTC class learn drills from a retired sergeant major in uniform, and every prospect gets called at least six times by the Army alone.
*** Added after cross post with previous post***
So, there we go...a bunch of stuff you're gonna doubtless discount as hogwash, just as I raise my eyebrows skeptically at where you're coming from. Fortunately, we get to do that, here.
You're welcome to your opinions and beliefs, assuredly. And there are certainly people who enlist and reenlist for the very reasons you state, I would never dream of arguing that. I have family members over there putting Iraqi schools back together and training Iraqi soldiers to take over ownership of their own defense. No question that they're devoted to their cause. But that doesn't change anything that I've stated, remotely, on this thread.
And, YES, this war most assuredly IS a political game. And, YES, real lives are most assuredly on the line. And it's a cheap shot and a transparent emotional appeal to do the name-calling, "You all obviously don't care about the innocent Iraqi children who soldiers are giving their lives for" thing at this point. I sure do. I also care about all the ones that have been maimed and killed and brutalized in the course of this travesty of a war. But I for one, won't take your lead, and stoop to the level of suggesting that you don't, thanks.
Last edited by Administrator; 12-12-2007 at 01:47 AM..
Reason: [cut - too much of the article reposted]
^what kind of a libertarian are you, that you think we should be policing the world whenever "real lives are on the line"??? it follows from your logic that we need to use our military to occupy and develop much of africa, asia, and central america. the onus is now on you to explain why we *shouldn't* occupy those other parts of the world where "real lives are on the line" despite its great expense to our country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
