Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Creating A Database Of Students

needacoolnickname writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits. A little chuckle from the Pentagon in the article: '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.'"

1,014 comments

  1. Article Content by zoloto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Coral Cached Article

    Pentagon Creating Student Database
    Recruiting Tool For Military Raises Privacy Concerns

    By Jonathan Krim
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, June 23, 2005; A01

    The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.

    The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.

    The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.

    "The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.

    Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.

    Some information on high school students already is given to military recruiters in a separate program under provisions of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Recruiters have been using the information to contact students at home, angering some parents and school districts around the country.

    School systems that fail to provide that information risk losing federal funds, although individual parents or students can withhold information that would be transferred to the military by their districts. John Moriarty, president of the PTA at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, said the issue has "generated a great deal of angst" among many parents participating in an e-mail discussion group.

    Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and other sources, including information already held by the military.

    "Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to written statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke in response to questions. "This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."

    The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.

    But privacy advocates said using database marketers for military recruitment is inappropriate.

    "We support the U.S. armed forces, and understand that DoD faces serious challenges in recruiting for the military," a coalition of privacy groups wrote to the Pentagon after notice of the program was published in the Federal Register a month ago. "But . . . the collection of this information is not consistent with the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress to reduce the government's collection of personal information on Americans."

    Chris Jay Hoofnagle, West Coast director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the system "an audacious plan to target-market kids, as young as 16, for military solicitation."

    He added that collecting Social Security numbers was not only unnecessary but posed a needless risk of identity fraud. Theft of Social Security numbers and other personal in

    1. Re:Article Content by itzfritz · · Score: 1

      'Recruits' ne 'Conscripts'? Sounds damn scary to me; the 'selective' in "Selective Service" takes on a different meaning...

    2. Re:Article Content by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      The "selective" in "selective service" refers to the government's ability to select people for conscripted service. By having a broader pool to choose from, they can select particular age groups, and canvas demographics for professionals. It has nothing to do with anyone's choice of whether to serve.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    3. Re:Article Content by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that before that "No Child Left Behind" act that people didn't get a call every month from a recruiter while they were seniors in HS, and continue getting them up to a year into college?

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    4. Re:Article Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Previously, the recruiters had access to the info only under the discression of the school the student was attending.
      This information sharing is now manditory as a condition to receive federal dollars.

    5. Re:Article Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I graduated HS in 1996; I think I received one recruitment call, ever.

    6. Re:Article Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus once again we prove that the concept of taking money from state A and giving it to Central Govt. B who is then returning funds from state A plus some portion of funds taken from state B is truly stupid. "State" monies are best kept in the state and used for and how best seen by the state. Federal strings are only attached when states determine that monies not garnered from their own populace (directly) are more important than their own role as state governements. State governements then reduce their own role to that of marketing and campaign financiers rather than heads of state in their own right.

      Man that always pisses me off...$1MM of state funds for state initiative needs is ALWAYS better than $1.2MM of "Federal" monies for no longer state needed initiatives and additional burdens.

    7. Re:Article Content by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, after I made it clear to them I would not voluntarily serve the armed forces under the leadership of Bush's administration... they stopped calling me. Give it a try.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Article Content by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." This database will also be known as the "FBI list of unpatriotic potential terrorists". We'll be keeping on eye on you, kid!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:Article Content by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

      I think my problem was the military had it's head up it's ass in recuruiting. After saying "Yeah, I'm going to college at xxxx next fall", they would say "blah blah, yeah, good school. bye" (or something similar). I had to do it quite a few times though to different recruiters...

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    10. Re:Article Content by Analogy+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Mod parent up. This wouldn't be unprecedented behavior either. In the Nam era they had spooks hanging out in the student unions taking notes on student activities. I read some extracts of some of that several years ago that came out under FIA.

      If the terrorists extract another drop of blood for 20 years they have already won if you put stock in the most idiotic statement since 9/11 "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" - GWB Fall 2001. If this is REALLY what our administration believes why turn away from that chartet to adopt domestic policies to erode personal liberty, detain people (even US citizens) indefinitely without charge or trial, prop up undemocratic governments in Egypt and Lebanon for fear of "unfriendly" Islamist leaders that would likely win a free election?

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    11. Re:Article Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      INAL, but the way the article reads to me is that when a request for information is made of the school, the school is required to let the parents know about the request and their option to opt out . It also looks like the opt out only has to be reported to the school not the military.
      SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.
      (a) POLICY-
      (1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), 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.

      (2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) 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.

    12. Re:Article Content by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Dude... do you really think the Washington Post can be slashdotted?

    13. Re:Article Content by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      If a recruiter calls, tell him you're gay and ask him if he looks hot in his uniform. You'll never get another call.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Article Content by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

      I guess they'll probably put out a video game too so they can enlist people like they did with the crapy game america's army!

    15. Re:Article Content by coopex · · Score: 1

      Hehe, how ironic that a Locke is espousing a Hobbesian view.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    16. Re:Article Content by sanosuke76 · · Score: 0

      "I'm not joining the military because you'll make me use a Beretta 9mm instead of a real gun." :)

      Of course, that worked back in the 90's. Nowadays, if you choose to bring your own 45 in-theater, they don't get upset at you.

      --
      My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
    17. Re:Article Content by mi · · Score: 1
      adopt domestic policies to erode personal liberty, detain people (even US citizens) indefinitely without charge or trial, prop up undemocratic governments in Egypt and Lebanon
      None of these things were invented by this administration. Take a deep breath...
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:Article Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't exonorate them either.

    19. Re:Article Content by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Telling them that you have asthma works pretty well too.

    20. Re:Article Content by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I completely agree. I am so disappointed in our leadership, which has allowed this death-happy tyrant to impose his will on all 300 million of us. I mean, isn't that the reason we had three fucking branches of government in the first place, to slow down the tyrants when they inevitably gain power?

      And I'm damn glad I turned 35 last year, so they can't draft me. (Or at least, they can't until they raise the "too old" age because they've killed all the younger soldiers.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    21. Re:Article Content by britehawk · · Score: 1
      You were too old nine years ago, the maximum age in a draft is 26.

      Selective Service System Fast Facts

    22. Re:Article Content by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      Logic at its finest! If something was a bad idea in the past it is OK if the same behavior is repeated?

      ...The frat bully mentality (freshmen hazed to belong so they can have their turn to sodomize some poor bastard the next couple of years) Bush has been operating under since he was in college...

      The most interesting interview I heard leading up to the last election was with Garry Trudeau (granted he is on the left politically). He recalled his first contact with GWB at school when Garry was a freshman. He had an immediate visceral reaction that Bush was a mean spirited bully (Niedermeyer without the muscles). Used affectionate put downs that weren't so affectionate etc. I was struck that it was completely consistent with my gut reaction when I first saw Bush in about 1992. He was at a Spurs game and as he gave the thumbs up to the camera I thought "Dogger"...and to this day I see no improvement.

      His tactics and policies have been consistent all along. On the surface everything is goodness and virtue...below the veneer it is ugly and mean spirited. Why don't more people see through that? Or do 40% share this view, 40% don't and the remaining 20% don't give a crap?

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    23. Re:Article Content by mi · · Score: 1
      Logic at its finest! If something was a bad idea in the past it is OK if the same behavior is repeated?
      "Repeated" is not a good word. "Continued" is more like it.

      No, it is not Ok. But calling the current President "fray bully" is not a proper criticism of practices in use since very long ago. Take a deeper breath.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    24. Re:Article Content by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      I am so disappointed in our leadership, which has allowed this death-happy tyrant to impose his will on all 300 million of us.

      And I am so dissapointed in the millions of Americans that voted for him and returned him to office. This country can only blame ourselves for the mess we are in and I am ashamed of what we have done.

      God Help the USA

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    25. Re:Article Content by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      God Help the USA

      Completely agree.

      Except for the fact that: we didn't really vote for him! The previous four, and next four, years can be summed up with four words:

      Live free or Diebold.
      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. You are expendable pawns. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits.

    It will start similar to "Student A has a rich family, pass. Ahh.. Student B is lower-middle class, offer Student B a scholarship attached to a term in the Reserves." and end with "Draft Student B."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I doubt it, this is the pentagon recruiting. They want people they can trust to be loyal in the face of overwhelming opposition. In other words mindless "patriotic" zombies. Rich, poor, it doesn't matter. Likely candidates will be devoutly and unquestioningly religious, be a member of Future Business Leaders of America and also boy/girl scouts. They won't ask too many questions, and will do as they're told because it's the government asking. In other words, exactly the kinds of people we want getting shot at. This is a good thing folks. Darwin at work.

    2. Re:You are expendable pawns. by zoloto · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mods on crack.

      I hate to break it to the moderators, but this marking this flamebait is abuse of the mod system.

      I'd also like to point out that this is a REAL TATIC used on people. For military or other purposes, it is QUITE REAL since stereotypically poor equates ignorance and not a whole lot of self governing thought of intelligence.

      Wow, I'm surprised at this moderation. I thought the slashdot crowd was slightly more intelligent than that. No matter how unpopular.

      My mistake.

    3. Re:You are expendable pawns. by KD5YPT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, like it or not, said Student B might actually welcome this scholarship if given the chance. It's not like they're going for mandatory enlistment, they just want to make more efficient recruitment system to raise the chance that they'll actually offer enlistment to people who might want them.

      Of course, the extended amount of information they gather is worrying...

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    4. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Student A has a rich family, pass.

      What nonsense. Rich kids join the military all the time (although usually as officers). Military experience is seen as an asset if you're planning to become politically active. Notice how much of a hot-button the issue was in Clinton, Bush, and Kerry's respective campaigns. While it's difficult to project the value of a military career out into the next generation of politicians, it has certainly helped both past and present office-runners.

    5. Re:You are expendable pawns. by grub · · Score: 0, Troll

      For military or other purposes, it is QUITE REAL since stereotypically poor equates ignorance and not a whole lot of self governing thought of intelligence.

      Dead on. And the poorer people eat it up. They see it as an avenue, perhaps the only one, from poverty. The government doesn't give two shits about them. They aren't likely to contribute much in taxes in their lifetime and they aren't likey to start a business which can help the economy. In short: they are a nuisance. The governments tell them how great they are and what a good thing it is to fight for your country. It's just glorified welfare with a bloody cost.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:You are expendable pawns. by grub · · Score: 0


      And how many rich kids officers are dying in Iraq right now? I'm not sure if he was an officer, but there was that one football player who died. But he was killed by friendly fire. The military is welfare painted as glorious.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:You are expendable pawns. by shrubya · · Score: 1, Troll

      What nonsense. Rich kids *used* to join during the Vietnam era, mostly in nice safe officer slots when the alternative was risk being drafted.

      How many "rising star" US politicians under age 50 have military backgrounds? None come to mind immediately. Out of the likely 2008 contenders, only McCain served.

    8. Re:You are expendable pawns. by njcoder · · Score: 1

      The Pentagon also said that if you'd like to be taken off the list you can go to your local recruitment office and sign up for any branch. If you do that they'll stop trying to get you to enlist. At least until it's time for you to reenlist.

    9. Re:You are expendable pawns. by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what the government is saying. It why we're sending them to fight optional wars "for the cause of freedom". One has to imagine one's surroundings when joining the military and potentially going to war are legitimate options for improving one's condition.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    10. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      And how many rich kids officers are dying in Iraq right now?

      Can't tell you. That sort of thing is considered security information by the US Military. A few years down the road, however, I'm sure we'll be hearing from them.

      The military is welfare painted as glorious.

      Don't be stupid. Military officers have to come from *somewhere*. Someone who's effectively on welfare certainly is not going to have the required college education to become an officer. Some of the officers do come from enlisted personnel who use their government tuition money to get their degree and become officers, but not nearly enough. (I have a hard time believing that even you think that kids earning money for college is a *bad* thing.)

    11. Re:You are expendable pawns. by grub · · Score: 1

      Military officers have to come from *somewhere*

      Oh, absolutely, I'm referring to the people actually in the trenches. They aren't ivy leaguers with 2 BMWs in the driveway back home.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    12. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Military experience is seen as an asset if you're planning to become politically active. Notice how much of a hot-button the issue was in Clinton, Bush, and Kerry's respective campaigns."

      Clinton - dodger. two-termer
      Bush Jr. - dodger*. two-termer
      Kerry - decorated war hero.
      Gore - served.
      Bush Sr. - decorated war hero(?) One termer.

      * Family connections got him into (at the time) Texas Toy Army. Then never fulfilled his commitment.

    13. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Dead on. And the poorer people eat it up. They see it as an avenue, perhaps the only one, from poverty. The government doesn't give two shits about them. They aren't likely to contribute much in taxes in their lifetime and they aren't likey to start a business which can help the economy. In short: they are a nuisance. The governments tell them how great they are and what a good thing it is to fight for your country. It's just glorified welfare with a bloody cost.
      What a bunch of crap. The military can be a great way out of poverty. That doesn't mean joining the military will make you rich, but it:
      • removes many from a lot of bad situations
      • teaches important basics not installed in many poor, inner-city families
        • personal finance
        • personal responsibility
        • respect for others and yourself
        • honor
      • provides excellent job skills for many
      • can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs


      oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.
      And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.
    14. Re:You are expendable pawns. by dynamo · · Score: 1

      Heh.

    15. Re:You are expendable pawns. by KaiserSoze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Likely candidates will be devoutly and unquestioningly religious, be a member of Future Business Leaders of America and also boy/girl scouts.

      Not likely. Can you see your local Colege Republicans running off to fight the war that they cheer? Have you seen any of the War Pundits, War Preachers, or War Politicians ask for all of their able-bodied supporters to enlist? No, you won't, because they're chickenhawks who want others to die for a plank of their party's platform (the War on Terra). Therefore, the ones to fight and die will continue to be almost exclusively lower to middle class with no particular religious affiliation.

      --

      "What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris

    16. Re:You are expendable pawns. by optiknerv · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "And how many rich kids officers are dying in Iraq right now? I'm not sure if he was an officer, but there was that one football player who died. But he was killed by friendly fire. The military is welfare painted as glorious."

      You're referring to Pat Tillman, who died in a friendly-fire incident. After he was killed, the US govt used him as a propaganda tool and covered up the events surrounding his death. He was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. But he was still an idiot, for confusing support of a morally bankrupt political regime with patriotism.

    17. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Derkec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on Slashdot, you're giving this guy high marks for commenting that 'devoutly and unquestioningly religous' or 'boy/girl scouts' are 'exactly the kinds of people we want getting shot ' and killed?

      Terrible.

      We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

    18. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they don't need just mindless, patriotic zombies. They need stupid, liberal, faggots such as yourself.

      Won't matter that you're not religous. Won't matter that you question the government.

      You'll walk out into a minefield just the same. You might manage to survive the minefield. You won't survive the soldiers behind you if you decide to not walk into the minefield.

      See? Even shitbags such as yourself can be useful given the right circumstances.

    19. Re:You are expendable pawns. by linzeal · · Score: 2, Informative
      No one likes to admit it but the type of person who becomes a soldier is far more likely to be violence prone in all manners of life.

      Google Army Rape sometime. All over the world and time the stories are many of women and girls being raped at the behest of institutionalized misogyny. If you do not believe that these sort of actions get carried home than lookup Domestic Violence in the Army. Soldiers are the last people I would want as friends, family or neighbors after my own exp. with the mentally unstable they send back to the US from god knows what hell.

    20. Re:You are expendable pawns. by theGreater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey AC (and the rest of /.): when did being a person of faith, a boyscout, and FBLA become an object of ridicule? Why not add 4H and FFA in there as well, and anyone else that doesn't automatically yes-man your narrow-minded paranoia?

    21. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not in "this country" if you're referring to the USA. There are other, more free countries you know.

    22. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      It will start similar to "Student A has a rich family, pass. Ahh.. Student B is lower-middle class, offer Student B a scholarship attached to a term in the Reserves." and end with "Draft Student B."

      If you join the Army Reserves and then are called to active duty that isn't a draft. It is part of the agreement that you make when you join the Reserves. I don't agree with how the Reserves are currently being used (at ALL), but that doesn't make it a draft.

    23. Re:You are expendable pawns. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      How quickly the lessons of Vietnam are forgotten.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    24. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      I'm not in "this country" if you're referring to the USA. There are other, more free countries you know.

      And they pretty much all have a trained military, so substitute your appropriate country name in if you want to get all upset about me posting a US-Centric post on a US-Centric site regarding a story which is only happenening in the US

    25. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What nonsense. Rich kids *used* to join during the Vietnam era, mostly in nice safe officer slots when the alternative was risk being drafted.

      Safe officer slots? 7,877 officers of all grades from O-1 all the way up to O-8 died in Vietnam. Compare that to ~58,000 KIAs in the war. Officers made up 13.5% of the deaths in the war. I'd suspect that if you go back and research other wars in modern times that the percentage of officers killed/wounded in action is at least equal to if not greater then the percentage of officers in the armed forces overall.

      In fact both commissioned and non-commissioned officers are more likely to be targeted by enemy action (especially snipers) then enlisted personal as a leaderless force is much less effective on the field of battle. If you knew anything about the military you'd know that.

      You know you can be opposed to the war (Vietnam or Iraq) without putting down the military or the men and women serving in it. I have a whole lot more respect for them then I do for some nameless face running his mouth on Slashdot.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:You are expendable pawns. by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.

      Protected how? They're almost all in Iraq. Is every war based on lies fought to protect our freedoms? Do you really believe that?

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    27. Re:You are expendable pawns. by John+Newman · · Score: 1
      Can't tell you. That sort of thing is considered security information by the US Military. A few years down the road, however, I'm sure we'll be hearing from them.
      Shouldn't we be hearing from all those veterans who served as junior officers in Gulf War I right about now?
    28. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So only Americans should post in a story about the US? Did you ever post in a story about Chinese censorship or Canadian copyright law?

      Please, that's just silly.

    29. Re:You are expendable pawns. by bynary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am "devoutly and unquestioningly religious" and have no interest in being a yes-man for any government group. Social and political anarchists are not exactly the people I want in the military anyways. I also agree that it's de rigueur to bash the political right/left/anyone who disagrees with you. What happened to E Pluribus Unum?

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    30. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You forgot one very important bullet point:
      • Die in combat in mass numbers during wars


      Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."
      --

      Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    31. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      So only Americans should post in a story about the US? Did you ever post in a story about Chinese censorship or Canadian copyright law?

      Please, that's just silly.


      Actually, I don't think I have.

      I never said that only Americans should post in a story about the US, I did infer that the AC responding to me shouldn't get his panties in a bunch about me posting a US centric comment about a issue happening in the US. Go back and read my post, do you understand now?

    32. Re:You are expendable pawns. by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      I'll bite this one, but I'll do it only once.

      I can, because they do all the time, and the rest of them wholly support their friends. It's important to have a few people left behind to gather more support, but that is not their focus. Some members the College Republicans also don't support the war, so watch what you say.

      Signing up at the recruiter is not the only way to join the armed forces. You can go to college for something they need, then join them and help with more than just shooting at people.

      By the way, I'm not a member of any of these groups, but I've met and spoken with members of all of them and I have to say I am impressed with how much they support the war by signing up either with ROTC, recruiters, or trading service for scholarships.

      When was the last time you took your head out of the clouds and looked at what actually goes on with these groups? Your arguments on this appears to be just hearsay and random wild accusations based on assumptions, and you've never actually talked to these people.

    33. Re:You are expendable pawns. by archgoon · · Score: 1

      Sir, may I politely remind you that the acts of some within the military not condemn each person within the military. It is quite concievable that more violent people would end up in the military, but this does not mean that everyone in the military joined up because they are more violent. I know at least one, good, honest person currently serving, so please remember not to generalize to an entire group of people because of the actions of a subset of that group.

    34. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but probably the least safe job in the Army is junior officer. You know what "Follow Me" means, right?

    35. Re:You are expendable pawns. by erlenic · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because almost everyone I knew (read: about all but 5) in the military was very Christian. Also, I'm in the College Republicans at my university, and there are at least three of us who DID fight in a war we cheer.

    36. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I consider myself a very religious person, and am an Eagle Scout. I would say I'm the exact opposite of a "mindless 'patriotic' zombie." Precisely because I'm religious, and believe that it's God to whom I'm ultimately answerable, not some government made up of men. I know plenty of people who were rebellious as kids. Those are the people my age who going into the military and "doing as they're told," because they see it as a sure way to make money even though they're not well educated and don't really have marketable skills.

    37. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      Protected how? They're almost all in Iraq.

      No, they aren't "almost all" in Iraq. Their existence keeps other armies/countries from attacking us. Do you think if we didn't have an Army we wouldn't be attacked?

      Is every war based on lies fought to protect our freedoms? Do you really believe that?

      Nowhere did I say that, that is an obvious troll statement.

    38. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      > oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing
      > between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of
      > some dictator.

      It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    39. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."

      More of these "disadvantaged citizens" have died in poor urban areas due to violence in the last two years than have died from enemy fire in the last two years.

      From the CDC page "n 2002, more than 877,700 young people ages 10 to 24 were injured from violent acts. Approximately 1 in 13 required hospitalization (CDC 2004)."

      While the death of 1000 troops in two years is horrible, it isn't exactly death in mass numbers.

    40. Re:You are expendable pawns. by shrubya · · Score: 1

      Apologies, my punctuation was insufficient. Yes, lots of officers faced danger leading a front line unit (for example, the captain of an attack boat). What I was trying to say is that rich kids selectively occupied safer-than-average positions, such as journalist, or flight instructor, or defending against the dreaded mexican air force.

    41. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Princeofcups · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand
      > local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

      Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful??? The military wants people who can take orders WITHOUT thinking. Officers maybe, but not grunts.

      jfs

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    42. Re:You are expendable pawns. by metallic · · Score: 1

      Nice try. My parents were making $150,000 a year while I was in high school and the recruiters wouldnt leave me alone. The same was true with a lot of other people I went to high school with. Hell, they are still sending me stuff to try to get me once I graduate college.

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    43. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.


      And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea.

      Do you think we would be much safer without a military.

    44. Re:You are expendable pawns. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While it is true that this does occur, soldiers are not that different from the normal population. Just a couple of days ago, I pointed out to some far right-winger that this stuff (and other things) went on during WWII by Americans (as told to me by a number of vets). I suspect that one or two of them, may have been involved in something like it. Would I trust them then and now? Absolutely. These were good ppl who were in a terrible situation and simply surviving it like anybody else. It is hell, but good ppl still come back.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    45. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      Funny how that works, considering that this country is very Christian.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    46. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your poor logic is astonishing.

      Your trust in "published" storied is pathetic.

      Your hatred of those who protect you is sad.

    47. Re:You are expendable pawns. by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      The military is welfare painted as glorious
      Painted how? As a way out? Sure. Is that such a bad thing? Thats why my fatehr enlisted during the draft, as a way out of a bad situation. He didn't regret it and he was proud of me when I joined ROTC in college. Had it not been for a heart mummur(sp?) I would be in the Air Force right now.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    48. Re:You are expendable pawns. by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      And they pretty much all have a trained military, so substitute your appropriate country name in if you want to get all upset about me posting a US-Centric post on a US-Centric site regarding a story which is only happenening in the US The difference is that the purpose of their armed forces is defense, whereas the US' is empire building. The war on terrorism is a thinly veiled facade for imperialism, hardly better cloaked than converting the heathen masses.

    49. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      > And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military
      > force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that
      > the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea.
      >
      > Do you think we would be much safer without a military.

      Your interpretation of my statement is quite, um, fanciful. What I mean is that it is not the military that we should be worried about. They are just a tool. It is the politicians that run it who can turn a democracy into a dictatorship overnight.

      jfs

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    50. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well a low amount is dying in react compared to any other war, so basically not many "rich kids" are either.

      everyone is capable of making their own choice abut military service, if someone is poor and has a desire to join and someone that is rich doesnt what does that matter to you.

      no one is required (and the draf aint ever happeneing again)

    51. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define protect.

      and then you shall see the lie your heart suspects.

    52. Re:You are expendable pawns. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.

      Funny, I thought that was what the 2nd Amendment was there for...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    53. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I noticed you left off "Future Business Leaders of America" from your list.

      Freudian slip, but we have you now!

    54. Re:You are expendable pawns. by electroniceric · · Score: 1
      Funny, I agree and disagree. It's amusing to see people try to get around the fact that the military is, on one hand a massive, protective, lifetime loyalty employer. If it's not a job program, ask your congresscritter why s/he spends so much effort trying to get and keep military bases, and what fraction of the population those bases and industries employ.

      On the other hand, I do agree with your bulleted list - the military is often (though not always) an growing and learning experience for people in it, and it often provides excellent job preparation. And yes, if I had very limited job prospects, I'd find the military very, very appealing.

      oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.
      As enjoyable as these rhetorical flourishes may be, they're mostly fluff. While it's probably not advisable to have just barebones military capacity, it's not clear that we need what we have (aside from military adventurism), or that a large military force is a particularly effective deterrent or response to "asymmetric" threats. We lost 50,000 lives in Vietnam figuring that out, and another 2000 in Iraq repeating disbelief. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of various "defense technology" projects whose efficacy is never put to a real test. SDI anyone?

      And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.
      Both sides of this purported argument are fluff. Bush is not a dictator by any stretch, but to cast the Bush Administration's adventures in geostrategy in Iraq as "protection" is (and always was) a stretch as best. What real-world attack vectors were/are we being protected from? What evidence has ever been demonstrated that Hussein working with the network that attacked our, or that he was providing them with capacity to replicate an attack of a scale justifying the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops? And what were the metrics for a successful outcome in Iraq? Hell, three years into this war, what ARE the metrics of a successful outcome?

      Speaking for myself and not the grandparent, this is not a question of disdain, it's a question of asking for realistic assessment of threat and likely outcomes before sending a lot of our guys out to fight an ill-defined war against an ill-defined enemy. Regrettably we've broken this particular situation (possibly beyond repair), and now we own, leaving us with precisely 0 good options.
    55. Re:You are expendable pawns. by JustForMe · · Score: 1

      >> We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.
      If you are all that, why would to join the army? Catch 22...

    56. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Tassach · · Score: 1
      But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves
      Those people are called "officers" (and, occasionally, "senior NCOs").

      Private Rockhead doesn't need to know any of that, he just needs to do what his lieutenant and/or platoon sergeant tell him to do. After 15 years, Private Rockhead might accquire some sense and get promoted to Sergeant Rockhead

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    57. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.

      What I mean is that it is not the military that we should be worried about. They are just a tool.

      Now that the statements are next to one another I hope you can see that they are different and don't mean the same thing at all.

      I do agree with you that politicians can misuse the military, but I fail to see the relevance of this in the current discussion.

    58. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Heh. I guess grandparent was not concerned about winning wars in Iraq, but more about undesirable characters removing themselves from the gene pool through stupid wars.
      Considering the 'devoutly and unquestioningly religous' aka religious crackpots, I actually agree with him.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    59. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And [other countries] pretty much all have a trained military, so substitute your appropriate country name

      More precisely, they are all protected by the US Military. A large majority of countries have all but eliminated their military forces in favor of expecting the United States to steam an aircraft carrier into their area every time trouble is brewing.

      The hypocrisy of this is just amazing, too. First they cut their own forces to nothing, then whine and complain at the US everytime THEY vote for a UN resolution that only the United States has the military might to carry out. It's absolutely sickening is what it is.

    60. Re:You are expendable pawns. by crabpeople · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "when did being a person of faith, ...*sic*... become an object of ridicule?"

      the minute they said they believed an invisible man in the sky that manipulated world events?

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    61. Re:You are expendable pawns. by huge+colin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      when did being a person of faith ... become an object of ridicule?

      Off-topic, but: as far as I'm concerned, being "a person of faith" (as you put it) has always deserved ridicule. You would ridicule a grown man who believed in the Tooth Fairy, wouldn't you?

    62. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.

      Both sides of this purported argument are fluff. Bush is not a dictator by any stretch, but to cast the Bush Administration's adventures in geostrategy in Iraq as "protection" is (and always was) a stretch as best. What real-world attack vectors were/are we being protected from? What evidence has ever been demonstrated that Hussein working with the network that attacked our, or that he was providing them with capacity to replicate an attack of a scale justifying the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops? And what were the metrics for a successful outcome in Iraq? Hell, three years into this war, what ARE the metrics of a successful outcome?


      I never said the decision to go to war in Iraq had anything to do with protection, nor did I say we should be in Iraq in any way! What I did say is that our military is a deterrent force.

    63. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      This should be modded Troll, not Interesting

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    64. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to confuse the army of today with the army of WWII. The military has very little use for those who can merely follow orders and not think - at least, not as combat troops.

      Every grunt involved in clearing a house in Iraq needs to be perceptive, creative, and analytical to do that job well. More than just reacting intelligently, the warfighter needs to be innovative, because repetition leads to getting killed.

      But what would you know about it?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    65. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the purpose of their armed forces is defense, whereas the US' is empire building. The war on terrorism is a thinly veiled facade for imperialism, hardly better cloaked than converting the heathen masses.

      Wow, you really believe that tripe. Unfortunatly what I have found is that people who use arguments like the ones you are using are not going to be happy no matter what. They live to vehemently protest something.

      How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions. Sad.

    66. Re:You are expendable pawns. by pianophile · · Score: 1

      Funny how that works, considering that this country is very Christian.

      Perhaps the group you hang out with is. Beware of sweeping generalizations like "this county is very Christian", though.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    67. Re:You are expendable pawns. by justforaday · · Score: 1

      But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

      We're not looking for that sort of thing in our top counter-terrorism posts in the government, so why should we be looking for that for the military?

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    68. Re:You are expendable pawns. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You're right in objecting to the phrase "safe officer slots," but what if we leave out the word "officer?"

      I believe a lot of middle-class and above people escaped danger in Vietnam by getting student or job deferrments, or safer slots within the military, leaving most of the dying to the poor. Do you disagree?

      Of course there are many individual exceptions. To me Pat Tillman is a true hero. But I know the parents of poor dead soldiers grieve are just as heartbroken.

    69. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      What happened to E Pluribus Unum? It's on the back of all my coins. I always thought it meant "loose change" in Latin.

      --
      /. ++
    70. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who are killed are no longer IN the armed forces in any logistically useful sense; though I guess that the observation may be considered a bit gruesome.

    71. Re:You are expendable pawns. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yes, because a choice between two shitty situtations is a lot better than just one.

      Oh, wait, no it's not.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    72. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you can be opposed to the war (Vietnam or Iraq) without putting down the military or the men and women serving in it. I have a whole lot more respect for them then I do for some nameless face running his mouth on Slashdot.

      Try explaining that to the Republicans. Or for that matter, the current military. It seems the only vocal people (as opposed to the faceless masses who spent their 4-year's-supply of caring on going out and voting straight ticket Republican) remaining on the "right" side of the lines that understand what freedom of speech really means are the members of the VA, the people who fought and survived wars where our freedom was truly at stake.

      At least this time around with the amendment the Republicans have taken to calling it "Flag Desecration" instead of "Flag Burning". I guess when the VAs organize Flag Burning Demonstrations they've finally (intentionally or not) humiliated the dumber Republicans calling for an end to flag burning into shutting up.

      It's been 55 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

    73. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      Erm, just using statistics. If you bunch all the Protestants and Catholics together (and other followers of Christ, I am not that versed on all Christian incarnations) you get a big majority of population. No?

      I am not saying that other religions are not present, but statistically speaking if 75% (statistic pulled out of my arse) of the country is Christian, so will the 75% of the military (if you don't take into consideration ANY other factors such as income levels, education etc. )

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    74. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, frankly, no, I don't think you would be attacked - at least, not by anything a large, organized military could defend against. The US armed forces are currently much larger and better-equipped than virtually any other national armed forces on the planet.

      I won't quibble that they do protect your country, but I do doubt that other countries are waiting just across the ocean to tear the US apart.

      Besides which, the US has cultural and economic hegemony, for the time being. Despite themselves, people all over the world emulate the US. Any outright military action against the US would be doomed to fail, and people know this.

      The only people who want to take down the US are the ones who wouldn't be stopped by a military force: a guerilla force based in multiple countries, without national allegience, and which exists in isolated cells.

    75. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on there... exactly what is wrong with believing in the Tooth Fairy?

    76. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've never fought a war based on lies.

    77. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 1

      If the politicians tried to turn democracy into dictatorship overnight, I count on that very same military to protect us from the would-be dictatorship. Every soldier takes an oath to uphold the constitution, an none take an oath of personal loyalty to a specific man who happens to be president.

      You undervalue the citizenship of those who server - insultingly so - if you think they are mere tools of power.

      I don't think it's a dictatorship that you're afraid of, but democracy. Sometimes the majority will disagree with you. That's the way it works.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    78. Re:You are expendable pawns. by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful???
      Maybe somebody who has walked the walk, and it's obvious to be that you don't have a fucking clue who grunts are, what we do, or why we would take offense at a pansy-ass like you using the term. Taking orders without thinking maybe fine for soviet style penal-infantry, or Argentinian style shoot'em in the foot so they don't run military, but if you think that you can your personal ass out into mortal combat without thinking, feel free to demonstrate to me that I'm wrong. This isn't a video game, you don't get a "free life" for passing a stage.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    79. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Not thinking" is not the same as "Not questioning every order the instant it is given".

      I believe that there are caveats in the Rules of Engagement or whatever the military rule book is, where the soldier is REQUIRED not to obey the order.

      It is obvious that you have not been in the military. The majority of thinking goes on down on the team and squad level. Usually the officers will say, "Take that bridge/street/group of houses". The squad/team leader (NCO usually) will draw up the plan of assault etc.

      You can't go into combat if you can't rely on people around you to think, evaluate and act upon situations as they present themselves.

      You also can't go into combat saying "WTF. I don't want to go down that street. Why do I have to go down that street?" when there is another team 2 blocks over that needs someone to flank the MG that has it pinned.

      The time to question orders is up top, at the boundary between the politicians and the top brass, not on the front line.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    80. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought that was what the 2nd Amendment was there for...

      Very good point, but I think you may have misunderstood my meaning, I should have been more clear.

      I was inferring that without a trained military force, the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force. I doubt that the new overlords would respect our current constitution as they installed themselves as a dictator.

    81. Re:You are expendable pawns. by johansalk · · Score: 1

      In other words, exactly the kinds of people we want getting shot at. This is a good thing folks. Darwin at work.

      If only it was true. The truth though is that they are got into the army to do as they're told shoot us, *not* to get shot at.

    82. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      There is a whole other story there, Troll.
      If you think that there is a specific need for a top level official to be versed specifically in the Middle East, ignoring all the other arenas in which FBI operates, you're wrong. For the specific knowledge, you create task forces filled with specialists.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    83. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      Yes, because a choice between two shitty situtations is a lot better than just one.

      Oh, wait, no it's not.


      If you browse over to my other comment which links out the to the CDC factsheet which shows violence levels you will see that it is actually less dangerous to be in the military. Plus being in the military gives you a chance for advancement in life for the reasons I specified earlier.

    84. Re:You are expendable pawns. by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions. Sad

      Oh yes, that old rhetoric. The same nonsense spouted by defenders of US foreign policy since the 60's. This might have been true during WWII, but the biggest threat to freedom and independence in the world today is NOT Russia, Chine, Iraq, N.Korea, Iran, etc etc... but the United States of America. The war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq did absolutely nothing to ensure your freedom, or mine. Ask yourself whether the threat of terrorism has lessened or grown since the US began this campaign.

      However. If by freedom you mean corporate america's god given right to profit, then you might have a point. What of 100 000 dead as long as the money keeps coming in, as long as we have enough oil to go around.
      I LOVE blind patriotism. It's such a comfort not having to think

    85. Re:You are expendable pawns. by BawbBitchen · · Score: 1

      Your a dumbass.

      I am not a Republican and I do not belive in God. I served in the Army and would recommend it to young people. (Wow, that sounds strange as I am only 33!) If you look at stats of those that are succesful in life, in business or just in general the more succesful people most likely gave service. The U.S. military does not want mindless zombies. People that cannot think on their feet tend to get killed. Smart people kill the other guy.

    86. Re:You are expendable pawns. by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      That b1tch still owes me $1 !!!

    87. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Usaflt2003 · · Score: 1

      Well speaking as a current member of the US military lets see how I fit your mold:

      "devoutly and unquestioningly religious"

      I have been to church once in the past three months and recently decided to leave said church bucause when it came to doctrine no one could answer my questions.

      "member of Future Business Leaders of America"

      While I did study Marketing (boo, hiss... kill the marketing bastards!) in college I never had anything to do with any of the business clubs. I was to busy studying history and wooing my future exwife. (Chalk that up to being not particularly religious)

      "and also boy/girl scouts"

      Yes, I am registered as a boy scout but that was more for insurance reasons after I broke my hand at my first and last boy scout event ever.

      "They won't ask too many questions"

      Well I think I established that I am a rather inquisitive person in the first issue I addressed. Normally though I am one of the people that stays after any particular class because I want further clarification (but am wise/polite enough) not to hold the entire class there late with my inquiries.

      "and will do as they're told because it's the government asking"

      I generally get in trouble here at work because I won't do the incredibly stupid things that are asked of me... until its an order anyway because dumb as somethings may be I really rather not go to prison.

      It would appear that I am 0 for 5 and I am not an atypical cross section of the people I work with. Speaking as someone who can actually see those who choose to serve close up rather than going off preconcieved notions born from going through life with my eyes squeezed shut and fingers in my ears I would have to say your dead wrong.

      "This is a good thing folks. Darwin at work."

      Whether you agree that that time is now or not there will come a day, as history has constantly shown, that the barbians will be at the gate and you had best hope someone is willing to stand behind that gate to defend you and yours. Those of you who hate the military, not just the current conflict but the institution of the military, are ingrates. Jefferson was right when he said that the tree of liberty must occassionally be refreshed with blood and it is those of us that are willing to go and bleed and die who keep that tree, that you sit and rest under, alive. What have you done to help tend that tree? Have tended it with tools of civil service or community volunteering? Are you willing to water it? Have you even bothered to take the smallest of civil obligations by voting? If your not contributing to the health of the system then how can you presume to look down on those who have stood up to do so? Your right, it is Darwin at work and as Darwin said it is the strong who survive and those of us who are willing to serve our country either with military, civil or community service are the ones who are keeping this nation strong... it seems people like you are only able to be parasites weakening the system that you depend on to exisist.

      Yeah yeah, mod me down as flamebait or anything else. +4 interesting my ass.

      --
      Honor is like virtue, if you must tell people that you have it then chances are you don't.
    88. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      How does the second Amendment stop invading armies?

    89. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      I LOVE blind patriotism. It's such a comfort not having to think

      That much is obvious, you are spouting nonsense rhetoric that you have been conditioned to spout.

    90. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      No one likes to admit it but the type of person who becomes a soldier is far more likely to be violence prone in all manners of life.

      No one likes to admit it because it isn't true. Soldiers are citizens with the same aptitudes, tendencies, and desires as the population which produced them.

      Soldiers are the last people I would want as friends, family or neighbors after my own exp. with the mentally unstable they send back to the US from god knows what hell.

      With the bias you've displayed here I'm sure the feeling is mutual. And yet the soldiers will continue to protect your right to defame them.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    91. Re:You are expendable pawns. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      It also teaches them how to kill on command without any thoughts of morality as long as the orders are signed in triplicate. But hey, at least they aren't poor anymore right?

    92. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      You know you can be opposed to the war (Vietnam or Iraq) without putting down the military or the men and women serving in it. I have a whole lot more respect for them then I do for some nameless face running his mouth on Slashdot.

      I whole heartedly agree. As I hear and read interviews of those that have served in Iraq and elsewhere my gut reaction is

      "Our reckless old men puppeteering our commander and chief don't deserver the level of honor and dedication that these men and women selflessly give."
      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    93. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      "all but 5" That leaves about 8 doesn't it?

    94. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I was trying to say is that rich kids selectively occupied safer-than-average positions, such as journalist, or flight instructor, or defending against the dreaded mexican air force.

      That's a bit more fair and it certainly seems to hold true in the current Administration. Has anybody of importance still in the Bush Administration served in combat? Has anybody even served? Who was the only person in the first Bush Administration that most people looked up too and did he not serve and warn against Iraq? (I am of course referring to Colin Powell)

      But still, to serve both sides of the discussion, I would point out that a fair number of people from relatively privileged backgrounds did serve in Vietnam. John Kerry for example. Criticize somebody for being a spoiled brat, coward or hypocrite -- don't criticize them just because they happen to be rich. Lots of rich people have served and lots of them are opposed to this war.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    95. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Rule_Of_The_Bone · · Score: 0

      "Insightful" my ass. And ditto and shame on the rest of you for making assumptions about which you know absolutely NOTHING. Unless you are a veterna or currently serving. The days of assuming even a grunt (11B type) are long gone. In order to survive on the battlefield it has long been established that a certain level of basic intelligence that translates into street smarts, tactical awareness, technical ability, and good decision-making abilities makes a good basic soldier (or airman/seaman/Marine). Those of you sitting in your ivory air-conditioned IT chambers of solitude looking down your noses at service in the military ain't shit compared to those that have served, are currently serving, and future volunteers. And by the way....I don't think you will ever see the current level of professionalism displayed by the US military in very trying circumstances diluted by the creation of a new draft.

      --
      "We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
    96. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator."

      Bullshit. Just look at Ghandi and the situation in libia/syria to see that it is not troops which create that atmosphere: it is the people themselves who create that freedom.

      And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.

      As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance? And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.

      And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people. Especially now in the 'outsourced army', if you go military you only learn how to kill someone. And the amount of veterans without jobs is proof that society doesn't want and can't use people who's only skill is killing people. Hell, Vietnam proved that, and every later conflict has just reinforced that.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    97. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the rest of you, when are you joining up? The Army is in desperate need of you. Recruitment is down, nothing is helping. Three? Only three?

      If all the young people who wanted this war would join up today, there'd be more than enough boots on the ground. You'd help the soldiers who are stuck there today, undermanned, live.

      There is no excuse. You think the invasion and occupation is worth dying for? You think Bush and Rice and Cheney didn't lie their asses off?

      JOIN. That's what war is about, sacrifice.

      When are you sacrificing yourself?

      If you don't think the occupation and asset seizure is worth your career, your education, your reproductive organ's attachment to your nether regions, or your very life -- then you have no right to support this war, demand its continuation, or demand that OTHERS SERVE IN YOUR PLACE.

      Join, and help a private contractor making a thousand dollars per diem in the Green Zone see another day.

      JOIN. Or oppose the war. You have no other options, Young Republicans.

      Operation Yellow Elephant Help a Young Republican Join Today!

    98. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force

      Yea, gotta be scared of those Canadians.

      Or was it the Mexicans that you were worried about pouring over the border to take over the nation? They already are, after all.

      Now, I will admit that the above statement is *not* fair, so please don't respond to it at face value.

      There was a true threat to the Western world after World War 2, and it was the Eastern Bloc. Having said that, do you honestly believe that once the military-industrial complex mustered as much political and economic influence as it did during the Cold War, it would just let it go afterwards?

      The current threat that the Western world faces is not one that the military-industrial complex knows how to face. Apparently, the solution to a bunch of religious Saudi fanatics flying planes into the WTC is to invade secular Iraq.

      I realize I'm getting very far off topic, but I can't really make my point otherwise. The military in the US needs to be as strong, maybe somewhat stronger than the nearest threat. That threat is not and never was Iraq. That threat may be China, but it seems almost backwards to say that, seeing as China is bankrolling so much of the current debt.

      Wars like Iraq and Vietnam have shaken the whole world's confidence in the US military. Indeed, it has shaken many Americans as well and is part of the polarization that has taken hold here.

      To argue that America does not need a standing army is downright foolish. However, the argument that the military-industrial complex has too much power and that the Armed Forces are abused by the folks in power is not meant to imply that there should not *be* an Armed Forces.

      Yes, wars were fought to preserve our rights. One of those rights is the ability to scream loudly when the same Armed Forces are misused. The same right allows you to state your position as well.

      Myself, I find the argument of "Well if it wasn't for the military, you'd already be living under a dictator" to be a logical fallacy, one along the same lines as "You don't like the war? Don't you support our troops? Why do you hate America?"

    99. Re:You are expendable pawns. by gordo3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      rape is not something you do to simply survive, its something a pitiful excuse for a human being does. Guess what, lots of men in the military are like inmates in prison, keep them away from women they can get for long enough and they turn to rape. It in no way makes them a good person. It makes them little more than an animal. This isn't to say everyone in the military is that. But to defend indefensible actions (that do not keep them alive) is simply sad.

    100. Re:You are expendable pawns. by koreaman · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you?
      All kidding aside,

      I'm a Christian, but I do know that a lot of my Christian brethren are rather sillily misinformed. I think that's where the ridicule comes from. As for boy scouts, I never was one, but I don't think being one is necessarily bad. AFAIK they learn survival skills, etc. that could benefit them later in life. As for FBLA, that was sort of bizarre bashing that I see nothing wrong with FBLA.

      I know about FFA but what is 4H?

    101. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      Wrong, both of you.

      There is no empire building in this day and age. The public would not stand for it. And US is a de-facto world ruler as it is, (think how many countries do US bidding in exchange for aid. But that is their own fault for becoming dependent on US.)

      While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    102. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 1


      "Safe officer slots?"

      Maybe the parent was referring to safe officer slots like the ones in the Texas Air National Gaurd during Vietnam. You got to be an officer, learn to fly jets, and had zero chance of getting sent to Vietnam because the jets you were trained in were obsolete. Thats why all the rich and powerful in Texas used it with abandon to keep their sons from getting killed in Vietnam, i.e. George W. Bush.

      Whats different today, well we have a volunteer army so the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful aren't at risk. So today the gaurd and reserve, rather than being a tool for avoiding combat duty for the rich and powerful are now a quick ticket to Iraq. If the draft is reinstituted I assure you the guard will be brought home and all the rich kids will flock to it to duck combat duty.

      If you want to restore my faith in the Bush family I'd really like to see George W's two daughter enlist in the Army or Marines and end up in the streets of Iraq, or hey maybe even take a job at Halliburton/KBR driving fuel trucks in Iraq. Chances of it happening, zero, because the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful dont volunteer for combat duty anymore unless they want to pad their resume for a future political run(i.e John Kerry and Geroge H.W. Bush) and that isn't even required or that common any more (i.e. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush).

      --
      @de_machina
    103. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Here is a quote from Chalmers Johnson's "The Arithmetic of America's Military Bases Abroad: What Does It All Add Up to?":

      According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.

      These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.


      http://hnn.us/articles/3097.html


      How is such massive foreign deployment serving American freedom? In fact it is far more likely that the resentment created by excessive interventions will ultimately harm US interests. Even when foreign deployment creates close ties abroad, those ties are often with repressive governments with terrible human rights records.

      It used to be that conservatives lived up to their name and opposed foreign adventures and large standing armies. Properly speaking those who, like you, support the status quo of a massive network of overseas bases should be refered to as "militarists", "jingoists", or even "imperialists" rather than "conservatives" or "patriots".

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    104. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, good comeback. That outta shut him up for good. Toss in a 'your momma' crack and its all over.

    105. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lysium · · Score: 1
      I was inferring that without a trained military force, the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force. I doubt that the new overlords would respect our current constitution as they installed themselves as a dictator.

      How many times has that happened to Sweden?

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    106. Re:You are expendable pawns. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I think you would be very surprised at the current state of affairs, given the federal laws, if you are accused of domestic violence you may not carry a weapon which basicaly means if an angry spouse decides to get even by making a call and making a false statement it's end-of-career, no conviction needed; works on police officers too.

      I do agree about the mental instability thing I've observed that people who are suddenly moved from a high stress, highly structure total-immersive environment to a totaly unstructured environment tend to do poorly, former prisoners do better with a period of parole and combat soldiers do better with a period of non-combat duty and then reserve duty after their service is up.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    107. Re:You are expendable pawns. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      history is quite a ways against you on that, before wwII we almost always completely dismantled our armed forces after a war. and when a new war came, we reorganized. Only after WWII and our decision to involve ourselves in everything going on in the rest of the world(and to tell people who to do it right) did we require a full time large army. And the only time we were attacked(besides indian wars that were all small scale after 1812) was the war of 1812. No other war required us to quickly defend from an invading force.

      anywyas, ways dictators are supported by a large and powerful army. So I don't know if your statement of that army keeping the dictator our is misguided or merely not properly clarified(ie. a military who's vast majority of its loyality is to the people of a country and not a single person).

    108. Re:You are expendable pawns. by ryturner · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never served in any branch of the United States military. There is distinction between legal and illegal orders, and it is illegal to follow an illegal order.

    109. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance?
      I didn't say a job taught this. The military provides services and damn near forces you to use them if you have trouble balancing checkbooks, making budgets or understanding how to manage your finances.

      And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.

      Again your words indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a security clearance is a huge bonus when looking for jobs that require a security clearance. It proves you can get one. This provides a great inroad to jobs which often times CANNOT be outsourced to other countries.

      And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.

      Again, you are dead wrong (forgive the pun). You obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you think that is all the military teaches, and you most likely have not been in the military.

    110. Re:You are expendable pawns. by ryturner · · Score: 1

      And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA.

      We still have a greater degree of free speech than most of the world. If you live in Germany, try denying that the holocaust happened and see what happens.

    111. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).

      Please, point me to the place where I said that our military being in Iraq and Afghanistan is protecting our freedom.

    112. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

      Why start now?

    113. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jepe · · Score: 1

      "I have found is that people who use arguments like the ones you are using are not going to be happy no matter what. They live to vehemently protest something." Yes and no... Most people that are protesting against something are doing so because they see (or perceive something) as bad and ill willed or unfair. Most of the time they have arguments and explain why they see thing X worth protesting against. Now, sometimes they are wrong and sometimes they are right. But the only way of knowing that is to look at the reasons for which they beleive thing X is bad or ill willed. And have a discussion about those points. But tagging (like you do) is the worst ennemy of any civilisation. Putting people in a bag and just refering to a tag to discredit them is a big stopper to any society evolution. Because sometimes some people in the bag are Right. And discredit them as "liberals" or "lefty" or "whiners without solution" doesnt make the problem they protest about disapear and thus let society go in the wrong direction. Your country was built by a bunch of people protesting something they were unhappy about... What if they were beign tagged as "liberals" and "eternal protester" and thus not listened to? You wouldnt have a country at all... As for the particular whining about the US imperialism and total lack of consideration for other country in its interaction with them or on global issues, if you were from another country you would just know that it is plain fact. Want an example: 1- Projects in studies by the american army to dig the St-Lawrence river so boat can go straight up to the great lakes. Consequences : - Destruction of the Animal and vegetal life on the coast of the st-Lawrence river because of the tons of polluting material buried by Both ontario and US industry that would be released all at once. - Destruction of the most of the tourism industry in Quebec province for the same reasons as above + drastic change in the level of water on the coasts. - Great reduction in the economical activity of the montreal Docks since boat would no longer have to stop there... Now why would our governement (Canada) would put up with such a stupidity : Simple your governement doesnt care about others and it got both and economical levy to inflic sanctions... And a big army that act as a deterent to beign to bold about refusing things that are not in our interest. This is just an example.. there are others like : - Project to drain water directly from the hudson bay toward the US (would reduce water level in many places that we do not want). - Blocking lumber free trade against the will of the WTO and signed economical treaty. - Beef embargo because of one Mad cow on canadian soil even if that cow came from the US... And the canadian governement is far from beign the most exploited country by the US. For god sake your governement condemn some truly elected gov because they do not suit their view and on the other hand support and finance Dictatorship while screaming "liberty from tyrants"... Sometimes their is really good reason to protest things.

    114. Re:You are expendable pawns. by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      It used to be that conservatives lived up to their name and opposed foreign adventures and large standing armies. Properly speaking those who, like you, support the status quo of a massive network of overseas bases should be refered to as "militarists", "jingoists", or even "imperialists" rather than "conservatives" or "patriots".

      Please reference the place where I, since you have directly accused me of it, stated that I support a status quot of overseas bases.

    115. Re:You are expendable pawns. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Not likely. Can you see your local Colege Republicans running off to fight the war that they cheer?

      Ummm, the majority of enlisted men are republican or right-leaning, so the answer to your question is: DUH!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    116. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Maybe the parent was referring to safe officer slots like the ones in the Texas Air National Gaurd during Vietnam.

      That's exactly what he meant. And he pointed it out. And we are having a civil conversation about it. I was still compelled to speak out because this is one area where I probably disagree with the majority of /. whom don't seem to have a lot of respect for military service.

      Whats different today, well we have a volunteer army so the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful aren't at risk.

      And I would _love_ to see a draft for exactly this reason but it will never happen because those on the far left are too short-sighted to realize that after Vietnam there's no way in hell that the President could take us into an unpopular war with a draftee army while the people on the far right realize exactly that and don't want their sons and daughters having to serve anyway.

      If the draft was reinstated then you'd see the military only being used where our national security was truly at stake while teaching those that were drafted valuable skills and trades that would apply to the real world. Hell you could even think of it as a form of wealth redistribution because rich people pay more taxes while serving in fewer numbers.

      If you want to restore my faith in the Bush family I'd really like to see George W's two daughter enlist in the Army or Marines and end up in the streets of Iraq, or hey maybe even take a job at Halliburton/KBR driving fuel trucks in Iraq. Chances of it happening, zero, because the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful dont volunteer for combat duty anymore unless they want to pad their resume for a future political run(i.e John Kerry and Geroge H.W. Bush)

      I don't recall wanting to or trying to restore your faith in Dubya. I don't have any faith in him either. I think it's a little cynical of you to put down the service of John Kerry and George H.W. Bush though. Neither one of them had very safe jobs (swift boat and fighter pilot) and to my knowledge John Kerry didn't have any political ambitions at the time he decided to enlist. I can't speak for George H.W. Bush but I actually have some respect for him (though I disagree with a lot of his policies) so I won't assume the worst until it's actually proven and not just barked by somebody on /. with no references to back it up.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    117. Re:You are expendable pawns. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      of COURSE non military Americans disdain the great unwashed who defend them. Read your Tacitus, and while your at it, leaf through Vegiiteus and remember the state of the Empire at the time he died. WHen the military is mainly composed (rank and file, not officers) of ghetto dwellers who barely speak understandable English ( shades of a Legion that spoke Germanic while the General ordered about in vulgate Latin?), When the Officer corp is made up of stratified (by class) peoples who know well how far they can rise depending on which of the political families sponsored them, when, oh heck, counntless examples similar to the waning of Rome. Oh yes, rail on about the coddled. Rememeber, Rome was finally sacked by those who once fought for her.. Nothing is new under the sun..

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    118. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the soldiers will continue to protect your right to defame them.

      Absolute Bullshit. They may say that they joined the army to defend democracy and spout other such platitudes after being indoctrinated, but the truth is most enlistees join the armed forces because they survived high school and have nowhere else to go. The ambitious poor join because the GI Bill will pay for college. The army brat kids join because daddy was a career man and it's expected of them. And some just join on the off chance they'll get to kill somebody a little too different from them.

      Ask as many 18 year old inductees as you like why they want to join up, and I doubt you'll find any that are volunteering their youth and possibly their lives to protect free speech.

    119. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not following the order of a superior officer can land you in hot water.. so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?

    120. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton was a "conscientious objector" not a "dodger".

    121. Re:You are expendable pawns. by patches · · Score: 1

      . The war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq did absolutely nothing to ensure your freedom, or mine.

      You are absolutly right. Those wars did nothing to ensure your or my freedom, however neither of us live in Afghanistan or Iraq.

      Those wars did a whole hell of a lot to ensure the freedoms of the people living in those two countries....

      Or maybe you think that people who live in either of those two countries deserve a chance at freedom?

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    122. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the only time we were attacked(besides indian wars that were all small scale after 1812) was the war of 1812. No other war required us to quickly defend from an invading force.

      Actually, the US was the invading force. The battles that took place on US soil were counter-attacks.

    123. Re:You are expendable pawns. by ChaosCube · · Score: 0

      It's because many on slashdot observe the following equation: faith = lunacy + puritanism + republicans + bush = bad It's quite narrow minded.

      --
      BDR Gear
      Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
    124. Re:You are expendable pawns. by budgenator · · Score: 1
      I think you need to study your history better, usualy what happens in a millitary coup is
      1. a minority of the would-be dictator's cronies move to lock down the majority in the well trained millitary.
      2. After the coop, the cronies are move to an "elite" palace guard type unit
      3. The well trained millitary is decapitated by having it's leadership with any ethics and morals murdred
      4. the rest of the well millitary is decimated in a series of frivolus millitary misadvanture against the countries neighbors
      5. the well trained millitary is replace by conscripts from the near-criminal and criminal element of the country
      This is the system that has worked for the last 4000 years. If you want to be a dictator study it well, the well trained military is your mortal enemy.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    125. Re:You are expendable pawns. by mconeone · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily conservatives, though. I used to live a guy in the navy who was republican because 'it is voting for your boss'. Republicans want to put money into the military, so the military is made up of primarily republicans.

    126. Re:You are expendable pawns. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      And some of us would solve the problem by fixing the original situtation.

      It's a good thing we're not doing that, eh, or the military would have nowhere to recruit.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    127. Re:You are expendable pawns. by patches · · Score: 1

      As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance?

      Because part of Basic Training is courses in Personal Finance

      And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.

      Right, like Wolfgang said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just propose that you and I are appling for the same job. Let's even say that you might be slightly more experienced then I, but the job in question requires a Top Secret Clearance ( or higher ) and I have one already and you don't. Now is the company going to hire you for the better experience and then spend $35,000.00+ to apply you for your clearance and 10 year back ground check, with the possability that you are unable to get it, in which they are out the money, and you are out the job, or are they going to hire me where they have no gamble at all. I would come with my clearance and they wouldn't have to spend a dime on it. And depending on when my last five year update was done, they might get a few years of service from me prior to having to pay to update my clearance.

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    128. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      Hrm.

      While you never said this explicitly, your rethoric against the "imperialist" argument had me convinced that you believed this.

      I might be wrong however, and in that case I apologize.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    129. Re:You are expendable pawns. by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1

      About the same time that being in the Computer/French/AV/Photography club did.

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
    130. Re:You are expendable pawns. by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It should be very obvious that believing in the Tooth Fairy is foolish, because there is exactly zero evidence that such a belief is valid. The same goes for any other "faith-based" beliefs.

    131. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some just join on the off chance they'll get to kill somebody a little too different from them.

      That's the only reason I'd sign up. Too bad the AF didn't want me, eyes not good enough. I just wanted to fly a plane and bomb innocent women and children that I would never see face to face.

    132. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Funksaw · · Score: 1

      > And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.

      I'm sorry, I'm going to need you to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.

    133. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jepe · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read reports about the living condition in those country before and after US invasion?

      I am not saying that life was good under dictatorship... I am just saying that the claim that US does this to give freedom to the people.

      US does that for purely for self serving reasons. Maybe I should say US Governements and friends does that for purely self serving reason because it is not good for US in itself (think huge debt), but only to a handfull of corporate people.

    134. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you think if we didn't have an Army we wouldn't be attacked?

      Yes. Who do you think would attack us if we didn't have a standing army?

    135. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I can't seem to find a google ref atm, but I do remember reading somewhere that the life expectancy of a frontline officer in Vietnam was, at one point in the war, five minutes!!
      Even in WW1 you had chance for a nice cup of tea before getting your brains blown out.

    136. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Derkec · · Score: 1

      I am an engineer and democrat. Nah, I just didn't think I had to quote everything to make my point.

    137. Re:You are expendable pawns. by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

      Canada?

    138. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I was inferring that without a trained military force, the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force.

      I think that it was misunderstood because it was an absurd assertion. There is no country on the planet that is interested in invading the US. If China were to try (the only country even close to being capable of such manpower to invade the US), I expect that pretty much all of Europe and other nations with military forces would come to the aid of the US. You do realize that there are more guns in the US than people? An invading force would find that the 2nd Amendment would be quite effective at stopping said invading force, even if they were better equipped. IED? I'll show you IEDs...

    139. Re:You are expendable pawns. by electroniceric · · Score: 1
      I never said the decision to go to war in Iraq had anything to do with protection, nor did I say we should be in Iraq in any way!

      Fair enough - I overinferred...

      What I did say is that our military is a deterrent force.

      With states, I agree. For example, our military force unquestionable restrains Kim Jong Il, China, Taiwan, India, and others from much worse behavior than now (just imagine N. Korea _really_ on a rampage). With asymmetric threats I think that's taken too much as a given - after all, a lot of these folks get into jihadism for a chance to fight and die as radicals (whether they actually want to die when death is whizzing at them at a couple hundred miles an hour is probably a different story...), but overall I'm not totally convinced that they are restrained in their actions by our having a military. I don't have a better answer offhand, other than a strong and sustained investment in HUMINT and serious language training for any and all commanders in our military, but I don't think we can continue looking at it merely in terms of computer systems and boots on the ground.
    140. Re:You are expendable pawns. by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      Every grunt involved in clearing a house in Iraq needs to be perceptive, creative, and analytical to do that job well. More than just reacting intelligently, the warfighter needs to be innovative, because repetition leads to getting killed.

      Yeah, some of those Abu Ghraib pictures, that really showed American military creative thinking, intelligence, and ingenuity!

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    141. Re:You are expendable pawns. by coopex · · Score: 1

      Scene: Fallujah, dusk. A squad of marines is on patrol for insurgents. A bombed out office building stands before them, barely standing and pock marked. The squad officer stops.
      Officer: All right men, we're gonna check out that building. I want Johnson and Tex to take the point, Smith, Freddie and Joe provide cover, the rest of you follow me.
      He starts offs, but Johnson says "\/\/+Ph!?!? i d0N'+ \/\/@N+ +0 g0 d0\/\/N +h@+ $+r33+. \/\/hy d0 i h@v3 +0 g0 d0\/\/N +h@+ $+r33+?"
      Before he can reply, Joe pipes in "y3@h, i d0N'+ \/\/@Nn@ c@MP, i n3v3r g3+ @Ny /The squad leader is dumbfounded by this, beginning to formulate a thourough bitching out when the Tking starts.

      And that is why the US never again tried to use videogames for recruiting.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    142. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Patriotism or a way out of a dead-end town.

    143. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "while teaching those that were drafted valuable skills and trades that would apply to the real world"

      God damn thats straight out of an Army recruiting ad. I'm sure some draftee's learned valuable skills and trades in the military during Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure most combat veterans didn't learn much beyond how to shoot an M-16, take orders, frag their incompetent officers, stay alive, and to deal with post traumatic stress disorder when it was over.

      Teaching valuable skills is something that mostly happens in a volunteer army in peace time. Draftee infantrymen mostly learn how to kill and avoid being killed and those skills dont have a lot of civilian applications outside of maybe S.W.A.T teams.

      "my knowledge John Kerry didn't have any political ambitions at the time he decided to enlist."

      Well that shows your knowledge of the issue is nonexistent. Kerry was famous or infamous for his political ambitions when he was at Yale which was where he was before he enlisted. His initials are JFK and everyone at Yale was well aware he had a massive Kennedy fetish and political amitions to follow in JFK's footsteps, exactly in his footsteps. One odd twist, everyone thinks he is Irish Catholic from Boston which is what he needed people to think for his Kennedy track, though in fact there isn't an Irish bone in his body. Kerry was a name his Jewish grandparents chose somewhat at random when the emigrated to America from Austria/Hungary, to hide the fact they were Jewish. Kerry doesn't claim to be Irish but he is really glad to not correct the mistaken impression most people have, and he never advertises the fact that he is half Jewish, because being Jewish used to be poltiical suicide though today its almost a plus.

      In case you missed the parallel, chances are high Kerry volunteered for Swift boats because they were the closest match to the PT boats Kennedy served on in World War II. He very much wanted to be a hero in Vietnam, get medals, and use it as a springboard for his political career. Being in the Navy the only two good choices for combat hero were fighter pilot or swift boats.

      "so I won't assume the worst until it's actually proven"

      Not sure what you are getting at. Its not exactly a slam at Kerry and H.W. that they served in combat, really dangerous combat, and it was a future coup for their political careers. Only knock against Kerry was he was gung ho going in and immediately flip flopped to anti war, flip flopping being the story of his life not just a Republican attack ad.

      Especially among the World War II generations, military service, especially combat service, and especially with decorations WAS a major coup for a future political career, and it was a motivator for future politicans to volunteer for combat. Its just a fact, its not an accusation or a slam.

      Its not as much of prerequisite as it used to be partially thanks to a string of bad wars with bad outcomes(Korea and Vietnam). I don't think Clinton can be faulted for ducking service, because he made it clear he opposed the war in Vietnam and he stayed consistent on that throughout.

      Really the only flaming hypocrite among the 4 is George W. Bush because he is a classic chicken hawk. He is way to eager to launch military action, and get other people killed in wars, but when it was his turn he pulled strings, ducked and spent the time partying, partying hard, in Texas and Alabama, and ducking even his minimal guard duties. Dick Cheney's record is only marginally better, he used college deferments and marriage to duck the draft. Now there specialty is cataloging high school students to send off to die in their screwed up mess of a war, a war they suckered American' in to with one lie after another.

      I really hate chicken hawks, they are among the worst form of hypocrites.

      --
      @de_machina
    144. Re:You are expendable pawns. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the war of 1812 when the US invaded Canada?

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    145. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      " to put down the service of John Kerry and George H.W. Bush though."

      Doh, I did miss the opportunity to point out there was an ulterior motive for George H.W. Bush enlisting when he did, and pulling strings to get a fighter in the Pacfic though he was way under age for it.

      Right before he enlisted the Bush family, in particular his dad, George W.'s grandad, Prescott Bush was embroiled in a scandal. Prescott was a leading officer of Union Banking in New York, and most think he actually ran it day to day for the Harriman family. Soon after Pearl Harbor, Union Banking's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. In particular Union Banking was the American investment arm forthe Thyssen family, one Germany's richest industrial dynasties. In fact Fritz Thyssen played a key role in bringing Hitler to power, by uniting the industrial magnates of Germany behind the National Socialists and in fact bankrolling them early in their rise to power (something Thyssen later came to regret). He wrote a rather dull book on his role in creating the 20th century's worst nightmare called "I Paid Hitler".

      George H.W. Bush somewhat rushed in to the service not long after the scandal broke in the New York papers, and there is conjecture it may have been to salvage the future political fortunes of the family, and to deflect the impression that they were in bed with the enemy. The Bush's did pull strings due to his age, and may also may have pulled strings to get him to the Pacific theater and as far away from Nazi Germany as possible. The Bush family like a lot of wealthy American's (Henry Ford for example) gleefully invested in and did business with Nazi Germany in the 30's, and were more than a little sympathetic to Fascism especially in the face of the threat of Communism and the U.S.S.R. Doing business with the Thyssens in particullar did in many ways make the Bush family complicit in Hitler's rise to power.

      --
      @de_machina
    146. Re:You are expendable pawns. by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Soldiers have not protected me in my lifetime. Not a single armed conflist was needed. They are no better than murderers in my opinion when I consider them for friendship.

      I had a friend who served in the first iraq conflict as a sniper in army rangers. After coming back home and failing his first semester at college he started using meth, collecting unemployment and hanging out at our art gallery. After about 3 months he came in with a horrendous acrylic abortion of art and we gingerly allowed him to put it in the backroom.

      Once we did this he became a constant fixture in our scene hanging out with the fringes of our friendship circle and becoming increasingly alien in manner and appearence. One night after a party at our place we found him in our kitchen cutting himself in one spot with one of our knives slowly revealing fat and sinew beneath the skin and than flicking his blood at us, our paintings and the kitchen in general.

      After leaving our own place we got a bouncer friend of ours to escort him out of our building and we called an ambulance. He left before the ambulance came with the knife still in hand. 2 years later, after we had closed the art gallery a few us regulars get packages in the mail containing condoms, cannibal recipes and other strange things. At the bottom of the packages is a gun permit for different types of sniper rifles from Alaska saying he is waiting for us to come to hunt us. So we called the Army, Police and FBI. Still no idea what happened to him but he is the reason I have nothing in my name where I live now and likely ever again.

    147. Re:You are expendable pawns. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's quite true, to become an officer, you have to take the OCT, Officer's candidate test with a score of 100, the test is entirely vocabulary and mathematics. I took the test for grins-and-giggles and scored 120 and only answered 4 out of fifty math questions. The directions said "answer the questions correctly" they must have meant it, I assume that incorrect answers are more negative than correct answers are positive. Then you have to pass OCS, Officer's Candidate School, and your commission approved by congress. After that their is branch training, there is a basic and advanced course where they are trained to be say an Infantry or Artillery officer ect. By their first promotion, they must have 120 credit hrs., but OCS basic and advanced usualy articulate into 62 credit hours, they can usualy CLEP another 30 hrs. 30 hrs. over a two year period isn't too hard to accomplish, a lot of schools that cater to millitary are generous with articulation and/or have online/couresponce course and even aceelerated course that might only have 8 actualy face-to-face meetings.

      I am working from memory about how it was 15 yrs ago so things may have changed by now.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    148. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be right on some points, but the honer, personal responsibility, and respect bit is bull shit. I know a few guys who joined the military after high school, those that were already honorable, responsible, ext. still are and those that weren't are, if anything, worse. Basically, before they were ass-hats, now they are ass-hats who feel they have earned the right to do whatever they want.

    149. Re:You are expendable pawns. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      No, the army has domestic violence policies in place that suggest therapy with psychologists which do not have to report crimes before reporting it to his superiours. Alot of times these women feel trapped on the army bases they live on like they are in prison. I'm sure their reporting domestic violence is far less common than your average college educated woman.

    150. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this isn't "faith-based." I put my tooth under the pillow at night, and in the morning there is cold hard cash. That is pretty solid evidence.

    151. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not canada, british controlled NA which primarily consisted of what is now canada. at this time, there wasn't a real canada yet.

    152. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      God damn thats straight out of an Army recruiting ad. I'm sure some draftee's learned valuable skills and trades in the military during Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure most combat veterans didn't learn much beyond how to shoot an M-16, take orders, frag their incompetent officers, stay alive, and to deal with post traumatic stress disorder when it was over.

      Did you bother to read my fucking post before you jumped all over it in self-righteous indignation? As I pointed out if we had a draftee army then we wouldn't be in an unpopular war to begin with. That was the lesson of Vietnam -- even with 70% of the causalities being non-draftee members -- Washington realized that it couldn't march us into a war without a public mandate using a draftee army. It's a lot easier with an all-volunteer force when you can say "They knew what they were signing up for".

      Furthermore, with a draft in place, we would have a largely peacetime military. Anybody drafted would be able to pursue a MOS and learn real skills that would apply to the real world.

      If you want to dispute the idea of National Service or dispute that a draft would discourage our hasty involvement in wars where the case hasn't been made to the American people then go ahead. But don't pull this standard flower child "draftee's are nothing more then cannon fodder" argument because unless you are talking about the Civil War then it's nothing but a load of crap. Draftee's in WW2, Korea and Vietnam served in a wide variety of roles both front and behind the lines. Many of them served in roles in the military that would serve them well in peacetime. There is a lot more to the military (even in wartime) then the grunt on the ground firing his M-16.

      Only knock against Kerry was he was gung ho going in and immediately flip flopped to anti war, flip flopping being the story of his life

      And there again is your cynical side ruining your argument. You can't assume that Kerry went to Vietnam and didn't like what he saw? You have to assume that he became anti-war only to further his political ambitions? Watch the videotapes of him from back then -- he had a lot more passion about his opinions then I would have expected from your average politician. Indeed I would have rather seen that Kerry running for office then the 20-year veteran of the Senate stereotypical career politician afraid to offend anyone.

      Especially among the World War II generations, military service, especially combat service, and especially with decorations WAS a major coup for a future political career, and it was a motivator for future politicans to volunteer for combat. Its just a fact, its not an accusation or a slam.

      Yeah all those people volunteered for the front lines so they could run for office someday. It had absolutely nothing to do with December 7th or Nazi Germany's design on the World. Has it ever occurred to you that the overwhelming majority of American Males (of military age) served in the armed forces (in one role or another) during WW2 and that (obviously) politicians are drawn from that same pool?

      I really hate chicken hawks, they are among the worst form of hypocrites.

      No argument there. And you won't get an argument out of me that most of the Bush administration and a lot of neo-con Republicans in Congress fit the classical definition of Chickenhawk (Dubya included). Indeed the only non-Chickenhawk that I can think of (Powell) advised against the war.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    153. Re:You are expendable pawns. by futoket · · Score: 1

      It still amazes me that there is still such little respect shown to service memebers, (esspecially infantry, by default, if you ever meet a current or former infantryman, you owe him a beer). The majority of those who fight aren't patriotic drones who follow orders, or morons that can't make it in the real world, or even poor people without any options. Everyone in the military has joined KNOWING the inherent danger involved, and for whatever reason, and has the intestinal fortitude to sign the dotted line. Me? I joined the Marines post 9/11 (remember that???) and I think everyone of those suicide vest wearing, AK toting, islamic "extremists" needs to die, painfully. I don't care if its in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, IF YOU ARE A TERRORIST, WE WILL FIND YOU. This isn't Korea, this isn't Vietnam, WE WERE ATTACKED. And if taking out a dictator asshole, maybe unpopularly, to gain a foothold into where all those murdering terrorist fuckheads live.....oh well, so be it. This is the beginning people, We took Iraq just so we won't have to far to travel when we fuck up the rest of those terrorist supporting governments. And lastly, if any of you have the balls to talk shit about the military or those who serve.....e-mail me, we can meet and I'll teach you some respect. futoket@yahoo.com

    154. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Here is your post:

      [Quoting the GP]"The difference is that the purpose of their armed forces is defense, whereas the US' is empire building. The war on terrorism is a thinly veiled facade for imperialism, hardly better cloaked than converting the heathen masses."

      Wow, you really believe that tripe. Unfortunatly what I have found is that people who use arguments like the ones you are using are not going to be happy no matter what. They live to vehemently protest something.

      How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions. Sad.

      Clearly you were denying that the current military stance does not amount to imperialism and is rather in your view one of defense. In fact, you referred to the opposing view as tripe. After a couple more sentences worth of content-free abuse you finally arrive at the closest you come to argument, the assertion that "the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice", which the evidence in my response showed was a complete misstatement of the scope of US military operations abroad.

      As for your inexplicably modded follow-up troll, clearly if a poster says the real reason for the US military force is to defend American freedoms and that it is not empire building, then in can be inferred that the poster believes that the overseas bases currently in place serve somehow to defend American freedoms.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    155. Re:You are expendable pawns. by bnenning · · Score: 1

      And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.

      I love self-negating arguments like this. The stormtroopers will no doubt be showing up at your door any minute.

      And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.

      Good grief. The military uses quite a bit of technology these days, and such technology very often has useful applications in other areas. You know, like the *Internet*.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    156. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The following are actions associated with people of faith. (Note. it is assumed that "People of faith" refer to followers of the three major monothestic religions which have a common history and set of values.

      1. Prosecution of people who believe differently from you. (Examples: Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Scopes Monkey Trial)

      2. Irresponsible and Racist Natalism (The racism is more implicit than explicit) that leads to the subjigation of Women and the oppression of those who do not follow orthodox teachings regarding sexuality (Including Homosexuals)

      3. Prosecution of Religiously motivated military actions (and the war in Iraq is a prime example of this -- an escalation of a war on Islam that will potentially wipe out human existence on this planet.

      4. Undercutting public education. Schools have had to fight churches for most of the last 40 or so years over everything from organized prayer to sex education to eveloution.

      5. Censorship -- Persecuting Larry Flynt and others who put out material that is contrary to their cultural interests.

      Jesse Ventura said in an interview that "Organized religion is a crutch for weak-minded people." Not all people of faith are like that , but there are plenty.

    157. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator


      bullshit.


      a "dictator" needs to have a "trained militarty force", in order to "...[force people] to obey the whims of [said] dictator (sic)."


      no military, no dictatorship.

    158. Re:You are expendable pawns. by ryturner · · Score: 1


      But not following the order of a superior officer can land you in hot water.. so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?


      Not following the legal order of a superior office can land you in hot water.

    159. Re:You are expendable pawns. by bnenning · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't think the occupation and asset seizure is worth your career, your education, your reproductive organ's attachment to your nether regions, or your very life -- then you have no right to support this war, demand its continuation, or demand that OTHERS SERVE IN YOUR PLACE.

      Who's demanding anything? The only ones who want to force anyone to serve are your friends in the Democratic party. Us free-market types believe in paying soldiers sufficiently well so that enough people will voluntarily sign up.

      JOIN. Or oppose the war. You have no other options, Young Republicans.

      Donate all your assets to the poor, or oppose welfare. That's an idiotic argument, but still better than yours, because people actually are forced to pay for welfare, while nobody is forced to serve in the military.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    160. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      I stated a fact. Whether the soldiers are internally or externally motivated to fulfill their oaths (to support and defend the Constitution) they will do it.

      Your speculation as to their motivations is typical AC flamebait not worthy of response.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    161. Re:You are expendable pawns. by DSLAMngu · · Score: 1
      I happen to be a Catholic Eagle Scout and a former member of FBLA.

      My family voted Democrat, against my parents' party affiliation (this was my first year).

      I, like the late John Paul II, give plenty of credence to many aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, but what you are talking about is eugenics.

      Parhaps we should send all the members of the intellectually immodest Anonymous Coward master race out to fight terrorism? Maybe I should hold my own opinion and background as a basis for deciding who will be the next victim of populational selection instead.

      Or maybe it doesn't work that way.

    162. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      WE WERE ATTACKED

      Question: Who were we attacked by? The 11 people most responcible for Sept 11 are dead.

      But what about the leadership? I see no sign that we are even really looking that hard anymore. Arn't we now looking to make a "stable Iraq?" this doesn't sound like a way to prevent brainwashed extreamists from blowing themselves up. (c.f. Israel, Iraq, Spain, Oklahoma City)

      Finally, in regards to you ego problem an the military. The idea that one cannot be critical of an orginazation like the US military because they some how deserve respect is perplexing. I see no honor in being in the buisness of fighting war. I infact find it offensive and wrong that my government on my behalf is using marketing tactics to recruit more otherwise honorable people into the worlds oldest profession for men. From my perspective military service, especially service entered into because of a sales pitch is no more honorable then prostitution.

      I would be glad to be taught some respect by you, but I believe from your tone that in the end I would have no more respect for you then the people of the middle east do for our country -- and fear is a piss poor substitute for respect.

      JFMILLER

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    163. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Darby · · Score: 1

      We do want patriotic people in the armed forces.

      The OP was describing jingoistic people rather than patriots.

      Jingoism is more or less the opposite of patriotism, so I think you and he are more or less in agreement.

    164. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Blame Canada.

    165. Re:You are expendable pawns. by zemkai · · Score: 1
      So in other words it's okay to ridicule people who believe differently than you?

      Grow up.

      -ZK

    166. Re:You are expendable pawns. by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Does the draft exclude gay people in the US, since they don't like them in the army normally? What about hugely obese people? There's some motivation to get the obesity problem sorted out for the goverment ;)

      --
      Me (Blog)
    167. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, you have to have an existing enlistment or have graduated college to be eligable for the OCS program. They can alternatively earn a commission through a staff appointment, ROTC training (which supplements existing college), or by going to a military academy (which is really just college and OCS rolled into one).

      So I suppose it is possible to become an officer without a college education (assuming you're already enlisted), but I've never heard of any cases. This discussion, of course, exempts Chief Warrant Officers who are stuck in limbo between enlisted and commissioned officers.

    168. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The following are actions associated with atheists:

      1. Prosecution of people who believe differently from you. (Examples: Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, Prosecution of ``counterrevolutionaries'' in all so-called former communist states)

      2. Irresponsible and Racist Natalism (The racism is more implicit than explicit) that leads to the oppression of those who do not follow orthodox teachings regarding sexuality (Including Homosexuals) (example: East German laws prohibiting homosexual behavior)

      3. Undercutting public education. Schools have had to fight indoctrination by atheists in ``communist'' countries for most of the last 70 or so years over everything from history to sex education to propaganda.

      4. Censorship -- Outright destruction and persecution of everything remotely contrary to the party line.

      Yes, religious fanatics are a problem but trash-talking millions of people who do not share their view is not justified.

    169. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Did you bother to read my fucking post before you jumped all over it in self-righteous indignation? As I pointed out if we had a draftee army then we wouldn't be in an unpopular war to begin with."

      Your assertion is self contradictory and nonsensical. If I understand the assertion once we start a draft all of a sudden the unpopular wars end, at which point we dont need a draft? Or maybe you are saying since we are in an unpopular war now we can't have or don't need a draft, though the Army and Marines soon wont be able to maintain their force in Iraq without a draft.

      The scenario is the U.S. is already stuck, indefinitely, in an unpopular war in Iraq and it may have to institute a draft to maintain the current force structure there because NO ONE WANTS TO VOLUNTEER to walk or drive around Iraq and risk getting blown up. If the U.S. leaves Iraq because it can't maintain its forces there without a draft, then the current puppet government probably eventually falls and the U.S. has another lost war on its record, a really expensive lost war, and a middle east in flames with a government in Iraq potentially worse, more dangerous and unpredictable than Saddam.

      Only way I can make sense of your arguement is you lept off on a tangent about how great it would be if we had a peace time draft and mandatory national service, to build character and skills among young people. Well that isn't the issue here because we aren't in peace time and the draft wont be to teach kids skills, it will be to put boots on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe someday Iran or Syria.

      Some of those 18 year old draftees no doubt will learn valuable skills in electornics, and as mechanics or truck drivers, many of them are going to be packing M-16's around Iraq and aren't going to learn a damn thing except how to stay alive. In case you were unaware many of the Army's skill job are being contracted out to companies like Halliburton/KBR. In the perfect Rumsfeld/Cheney world, the Army and Marines are for combat, they don't learn job skills, and we pay contractors to do all the skill jobs.

      "and that (obviously) politicians are drawn from that same pool?"

      Really not sure what point you are trying to make. You seem to be denying there is any chance that politicians have ever volunteered for combat duty to further their future political careers. Well its a simple fact some did and John Kerry is the most blatantly obvious and undeniable case, because he was trying to reproduce JFK's PT boat resume. Not sure there is really anything wrong with it, it sure beats being a Chicken Hawk so I'm not really sure what the arguement is.

      "Watch the videotapes of him from back then -- he had a lot more passion about his opinions then I would have expected from your average politician."

      Yea and it also happened to catapult him on to the national stage. No one knew who he was before he started his antiwar gig. It happens at the time being antiwar was more popular than being prowar and he is ALWAYS on the most popular side of every issue, that is the only consistent thing about him.

      I mostly fault him for volunteering for combat duty when it was already well known what kind of a screwed up mess Vietnam was, and then when he got there and found out it was, duh, he took this quickest out he could get, parlaying 3 flesh wounds in to 3 purple hearts and a quick out before his tour was up though he was never seriously injured. He then preceeded to grab every mic he could find and rant about the war. I'm inclined to say that if he volunteered for combat duty he should have finished his tour and spent another six months regretting his mistake for volunteering for combat.

      --
      @de_machina
    170. Re:You are expendable pawns. by huge+colin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in other words it's okay to ridicule people who believe differently than you?

      It's okay to ridicule people who stubbornly believe something that is wrong. In this case, yes, it's also different from what I believe, since I construct my beliefs based on evidence and not nonsense.

      Are you suggesting that belief in the force of gravity and belief in invisible pink unicorns are both deserving of the same amount of respect?

    171. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. An invisible unicorn can't be pink -- it is invisible.

    172. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early in his campaign trail Kerry claimed to be Irish, that he discovered his Irish lineage and said how great it was he shared his name with an Irish county. Within 7 days, he welcomed the revelation of the proud Jewish heritage of his family too. You can be Irish and Jewish, Kerry isn't. He made the claim publicly though.

    173. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Elminst · · Score: 1

      "Every soldier takes an oath to uphold the constitution, an none take an oath of personal loyalty to a specific man who happens to be president."

      But when the president is the "commander-in-chief", effectively your ultimate boss, and you don't obey his orders, you get a courtmartial and thrown in jail.

      Lovely catch-22.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    174. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, you make some good points, but then you just piss it all away with this idiotic jingoistic crap:

      oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.

      Hot tip. We are under no threat as a nation. There is no dictator plotting to conquer America.
      All of our worst threats are internal.

      They consist of the following:
      1. Politicians who are loyal to their parties over their country.
      2. Corporate executives who care more about profit than they do about their country or even their species.
      3. These 2 groups getting together and joining their power structures.

      Sorry, but Iraq is no threat and never was. The military there is not defending us from shit. Among other things they are just being used as a diversionary tactic while our enemies at home consolidate their power.

      You don't seriously believe that ignorant jingoistic Captain America bullshit that you're spouting do you?

      If you do, try actually constructing some possible way that it could be true. When you see how far from rationality that you have to go to do that, hopefully that will wake you up.

    175. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 1

      You might be right. I remember the subject did come up about once during the whole campaign and I dont recall if Kerry was outright claiming to be Irish or it was his campaign and not him. Needless to say making an issue of his Jewishness would be so politicly incorrect in this day an age that the press probably really didn't even want to report the story, though it was one of many indicators that Kerry is a major phony.

      You really have to doubt that he wouldn't know the ancestry of his grandparents. I think it was his paternal grandparents that emigrated to the U.S and changed the family name from a very Jewish one to Kerry. Its a little hazy but I think his paternal grandfather was also a suicide so there is a heavy dose of skeletons in the family closet. For a family with intense political and upwardly mobile social ambitions maybe they brushed all this under the rug early and Kerry didn't know the truth but I really doubt it. Abandoning the Jewish religion and surname was no doubt desirable and politically expedient considering the extent of discrimination against Jews in most of early 20th century America.

      --
      @de_machina
    176. Re:You are expendable pawns. by zifferent · · Score: 1

      I never said the decision to go to war in Iraq had anything to do with protection, nor did I say we should be in Iraq in any way! What I did say is that our military is a deterrent force.

      Actually you said the reason for the military is:

      "How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions."


      or in other words they protect our freedoms, and this:

      "No, they aren't "almost all" in Iraq. Their existence keeps other armies/countries from attacking us."

      So another of your reasons is deterance.

      The problem is having the military invade Iraq neither protects our freedoms or is/was a deterent. (Hints: They didn't have WMDs, and the WTC terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia.)

      Yet you claim that these are the reasons for the military's existance.

      Either you can claim that Iraq has nothing to do with protection and neither does the military, or you can claim that the reason for the military has everything to do with protection and (by some unfathomable logic) so does the invasion of Iraq.

      You can't logically claim both.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    177. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Your assertion is self contradictory and nonsensical. If I understand the assertion once we start a draft all of a sudden the unpopular wars end, at which point we dont need a draft? Or maybe you are saying since we are in an unpopular war now we can't have or don't need a draft, though the Army and Marines soon wont be able to maintain their force in Iraq without a draft.

      Yes that is exactly my point. If a draft was in place (prior to the start of this war) then going into Iraq on a half-baked case of WMDs would have not happened. With a draftee Army the Executive actually needs to make a case for going to war. And Congress would have the backbone to oppose the Executive if that case wasn't made.

      Some of those 18 year old draftees no doubt will learn valuable skills in electornics, and as mechanics or truck drivers, many of them are going to be packing M-16's around Iraq

      Actually if it did come down to a draft I highly doubt too many draftees would initially be sent to Iraq without volunteering for such duty. They would primarily be replacing stateside troops or other forces (Germany, South Korea, etc) being deployed.

      Well that isn't the issue here because we aren't in peace time and the draft wont be to teach kids skills, it will be to put boots on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe someday Iran or Syria.

      If we had a draft do you really think we'd be going into Syria or Iran? I highly doubt it. Even Bush can't move too far from public opinion and Congress would have some backbone if they had to explain to their rich donors and folks back home why they voted to send their kids into a warzone. As far as Afghanistan is concerned if we had a competent President we would have sent hundreds of thousands of troops into it instead of planning to invade Iraq and outsourcing the job to warlords. But that's another discussion entirely...

      Really not sure what point you are trying to make. You seem to be denying there is any chance that politicians have ever volunteered for combat duty to further their future political careers.

      I never made that assumption. I take issue with your cynicism (especially your WW2 comment) that anybody who serves and later becomes a politician was plotting it all along. My other point about "politicians coming from the same pool" was that given the fact that so many American males of military age served in WW2 it would be logical to assume that you'd have many politicians from that generation with military service.

      It's obvious that you don't have a whole lot of respect for any politicians. I can understand where you are coming from but it's regrettable that people have become so cynical these days. Sign of times I suppose. I only hope you aren't so cynical that you've stopped bothering to vote.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    178. Re:You are expendable pawns. by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

      So you don't recruit in the US right? *duck*

    179. Re:You are expendable pawns. by zemkai · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting that belief in the force of gravity and belief in invisible pink unicorns are both deserving of the same amount of respect?

      I make no comment on any particular belief. I could probably point out many "facts" that were once nothing more than theories, and many more current theories that are accepted as fact.

      I am merely suggesting that ridiculing those who have different belief systems is wrong, immature and rude... none of which do much to promote your cause - unless your cause is to expand the vitriol, in which case, carry on.

      -ZK

    180. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Spock_NPA · · Score: 1

      Why, yes, I have. In every country that the US has assisted successfully, the end result has always been a more prosperous and freer society.

      As for whether the US does what it does for self-interest.. who doesn't? We are fortunate to be living at a time where the dominate power in the world strives for freedom. This is infinitely better than a world dominated by a truly imperialistic dictatorial power (see India under the old British colonial empire or S.E. Asia under WWII Japan). You might argue that it's better to have a more even distribution of power, perhaps like old Europe? Witness the centuries of war following war as neighboring countries squabble to dominate the other.

      Like it or not, having a strong central power ensures stability for the world. And with respect to that, I'm very thankful the country which happens to hold that position today is one that strives for democratic ideals.

      --
      Regards,
      Spock_NPA
    181. Re:You are expendable pawns. by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

      You have to have faith that is in fact pink. ;)

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    182. Re:You are expendable pawns. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I provided medical support to the Michigan Millitary Academy and everybody there was enlisted fail, the course and you don't just go home, you've got a millitary obligation to fulfill. I'm pretty sure the academies are the same way, not to mention that you've just embarssed your congressman. You have to commit in a ROTC program if you recieve a scholarship, otherwise it's optional (I think pretty much everybody get a schoolarship after the second year); you can fulfill your obligation in the Reserves or National Guard

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    183. Re:You are expendable pawns. by demachina · · Score: 1

      "If a draft was in place (prior to the start of this war) then going into Iraq on a half-baked case of WMDs would have not happened. With a draftee Army the Executive actually needs to make a case for going to war. And Congress would have the backbone to oppose the Executive if that case wasn't made."

      I REALLY doubt there is any correlation. Post 9/11, with a press corp turned incompetent, the Democrats in collapse, the Bush adminstration could have bulldogged the U.S in to the war draft or no draft as long as they were willing to use inflamatory and deceiptful rhetoric about WMD's and nonexistent links to 9/11 which they obviously were.

      Only prayer your arguement might have is the rich, white and powerful might have pushed back harder if their children were at risk of combat but chances are instead there would have already created guard service and college deferments for all the rich, white youngins to duck it, and long as only the middle to lower case, and minorities are drafted the powers that be could care less if they get fed to a meat grinder as long as they can see profit and power in it for them

      "If we had a draft do you really think we'd be going into Syria or Iran? I highly doubt it."

      Probably not but only because Iraq went south on them. If Iraqi's had welcomed them with roses like they said, and they had a happy pro American poodle there in a few months chances are high they would have trumped up WMD cases and terrorism cases against Syria and Iran and kept the tanks a rollin'. They were floating the rhetoric for it back then, they just had to be realists when Iraq got looted and the insurgents started fighting back.

      Iran might still happen because they are going to try to bring a Russian built nuclear reactor on line this year and either the U.S. or Israel is going to bomb it and then its a question of whether Russia and Iran will take it with a whimper or strike back. Personally I think they will massively expand support for the insurgents in Iraq to retaliate and it will slowly spiral out of control.

      " As far as Afghanistan is concerned if we had a competent President"

      Exactly right. Instead he invaded Iraq and made recruiting posters for AL Qaeda to continue to grow their movement. "Look infidels invading a Muslim nation again, because they hate Muslims, want all our oil, and because Isreal told them to."

      "It's obvious that you don't have a whole lot of respect for any politician"

      Come on, be fair to them, they've worked really hard to earn the contempt and disrespect of anyone who has a clue how corrupt and or incompetent they all are.

      "I only hope you aren't so cynical that you've stopped bothering to vote."

      Hell yea I voted, its largely a complete waste of time but I still do it, God only knows why. The Presidential vote was a complete waste the second the Dems nominated Kerry. At that point both viable choices were complete incompetents, Yale Skull and Bonesmen to boot, and there was no real choice which is the way the powers that be like it. My measly vote did back a Dem senator and congressmen who won, they both suck, as Dems are want to do, but it was a desperate act to try to keep the Republicans from having the stranglehold on power they got anyway thanks to a buch of clueless right wing bible thumpers.

      --
      @de_machina
    184. Re:You are expendable pawns. by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      I am merely suggesting that ridiculing those who have different belief systems is wrong, immature and rude

      There is exactly one thing in the universe that is absolutely correct and flawless, all the time, and that thing is logic. If a person willingly holds a non-logical belief, then by definition that belief is unsupported. Yet they believe it anyway. I can't see why this wouldn't deserve ridicule. If a given person has a conjecture that is the least bit scientific, I'll be happy to consider and discuss it. Otherwise, they're wasting my time.

      The tip of the day is: If you want to play on the winning team, don't try to operate outside the bounds of science. It only makes you look foolish.

    185. Re:You are expendable pawns. by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a huge disadvantage. As Americans learned in the last few elections, wounds or even losing limbs in Vietnam shows you're a coward who's soft on the enemy.

      Hiding from the draft and failing to fly jets makes you a Real American Hero.

    186. Re:You are expendable pawns. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Dont know what all the rest of that is, but you were a boyscout?
      Pansy boy. Did your momma dress you in that yellow scarf or did you get points for doin it all yerself? .... ...
      Just kidding.... ...No, for reals, we love you.

      (when they say "and the rest of /." I always think they must mean me)

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    187. Re:You are expendable pawns. by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I have every respect for upstanding members of the military, but after reading posts such as yours, I have to say that wow, no wonder the US military is in such trouble.

      With crackheads like you spouting extremist nonsense, there is little hope left. Do you realise that you sound just like the fundamentalist religious nutcases that you're fighting?

    188. Re:You are expendable pawns. by MacDork · · Score: 1
      Hey AC (and the rest of /.): when did being a person of faith ... become an object of ridicule?

      When President Bush effectively stopped domestic stem cell research in their names.

    189. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's some catch, that catch 22! But not in this case. :)

      Did you know: a soldier is required to disobey unlawful orders. In the case of some president declaring himself dictator-for-life, however, it would be some 4-star at the Pentagon who would say "ummm, no" (and bet his life on it) and that's all it would really take. The officers and men would still be following orders - his.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    190. Re:You are expendable pawns. by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly from the posts going back and forth in this thread; "If you've served in the military you get automatic respect. If you post on ./ (and weren't in the armed forces) you have no right to complain because you're a peace-loving Johnny Complains A Lot"... You know what makes our military great? Technology. You know who creates that technology? Smart-ass people with thin arms that post on Slashdot. We won WWII because our scientists came up with the bomb before Hilter's. That same technology kept the peace between the USSR and the USA through MAD for decades. So next time you go nerd-bashing why don't you stop and ask yourself who is working to provide you with next-gen adaptive camouflage, smart bullets, strength enhancing armor, and force multiplication through technology in general... I have a lot of friends who joined the armed forces, I happen to have a big brain and high blood pressure so I log my time in the lab developing technology they will use, but rest assured there is MUTUAL RESPECCT between my military friends and myself. I'd probably piss myself if I was ever asked to shoot another human being, but WTF do you know about desiging IR adaptive eletrochromic materials that defeat night vision? Mutual respect homie, mutual respect.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    191. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 1

      The thing is: they were, sad as it is. Of course, they were also pretty much idiots, and many will have the jail time to show for it, but they were clearly not robotically following orders.

      The fact that you immediately hold that out as an example of our military shows more about you than our military, however.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    192. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      It's a little frightening. I'm currently reading the novel "Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said" by Philip K. Dick. This is an alternate universe type of story, and in it the "students" are more like terrorists, living "under" the campuses and going out to forage (pillage) in the towns at night.

      What is being announced here is almost like the trigger to cause that world to occur. Scary.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    193. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Those people are called "officers" (and, occasionally, "senior NCOs"). Private Rockhead doesn't need to know any of that, he just needs to do what his lieutenant and/or platoon sergeant tell him to do. After 15 years, Private Rockhead might accquire some sense and get promoted to Sergeant Rockhead

      In soviet russia, that's how their army worked. That's not, however, how the US military works. It's always amusing when dumbasses like you presume to know what being in the US military is like. Of course, if they started up the draft and people like you started showing up in the ranks, it'd probably be just like you describe.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    194. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jcr · · Score: 1

      We won WWII because our scientists came up with the bomb before Hilter's.

      I think you're a little fuzzy on your timing there, sport. The A-bomb wasn't a factor in the war in Europe. Hitler was defeated by the overwhelming industrial capacity of the USA, and tens of millions of allied soliders.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    195. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jcr · · Score: 1

      How many times has that happened to Sweden?

      I'm not sure how many times it happened to Sweden in the last thousand years or so, but it happened to Norway in the 1940's.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    196. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jcr · · Score: 1

      I expect that pretty much all of Europe and other nations with military forces would come to the aid of the US.

      The last time a European power came to aid the defense of the US, it was France, in 1775.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    197. Re:You are expendable pawns. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Aside fron the war of 1812, that would have been the last time that the colonies or US fought a foreign power on the mainland.

      Well, of course we formed a massive world-wide coalition to invade Iraq, with the rest of the world unanimously assisting us (well, according to Bush). So they come to our assistance every time we ask.

    198. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Weezul · · Score: 1

      No, the millitary doesn't want low-class crack heads & hippies. They clearly just need to be targeting more patriotic students. By knowing more about their targets they can focus on patriotic students, such as members of the Collage Republicans or high school children whose parents are members of the republican party.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    199. Re:You are expendable pawns. by futoket · · Score: 1

      Hey man.....don't get me wrong....I wrote that when I was angry...usually I have the sense not to engage in these flame wars cause it does nothing but upset me. A lot of this back and forth crap is people with opposite views, knowingly taking it a few steps to far just to piss off the other side. I am a very annalytical person by nature and am usually able to keep my head. But some of these posts really got to me, and in a moment of emotional weakness, flipped out. Sometimes I forget where my gear comes from...usually I just bitch about its deficientcies, but don't think that I don't appreciate every little bit of gear I get. If soldiers protect the country, guys like you protect our soldiers. But, you aren't who I was directing my rants at, it was guys like whoever first responded to my post. Those who don't think we even NEED a military, much less respect those that serve. I think there are a lot of people out there that can't begin to fathom the sacrfice of service memebers and esspecially their families, ESSPECIALLY during an unpopular war.

    200. Re:You are expendable pawns. by futoket · · Score: 1

      I doubt very much that you have "every respect for upstanding members of the military" I doubt very much that you have even met a "upstanding memeber of the military" As for "realizing that I sound just like the fundamentalist religious nutcases" again....I doubt very much that you have spoken to or read any materials issued by said fundamentalist religious nutcases, so how the hell would you know. There is a big fundamental difference between myself and the nutcases......I don't kill civilians.....I don't cut the heads off of hostages to advance my personal politcal agenda. No....I believe that my country is in need of defending and I put myself in a position to assist in its defense. And furthermore....our military is not in any trouble at all, not any real trouble anyway.

    201. Re:You are expendable pawns. by futoket · · Score: 1

      Wow, are you really that sheltered? We were attacked by terrorists...plain and simple....if you think those few people that actually carried out the plan on sept. 11 are the only people involved you are being very naive. This is a war on terror.....Iraq is part of it.....sure this administration lied to us about why we are fighting and dying in Iraq, but I'm looking at the big picture. Am I a Bush supporter? NO, definatly not. And, that's why you need to make a distinction between your military and the current administration......Now....this is were I get angry with what you wrote. The reason that those in the US Military deserve respect is because we have the balls to fight for you, fool. Granted those in this generation haven't been given the oppourtunity to fight for a noble purpose, but for you to say anything disparging about our current military is spitting on the graves of the 500,000 men that died to make sure you don't have to speak german or japanese. You know...a quick story about the ideals of the American people during WWII. I've heard a story about a small town in which two men, who couldn't fight, for whatever reason they did not qualify for service, well, they commoitted suicide. It was a different time then, there was a sense of duty. And that is the reason I can't handle anyone that doesn't have the utmost respect for our military and those who serve in it. I mean an arguement could be made that YOU should join up.....serve your country. I realize I would need more time to really explain to you how this country was formed and the (albeit few) wars that actually were neccessary and what I would deem as a war worth fighting. I would have to explain to you a little about who were are up against, and why killing these people is neccessary for YOUR safety. Like I said......if you don't think that there is a VERY formidable force that seeks to do YOU, YES YOU, harm....then wake up. These people......If they could.....they would not hesitate to put a bullet in your face because of the country you come from.....and you NEED to remember that if our tax dollars, and those marketing tactics, and these "prostitutes", if these weren't there to make up the worlds most advanced and best trained MILITARY, these people and many others like it would be knocking on YOUR door right now......telling you to get down on your hands and knees and all you can hope and pray for is that they get it over with quickly. Please....for your self....for everyone around you that you attack with your mis-informed naive opinions....please wake the fuck up and stop being so god damned naive.

    202. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Generic+Insanity · · Score: 1

      so we've established that the common problem is, in fact, people.

      (not the GP poster)

    203. Re:You are expendable pawns. by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      Gee, you're right if Nazi scientists had completed the bomb they would have been powerless against our waves of troops..?

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    204. Re:You are expendable pawns. by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      I hear you. I have a lot of friends/family in the armed services and I get caught in the middle of a lot of these sorts of discussions. I think people around here tend to forget that we're all in this together and that remains true no matter what motivates us and how we choose to contribute. Just getting discussions like this happening is important I think becuase it makes people take a step back and look objectively at the situation... At least I hope so : )

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    205. Re:You are expendable pawns. by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > Those who don't think we even NEED a military, much less respect those that serve

      Of course I think we need a military. We're losing the one we have thanks to the lies told to prop the megalomaniacal ambitions of these people. This is not a bunch of idle crackpots -- these are people from past administrations and the present. These people, not Saudi and Egyptian terrorists, are the reason you and your friends are dying over there.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    206. Re:You are expendable pawns. by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      ... And BTW sport, the technology behind our troops IS what won WWII. From oil refinement to produce toluene and TNT, to advancements in RADAR and radio communications, to code breaking/making... I mean for crying out loud what do think "industrial capacity" is? Besides which the point is that everyone contributed. The woman that produced the planes in the automotive factories that were converted, the men that stormed the beaches and flew fighter planes, the engineers that designed those planes, the graduate students that dropped their thesis work in place of war related projects... And incidentally the technology surrounding the A-bomb was as important as the bomb itself and very large part of the war boiled down to the race to the bomb. Are you seriously trying to make the case that if Nazi scientists had completed their bomb it wouldn't have made any difference? Because we had more troops? At any rate, your condescending post was totally out of place, completely missed the point, and kinda trollish.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    207. Re:You are expendable pawns. by misleb · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that it is probably better for a gang banger to join the military than to continue banging, but the reality is that there is a much broader set of disadvantaged kids who are being exploited by desparate recruiters. It is dishonest of you to focus solely on the small group who might benefit from the military.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    208. Re:You are expendable pawns. by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      Jail time? Really? Well, at least they got the little people who were told to soften up the prisoners, or were helpfully left to their own devices to follow vague orders. Accountability begins at the top, not at the bottom.


      The fact that you immediately hold that out as an example of our military shows more about you than our military, however


      I "hold that out" as an example of what happens when you blindly follow orders that are clearly immoral and internationally illegal (you know, that whole Iraq war thing). Yes, those people were idiots, but I'm sure they felt morally justified in their actions. This is due, in part, to the ethically and morally bankrupt President (I really shouldn't say morally bankrupt, since he "talks to God") and his administration. It's a slippery slope that starts with following an immoral order, all the way down to torturing, raping, murdering POWS and/or innocents. Every single person involved in the Iraq war is not evil, but they're not going to come out of it untouched.

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    209. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes, those people were idiots, but I'm sure they felt morally justified in their actions.

      This is not, in fact, the case. I'm sure you have knowledge direct from God that these people were robotically following orders despite all public evidence to the contrary, so I can't really argue any further. Faith trumps evidence it seems.

      This is due, in part, to the ethically and morally bankrupt President

      Here's a question for you though: suppose (just for the sake of argument) that the president (a) felt the war in Iraq would benefit America as a whole in the long term, (b) was right about that, and (c) lied about stuff to start the war, would you call him evil for doing whatever it took to get America to approve that action, or would you call him an effective leader?

      How many lives would FDR have saved if he had gotten us into WWII earlier? How much less would it have cost us in blood and treasure? Would it have been evil for FDR to do what it took to put Hitler down 3 years earlier, or would that have automatically have been evil?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    210. Re:You are expendable pawns. by Elminst · · Score: 1

      But when the Generals follow the pres, and the colonels follow the generals, and the Majors, capts, and ltnts follow the colonels, etc...
      How much say does the average soldier actually have?

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    211. Re:You are expendable pawns. by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      Yes, those people were idiots, but I'm sure they felt morally justified in their actions.

      This is not, in fact, the case. I'm sure you have knowledge direct from God that these people were robotically following orders despite all public evidence to the contrary, so I can't really argue any further. Faith trumps evidence it seems.


      When quoting text, it's usually customary to address the quoted text, not to remove any context and pull things out of your ass. Were they following orders to illegally (in the international view) invade Iraq? Yes, I believe that they were. There is quite a bit of evidence of that: more than 100,000 dead,the smoking remains of a country with a worse quality of life than under their dictator, 1,800 dead USians, almost three times that number wounded, a pack of lies that led us by the nose to George Bush's war slowly unravelling despite stonewalling by the administration, and more! Do I think they felt morally justified by their actions (torture)? Yes. Is there any proof that they acted on orders from higher up? OOh, that's a tough question... the Pentagon whitewashing an investigation? Perish the thought.

      Here's a question for you though: suppose (just for the sake of argument) that the president (a) felt the war in Iraq would benefit America as a whole in the long term, (b) was right about that, and (c) lied about stuff to start the war, would you call him evil for doing whatever it took to get America to approve that action, or would you call him an effective leader?

      Let's look at the history of "effective leaders" who were doing "what was right" for their country. I think most people would prefer to not be ruled by a warmonger. I once thought George Bush was stupid and was being handled by evil people like Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, but I realize that he's just as bad, if not worse. I'm sure he's very sincere in his belief that he's doing the right thing. So was Nixon. So was Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, and when he was busy doing some ethnic cleansing with the help of Reagan.

      I'm not even going to justify your Hitler reference with a response.

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    212. Re:You are expendable pawns. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Were they following orders to illegally (in the international view) invade Iraq? Yes, I believe that they were.

      Didn't realize you were generalizing to the whole war! Certainly, soldiers are expected to fight in the theater they are assigned and so on, the initiative and repsonsibility I was discussing was at the tactical level - like understanding that shoving a glow-stick up a prisoner's ass is just plain stupid. Going to war with the rest of your army isn't "robotically following orders", it's merely doing the job you're paid for. Robots tend to be controlled at a much finer scale.

      "International Law" is pretty much a rhetorical device. Law only matters when there is a government stronger than any individual in the community that enforces said law. There's no such thing between nations. From an international point of view, we were within the letter of the law to invade Iraq - remember, we weren't really at peace with Iraq, but instead participating in a cease-fire. Cease-fires end at the drop of a hat, and in this case the burden of proof on the WMD issue was entirely on Saddam, as per the agreement he signed.

      More interestingly, the war in Iraq was perfectly legal by US law, which matters a bit more. The president got the required approval from the congress; all the steps were taken in order. The "9/11 commission" found that the president acted upon the intelligence he was given, and his administration did not unduly influence that intelligence. There's a bit of a difference between lying and being wrong.

      You can call the war "illegal" as often as you like, but it is legal in any way that matters.

      smoking remains of a country with a worse quality of life than under their dictator

      In a recent survey, 94% of Iraqis call bullshit on that view. They are very satisfied with their current government. I understand that you hate America and want us to fail, but the Iraqis don't share your opinion, with the exception of the dwindling fraction of the insurgency that's still made of Iraqis (the "insurgency" is mostly foreign fighters now, as even the Sunni leaders are working within the system). The insurgents have also started fighting each other, which is pretty cool.

      I think most people would prefer to not be ruled by a warmonger.

      You think wrong. We had an election about that, and most people, it seems, prefer the warmonger to the alternative.

      Naturally you won't comment on the comparison to WWII, as it demonstrates the fundamental unsoundness of your world view.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    213. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      There are indeed quite a number of people who would like to shot me in the face, and believe it or not, I met more then my share. If I had responded to these people with violence I would no longer be alive.

      I however chose to responde with love and respect for their humanity and with a little luck lived to tell you about it.

      I believe that it is you that have failed to see the larger picture. Every time a military grunt is order to kill another human being there are reprecussions. One of those is that more and more people want to shot you and members of your country.

      Even so called "Honorable Wars" are the result of fear, hatred, and lack of respect for basic humanity. The military breads these charictoristic into its initiates. How can I respect anyone who is trained to kill and destroy? Moreover, how can anyone condone the teachin of this hate to young adults?

      I would be glad to have a "terrorist" knock on my door. Even if I were to die because of it, I would at least be able to show him or her that I do not share my countries blood lust. To have the opprotuntiy to show love to those who hate us -- now that is something I would be willing to die for.

      JFMILLER

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    214. Re:You are expendable pawns. by jepe · · Score: 1

      As for whether the US does what it does for self-interest.. who doesn't?

      Nice set of values you have there...
      Hey everybody does... So we should too.

      Never heard the sentence : "With great power comes great responsabilities" ?
      Or
      Your liberty ends where the Liberty of others starts

      "We are fortunate to be living at a time where the dominate power in the world strives for freedom."

      Really... then tell me what kind of freedom those US projects strives for :

      Projects in studies by the american army to dig the St-Lawrence river so boat can go straight up to the great lakes.

      Consequences :

      - Destruction of the Animal and vegetal life on the coast of the st-Lawrence river because of the tons of polluting material buried by Both ontario and US industry that would be released all at once.

      - Destruction of the most of the tourism industry in Quebec province for the same reasons as above + drastic change in the level of water on the coasts.

      - Great reduction in the economical activity of the montreal(Biggest city in Quebec Province) Docks since boat would no longer have to stop there...

      This is just an example.. there are others like :

      - Project to drain water directly from the hudson bay toward the US (would reduce water level in many places that we do not want).

      - Blocking lumber free trade against the will of the WTO and signed economical treaty.

      - Beef embargo because of one Mad cow on canadian soil even if that cow came from the US...

      And the canadian governement is far from beign the most exploited country by the US.

      "the end result has always been a more prosperous and freer society"

      Really do you have an example for me?

      Maybe Sadam governement... After all the US armed him... It was wonderfull to live under Sadam I guess... NOT! I guess it was awfull. But at least they had electricity and water.

      Now they only have around 8 hours of electricity per day (those lucky enough to have any) and fear to explode every time they go in the street. Please dont argue that they could not speak against their governement for fear of being put in jail and tortured because what do you think happen right now to people against the occupation?

      If they speak against the US backed governement they are tagged as terrorist and put in jail like abu-Graib (which you governement promised to shut down, but instead decided to increase in size).

      They must provide US given passport at every checkpoints or face being unable to go trough. If you get your documents stolen while outside your area, you cant go back... ever... even with testimonials from relative and old official documents as proof of your origin. That makes for a freer society like you said...

      Or maybe funding talibans made Midle east a better place (think Oussama...), I dont think so...

      Oh yeah... And that guy who made a plane explode in Cuba killing innocent civilian (terrorist action) that your governement arrested under illegal alien charge and are about to set free... I am not taking in any way the side of cuba here, just the fact that that guy in particular is a terrorist and that he should be procecuted accordingly, but the US prefer to let him go. Talk about striving to protect people.

      If your foreign policy is all about honor and freedom please explain why Italy is now pressing criminal charges against 13 CIA agents because of their illegal "exceptional rendition" operations?

      Oh yes, and the World bank (US apointed leaders) that force feeded to Bolivia the privatization of their water. People did not even had the right to collect rain water under the rules edicted. What kind of freedom is that that your country promotes.

      Want more exemples of the US "good will"? Stop listening to FOX news and look around in foreing media, hear what they have to say and then double check the sources and validity of it.

      "T

    215. Re:You are expendable pawns. by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      I understand that you hate America and want us to fail,

      I hate your America, but I just love your ability to equate the situation with WWII and Iraq. This has been fun, but there's just too much smoke from all the burning flags to continue reading your posts. I'll order a pair of those rose colored glasses you're wearing straight away. I refuse to goose step, though.

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    216. Re:You are expendable pawns. by notAyank · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit on you!. I have heard of no such survey where 94% of Iraqis feel they are better off now than under Saddam. In fact, I heard on NPR recently that dissatisfaction with the current situation is rife in many parts of Iraq. Can you tell me where I can see the results of this survey?

  3. the draft by udderly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

    1. Re:the draft by xnderxnder · · Score: 5, Funny

      > When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

      Am I the only one thinking that the "suppression file" is also aliased as "the first to be drafted file"

      evil evil evil..

      --
      hooked up funny
    2. Re:the draft by qbzzt · · Score: 2, Informative

      When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

      Given the kind of trouble they'd have with keeping draftees motivated, and the kind of skills they need, I doubt the military would want a draft.

      It's easy to train somebody to be a WWII-level grunt. But most jobs in a modern military require a lot of intelligence, and it would be very easy for somebody to feign incompetence.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    3. Re:the draft by compass46 · · Score: 1

      The draft is not comming back anytime soon. Most people in government know the uproar that would occur if it did come back. Just like there are limousine liberals there are policy paper conservatives. The type that consider war a great thing unless they have to get shot at.

      Personally I think the draft sucks, I don't believe the governmet has the right to decide the justness of a war for me. The US Supreme Court disagrees with me though. At the same time the draft has an upside in making the military more accurately reflect the makeup of the country, something you don't get with the current self-selection. That was the stated motivation for Charlie Rangles (D) proposals to bring back the draft.

    4. Re:the draft by theJerk242 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

      Not likely. Drafts aren't as easy to obtain now as they were in the 1960s. The president can request a draft but Congress has the final word on whether or not a draft will be in effect.

      With that said, you have to keep in mind one thing. Humans love cushy jobs. And from what I understand about being a congressman, it is a pretty cushy job. You know go travel, get paid a (at least) six figure income, and do a vote every once in a while just to make it look like to the people that you are actually doing something.

      So if todays Congress decides to pass a draft, you can bet on them not keeping their cushy jobs for every long afterwards.

      --
      Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
    5. Re:the draft by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      They'll never bring back the draft. Alot of of laws were considered by congress and house of Rep the past couple years.

      Given how much smarter and less tolerant Americans are nowadays compared to 40s, 60s, 70s... the draft would be commiting political suicide for the entire Democrat or Republican party!

    6. Re:the draft by justforaday · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given how much smarter and less tolerant Americans are nowadays compared to 40s, 60s, 70s...

      From what I know about the past, it seems to me that ignorance and intolerance are doing just fine in modern day America...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    7. Re:the draft by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
      When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

      Nah. The Chiken-Little's shouting "the draft is coming" are (naturally) unfamiliar with how the military is currently structured. The entire training system is geared towards willing, self-motivated recruits who are there of their own volition. Anyone can, at any time in the first 6 months of their enlistment, say "this isn't working for me" and get out with a simple Entry Level Separation. An ELS doesn't show up as a "black mark" on your record anywhere.

      But moving to a draft system, suddenly everyone is there at gunpoint. Most draftees will be recalcitrant, unmotivated dregs suitable for nothing more complicated than cannon fodder infantry. This may have been OK during the Bad Old Days, but even being an infantryman these days requires a fair bit of technical competency. Furthermore, the real shortage in the military is in recruiting people for complex technical jobs rather than straight-up combat arms. So essentially they'd end up with a whole raft of uncooperative bedding-delousing specialists just to get a handfull of tactical intelligence analysts. The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:the draft by myrick · · Score: 1
      To understand the draft you have to understand the time during which our founding fathers granted the government such a privilege. The government needed a draft to help ensure it had the necessary military strength to survive attacks and invasions. The draft was created for defensive purposes. Thus, it is important that it exists in the event we need to defend our country. Moreover, such defense the price of citizenship. Being a citizen of this nation, with all of the benefits it brings, comes at a cost, and taxes don't always cover that. Someone has to defend our country.

      The problem comes when the draft is used to support offensive measures. The 'war on terror' may be propagandized as 'defending' our nation from terrorists, but in truth it's an offensive strike. Instating a draft for an offensive effort is much harder to justify, and in such a case, I agree with you. I shouldn't have to fight a war I don't believe in. But frankly, it's a lot easier to believe in a war when you and your home are being threatened. You just have to remember that your citizenship comes with duty.

      --
      I'd rather be cycling.
    9. Re:the draft by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      The government needed a draft to help ensure it had the necessary military strength to survive attacks and invasions. The draft was created for defensive purposes.

      Don't forget that every time we've enstated the draft, we never had a full standing army at the time. From 1776 through 1941, everytime a war was over there were drastic reductions in the size of the military to a barebones force. Post WWII was the first time that there was no large reduction (90+%). That came in ~1992 after the breakup of the USSR (~50% reduction).

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    10. Re:the draft by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      God, I hate how you all act that this is something new.

      Did you know that the Army recruiters in the area that you attented high school from have your name, address, and number *ALREADY*?

      I'm serious, I saw the book with the class just after mine. It's a huge log book with names, numbers, and addresses along with colomns listed for writing information obtained from a call. That way they're up-to-speed on what whoever they talked to before told them.

      A few of the entries had: "Do not call anymore." listed.

      Seriously, I don't see this database as any different from digitizing what they're already doing. So, if you're going to complain now, then complain about what they're already doing.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    11. Re:the draft by optiknerv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pumping everyone full of fear and waving flags around should be enough to scare enough stupid people into signing up. But they'll get some job experience, so they can come up and work as Walmart rent-a-cops.

      In addition, standoff weapons, drones, robot warfare, and other systems will greatly reduce the size of force required to terrorize the planet.

    12. Re:the draft by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, the draft wouldn't be so bad.

      Try calling it "Mandatory Civil Service" instead.

      Everyone (EVERYONE) who turns 18 goes into this "Mandatory Civil Service". You get trained to be a soldier, or a medic, or computers, engineer, something useful for the government/military. You stay in for a year or two. Then, from 19-20 years old until you're, oh I don't know, 25 or 30, you are obligated for an amount of time to go into service, much like the reserves. Say 4 weekends per year, 2 weeks per year. Adjust these number accordingly (age range, days served).

      It would make our society a little 'tighter' and make people appreciate their freedoms a bit more.

      (Try looking at Israel's culture/society, they use the aforementioned plan).

      --
      Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    13. Re:the draft by pHatidic · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. They are partnering with a marketing company, meaning that when you verify your data the marketinrg company will sell it to companies and spammers and the like. That way the government can get the marketing company to create the database for free, and the marketing company gets all its data on customers accurate under penalty of law, which it would not otherwise get. It is really a win-win for both. The only one who loses here is me, being a 20 year old male and such.

    14. Re:the draft by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      make people appreciate their freedoms a bit more.

      How, by violating those same freedoms and making everyone a slave?

      Go back to China, you damn commie.

      If anything like this ever happens, you can bet that I'll renounce my US citizenship the day it passes. I have no love for any specific country...I just live here, and if it becomes unbearable, I'll live somewhere else, and I won't have any specific love for that place, either.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    15. Re:the draft by ibn_khaldun · · Score: 1

      True, the military doesn't want a draft, but if current enlistment trends continue, they may have no choice. And draftees could be useful in many jobs.

      The military doesn't need cannon fodder at the moment, but it needs a lot of people who can do very routine jobs close to civilian skills, most notably driving trucks. Manning a checkpoint (badly, it should be noted, but, as the old military saying goes "if you want it real bad, you'll get it real bad...") doesn't take much more in the way of skills. Same with routine patrols looking for IEDs (which, periodically, are discovered the hard way, when they go off).

      For war fighting, one needs well-trained, skilled and motivated troops. But this is a long-term occupation, and involves a lot of routine. Always has. Save the regular troops for war fighting (e.g. against North Korea), and let the draftees do the routine crap. Also that might finally get the US public paying attention to the war.

      --

      "All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon

    16. Re:the draft by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1
      It's quite a dilemna for the military. I've read that the Marine Corp, which strives to fill its ranks with the cream of the crop, is having a tough time with the quality of recruits they do get: too many drug problems and gang ties.

      ROTC is a pretty good deal if you're smart and willing to serve as an officer (thereby putting off a potentially higher-paying and much lower-risk civilian career), but how to fill the lower ranks with volunteers who aren't total losers with nowhere else to go?

      I guess I can't really blame recruiters for being a bit agressive; it's probably good training for a civilian sales job later.

      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    17. Re:the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's call it slavery!

    18. Re:the draft by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not. Even Rumsfeld, in a rare fit of intelligence, has said that he doesn't want draftees. Why? Because you get a slew of unmotivated conscripts which drags down the quality of your force. Why draft when you have a large number of intelligent, motivated volunteers?

      There's a hell of a lot more to military life than walking around carrying a rifle. It's highly technical and challenging, even for the "dumb grunt".

    19. Re:the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

      Did ya know about Selective Service? There is already a database of young men of military age that could be drafted should a draft be imposed by the government.

      And oddly enough, during the 2004 campaign, Kerry proposed a mandatory term of public service (not necessarily military service, but it is effectively a draft) for all young people. Strangely enough, all the antiwar people never criticized Kerry for that. Probably too blinded by their antiBush hatred.

    20. Re:the draft by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we all know the military *wants* volunteers. But, the fact is we're rapidly approaching a critical mass where there aren't enough troops for the military to fulfill its duties. Incentives during an unpopular war won't work well enough when a new recruit is almost guaranteed to go into a combat zone. Volunteer or draftee, the military still needs X number of soldiers to plug into Y number positions.

      So, the point remains that a draft is very likely coming assuming things in Iraq and Afghanistan don't start looking as good as the Bush administration says they look.

      As for ELS, I don't recall how it works, but I doubt it applies if you've been drafted.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    21. Re:the draft by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Even if they had to draft. They would rather draft people who are more positive towards the Military then people who are more negitive. For example who yould you rather draft. Someone who Considered Military as a possible choice, but decided they that they can do more with Civilian life. Or someone who hates the military and will never consider it for a way of life because it is evil.

      One group if drafted will probably make most of the situation and do what the can do to surve the military. The other group will do the bare minimum to stay out of jail.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:the draft by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers."

      YEA. WHAT HE SAID. And if there aren't enough volunteers, we need to figure out how to "motivate" people to volunteer event if they dont want to :) Is a person a volunteer if they are coerced or tricked in to volunteering.

      There is already a well documented trend of the DOD using fine print, trickery and out right coercion to prevent people already in the military and reserves from escaping when their contracted enlistment period is up. For all practical purposes many people already in the military and reserves ARE being drafted because they can't get out when they were supposed to.

      Fact is the Army and Marines, their reserves and gaurds ARE missing their recruitment goals by a big margin and are now missing them every month and the popularity of the war in Iraq is plummeting. Eventually the DOD is going to run out of meat for the grinder. The Army and Marines the two services where the bulk of the sitting ducks being sent to Iraq come from. The Navy and Air Force are doing OK mostly because people who want to join the military know thats the best place to be to avoid ending up on the streets in Iraq.

      Believe it or not most kids are smart enough to not want to end up in in an ugly urban guerilla war with no end in sight. A war where they would seldom see who is trying to kill them, where most of the natives hate them, and where lots of their peers are coming home in body bags, with burns or without limbs.

      The all volunteer army is GREAT as long as you are never in a protracted shooting war, especially one based on lies and with no clear goal or end game. It simply wont work if Iraq turns in to another Vietnam. You simply wont get the volunteers needed to fight a dirty, messy war with no glory. You can get volunteers to race in on the tanks and declare victory in a week. You wont get volunteers to patrol Iraqi streets filled with an enemy you seldom see who are sniping at you and using IED's to blow your legs off.

      Dont think it really matters if the military is structured for "volunteers" now. If people stop "volunteering" the DOD is screwed. Its either a full up draft with the political consequence to the people responsible(i.e. the Bush adminstration and the Republicans), back door drafts where you coerce and trick people in to the military and dont let them out which is basicly what we have now(the histroical term is Shanghai'ing people), or you cut and run on places like Iraq, and it probably collapses in to more of a smoldering hole in the ground than it already is and you just wasted half a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded on a failure.

      Lucky for little George that he is a lame duck, because at this point it doesn't much matter how bad a job he does, we are stuck with him until 2008 unless someone acquires the balls to impeach him, which he most certainly deserves.

      --
      @de_machina
    23. Re:the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, the real shortage in the military is in recruiting people for complex technical jobs rather than straight-up combat arms.

      Precisely. The draft will come in as a targeted civil service initiative that only pulls in people to plug the most critical infrastructure holes.

      Rumsfeld will say: "This isn't a draft. We need more doctors/programmers/mechanics, and we've got lots of incentives for them to join up. It's not dangerous combat work, they will be well protected by the volunteer army, it's just a short six-month rotation so they can help us get back up to speed, and when they go home they can get these fantastic tax breaks and debt forgiveness."

      The media will then reply: "We shouldn't even have to ask these well-off people whether or not they want to help the all-volunteer army protect our freedom. They should be proud to serve!"

    24. Re:the draft by radtea · · Score: 1

      According to the Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050602-1205 16-4965r.htm) the Army and Marines are both far short of their recruiting goals for this year: "The Army missed goals in February and March by a few percentage points, then fell a much larger 42 percent behind in April.". The Navy and Air Force are doing better, but the ground forces are hurting already, and they are the forces that matter most in the kind of mess the U.S. has got itself in in Iraq.

      If the military continues to fail to meet voluntary recruiting targets, some kind of coercive recruiting system will be used. It won't be called a draft, though. For example, access to certain types of government benefits may be restricted unless you've served. Most such moves will have to be very indirect, because the federal government doesn't directly fund welfare programs, for example--they are funded through the states or local governments. But a lot of the money ultimately derives from federal coffers, and there are plenty of ways to make it hard to get at unless you've served.

      In the end, if the state of War on Everyone We Think Might Be Thinking About Maybe Being a Terrorist Someday continues, there will be a draft, pure and simple. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and simply because a draft would be stupid is no argument against it.

      No argument of the form, "It would be stupid to do X, therefore no one will do X" is valid, as it depends on the hidden premise: "No one ever does anything stupid", which is trivially false. People, myself included, do amazingly stupid things every single day (I am at the moment, for example, wasting my time engaged in online debate, despite knowing that in ten years online the only person I have ever seen change their mind about anything is me.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    25. Re:the draft by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not going to agree with mandatory service, but I think it would be wonderful if we had an Auxillary Service here. An organization with military discipline, and the prospect that you might be sent into harm's way, but not given the job of killing the enemy. Search and rescue, disaster relief, civil engineering, and logistics in time of war (so we wouldn't need to hire Haliburton) are all vital services.

      Personally, if I chose to serve I'd want to be holding a weapon, but there are *plenty* of people who would like to serve but balk at the idea of killing.

      There are many contries that require service, and on the whole it's not a terrible idea, but I think the idea improves if you provide a better outlet for the pacifists, or those who want to do service as engineers without joining the Navy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:the draft by TED+Vinson · · Score: 3, Informative
      Those IT specialists/mechanics/etc you are talking about are _already_ being converted to Department of the Army civil service jobs. There is no tricky 'civilian draft' pending. Civilians are filling non-combat, non-deployable jobs to free up more soldiers to serve where needed. Looking for a job? Visit Army Civilian Personnel Online http://cpol.army.mil/employment

      Much of the military is still structured for fighting a war with the Soviet Union. In many cases this is because of Congressional porkbarrel-preservation and the inertia inherent in any large organization. However, changes are in motion to make better use of the available personnel.

    27. Re:the draft by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      From what I know about the past, it seems to me that ignorance and intolerance are doing just fine in modern day America..

      But you've got to grant it, sick as it may be, some sense of humour / irony / cynicism.

      FTFA: Anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information [..]

      It's funny, laugh!

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    28. Re:the draft by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 1

      Every man, woman, and child in the US, or any country for that matter, should love their country, especially if it's a democratic republic like ours is. (I'll be a little more sympathetic to people living in dictatorships, I can see why they shouldn't love their country).

      But you are being shortsighted -- if everyone was 'forced' into some sort of basic training, to learn some skills, think of the results:

      1) Fewer low-class, unemployed, unemployable, skill-less people. (Training is good for that)

      2) Less gang warfare/crime - 18 to 20 year olds are renowned for getting in trouble. Take away those two years to teach some discipline, some respect (for yourself and others) and some of societies problem would go away, or at least be lessened.

      3) Do you think 9/11 would have happened if every person on those planes had some basic military/combat training? Doubtful.

      --
      Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    29. Re:the draft by Funksaw · · Score: 1

      >Anyone can, at any time in the first 6 months of their enlistment, say "this isn't working for me" and get out with a simple Entry Level Separation. I call bullshit on this. Maybe in peacetime. But not now. >Furthermore, the real shortage in the military is in recruiting people for complex technical jobs rather than straight-up combat arms. So essentially they'd end up with a whole raft of uncooperative bedding-delousing specialists just to get a handfull of tactical intelligence analysts. The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers. 1) Selective service was being regeared towards grabbing those in technical and intelligence fields first and foremost. Which is, oddly enough, not the problem. The problem is that we literally don't have enough feet on the grounds - grunts. 2) The military wants more volunteers, not a draft. But the military does not make decisions about the draft.

    30. Re:the draft by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants a draft. The Republicans don't. The Democrats don't. No one in office does. The only person in congress who actually proposed one only did it as (very poor) publicity stunt. In fact, the only serious proposal for a draft in the last two decades was from the *Democrats* calling for non-military national service.

      Stop believing rumours about the draft, because they're not true. The radical left is concocting this story to panic students, since the radical left feeds off of negative emotions like some Star Trek alien. Sure, go ahead and attend the anti-draft rally on campus, it might get you laid. But don't actually believe any of the shit that gets posted up on campus bulletin boards.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    31. Re:the draft by aiabx · · Score: 1

      There's another solution; recruiting foreigners with offers of money and/or citizenship. Just remember that it worked out really badly for Rome when their largely Gothic armies deserted en masse to join the invading Gothic kings.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    32. Re:the draft by barkingcorndog · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting how you associate FORCED military service with freedom. Ironic.

      --
      "I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
    33. Re:the draft by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The French did basicly just that in Algeria and Vietnam, Part 1. It was called the French Foreign Legion. They still lost both wars.

      The U.S. is for all intents and purposes already doing it too, though they are using mercenaries under the misnomer of contractor. Blackwater is one company in particular which is supplying thousands of highly paid mercenaries, most of whom are ex special forces, trained by Uncle Sam at great expense, and at the first opportunity quit the Army to command 6 figure salaries as mercenaries ... errr ... contractors. I wager Blackwater takes plenty of foreign mercenaries too though I dont know for sure, and I'm sure they cost U.S. tax payers a small fortune to pay.

      Halliburton/KBR is for all intents the same thing though not in a combat sense. They are basicly offered large sums of money to do all the jobs that used to be done by enlisted soldiers, cooking, cleaning and driving trucks in particular. Its a win because they dont cost the government the lifetime benefits package a soldier does, but the contracts are ripe for fraud and you cant count on contractors in a combat zone.

      The French experience in Algeria is a really good case study for how Iraq might go. It was a dirty guerilla war in an arid Muslim country. The population absolutely and uniformly hated the French. Everything the French did to try to suppress the insurgency made the Algerians hate them more, and made the insurgency stronger. The Algerians tried org charts for the insurgency leadership like the U.S. does, and kidded themselves that as the crossed off the leaders they were crushing the insurgency. The fact is when everyone hates you, everytime you kill an insurgent 3 more spring up to take his or her place. You simply can't defeat an insurgency that is supported by a significant percentage of the population.

      --
      @de_machina
    34. Re:the draft by demachina · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention the U.S. has and is trying the same thing on Iraqi's. They handed out buckets of cash to Saddam's loyalist to try to keep them out of the insurgency. When a suspected insurgent joins the Iraqi police or army and is then thrown out they also pay them off.

      The Iraqi army and police are really just the U.S. trying to buy Iraqi mercenaries to fight the war and its failing miserably. Their ranks are full of insurgents there to spy and sabotage, they are badly motivated, and most are taking these very dangerous jobs only because there are no other jobs to be had. It doesn't help that the U.S. is increasingly hiding its forces in its heavily defended bases and are letting the Iraqi army and police absorb the wrath of the insurgents.

      I could be wrong but I think the U.S. should have left Iraq alone in the first place, Saddam was bad but at least there was order, versus civil ware. Chances are high its going to be nothing but a perpetual quagmire, with no exit strategy, and the U.S. will have to stay in force or the government will collapse or be overthrown.

      The ethnic mix in Iraq doomed the war before it started. The Sunni's used to have all the power and money and used it to ruthlessly oppress the Kurds and Shias. In a democracy the , a small minority versus the Shia's, have no power, no wealth and no jobs and they are going to be a well spring for an insurgency for generations.

      --
      @de_machina
    35. Re:the draft by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1
      Every man, woman, and child in the US, or any country for that matter, should love their country, especially if it's a democratic republic like ours is. (I'll be a little more sympathetic to people living in dictatorships, I can see why they shouldn't love their country).

      Do you actually live in one of the States? Watch C-SPAN? Do you even read Slashdot? The "democratic republic" has been slowly turning into "plutocratic oligarchic military-industrial police state" ever since Andrew Jackson's tenure, and the trend has been pushed into overdrive ever since 11Sep2001. Americans: love your country, but bitchslap your government. Hard. With lots of rings on. And with their stones on the inside.

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
    36. Re:the draft by andy_shepard · · Score: 0

      It would make our society a little 'tighter' and make people appreciate their freedoms a bit more.

      Freedom is slavery, eh?

    37. Re:the draft by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Brilliant post!

    38. Re:the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many menial jobs are being filled by private contractors. Iraq uses more private contractors than any previous war. They do things such as cater bases, drive supply trucks, defend themselves, learn how to "service" Apache helicopters and B-2 bombers, and protect the U.S. diplomats. (As an example of the budget for these contractors, several billion have been paid to a Halliburton subsidiary for some of these services.) This does not negate the potential need for a draft (esp. when comparing a 4 billion budget/40k private 'service military' to The 500-600 billion budget/400k+ DoD military), but part of the rationale for using great numbers of private contractors is to compensate for lowered new enlistment rates.

    39. Re:the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You simply can't defeat an insurgency that is supported by a significant percentage of the population.

      Actually, there is a way: Genocide. The U.S. has done it before.

      At least twice, if you count proxies. See East Timor.

  4. 1992 Called.... by 1992+Called · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh wait, I meant 1984. they want their opressive, rights-stripping government back.

    --
    Trolling the trolls who troll the trolls since '92
  5. New World Order by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Just when I think our society can't get any more Orwellian, we see this:

    1. The Defense Department will compile and maintain a database of students, which will include such personal information as birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and school subjects.
    2. Anyone who wants to opt out of this database will be kept in another database instead (most probably named something like 'potential dissidents').
    3. The Defense Department will share all this personal info with non-military organizations, such as law enforcement and state tax authorities.

    It's a hat-trick of privacy violation.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg, too...soon this will be expanded to all americans eligible for military service...then all americans, period. Refusing to submit your info for this database will automatically label you as a dissident, although what with the new national IDs coming out, you'll be in that database whether you like it or not.

    Welcome to the New World Order.

    (P.S.: Here's a link to the various privacy advocates' letter to the Pentagon referenced in the article.)
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:New World Order by 8086ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is redicuolus.

      To opt out, you give them all of the information they need. The 16-17 year olds don't even have much of a say on this. I just turned 18, so at least I can annoy my Rep and Senator about it.

      This war on terror isn't going to end, even if the war on personal freedom succeeds.

    2. Re:New World Order by empaler · · Score: 2

      2. # Anyone who wants to opt out of this database will be kept in another database instead (most probably named something like 'potential dissidents').

      This was my exact thought - "Oh, so you don't wantto be monitored... Don't worry, we won't use that against you. I'll just scribble all the same details in my little black book here, along with a picture of you..."

    3. Re:New World Order by egypt_jimbob · · Score: 1

      Sure. The database is "to help the military identify potential recruits." Of course it is.

      Except that in another 50 years, or so, just about everyone who isn't in the database will have passed on or be too young to burn flags.

      Gives a whole new meaning to "This is going on your permanent record!"

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    4. Re:New World Order by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      This has been going on for decades. Its called the Selective Service. In the united states, all males between 18 and 30 something must register with the selective service. You must notify them when you move. I have had my college Financial Aid held up, because I had forgotten to tell the SS that I had moved. Once I faxed in my new address, I got my refund check. This is not orweilian, you dimwit, this is in case we need another draft!. Orewellian is usally a term to describe the effect of "Big brother is watching you" This is not the case. This is the case of "Big brother knows where you live, and who you are." Perhaps you could protest the IRS, wich carries much more information, as well as your states DMV, your medical insurance company, etc.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:New World Order by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1
      Anyone who wants to opt out of this database will be kept in another database instead (most probably named something like 'potential dissidents').
      No, no, no, you got it all wrong. The second "opt out" database is a great idea. Only by keeping detailed info on you is it possible to make sure they never bother you again. I'm going to start sending all of my personal info to everyone who spams me so they can keep a more functional opt out database, just like the Army. This should get rid of my spam problem in no time.

      TW
    6. Re:New World Order by Ryan+Monster · · Score: 1

      Usually I'm not a grammar/spelling Nazi, but I have never seen the word ridiculous spelled wrong so many times in such a short period as I have on Slashdot the last 2 or 3 days! (Sorry, 8086ed. I just had to vent!)

      --
      Change your name to Homer Junior! Your friends can call you Hoju
    7. Re:New World Order by jacem · · Score: 1

      To expand on your point in 10 years 16 year olds will be 26. This will grow quite naturaly. Simple aging out those of us that are older than 16.

      It seems strange to me to see this kind of long term thinking but, I seriously doubt that the records will be perged when the individual becomes 20 or 30 or what not.

      The question only becomes how much will the older records be groomed through time.

      JACEM

      --
      DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
      The carrot to FUD's stick
    8. Re:New World Order by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting


      This has been going on for decades. Its called the Selective Service.

      From the EPIC letter:


      Despite the risk of identity theft, DOD proposes to collect SSNs on all high school students aged 16 - 18, all college students, all Selective Service System registrants, all Active Duty and Reserve members of the Armed Forces as well as several other large categories. While the size of any database is not an inherent flaw, any breach of security or change in policy will impact an enormous number of Americans. The size of the database also makes it an attractive target for identity thieves.

      This is not Selective Service...this database is far more comprehensive than that.
      Again, here's a link to the privacy advocates' letter to the D0D. You ought to peruse it...it's a very informative read.
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    9. Re:New World Order by justforaday · · Score: 1

      They obviously learned how to spell it foe-neh-tih-klee from Ricky Ricardo...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    10. Re:New World Order by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I have never seen the word ridiculous spelled wrong so many times in such a short period

      What a rediculous thing to say! ;-)

    11. Re:New World Order by 8086ed · · Score: 1

      Funny story. I'm not a great speller, and I ALWAYS spell that wrong, so I stared at that word for about two minutes, wondering if I spelled it correctly. Obviously, I was wrong.

    12. Re:New World Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm... people, I find your optimism encouraging,
      do you think that this sort of infomation hasn't been kept carefully categorised and easily accessable for as long as governments have been capable of it?
      If your country has a decent secret service and general snooping departments and divisions it is their duty to know everything about everything and in case things get bad know beforehand and be prepared.

      Surely database technology and artificial intelligence will increase the scale on which they will do this.

      Nevertheless I still find it offensive how shamelessly blatant they are about it. Arrogance is not a kind of trait that goes with responsible happy use of means:(

    13. Re:New World Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common, don't be absurd. Kraft has similar databases on people who buy cheese. I work in direct marketing, and what they describe is well behind the level of data sophistication they could have. It is like sooo basic.. If you want to be afraid of an organization, fear the vast private information network.

      It's laughable that this has raised any eyebrows.

    14. Re:New World Order by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Logically, Congressentities should listen to 17 and even 16 year-olds, because they will be voting in the next election, or, at least, the one after that. Duh. (And even if they aren't voting, their friends are.)

      16 and 17 year-olds don't have political power for the same reason 18 year-olds don't...young people don't vote.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:New World Order by whovian · · Score: 1

      This is just the tip of the iceberg, too...soon this will be expanded to all americans eligible for military service...then all americans, period. Refusing to submit your info for this database will automatically label you as a dissident, although what with the new national IDs coming out, you'll be in that database whether you like it or not.

      They won't have to actively expand it, they could just start from this point on. Babies are already finger/footprinted after birth and could just as well have a DNA sample taken (if not already as a fetus to test for chromosomal diseases). Parents WILLINGLY have their kids fingerprinted upon enrolling in the public school for the first time in case some kidnapper or such ends up killing said children.

      Data collection becomes routine, then expected by the masses and therefore swall^H^H^H^H^H accepted.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    16. Re:New World Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're out of date. Ever hear of the Selective Service?

      It's been done for decades, and signing up the for Selective Service mandatory. It's also one of the first things that made me decide that the military and I would not be going into the military. Once I was forced to, essentially, make myself available for duty, I suddenly wasn't making the decision Freely.

      Between that and the poorly thought out decision to go to war in Iraq, I've decided that I will never take a job that requires a security clearance and I will fight-like-hell to stay out of the military if I'm ever approached about it again in any way. The current political climate has turned me from conservative to hippie -- just like that.

    17. Re:New World Order by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Wow, you're out of date. Ever hear of the Selective Service?

      Wow, you're an idiot. Ever read the thread you're posting to?

      Please refer to this post for your response, as I cannot be bothered to type it all over again.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  6. Not Fair by millahtime · · Score: 4, Funny

    16 through college. I am a recent graduate but I want to be tracked for recruitment. This is discrimination. It's unconstitutional!

    1. Re:Not Fair by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      In my new quest to be a helpful, productive member of society, I have submitted your name, phone number, favorite country harboring terrorists and your desire to become a recruit to my nearest recruiting office. I even took the interview and signed the papers for you.

      Best of luck in your new career.

      Remember, its like a gym, but they pay you!

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      I know you were trying to be funny, but let's be honest, you weren't. This is a very serious matter. There will be young 18 and 19 year old boys tricked by the military into dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran for years to come. They will have their limbs blown off by roadside bombs. Many will die. So please, do not joke about this matter.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:Not Fair by millahtime · · Score: 1

      I know you were trying to be funny, but let's be honest, you weren't. This is a very serious matter. There will be young 18 and 19 year old boys tricked by the military into dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran for years to come. They will have their limbs blown off by roadside bombs. Many will die. So please, do not joke about this matter.

      Those young boys who sign up to be in the military should know the repercussions of their actions in going that road. They are responsible adults who make a decision. If they didn't want to be in a potentially hazardous job they should not have signed up for it.

      Now, don't think I don't feel bad for a soldier or thier family when he/she passes on. I do feel bad. But, they made their own decision.

    4. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Soon they won't have to volunteer. Soon they will be drafted. They won't have a choice. Indeed, that is what this article is all about: the collection of the data necessary to facilitate a military draft of the American youth.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    5. Re:Not Fair by millahtime · · Score: 1

      I would guess that you don't know much about the planned military path forward. You may want to do some research in the area of the military and their path forward. You might be pleasently suprised.

    6. Re:Not Fair by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      16 through college. I am a recent graduate but I want to be tracked for recruitment. This is discrimination. It's unconstitutional!

      You are being tracked. You registered for the draft, right?

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    7. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      What the hell does the military's trickery "future roadmap" have to do with the fact that when the draft comes, as it soon will, many young American boys and girls will be blown to bits in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    8. Re:Not Fair by Jsprat23 · · Score: 1

      You must not be a male American over 18. On or prior to one's 18th birthday we must register with Selective Service. If you want to go to college on government loans or grants, you must be registered. Thus they already have the data to draft the male half of America's youth.

    9. Re:Not Fair by Deagol · · Score: 1
      Those young boys who sign up to be in the military should know the repercussions of their actions in going that road. They are responsible adults who make a decision. If they didn't want to be in a potentially hazardous job they should not have signed up for it.

      I say if they're deemed not responsible enough to be allowed to drink or own firearms, 18-to-21 year-olds shouldn't be expected (or even allowed) to die in war.

    10. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      I'm British. And I'm in my late 60s. And what I said stands. It is not funny to joke about young children being blown up by grenades and roadside bombs.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    11. Re:Not Fair by nick.gibson · · Score: 0

      Look, you idiot. No one is being 'tricked' into being blown up. I doubt there's an eligible 18y/o in the country that doesn't know that people are dying left and right.
      And since you have never been to a recruiter, let me clue you in: They may leave information out, but vary rarely will they lie to you. Because if they lie, the recruit will quit, and they won't get credit for the recruit.

    12. Re:Not Fair by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      You know what ive noticed a LOT, a lot of the silly left wing "omg draft is coming", or "omg American politicians are in bed with corporations", or "omg America = 1984" are coming from non Americans. Sure there are Americans who have those views, but the vast majority on /. come from people outside of hte US who have no real farking clue how the government works.

    13. Re:Not Fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment was humorous, but on a serious note, I wish they'd recruit me.

      I'm a grad student in the US, and would love to serve in the USAF or the armed forces in general - but unfortunately, I cannot join, because I'm not a US citizen.

      I see folks here cursing the US' armed forces and saying nasty things, and I do not understand. It's sad and ironic that these kids do not understand their own history and the spirit of their military that's protecting them.

      More importantly, some of the comparisons are so pathetic - these people do not know what it is to live in a suppressed society or see the troubles of the world, and yet they talk absolute bullshit and pretend that somehow every tiny little thing is out to kill them.

      If you do not like this place, go away. I'd much rather take your place and serve this country. You do not know what you are missing out on.

      Rather than be proud, you're a disgrace to this society.

      ~m

    14. Re:Not Fair by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Soon they won't have to volunteer. Soon they will be drafted.

      For the 84th time, there will not be a draft in the US, barring exceptional circumstances like an invasion of the mainland. First, the military doesn't want it. Second and probably more important, any politician who voted for a draft would be ending his career.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    15. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      The omission of information is equitable to an outright lie.

      And please, try to keep your flamery to a minimum. We are here at Slashdot to discuss, not to flame. Thank you for your cooperation.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    16. Re:Not Fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those young boys who sign up to be in the military should know the repercussions of their actions in going that road. They are responsible adults who make a decision. If they didn't want to be in a potentially hazardous job they should not have signed up for it.

      Didn't you get the memo? One of my college professors said it best: "Objectivism is something you think is cool in high school, then you get over it."

    17. Re:Not Fair by natron+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Acutally, you can join the USAF and they will grant you US citizenship and once your enlistment is up you will be a full fledged citizen, it is alot easier than you think and alot of people do it.

    18. Re:Not Fair by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      I lived in Chicago for thirty two years. That's probably longer that you've been alive. I know how the American system works. I was in the US during Vietnam. I remember hearing Republican apologist kiddies such as yourself saying there would never be a draft. Well, there was. And many of them did not come from rich enough households, and many of them were literally shot to pieces by the Vietcong. Yes, that's right. Republican-supporting children like you, dead in Vietnam.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    19. Re:Not Fair by jjr1 · · Score: 1

      I for one am not worried. Leave this up to the government and the database won't be clustered or indexed. Good luck getting anything useful out of it.

      --
      Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
    20. Re:Not Fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Got any pointers to that end?

    21. Re:Not Fair by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Soon they won't have to volunteer. Soon they will be drafted. They won't have a choice. Indeed, that is what this article is all about: the collection of the data necessary to facilitate a military draft of the American youth.

      News flash, Einstein, that's not what the article was about. Selective Service already has all the info necessary for the draft, and this is nothing new. The article is about effective marketing.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    22. Re:Not Fair by metlin · · Score: 1

      The parent also misses a very vital point - a lot of folks join the military because they like it.

      I know several father-son (and mother/daughter) military folks, and those who'd choose the armed forces no matter what. And several people who joined the military because it gives them a lifestyle that would otherwise be not possible for them.

      Some people see honor in this, and choose to serve their nation. For some, it's just a way out of poverty - the benefits are quite good.

      It's whiners like the parent that sit in their homes and talk absolute nonsense without knowing anything about the state of the US military today. If the US military started drafting, it would hurt the military today, not help it - the only way a draft would ever happen is if there was a war in or around the American soil.

      Ignore the parent, s/he's just a troll.

    23. Re:Not Fair by metlin · · Score: 1


      Or worse yet, from Americans themselves.

    24. Re:Not Fair by nick.gibson · · Score: 0

      You have obviously not been at Slashdot long. 'Flamery' is 90% of what goes on. Seriously, though.
      A lie of omission is not the same as a lie of commission, regardless of what the Catholic Church wants you to believe. Not telling you that people will yell at you and make you dispair is not the same as telling you everything is flowers and butterflies.
      Don't be foolish. The ONE thing that recruiters uniformly do tell you is that you a signing some very serious documents - documents that actually hold you liable to an entierly different set of laws, laws that make not ironing your uniform a federal crime. You swear an oath to obey the orders of the president (no matter how foolish and warmongering a man he may be) and the officers appointed by him (no matter how overly concerned they are for their own careers).
      And while the life is not for everyone, and the dangers very much real, the benifits are very real too. I am enjoying many of those benifits now.

  7. Well, Duh. by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Of course the Pentagon is going to do this kind of thing. They are in desperate need of recruits. They're caught between a rock and a hard place: they're trying to fight a war that is unpopular with the majority of Americans, and a good chunk of those that do support it think that somebody other than themselves and their loved ones should be doing the actual fighting and dying part.

    What do you do? Recruit, recruit, recruit like there's no tomorrow. Use every tool you can get your hands on. Raise the "financial incentives" of joining up--even if you were to double a grunt's pay, they'd still be waaaay cheaper than hiring another mercenary. Make lists. Get aggressive. Be persistent. Get every person you can lay your hands on.

    One of the following things will most likely happen in the next few years:

    1. We'll pour huge amounts of money into hiring more mercenary forces to augment our armed forces;
    2. We'll reinstate the draft in one form or another;
    3. We'll claim victory, pull our troops out, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
    4. We'll claim victory, ensconce a substantial number of troops in hardened, remotely-located permanent bases, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
    5. We'll get a massive surge in recruitment and will be able to meet our military needs with a full-strength volunteer service.
    6. The insurgency will die and a stable Iraqi government will take hold.

    The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law. To this end, they're gonna do everything in their power to meet their recruitment needs--and frankly, creating a database of students is pretty freakin' innocuous compared to some of the other recruiting shenanigans that have been going down lately...

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re: Well, Duh. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > Of course the Pentagon is going to do this kind of thing. They are in desperate need of recruits.

      I hear that the "Cannonfodder Wanted" ads didn't produce the desired results, nor the "It's sweet and proper to die for one's Cheny" ads either.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Well, Duh. by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      And that's why you should only fight necessary wars, not those that are on a laundry list of "things to do once we're in power." One of those things to do, is to allow shit like this to happen. We're already pretty much tracked from cradle to grave, but do we really need to enable a vast network of government agencies to instantly access everything we read, buy, say, and do? Who we associate with, where we live, political views... hmmm?

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    3. Re:Well, Duh. by dedeman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll pick #1 and #4, here's why

      #1 Offers an opportunity for the administration to funnel federal monies to private contracting "security" firms, allowing financial incentives for a great many civilians who are not bound by the same rules of military conduct that the soldiers are. It also allows for legal weapons testing. Is is any wonder why the current vice president was the former CEO of the largest conracting agency involved in the war effort?

      #5 Even if we claim victory, or achieve victory, or some similar claim, it is (usually) habit to keep an occupying force in a conquered land. There are several bases in the south, Germany, Japan, and I believe we'll see more middle eastern strongholds, thus necessitating larger troop populations, contracting funtions, and *continuing larger military budgeting*. Yep.

      The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.

      I don't know if I would necessarily agree with that, for reasons stated above, unless you mean specifically "the Pentagon", rather then the administration. You might be right about that, I'm not sure.

    4. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Pentagon is going to do this kind of thing. They are in desperate need of recruits. They're caught between a rock and a hard place: they're trying to fight a war that is unpopular with the majority of Americans, and a good chunk of those that do support it think that somebody other than themselves and their loved ones should be doing the actual fighting and dying part.

      Then there's the whole "You leave when we tell you you can leave"^H "Stop loss" thing.

      Hey Kids! Do you want to sign up for a job where you have little to no control of what you do, where you go, who you work with, and when you can quit? And get payed next to nothing for it? As an added bonus, you're likely to be shot at daily!

      Wait! Where are you going? Don't you want a warm fuzzy for being a Patriotic American?

    5. Re:Well, Duh. by Noryungi · · Score: 1
      The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.

      No. On the contrary, I do believe that the Pentagon would be much more interested in an all-mercenary force. Sure, they are more expensive but consider the following advantages:
      • They are already trained. Preferably by some other country (West/East european countries, Russian, etc) so that the training cost has not been paid by US tax payers. Besides, it's often better to have 100+ dogs of war that are at the top of their game (ex-special forces, SAS, Foreign Legion, Spetznatz, etc) than 1000 US citizens fresh out of basic training.
      • Death of a foreign 'contractor' is just that: the death of a foreign contractor. That death, all of a sudden, becomes invisible to US tax payers.
      • Also, when a foreign 'contractor' dies, you don't have to pay anything special to the family and the next of kin. Same if said 'contractor' is maimed or severely wounded in combat. Also, contractors are not supposed to receive help and assistance from US forces if they are in difficult situation. No more expensive air support operations to help 15 guys locked in a bunker somewhere.
      • If said 'contractor' engage in torture, civilian massacres and/or other barbarous acts, the Pentagon can blame the contracting 'company' and shift its contracts to some other 'service provider'. Just like Abu Ghraib, really, where a few morons were prosecuted, while the generals, colonels, etc all escaped the consequence of their orders (or lack thereof).
      • And the best part: armored vehicles? Who said anything about providing armored vehicles to mercenaries?

      So, for all these reasons, I do believe the Pentagon would love to have an all-mercenaries force. Sure, it's messy, but hey, it's war!
      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    6. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if the parent poster meant "foreign" contractors. As I am aware, the majority element of contracting is done by American agencies, not bound by the same regulations as are soldiers, govt' agencies.

      I would say that you are correct in that "If said 'contractor' engage in torture, civilian massacres and/or other barbarous acts, the Pentagon can blame the contracting 'company' and shift its contracts to some other 'service provider'." Yeah, because the contractors are acting upon their own intuition, not the desires of their customer/employer.

    7. Re:Well, Duh. by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I meant the Pentagon specifically--whether the force is hired, conscripted or voluntary is secondary to the aims of the administration. You can rest assured that the military leaders at the Pentagon would take a bona-fide U.S. soldier over a mercenary any day of the week.

      I agree with you--I think #1 and #4 are our most likely outcomes. Hell, we've been working on the hardened, remote, permanent bases since the get-go.

      This war is about many things--freedom, spreading democracy, oil, security, terrorism, removing despotic regimes, finishing old business, even petty revenge. They're all secondary and postfact, though, to the real motivator behind this war--power. At root, the war in Iraq is and has always been about America establishing and exercising power in a strategically and economically valuable region of the world. Go read The Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report on Rebuilding America's Defenses. Pay close attention to section III: Repositioning Today's Force. Notice anything eerily prescient?

      It's a shame our leaders didn't feel confident enough in the merits of their plans to level with us in the first place. I bet they could have had far more success in their venture without all the smoke, mirrors and bullshit they used in lieu of being frank about what they were going about doing.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    8. Re:Well, Duh. by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      There is one major problem with mercenary forces - for the most part, they're just in it for the money. Their loyalty lies where the cash is.

      Pay them more and they're suddenly yours.

      This is one reason why most governemts have never relied too heavily on mercenary forces. At most, they use them to suppliment their own existing forces so, if the mercs turn, they don't loose *everything*.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    9. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're wrong about the cost effectiveness of soldiers and hired mercinaries. The real cost to the government per normal military member is in the 'fringe' benefits like long-term medical care. Hired mercinaries receive no such benefits, and further, aren't subject to the kinds of legal protections that our normal forces are. (Thus the recent uproar in Illinois over the threatened deportation of a widow of one of these dead mercinaries.) Economically speaking, they're a better 'deal' for the military.

      The problem is that the contractors can't get enough mercinaries to go to Iraq. This is why they're turning to Third World ex-special forces types to augment the ranks. (I think there was recently a story about Bhutanese special ops forces being brought in.) Because the contractors can't get enough of these more economically feasible mercs, the armed forces have to up their numbers somehow, and given the sharp decline in recruitment, the draft doesn't seem to be far away...

    10. Re:Well, Duh. by booyabazooka · · Score: 1
      They are in desperate need of recruits.

      Apparently so. My friends and I have been getting calls from a Marines recruiter recently... the recruiting must be getting desperate if they're try to get at kids in well-off suburban areas who already have college plans. This just shows you that they really do need a better database, as they're clearly not doing a good job at targeting the right people (I'm 104 pounds with a broken hip, and my friend is a Canadian citizen.)

      That call was some seriously aggressive telemarketing. I had to tell the guy repeatedly that I wasn't interested, before he called me "condescending and disrespectful" and finally gave up...

    11. Re:Well, Duh. by chphilli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the war is "unpopular with the majority of Americans", it won't go on.

      Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels.

      Personally,
      1) while I feel that some of the details of the original plan have become confused, the overall effort is good, and
      2) I have friends in Iraq that are glad to be there, because they have a sense of national pride, and a commitment to something other more than themselves.

      Don't apply your opinion to the rest of America.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
    12. Re:Well, Duh. by bburton · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: You think the US government would like to contract out its entire military to a FOREIGN mercenary force? Sorry friend, but I just don't see it happening, not in a million years.

      Americans take a lot of pride in fighting the battles themselves. There's too much distrust of other countries, red tape, legal concerns, and the like for this type of thing to happen.

      What the government would like to do (and is doing) is to contract out most of the non-combat jobs in the military, things like services, maintenance, logistics, even CONUS base security, etc. That way they can retrain the GIs that were doing those jobs into combat roles ("Sorry Jonny. I know the recruiter told ya' you'd be handing out towels and serving up soup in the chow hall. Here's your M4.").

      --
      Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    13. Re:Well, Duh. by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels....Don't apply your opinion to the rest of America.

      I'm not applying my opinion to the rest of America. I'm deferring to The Gallup Organization.

      I'll readily grant that polls aren't perfect--I used to work for a pollster, and I'm well aware of the pitfalls involved in this kind of thing--but I invite you to direct me towards a better metric of American popular opinion. I also invite you to refute the notion that the war in Iraq is losing, not gaining, support.

      1) while I feel that some of the details of the original plan have become confused, the overall effort is good

      "Some of the details"? We went to Iraq because we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that an attack on the United States was imminent. Which part of that reason turned out to be right?

      The overall effort, while rooted in good intentions, has been abysmal. Can you point to a single pre-invasion document or plan for what we would do once we had deposed Hussein and defeated the Iraqi armed forces? What about the disbanding of the Iraqi army--was that a good move? What of the aggressive de-Baathification of Iraq--was that a good move? What of the fact that Iraqis still do not have reliable electricity--is that a good sign? What of the fact that our policy on detainees and interrogation became so muddled and laissez-faire that we ended up with hundreds of documented cases of prisoner abuse and torture at US detention facilities around the world--is that a good thing?

      The overall effort is without direction. The overall effort is based on a nebulous concept of how the current administration would like to see American power exercised around the globe. The current plan is, as it has always been, rooted in the basic hope that things will magically right themselves with just a little more perseverance and muscle. While the overall effort is decidedly good--our troops are performing incredibly well under extremely difficult conditions--the actual planning and execution is utterly abysmal. That is what has my hackles up--our leaders sent our finest into a situation that they didn't have any real plan for, beyond "make it all better". That is what disgusts me.

      2) I have friends in Iraq that are glad to be there, because they have a sense of national pride, and a commitment to something other more than themselves.

      As well they should be proud--they're fighting a noble cause! Ask your friends, though, if they feel like the powers that be know what they're doing. Ask your friends if they know what the road to victory is. Ask your friends how one distinguises friend from foe. You may find that, while they are justifiably proud of what they're doing, they feel some very real trepidation as to where the war is going, and what needs to be done to actually win the war.

      The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. The simple and infuriating fact is that we're in Iraq with a wonderful, noble goal in mind--but without a plan as to how to get there, because our leaders assumed that the wonderful, noble goal would simply achieve itself once we removed Saddam. It could have worked, if only our leaders had planned for the day after. Now, we'll be genuinely lucky if Iraq doesn't sink into a protracted civil war and the rest of the region doesn't sink further into instability.

      How does this not infuriate you?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    14. Re:Well, Duh. by HurricaneDitka · · Score: 0

      Well, the "rest of America" may be catching up to Slashdot.

      --
      It's okay, no one is reading this anyway.
    15. Re:Well, Duh. by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      Pay them more and they're suddenly yours.

      Except, of course, that mercenaries are really expensive. And countries that can afford to pay them usually can afford to enter into a bidding war to retain them. And mercenaries love bidding wars. You know: "Pay me X or I'll fight for the other side!", then: "The other side will pay me X. Pay me Y, or I'll accept the offer!", etc.

      Plus, there is this small question of law enforcement. Being a 'rogue' soldiers of fortune organization means being pursued by legitimate government the world over.

      For instance, let's take Iraq. Sure, the insurgents would love to 'turn' the mercenaries against the USA. But can they afford it? No. Whatever money they have will be used against the US forces (mercs included) and not to pay other mercenaries. There is also the religious ('jihad') question.

      This is one reason why most governemts have never relied too heavily on mercenary forces. At most, they use them to suppliment their own existing forces so, if the mercs turn, they don't loose *everything*.

      True, but there are counter-examples: the Vatican Swiss guards, for instance. During the French Revolution, if I remember well, the last troops that protected the French King until the bitter end were his Scottish mercenaries.

      As a matter of fact, Switzerland used to be THE place to go to recruit mercenaries, and it was these soldiers of fortune that guaranteed the independence and neutrality of their country. Nobody wanted to mess up with these guys.

      So, all this to say that mercenaries and soldiers of fortune can be acquired and that they tend to fight for their original pay master.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    16. Re:Well, Duh. by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: You think the US government would like to contract out its entire military to a FOREIGN mercenary force? Sorry friend, but I just don't see it happening, not in a million years.

      Well, no, not the entire military. But special forces, local VIP protection, recon missions, interrogation, communications with the locals, psyops, some base security, etc., all of these are already sub-contracted, in whole or in part, to mercenary companies. It's a small step from there to a fully mercenary army.

      Sure, these companies are American. They have friends in high places and all that, but make no mistake: they are soldiers of fortune through and through. And they recruit battle-hardened, experiences and well-trained 'operatives' whenever they can find them.

      As a matter of fact, some people have argued that the only reason the war in Iraq has been dragging for so long, and with relatively few casualties in the ranks of the American army is due to the massive use of mercenaries and 'contractors'.

      Finding the appropriate links is left as an exercice to the reader...

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    17. Re:Well, Duh. by xlv · · Score: 1

      For more info on the privatization of the army, see the frontline documentary:

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warr iors/

    18. Re:Well, Duh. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels.
      You should do a fact check before writing something like that.

      (And why do the other 2 previous posts rebutting your error have such crappy mod scores?)

    19. Re:Well, Duh. by Urine1diot · · Score: 1

      While you're directing people over to PNAC's website, you should also point out the signatories as well--the ones that jump out at me are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

      Eerie? I'd say well planned!

      --

      At the end of the day, you just have to face the fact that foo bar baz.
    20. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels."

      Right, you might want to put that Bible down and read a newspaper once in awhile.

    21. Re:Well, Duh. by bburton · · Score: 1
      Umm, I'm in the US Air Force. About 95% of the contractors here are retired military or ex-military. The VAST majority of the remaining 5% are US citizens.

      Sure, these companies are American. They have friends in high places and all that, but make no mistake: they are soldiers of fortune through and through.
      No, they are retired US military who already receive a retirement paycheck from the government. A big part of what they do comes from national pride. Otherwise they wouldn't have spent 20+ years in the service, trust me.

      --
      Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    22. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gallup poll is invalid. The only poll that matters was the one in November, and America answered en masse.

    23. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opinion of the LA Times is invalid. The only poll that matters was the one in November, and America answered en masse.

    24. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always buyer's remorse. The voters are feeling that now, I'm sure.

    25. Re:Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong question. That poll in November asked about gay marriage.

  8. f comes first then comes the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    p?

    1. Re:f comes first then comes the by empaler · · Score: 1

      When someone has time to coralize and copy the text into a comment a dozen posts before you, you need to learn the words.

      Also, you suck. Who cares about fp except dysfunctional teenagers?

  9. Here it comes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here comes the draft! Grab your helmets.

  10. In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    School studies YOU!

    1. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i hope you get cancer

    2. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by saintp · · Score: 1

      That's the best Soviet Russia joke I've read in a long time. Wish I had mod points.

    3. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP!

    4. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that this is marked +1, Insightful made me laugh my ass off.

    5. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, in Soviet America, Our Glorious Leader's Five Year Plan is to Win The War in Five Years.

      Ignore the fact that it's the same plan that Our Glorious Leader had Five Years ago ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist) by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      You know very well we've always been at war. And we'll always be at war.

  11. Evil? by ZiakII · · Score: 1

    is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm

    Remind me again which one is the evil one?

    1. Re:Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, unless you submit entirely.*

      *Disclaimer: This is intended as humor

    2. Re:Evil? by xlv · · Score: 1

      "is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm"

      Remind me again which one is the evil one?


      Both?

  12. Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Officer: How many girlfriends you had?

    Candidate: Ummm... 2.

    Officer: You liar. Your file says, you are gay. OUT

    1. Re:Interview by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Officer: How many girlfriends have you had?

      Candidate: None. I'm gay. A real faggot.

      Officer: Nice try...your file says you are a confirmed hetero. Go pick up your uniform, maggot.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Interview by slash76 · · Score: 1

      Or even better sing them the choras to Alice's Restaurant (in three part harmony).


      From Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant":


      I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."

      And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I've got Alice's Restauraunt looping through my head... THANKS A LOT!

    4. Re:Interview by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the easiest way to scare off recruiters are three little words: "history of asthma."

      Heck, I had a friend kicked out of the National Guard after they found out he once had asthma.

    5. Re:Interview by Digz · · Score: 1

      ..and I was permanently disqualified, no waiver recommended, when I went to MEPS to enlist because I had a history of asthma. After scoring a 119 on my ASVAB and having to pass a security clearance just to take the test for the MOS I wanted.

      --
      SYS 64738
    6. Re:Interview by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      After scoring a 119 on my ASVAB

      You must be a frickin' genius, considering the ASVAB is a percentile score. Unless, that is, you meant 119 on the raw score (range: 80-320), in which case I rescind the "genius" part.

      Sincerely,
      "99" from Navy boot camp class 92086.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Interview by Digz · · Score: 1

      Man, it's been over a decade ago. I don't remember the intricacies of the scoring. ;)

      In any case, I think what I was recalling was my GT score, and I believe it was a 139 (after Googling). The only pertinent part that I am sure of is the surprise in my recruiter's voice when he told me I only missed one question.

      --
      SYS 64738
  13. I want to Opt-Out! by Zemplar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Name: Osama Bin Laden
    Address: 5586 Ti..."Hey, wait a minute...!"

  14. ALL YOUR KIDS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


    are belong to us.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:ALL YOUR KIDS by pHatidic · · Score: 1

      Uncle Sam: A/S/L??
      Student: 20y.o. f frum NM US!!1
      Uncle Sam: G00d tuch or b4d tuch??

    2. Re:ALL YOUR KIDS by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but for sake of completeness --

      Narrator: In Soviet Amerika, war was beginning.
      Slashdot: What happen?
      Zonk: Somebody set up us the draft.
      Zonk: We get signal.
      Slashdot: What !
      Zonk: Main screen turn on.
      Slashdot: It's you !!
      Pentagon: How are you gentlemen !!
      Pentagon: All your child are belong to us.
      Pentagon: You are on the way to lose all privacy rights.
      Slashdot: What you say !
      Pentagon: You have no chance to opt-out, make your time.
      Pentagon: Ha Ha Ha.
      Zonk: Captain !!*
      Slashdot: Take off every 'Tor'!!
      Slashdot: You know what you doing.
      Slashdot: Move 'Tor'.
      Slashdot: For great justice.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  15. suppression file? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking "opression" is they word they are looking for. They are running out of bodies to send to Iraq and fast. They can't get enough people recruited and they're going to have to consider a draft. But they won't call it that... they'll want to call it something else. I'm thinking that if you neglect to opt-out at some stage you may find yourself "volunteering by default."

    1. Re:suppression file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I'd want my name on a "suppression" file either. Isn't that what they're trying to do to the "terrorists"?
      You're either with us or against us? Ready to be drafted or in need of suppression...

      NoClue
      --
      If "Live Free or Die" was followed, I'd get into the funeral business.

    2. Re:suppression file? by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1


      They are running out of bodies to send to Iraq and fast.

      Actually the military overall has seen a net gain over the last 4 years wrt inlisted folks. Also, in case you are interested in facts and not left wing propoganda, there are fewer soldiers in Iraq every month now by design. We are already phasing out are presence there however not at a very fast rate.

      I realize that you are simply trying to boost a political point but at least check your facts before someone actually believes you and repeats it to someone else.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    3. Re:suppression file? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Have you heard about the problems on the recruitment side of things? The recruiters are not making their numbers and that's a publicised fact. Further, several schools are "escorting" military recruiters in schools to avoid their getting out of hand. It is becomming a problem.

    4. Re:suppression file? by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      not making their numbers

      Once again, please get for facts straight. The US is still recruiting faster than it did 4 years ago. The "numbers" that they are not reaching is their assumed growth rate. This means our military is not growing as fast anymore. That is the real problem and it is realted to Iraq.

      We have more inlisted soldiers now than 4 years ago, and also it is still growing. As for the escorting of military recruiters, I have not seen that in my area at all nor have I heard about it from my superiors. I am sure there are many over zealous recuiters somewhere.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    5. Re:suppression file? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      They can't get enough people recruited and they're going to have to consider a draft. But they won't call it that... they'll want to call it something else. I'm thinking that if you neglect to opt-out at some stage you may find yourself "volunteering by default."

      Believe it or not, the military doesn't want people too dumb to opt-out. They actually want people who are there voluntarily.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:suppression file? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Statistics are fun aren't they. Your 4 year stat of course is a result of the massive upturn after 9/11 and in no way a reflection on the more recent facts.

      Here is one of tons of articles explaining the situation. If you think recruiting is going so well you really need to just do a bit of research on it. However, here is a quote that may give you some idea.
      Last month, army recruitment chief General Michael Rochelle admitted that recruiting was a harder struggle than at any time in the 33 years of his career.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    7. Re:suppression file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have more inlisted soldiers now than 4 years ago"

      From what I can tell (by looking at official statistics), the increase for the army since 2001 is about the same as the number of people currently affected by stop loss. All other branches have less people than they had in 2001.

    8. Re:suppression file? by sixteenraisins · · Score: 1

      they're going to have to consider a draft. But they won't call it that... they'll want to call it something else.

      They already DO call it something else - "Selective Service."

      --
      When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
    9. Re:suppression file? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That's the sad thing. The swell of support (at home and abroad) for fighting terrorism has been wasted by diverting our efforts to Iraq.

  16. My community's had experience with this issue... by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1

    This is fairly interesting because my School District announced they wouldn't provide student-information to the Pentagon by default. Oh yeah, we're the only district in the nation to do this. Normally, it's opt-out, not opt-in. Needless to say, everything else school related is opt-out. And I haven't received any notice to opt-in.

    Because our school is full of defiant jerks (read: they once refused to pass a budget as required by law) we stand to lose Federal Funding.

    I don't have a problem with opt-out, does anyone?

  17. Does this mean... by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    I will targetted announcements and pop-up ads from the Gov't now. Won't Double-click be excited.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  18. Marketing? During the election they said... by Kohath · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The armed forces are marketing now? How can that be?

    John Kerry and the Democrats told me I was going to be drafted right after the election. I keep checking my mail. It's been 6 months now and no draft notice.

    It must have been lost in the mail. Have any of you recieved your draft notices yet? When do you ship out?

  19. Ummm... by zoloto · · Score: 1

    I realize this is supposed to be sarcastic..

    but really... don't temp them.

    1. Re:Ummm... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I don't mind temping them. In fact, hiring a bunch of temps might end up slowing down the process because of training and other logistical concerns.

      Its tempting them, that I'm worried about.

  20. Surprised it didn't happen sooner by mattkime · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. Databases are necessary for any kind of serious sales targetting.

    How many times should they talk with the kid about which branch of the service they'd be interested in?

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  21. In other words by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Pentagon is making a database of the poorest and most underprivileged high school students in order to hook them in to military service.

    At my high school, which was in a relatively wealthy county, there were almost never military recruiters, and very few students went into the military. Those that did would do so via the rather prestigious military colleges (U.S. Naval Academy, etc.).

    Meanwhile, I have relatives that live in upstate New York. Their school district is in a relatively poor section of the country, and they have recruiters almost permanently stationed in the high schools, preying on the students. At this point, even if parents complain, the school can do nothing about the recruiters' presence due to the No Child Left Behind act.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:In other words by tooley · · Score: 1

      School 1 is in a wealthy neighborhood.
      School 1 has few transient recruiters
      School 2 is in a poor neighborhood.
      School 2 has few permanent recruiters

      Therefore Bush is evil.

      Someone, please hand me the logic wrench so I can go in for a tuneup.

      www.fallacyfiles.org

    2. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i love cornell. it's a beautiful campus :D but you're right. sadly. I grew up in the CNY area but never had recruiters, and when they did show up on the rare occation - usually avoided like the plague and looked at like a bunch of psychos.

      though i have teh greatest respect for many people who fought, for doing something I wouldn't consider doing on a non-compulsory basis (as in we aren't in a declared war or being invaded) - I can't make a lifestyle out of it.

    3. Re:In other words by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      At my high school, which was in a relatively wealthy county, ... and very few students went into the military.

      No doubt their parents taught them .. "well".

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:In other words by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      the No Child Left Behind act

      So its like "no man left behind" but in reverse? i.e. going to the war zone...

    5. Re:In other words by ReadParse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people, as an alternative to trade school, minimum wage jobs, unemployment, etc. They take great care of you, the pay is good, and the benefits are extraordinary and last long after you leave the service. I got out almost 10 years ago (having served 5 years) and bought my first house on a VA government-guaranteed mortgage, and will probably buy my second house on another VA mortgage.

      Is there a downside to all of these benefits? Well certainly. The purpose of the military, of course, is to fight wars. But if these kids study in school and can do well enough on the ASVAB test, they can get into the Air Force or the Navy, where their lives will be in much less immediate peril and where they can learn extremely useful technical skills.

      As Americans, we're spoiled -- and it's easy to forget what actual poverty is like. In many countries, the poorest kids are the ones who cannot go to school because they can't afford it or because they must work to support their families. In America, most of the poor kids are excused from doing well in school because they're from disfunctional families, and that is called poverty. Do they have a TV? Of course. Telephone? Yes. Cable? Very often. Satellite? Big-screen? Designer clothes? You'd be surprised.

      Ah, but do they have a part-time job and carry books home in hopes of maybe moving on to something better one day? Some do. But many don't. Military recruiters recognize the more limited future of these kids and that they have something to offer them. Military recruitment is usually a win/win proposition. Let's not forget how much service personnel GET from the US government. I'm one of them and I can attest to it.

      RP

    6. Re:In other words by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, although it might seem inhumane, the kids more likely to succeed in life *should* be left alone because they will form the economic and technological backbone of the country in decades to come. Those who are already "poor" and will most likely "fail" while being a drain on society will be better off fighting. If nothing else, they'll learn a thing or two. It is kind of like, "You can spend the rest of your life living in mediocrity and most likely wasting tax dollars through programs like welfare, or join us, learn to shape up, fight well, hopefully survive and leave in a few years with knowledge that you've never had before, which will help you get a better job and thus live a better life. We'll even help pay for college if you want." A lot of kids would be better off joining the forces (not everyone is infantry btw, there is alot more to do then just shoot at the enemy). Alot of other people are better off staying away from joining the forces and are better off either strengthening the country economically or even just regular programmers who are most likely going to be of more use coding some application to assist in fighting rather then actually fighting.
      Regards,
      Steve

    7. Re:In other words by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      What the fuck guy, you're drawing your *own* damn conclusions! He never said that bush was evil in his post.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    8. Re:In other words by ratnerstar · · Score: 1
      Yes, because for poor kids in depressed areas, joining the military is clearly the worst possible option. Because usually poor high school kids have lots of job opportunities and/or money to go to college. And obviously they don't have enough decision-making skills and willpower to resist those slick military recruiters who are, as we wealthy people know, working against their better interests.

      I can't believe that was modded insightful. If only there was a "-1, condescending and willfully blind to reality."

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    9. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a lead like "At this point, even if parents complain, the school can do nothing about the recruiters' presence due to the No Child Left Behind act.", the only possible conclusion is supposed to be "Bush is evil".

      Which he may be. But this story is not proof of it.

    10. Re:In other words by pizen · · Score: 4, Funny

      They take great care of you, the pay is good, and the benefits are extraordinary and last long after you leave the service.

      "Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program." - Vince Ricardo (The In-Laws)

      Second time today I've quoted this movie on slashdot. He's actually referring to joining the CIA but the sentiment is the same.

    11. Re:In other words by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      money to go to college.

      Actually, poor students do often have more money to go to college than middle class kids because they qualify for a lot of financial aide. A kid whose parents make too much to qualify for aide, but not enough to pay his tutition, is the one who really gets the shaft.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:In other words by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Preying"? You make it sound like the recruiters are kidnapping these kids and pressing them into service.

      There's a reason why recruiters focus on poorer areas in their recruiting drives. The military offers a steady job for four years with additional compensation for people who go to college afterwards. It also offers the possibility of making one's career in the military. When you compare that to the alternative - working in low-wage blue collar jobs, when you're working at all - people in poor areas find the military to be an attractive option. In more affluent areas, recruitment isn't as worthwhile, because most kids have the resources already available to them to take a different (safer, easier, higher-paying) career path by going to college immediately.

      This isn't some insidious plot to enlist underprivileged kids. It's an appropriate allocation of recruitment resources to the areas of the country where recruitment will be the most successful. In other words, this is the military being efficient.

      Any other time, people would be complaining about how the military wastes so much money - but in this case, where the military is managing its resources well, they're accused of being nefarious. I guess they just can't win.

    13. Re:In other words by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well my original post was much more rude, but I deleted it to give it another go.

      First off, I'm not a recruiter though I am in the Air Force and have been so for 10 years. Recruiters don't "prey" on poor kids, but yes they do find many potential recruites in that population. When compared to their options getting sent to Iraq to fight has a much higher life expectancy than staying home and getting involved to crime and drugs.

      Actually recruiters rather go after the middle class kids since most of your lower class have to many educational problems and past criminal behaivor. Most are turned away as unexceptable as they can't pass minimum standards. Turns out the Army doesn't want to deal with them either and could easily fill their quotas plus some if they where willing to snatch up every poor 17-20 year old that applied.

      The military has always been a stepping stone to move out of dead end social/economic situation. In my case it was either go on unemployment/welfare or go back and live with the parents, neither were viable options in my mind, so instead I joined the Air Force. Out of the deal I've gotten two college degrees and enough certifications/licenses in aviation (pilot and mechanic) as well as SCUBA to choke a very hungry donkey. By the time I'm done, 10 more years to go, I'll have a retirement check, a Masters degree, and my transport pilot rating. Not to bad of a deal at all.

      Opportunities are what you make of them. The military is a very good opportunity for the poor if they can even get it in the first place. The rich will always avoid the military unless it has something they want. It wouldn't be too hard though to get them to join. Just bring back the death tax and make it 75% for those that don't serve (on the kids not the parents) and make public service (military, police, fire, etc ala Heinland) a requirement to hold public office. The rich kids would be flooding the recruiters then.

    14. Re:In other words by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed the last line of the poster:
      Military recruitment is usually a win/win proposition. Let's not forget how much service personnel GET from the US government. I'm one of them and I can attest to it.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    15. Re:In other words by pizen · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't miss it. I was bringing some relevant humor to the conversation. Go see the movie, it's a funny one.

    16. Re:In other words by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.

      Do you have any idea how big the US military is? There's more than a half million people on active duty and over 700,000 reservists in the army alone. Taken as a percentage chance, the ods of getting killed these last few years in the military are pretty low... A higher chance than most people are used to, certainly; but there are plenty of riskier jobs people could take.

    17. Re:In other words by wass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You bring up important points, and there certainly are opportunistic benefits for joing the army. But there are some real problems with the current situation. Soldiers must be able to trust their leaders to only deploy them if absolutely necessary, and unfortunately the current administration has betrayed their trust. We're fighting a war that more and more people, including Republican politicians, are realizing we shouldn't have initiated.

      You say "Military recruiters recognize the more limited future of these kids and that they have something to offer them. Military recruitment is usually a win/win proposition." If we had responsible leaders who used war as a last resort, you might be right. But in the current debacle, it's atrocious the some people justify getting poor Americans to fight a war led by hawkish politicians who won't put themselves or their families in harm's way.

      About 1700 young Americans have been killed in action thus far, it shouldn't be only the poorer families be the ones to risk their children's lives in order to have a better future. Do you support these 1700 deaths, along with tens of thousands of cases of physical and psychological injuries, such that other soldiers have a chance to lead a better life?

      When you say the military takes care of you, that sentiment is greatly questioned by those in active duty. Where were you stationed during your service, and how many of your fellow soldiers were killed on the front line?

      Also due to the current recruiting crisis, military recruiters have resorted to unethical practices to get people to enlist. Shouldn't these potential recruits make the decision to join on their own, without pressure from the recruiter?

      The current class gap recruiting policies are nothing more than a technique to allow poor soldiers fight a war that the rich politicians support but don't want their own family members fighting in.

      --

      make world, not war

    18. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a new issue for parents. Recruiters have had a presence in selected schools long before 'No Child Left Behind'.

      Previous to this, schools had the ability refuse to give student information to the military. In some districts, complaints from parents were enough to stop the distribution of the information.

      Now, in order to receive federal funds, all schools must hand over this information to the military. The statement in question, while somewhat misleading, points out the fact that parents no longer have a voice to limit the military influence in school.

    19. Re:In other words by wass · · Score: 1
      There's more than a half million people on active duty and over 700,000 reservists in the army alone. Taken as a percentage chance, the ods of getting killed these last few years in the military are pretty low.

      So then what you are saying is that the deaths of 1700 American soldiers thus far in Iraq are justified so that the other soldiers can enjoy the fringe benefits (career training, low-rate loans, cheaper health care) from military service?

      --

      make world, not war

    20. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was in the reserves, and joined under a student loan repayment program.

      Only when it came time to pay, I was told that my original paperwork was in error. Finance in Kansas said that the loan program for that MOS ended two days before I signed the papers at MEPS, so I was not eligible for the program.

      But they did give me the option of re-upping another 3 years in order to qualify for the loan repayment.

      I figured that my congressman could maybe pull some strings and help me. So I took it to Lee Terry's office. While his staff was polite, they sat on the 2 inches of papers that I had to show that I was eligible. I called every week for about a year, even though they stopped returning my calls after a couple of months.

      All I can say to anyone thinking about joining, is to _never_ count on your benefits to be there when you need them. And don't expect anyone to help you, either.

      Fsckers.

    21. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not too bad

    22. Re:In other words by hacker · · Score: 1
      "Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people, as an alternative to trade school, minimum wage jobs, unemployment, etc. They take great care of you, the pay is good, and the benefits are extraordinary and last long after you leave the service."

      Or be dead a week after you hit the ground in active duty in Iraq.

      About 15 years ago after high-school, I took my ASVABS and scored ridiculously high. I took the physical, was all set to join... and was trying to pick a position that suited me. There was nothing open for at least 3 years in my field of skill based on my scores.

      But they had INFANTRY! (so they said)

      "You don't have anything that actually requires using my brain?"

      "Sure we do. INFANTRY!"

      "Did you even read the score on my ASVABS?"

      "Yes, you qualify for everything, including INFANTRY!"

      They even had me brought into the office of some high-ranking person with lots of silverware on his chest. He tried to convince me that not serving was making me a "mockery of the system" and all kinds of reverse-psychology. So I asked him:

      "Have you seen my scores? Do you have a job I'll actually LIKE, besides 'band' and 'infantry'? If not, we're done here. I'm done here."

      For the next 3 MONTHS, I had recruiters at my door at my home (3 hours away from the testing centers) asking me all kinds of questions and trying to push me to join. At that time, we had a 600 yard range on our property, and I could have easily out-shot almost any of them in a firing range test.

      I never did, and now I'm glad I didn't. What a mess of deceit and lies, just to convince people to join. Anyone weaker than me (mentally and psychologically), would have probably accepted infantry.

    23. Re:In other words by wass · · Score: 1
      I've heard that reply before, that's the standard reply given by either former soldiers OR hawkish Republicans that support the war but are too cowardly to enlist themselves or their children.

      Which one are you?

      --

      make world, not war

    24. Re:In other words by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I got out in 97, and the GI Bill & Army College fund proved very difficult to use because I still needed to pay up front. A bit of an entry barrier there. As for job skills, well I was an Infantry anti-tank specialist, read non-electric pop-up target. Aside from being fantastic with a buffer and some mechanical skills involving the Bradley I found them wanting. Now waiving my DD214 durring interviews has landed me two jobs, I can't complain there. Veterans are Veterans, and we seem to take care of each other. Would I do it again, oh yeah, that Javalin missle looks like fun.

    25. Re:In other words by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I would rather have the people that enlist be people that want to serve rather than be people that feel they have no other choice. The people that I knew that wanted to be there seemed to fare better in the service and be better off than those that saw no other opportunity.

      Either are still far better than compulsory service.

    26. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preying? I think that's a little harsh. The military can be a good way out of a bad situation for some people. The government pays for everything and you are taught skills that help you in the real world. Something those kids might not otherwise get.

      People that already have options and/or skills generally are not going to gravitate towards things like the military because it just doesn't benefit them as much.

    27. Re:In other words by Anitra · · Score: 1

      Funny, I went to a fairly good, middle-class public school in the suburbs in upstate NY, but there were recruiters in the cafeteria pretty often.

      Once, one of them started up a conversation with me, trying to convince me to enlist in the Navy. He was somewhat put-off when I told him that I was planning to go to college immediately after highschool, and the only way I might join would be through ROTC.

      The only reason people I know would enlist was if they weren't ready for college (or couldn't get accepted to college). ROTC makes more sense for anyone planning to get post-secondary education.

      --

      Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
    28. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, I never heard it summed up as well as that, I would login but I forget my password. I really agree with you. Alot of americans are spoiled.

    29. Re:In other words by Widowwolf · · Score: 0

      Ok let me ask you one thing...how long ago were you in the military..according to a study done at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 79% of basic families situations (with mother, father and child[where one parent is military and the other is elsewhile employed at a higher pay then the military) had to go onto welfare because the military pay was not enough.

      You speak of numerous benefits..yet you only list one which is the VA home loan, of which there is a class action lawsuit because they are trying to get rid of the program(which includes removing the benefit from already signed contracts, of people who are serving in Iraq right now) I know when i tried to apply for the guaranteed home loan, of which I was legally entitled to by my contract, I was denied because I signed up for less then 4 years in the military(my enlistment was 2 years and 19 weeks). I know personally at least 20 veterans who have been screwed over by this benefit

      Another side benefit that the military gives you is if you are injured while in the military, you are granted medical benefits. My right knee and both of my ankles were all injured(the specialists i have gone to say they are 35-40% dehabilitating) were considered 10% by the medical review board, and when i have to go see a military doctor about them, I have to drive 3.5 hours to get to one, with about a 2 1/2 month waiting period for appointments.

      Look at all these people who sign up for contracts, to have them manditorily extended while they are in Iraq. How many companies do you think can pull this one without getting into trouble. I am sorry but when I signed the contract there was nothing in it about legthening my contract because Dubya wants to show he has the bigger dick in the world.

      Letting the military collect this kind of information on kids and young adults is outrageous and an invasion into thier privacy. I know people who have gone to court for a restraining order from recruiters because they could not lead a normal life without the recruiter stalking them. Recruiters should only be allowed on scholl during job fairs. Other then that they have thier offices for anyone to walk in and visit. And stop with the federal financing being tied into the recruiting BS.

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    30. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with him, and I am one of the biggest bush hating socially liberal democrats you will ever meet. I think the Iraq war is an atrocity.

      Now lets say I am a poor kid from a place like Flint, Michigan, or the rustbelt and just eeked my way to a high school diploma. I have a few options:

      A.) Work in a physically stressful, probably menial and dirty job such as fastfood, custodian, or retail worker. Live paycheck to paycheck, narrowly escaping poverty, maybe one day get promoted to shift supervisor or find a steady factory worker, or civil service job and make $15/hr.

      B.) Join the Army, gain valuable skills, earn salary on top of getting basics (food, shelter) paid for. Have the advantage of having the respect of being in the US armed forces on my resume, for the rest of my life.

      Downside(today): There is a solid chance that I will get shipped off to war and get disabled for life or killed. Note that only 15% of actively enrolled people in the military are deployed overseas in military operations, and of those 15%, how many are actually on the front lines?

      What is an attractive choice to you?

    31. Re:In other words by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Dear god no, that's not what I'm saying.

      Let's take a quick look at the comment I was replying to:

      Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.

      What I was saying is that not getting killed isn't really that much of a trick... Chances are you're not going to be killed.

      Clearly it would be even better if all our military ever did was to hang out back in the States traning and being a deterrant to anybody who wanted to attack us. That would involve almost no deaths, and still justify the price of the benefits paid to our professional military.

      Spinning my simple meaning into some far-fetched implication that I was attempting to provide justification for a war that I didn't even mention requires some sort of twisted mind indeed.

    32. Re:In other words by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but all the contractors who are war-profiteering (Halliburton and it's subsidiaries) are absolutely not efficient use of military spending.

      What's worse though is your rationalisation which amounts to 'poor people are the ones who /should/ die'. And then calling it military efficiency (which, in a rather callous way, it is).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    33. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just bring back the death tax and make it 75% for those that don't serve (on the kids not the parents) and make public service (military, police, fire, etc ala Heinland) a requirement to hold public office.

      Hooray for extortion! Yeah...

    34. Re:In other words by britehawk · · Score: 1
      At my high school, which was in a relatively wealthy county, there were almost never military recruiters,...

      What is your high school's recruiter visitation policy? Most schools in affluent areas have extremely restrictive policies allowing access once a semester or year.

      ...I have relatives that live in upstate New York. Their school district is in a relatively poor section of the country, and they have recruiters almost permanently stationed in the high schools...

      Many schools that are in less affluent areas tend to allow more access to military recruiters. Military recruiters do not target based on economic status. Where would you try to spend most of your time, in a school that won't let you in the door more than twice a year or in a school that welcomes you?

      ...even if parents complain, the school can do nothing about the recruiters' presence due to the No Child Left Behind act.

      Physical access to schools is based upon individual school board policy. The No Child Left Behind act applies only to student contact information.

    35. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's absolutely your right to go to college and mess around with computers while all the dirty poor people get shot. You're a real American hero.

    36. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, according to this article.

    37. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very insightful.

      Well-reasoned middle ground? Unheard of!

    38. Re:In other words by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but all the contractors who are war-profiteering (Halliburton and it's subsidiaries)

      Halliburton is involved in military recruitment? Wow, I guess you learn something every day.

    39. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just bring back the death tax and make it 75% for those that don't serve (on the kids not the parents) and make public service (military, police, fire, etc ala Heinland) a requirement to hold public office. The rich kids would be flooding the recruiters then.


      Sure, because extorsion is a great way to get "willing" participants in volunteer armed forces! Have 75% of your belongings stolen from your heirs when you die, or become one of the thousands killed or permanently injured to make a politician feel more important than his dad.
    40. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you said you were in the AF, I've a question for you -- I'm not a US citizen (I'm a student in the US, though) -- but I'm most certainly interested in joining and serving the US armed forces, particularly the USAF.

      Any tips and pointers would be appreciated! If you prefer mail, you can email me at - metREMOVETHISlin2-at-gmail-dot-com.

      Thanks!

    41. Re:In other words by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Fallujah, those guys who got hanged from bridges after being burned and shot. Made headlines worldwide, remember? They were employed by a subsidary of Halliburton. They were charged with transporting some kitchen supplies. Watch 60 minutes on the web or just google it. Halliburton is very nvolved in recruiting arms bearing people in Iraq and elsewhere. Not military, mind you...and that's the problem.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    42. Re:In other words by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      My point was that Halliburton doesn't participate in recruitment of soldiers into the actual military, so even mentioning them clouds the discussion about military recruiting with irrelevant information. Saying that the military is inefficient with its recruitment money because Halliburton also hires people from less affluent parts of the country is as illogical as saying that the military is inefficient because street gangs also take in people from less affluent areas. In other words, they really don't have anything to do with one another.

      (I guess instead of trying to be clever, I should have been blunt.)

    43. Re:In other words by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1
      Well, although it might seem inhumane, the kids more likely to succeed in life *should* be left alone because they will form the economic and technological backbone of the country in decades to come. Those who are already "poor" and will most likely "fail" while being a drain on society will be better off fighting.

      How do you measure that? I grew up on wellfare, went to public school, worked minimum wage jobs, and eventually squeeked out a diploma from a podunk high school. The military recruiters were all over me. In fact, a large portion of my graduating class couldn't attend graduation because they'd left for boot camp already. Why? I suppose because us poor kids have no future and it is easy to say "you want to pump gas or do something productive, oh BTW we'll give you a gun and let you drink yourself stupid when you're off duty". A friend of mine ruled that military aptitude test they forced us to take and the freaking recruiters showed up at his house to try and talk him into becoming an officer. Do you think that would have happened if I went to a Harvard prep school in a richie-rich land? Hell no. (BTW that friend got a full ride to Cal Tech, but that didn't stop the recruiting attempts)

      So I ended up attending state university (so maybe my grades weren't so hot in high school) after telling a recruiter "I'd sooner live the rest of my life in a urine soaked cardboard box than join the military" and as it turns out even poor kids can succeed. Eventually the government paid me to get a PhD (my personal thanks to each taxpayer) so I could keep our military on the cutting edge of technology.

      I'm not really sure what my point is here, except maybe that I can tell you first hand recruiters really do focus on poor kids regardless of their "potential", probably because some think tank crunched the numbers and found out that the military is a hard sell for even the dumbest rich kid. I think that is a little screwed up because I saw plenty of people in my boat throw their hands up and dive right in, probably because their parents didn't grow up in San Fransisco in the 60's, and now they rotate tires and pump gas... Or die in Iraq depending on which recruiter got to them first.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    44. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military seems to have a much more accurate view of the poor in America than you. It seems they base policy on some data.

      >Ah, but do they have a part-time job and carry books home in hopes of maybe moving on to something better one day? Some do. But many don't.

      There ratio is closer to half trying for betterment, and half not trying for betterment. There seems to be a strong work ethic in poor communities supplemented with a lack of jobs. Why don't more people get jobs? Several (not all) are looking after relatives--older and or children--while other family members work. Why don't more part-time employees get an education? Several (not all) spend money on family needs. (For a limited example, a sick elderly adult can take most of a part-timer's wage because of needed medical care.) Then, there are the cases of the working poor over 23 (more than half the fast-food applicants in some areas) who must pay for basic living (and, after that, saving for school) with a fast-food wage. The youngest workers are left with the most promise--hoping for college admission and financing while working min. wage, studying for high school (and, sometimes, donating to the family).

      >In many countries, the poorest kids are the ones who cannot go to school because they can't afford it or because they must work to support their families.

      The same is true here. Except, here, there is a large lower middle class--the poor kids with cable--to muddy comparisons. (But, here, thankfully, the numbers below the UN poverty line are much lower than those of third world countries.)

      "In the inner city, the last place where most Americans would look for expressions of the work ethic, the drive to join the labor force is stronger than it is in Westchester. Harlem's Burger Barn labor force is composed of minorities who typically took their first job between thirteen and fifteen years of age. They go to work younger, take the jobs no one else wants, and work much harder as a consequence than their counterparts in the middle-class communities that we think of as emblems of work ethic."[5]

      "Over half the new hires were more than twenty-three years old."[6]

      "Because so many pundits believe that there are jobs out there for the taking, they often imply or outright claim that . . . job-seekers in these ghettos do not try very hard to find work. However, these assumptions usually develop in the absence of much hard information about people who are actively trying to break into the job market."[7]

      The parent's definition of "poor" may be skewed a great deal, but the underlying point is correct: the military is a good opportunity to escape underemployment/unemployment. (A more accurate view of the poor even supports this more than a "lazy poor" view.) With this more accurate view (esp. They "work much harder as a consequence than their counterparts in the middle-class"), one could even say the military has a much more accurate view of the poor than most of the American population; would the military heavily recruit in poor communities if the poor were the laziest and least motivated peoples?

      ---

      Some samples in front of me are:
      Neighborhood Poverty Concentration by Working Status[1]
      Chicago Urban and Family Life Survey
      0-19% Poverty: 63% working, 4.7 looking, 1.3 going to school (about 67% active, 6% betterment)
      31-40% Poverty: 48% working, 6.4 looking, 5.8 going to school (about 60% active, 12% betterment)
      41+% Poverty: 32% working, 7.8 looking, 9.7 going to school (about 50% active, 18% betterment)

      % of Part-Time or Part-Year Workers in Poverty[2]
      Both Sexes: 28%(black) 28%(hispanic) 12%(white)

      Educational Status of Central Harlem Burger Barn Workers[3]
      High School: 58% completed, 26% enrolled, 5% plan
      Tech/Vocational: 19% plan
      4yr Uni: 38% plan

      . . . of Fast Food Labour Force, Nationwide[4]
      High School: 66% complete, 29% plan
      2yr attend: 15%, 50% plan
      4yr attend: 21%, 30% plan (31% plan to attain g

    45. Re:In other words by dotmax · · Score: 1

      If the draft comes to pass and i remember your post, i will move the heavens to have you drafted and slotted as a spear carrier.

    46. Re:In other words by dDrum · · Score: 1

      "When compared to their options getting sent to Iraq to fight has a much higher life expectancy than staying home and getting involved to crime and drugs."
      Are you trying to say that the probability of dying in america of crime and drugs is greater than dying in military service in Iraq? A country that have at least a terrorist attack everyday?
      That's news. Bagdad more secure than US cities.
      Remind me to not visit the US.

    47. Re:In other words by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people

      You have to wonder about how fucked up America is when going to war is seen as a tremendous career opportunity. Ask some veterans from the World Wars or Vietnam whether it was a good opportunity. Ask the relatives of those who were killed whether it was good for their careers.

      And what happens to your career when the military decide they don't need you anymore and kick you to the curb because you missed your recruitment quota?

      Of course, it's only an opportunity for the poor people, in run-down areas with no prospects. Rather than perhaps providing them with better prospects, i.e. better schools, less crime, better health care, it's easier to send them off to war, being ordered to their deaths by officers from rich backgrounds with expensive unearned educations.

    48. Re:In other words by drsquare · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course, those 'valuable' skills are generally worthless in the real world. Unless you're a rich kid who gets to be an officer, you're more likely to be stood at a guardpoint in Baghdad doing nothing all day and night (except being bombed). And once you get out, you'll find that you can't get a job because no corporations need people to stand about with machine guns dressed like storm troopers. Although the servitude aspect of military life is quite useful for corporate life. Not much difference between being an officer's bitch or being a manager's bitch.

      As for the salary, note the families with people in the army who are on welfare. Or the people who get out of the army and still can't afford to go to college. Or the people who get into the army then find out their benefits aren't what they thought they were. Or the people who are crippled or injured and the army drops them like a stone.

      Your speech reads like an army recruitment propaganda campaign.

      You seem to think it's acceptable that people from poor backgrounds should be shepherded into military service because they have no prospects. How about instead we put all the rich kids into the military and let the poor people get the expensive educations instead? Of course that won't happen, because the rich rule the world, and they won't allow their kids to come near harm. Instead they get Ivy League degrees and positions of power because of their family backgrounds, whilst people with more intelligence and abilities get stuck doing manual labour because their schools were glorified drug dens and they came from a single-parent family who lived in a tiny apartment that's falling to pieces, living from paycheck to paycheck, no money for even basic healthcare. But that's OK, because they can go to the army, be someone's bitch, and get killed to support Haliburton's stock prices so some rich man can give his kid a Ferrari after he passes his driving test.

    49. Re:In other words by j0ris · · Score: 1

      I'm glad joining the Air Force turned out to be a good deal for you. I really am. The point is that for quite a few people the military turns out to be somewhat less idyllic: missing limbs, psychological trauma, death. I'm not from the US, but it seems a really sick to me that the only way America let you out of the ghetto is by risking your life for the rich white elite in some remote third world country.

    50. Re:In other words by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I currently work on 2 classified projects for the Department of Defense. I've got 5 close family members who were in the forces. I was very close to joining, and no recruiters ever bothered me.I decided that I can make bigger impacts in other ways. The way I worded my post, I sounded like a dick, I wasn't saying that the poor should die. ( I help out at soup kitchens all the time.) I guess I was trying to point out that despite whatever the intentions of the recruiters are, if someone has the odds against them in life then joining the forces can have quite a few advantages and move them from being viewed as in the lower spectrum of society into a much more respectable spectrum. That lasts a lifetime. It also opens up many oppurtunities that weren't on the table for them before. And just FYI, I never said that those who are well off shouldn't join, just simply that they can often impact society in bigger ways.What good is defense, if there is nothing worth defending.
      Regards,
      Steve

    51. Re:In other words by PurplePhase · · Score: 1
      ...getting involved to crime and drugs....lower class have to many educational problems and past criminal behaivor. Most are turned away as unexceptable as they can't pass minimum standards... Not to bad of a deal at all.
      What exactly qualifies as too unacceptable, or what minimum standards are you using?

      8-PP
    52. Re:In other words by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people, only because their alternatives are so puny. Tell those extraordinary benefits to the veterans whose VA is $1B short, while Congress spends $1B a week in Iraq. Or all the veterans suffering from the denied effects of war theater toxins, from Agent Orange to depleted uranium to whatever's giving them "Gulf War syndrome" to anthrax vaccine poisoning to the latest out of Falluja.

      This is not to say that military benefits aren't a good carrot - compared to the stick of poverty. But where would recruiting be, without that poverty? Especially now that recruiting has failed to meet minimum quotas for months on end, and our demand for troops only increasing every day, there's even less incentive for this government to feed those kinds of benefits into the civilian education and health system.

      I'm glad so many people, including yourself, have gotten a "second chance" from the government to escape the cycle of poverty into which so many people are born. I'd rather that we offered those benefits the first time around, to everyone, not just those we need for our killing machine. The killing machine is necessary, and does a phenomenal job - even killing much fewer than ever before to execute our foreign policies, with fewer of our own casualties, on a much bigger, more complex scale. I just hesitate to praise our military "alternative jobs program" without considering the failure of our default jobs program: universal education and healthcare. I do not excuse people who raise children to be poor, while buying all kinds of unnecessary products. I do think they're balanced (at least), for double the trouble, by corporate welfare in military budgets. I'd rather see all the Pentagon waste instead paying for better public education.

      This problem is compounded by the US fighting wars for corporations, rather than the American people. While the US has always done so, the wars have usually been covert, or at least their corporate basis. Modern media have pushed more of these corporate wars into view, as well as their real beneficiaries. That progression makes it both more necessary to recruit more people, especially those without another corporate career track, and more necessary to offer material benefits, to compensate for the loss of "patriotism and honor" as motivators to enlist. Corporate participation in the war policies also cuts benefits, as "bottom line" analysis justifies underequipping troops, cutting hazard pay and other compensation, and underfunding veterans.

      The military is certainly the best (or least bad) option for many Americans today, as it has been for centuries (and, of course, not just in America, but universally). But we can do better. The goals of educating, employing, and creating other opportunities for Americans to escape disadvantage are our noblest. The military is sufficient, but we can do better.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    53. Re:In other words by ReadParse · · Score: 1

      Ask some veterans from the World Wars or Vietnam whether it was a good opportunity.

      Yes, most veterans see their military service as the good opportunity that it was.

      Ask the relatives of those who were killed whether it was good for their careers.

      I did mention the down side of being in the military. Unfortunately, it is the military who fights our wars, and that is clear to the volunteer serviceman when they sign on the dotted line, as it was clear to me when I signed.

      And what happens to your career when the military decide they don't need you anymore and kick you to the curb because you missed your recruitment quota?

      Recruitment quotas are imposed on recruiters. Recruiting is a special duty that you volunteer for after you have been in a regular military job for a period of years. Recruiters know going into recruitment that there will be quotas. Those quotas are usually pretty not very difficult. Lately that has not been the case.

      Of course, it's only an opportunity for the poor people, in run-down areas with no prospects.

      No, it was an opportunity for me also. I am middle class and had higher education opportunities at the time that I enlisted. ...being ordered to their deaths by officers from rich backgrounds with expensive unearned educations.

      Goodness. Expensive unearned educations. Wow. Yes, when I served (by the way, did you?) I had a bit of resentment for the occasional idiot officer. But it would be unreasonable to say that college degress are, in general, unearned. That's ludicrous, actually.

      RP

  22. Join the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody else has you in their database.
    Why do you think you get so much junk mail?

  23. To opt out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...send an email with the subject line "Unsubscribe" to slavemaster@unclesam.gov. Include in the body your name, address, blood type, and your RealID non-government citizen identifier number.

  24. your infosec on file by null+etc. · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A little chuckle from the Pentagon in the article: '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.

    For anyone who wonders why this would be necessary, let me give an example.

    CapitalOne got it into their heads that they should send me a credit card application every week. After spending an hour trying to track down a telephone number that would let me speak with a CSR without having an account number, I asked them to stop mailing me. The CSR rep replied that the system takes 12 to 16 weeks to fully honor a request to not receive offers! Which is pretty funny, because I asked the rep "so if I sign up for the credit card today, you can take my name off the list, but if I just want you to stop sending me junk that someone can use to steal my identity, it takes 4 months?!?!" He didn't have a good answer.

    Anyways, as soon as I move to a new address three months later, I started receiving two offers from CapitalOne every week! They obvious match solely on name and address.

    I just don't feel like going through the same bollux again to get my address off the list. Sheesh.

    1. Re:your infosec on file by hsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, if you want to OPT-OUT from ALL credit card offers:

      you can call : 1-888-5-OPTOUT to get out of this, there is a website, they give it to you in the phone number, i did it 3 months ago, i barely get any now (tehy have to work you out of the system, some places have purchased your info from the credit bureaus like 3-4 months ago)

      http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/protect.htm

    2. Re:your infosec on file by killmuji · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just in case u are still trying to get them off your back, you can register here with the credit bureaus at https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t.

      I did that and now I only get an offer once in a blue moon.

    3. Re:your infosec on file by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Check out junkbusters.org, they have lots of advice on where to register to get taken off these types of lists.

    4. Re:your infosec on file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call it nuisance, I call it opportunity. Write "VOID" on the application and mail back all their postage-paid reply envelopes. You do that a few dozen times, they'll stop.

    5. Re:your infosec on file by christoofar · · Score: 1

      Every time I get CapitalOne's stupid invite I mail it back (doesn't cost me anything anyway) with black Magic Marker:

      "I DONT WANT YOUR FUCKING CARD STOP FUCKING MAILING THIS CRAP"

      I am already a CapitalOne cardholder. How many of their cards do I need at 20% interest?

    6. Re:your infosec on file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One interesting thing you can do is declare that their mailings are obscene and that you want them to cease and desist. The form: http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf.
      Federa l courts have ruled that the determination of obscenity is in the mind of the recipient. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=397&invol=728 Failure of a company to comply with the cease and desist subjects them to severe fines. US Code Title 39 part IV Chapter 30 Section 3001. Enjoy.

    7. Re:your infosec on file by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      It's also fun to stuff some of your other junk mail in there as well.

    8. Re:your infosec on file by Raztus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of this quote. This kid is brilliant!

      -wolf- 1. Save every Free Credit Card Offer you get, Put it in pile A
      -wolf- 2. Save every Free Coupon You get, put that in pile B
      -wolf- 3. Now open the credit card mail from pile A and find the Business Reply Mail Envelope.
      -wolf- 4. Take the coupons from pile B and stuff them in the envelope you hold in your hand.
      -wolf- 5. Drop the stuffed to the brim envelopes in your mail and walk away whistling.
      -wolf- I have now received two phone calls from the credit card companies telling me that they received a stuffed envelope with coupons rather then my application. They informed me that it they are not pleased that they footed the bill for the crap I sent them. I reply with "It says Business Reply Mail" I'm suggesting coupons to you to ensure that your business is more successful. They promptly hang up on me.
      -wolf- Now, I did this for about a month before it got boring, so I got an added idea! I added exactly 33 cents worth of pennies to the envelope so they paid EXTRA due to the weight. I got a call informing me about the money, I said it was a mistake and I demanded my change back. After yelling at the clerk and then to the supervisor they agreed to my demands and cut me a check for the money. I hold in my hand at this very moment a check from GTE Visa for exactly 33 cents.

    9. Re:your infosec on file by Sheepdot · · Score: 1


      <wolf> 1. Save every Free Credit Card Offer you get, Put it in pile A
      <wolf> 2. Save every Free Coupon You get, put that in pile B
      <wolf> 3. Now open the credit card mail from pile A and find the Business Reply Mail Envelope.
      <wolf> 4. Take the coupons from pile B and stuff them in the envelope you hold in your hand.
      <wolf> 5. Drop the stuffed to the brim envelopes in your mail and walk away whistling.
      <wolf> I have now received two phone calls from the credit card companies telling me that they received a stuffed envelope with coupons rather then my application. They informed me that it they are not pleased that they footed the bill for the crap I sent them. I reply with "It says Business Reply Mail" I'm suggesting coupons to you to ensure that your business is more successful. They promptly hang up on me.
      <wolf> Now, I did this for about a month before it got boring, so I got an added idea! I added exactly 33 cents worth of pennies to the envelope so they paid EXTRA due to the weight. I got a call informing me about the money, I said it was a mistake and I demanded my change back. After yelling at the clerk and then to the supervisor they agreed to my demands and cut me a check for the money. I hold in my hand at this very moment a check from GTE Visa for exactly 33 cents.

    10. Re:your infosec on file by Java+Ape · · Score: 1
      So here's a suggestion:
      1. Find or make a small, slightly battered cardboard box, preferably double-walled.
      2. Dribble a bit of power-steering fluid (or some other dark, oily substance) into the bottom of the box.
      3. Toss in a rag soaked in ammonia (just to make sure it smells funny and emits nitrogen for the bomb-detectors).
      4. Fill the box will all those letters
      5. Throw in a few batteries, an old clock, or a can of soda, just to make it heavy and add interest to any x-ray images. Oh, and wires are good too!
      6. Include a letter to the president of the company, explaining your problem, and asking to be removed from their mailing list. Explain that the junk included above is some sort of peace offering. Mention that, if you get more mail, it will be similarly returned when you get around to it. Be extremely polite.
      7. Seal the box with LOTS of packing tape
      8. Address the box with letters cut from newspapers, just like in the spy movies. Don't include a return address (after all, it's FILLED with their letters, and they obviously know your address!).
      9. Mail box from an unattended drop, with excessive postage
      After the FBI, CIA and local bomb-squads get around to opening the box, they'll probably hand-deliver your request to the company president!
    11. Re:your infosec on file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inside those credit card offers are postage paid business reply envelopes.
      Insert said application (with VOID written all over it), all other propaganda, the envelope all the crap came in, and as much of the grocery store flyer as you can fit into the envelope.

      Mail it back to them.

      If you're feeling particularly nasty, include a trash disposal bill as well and call a dunning agency against them when they haven't paid.

      Similar tactics should be employed against all invasive marketing, including military recruiters.

    12. Re:your infosec on file by VAXcat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, this would get you a trip to the pokey, since using a "hoax bomb" is a felony in most states. Now, I'm sure the federales would be all over you as well. It's an amusing fantasy (best if it stays that way).

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    13. Re:your infosec on file by xlv · · Score: 1

      After the FBI, CIA and local bomb-squads get around to opening the box, they'll probably hand-deliver your request to the company president!

      With your fingerprints all over the box and your address on the applications inside the box, the FBI will most likely hand deliver you to Gitmo instead...

    14. Re:your infosec on file by Java+Ape · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, I was going for "funny", but as others pointed out, there's nothing funny about spending twenty years in Gitmo as a terrorist. Sorry for any confusion.

    15. Re:your infosec on file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, however the criteria for conviction for hoax bombings are usually set pretty high (which keeps little old ladies who don't package things perfectly from spending their remaining years in the pokey). Generally, there must be evidence that the device was intended to look like a bomb, was placed in such a way as to induce fear/disrupt the peace. As long as you have some reasonable explanation for the odd appearance of your package, it would be unlikely that a jury would convict for a suspicious-looking package.

      However,with the government in paranoid big-brother mode, you may not get a trial!

    16. Re:your infosec on file by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's far better to use the business reply envelope to mail the junk right back to them. That way they get to pay for it and there's no illegal threats involved.

  25. Bonuses by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

    If I agree to be in their database, do I get a little card that can get scanned at military surplus stores, and maybe some handy coupons printed on the back?

    --
    What?
  26. Opt out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Opt-out isn't as easy as it seems. You can't just delete somebody from the database, because then you have no record of them opting-out the next time you do a data load from your source. The only way to properly do opt-out is to put them in a separate opt-out DB.

    dom

    1. Re:Opt out by Holi · · Score: 2

      or you add a field to the database for opt-outs.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Opt out by enosys · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. However, they don't really need detailed personal information in the opt-out database.

    3. Re:Opt out by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      You can't just delete somebody from the database, because then you have no record of them opting-out the next time you do a data load from your source.

      Maybe you should tell 'the source' you don't want them to give your info in the first place. Am I the only one who thinks it is strange that in order NOT to be in a database they make a special record of all your data? That's like cleaning the office by throwing all papers away but taking a copy for safety first.

      Once the genie has left the bottle, there is NO pushing it back in. Once your data is out there, you have NO control whatsoever. It is noble to rely on the honesty of others (the govt., whoever) but it makes you weak. I may sound paranoid, but that's just the way it is.

    4. Re:Opt out by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Therefore, we have proven why opt-out is, for most cases, a genuinely bad deal for the consumer/end-user.

    5. Re:Opt out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could fairly easily have opt-out hashes stored on their end.

      "I dunno who or what that person is, but he/she/it want nothing to do with us."

    6. Re:Opt out by Evangelion · · Score: 1


      You're right, because there's only one John Smith in the country, and next time we see his name, we'll know exactly who it is!

    7. Re:Opt out by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Which makes a great case for having Opt-In databases as opposed to Opt-out.

    8. Re:Opt out by temojen · · Score: 1

      or have an "opted out" field. Takes a whole lot less space, time and effort.

    9. Re:Opt out by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While logically true, too many take advantage of the logic. Many of the fields can be deleted, for example, everything but SSN (a unique identifier) and a 'not interested' flag. Since they are provided SSN to enter data in the database, they will have enough to know that the record in question shouldn't go in, even with duplicates.

    10. Re:Opt out by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      or you add a field to the database for opt-outs.

      Not good enough. If someone accidentally zeros out that field in all the records, there's no obvious way to tell that you've essentially lost your opt-out list. With a separate opt-out list, if someone accidentally deletes the list it's going to be quite obvious to everyone, if not immediately, then the next time a "compare and purge" operation is done, that they need to go get the most recent backup.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Opt out by enosys · · Score: 1
      Just name and date of birth would probably be enough. Maybe they could add one more fact at most. That's not "detailed personal information". If any more information is needed for opting out I bet they intend to use that information for something.

      Also think about what an opt-out database is supposed to be used for. They only need to be able to find out if someone is in the database. They do not need the actual information in the database. The database could store hashes of data instead of actual data (like many password files).

    12. Re:Opt out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This violates the nullallity constraint of second normal form!

      Fool!

  27. This is different from Selective Service ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Registration how? Except the 16 and 17 year olds it's not much different.

  28. 1984- not exactly by cdavis4000 · · Score: 1

    First, let me say that I agree with the general feeling of creepitude here. It's sad that our society is involved in so many battles that it can't find the soldiers through traditional recruitment. But the fact that this database is being proposed means that the government can't get the answers with traditional means. I realize that, as the X-Files says, The Truth Is Out There in some government database, but that doesn't mean that the Pentagon can get at it. They can't seem to get the answers they want from Social Security or the IRS, despite the ominous quality of those databases. Perhaps it's easier to slip through the cracks than it appears. This is further proof that the layers of bureaucracy don't actually solve things. They just slow things down even more. So while I continue to worry about 1984, I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that this is a good indication that the database culture of the government is failing.

  29. I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, they are doing this because they NEED people. And they're not going to get them, so that means it's draft time for all of us without wealthy families.

    I don't know about you, but I'm 16 and I have NO plans to register for selective service. NONE. Fight the system, people. Die free.

    1. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to reply because I find your view offensive.
      I believe the purpose they're doing this is to postpone or eliminate the need to draft people. If they can find enough willing participants, then they won't draft people. And you are contributing to the problem by not registering.

      P.S. When you say Fight the system and die free, HOW DO YOU THINK WE WERE FREE IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's because those people who entered the military services and fought for it. Fine, the current war by Bush is a big screw-up, but don't take it out on the military.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we didn't become free by organized military recruitment. We became free because enough people (about 1/3, which is a large percentage compared to most uprisings) were pissed off at oppressive government. Including forced military service! If you remember your U.S. history, it was called "impressment" back then.

      So, if anything, it is in the spirit of 18th century American values to oppose this modern day push by a military-industrial complex.

    3. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about forced military, selective service merely tell them that you're eligible for recruitment (maybe draft it they absolutely needs to).

      So, you're willing for US to get its asses kicked and everyone whose already there dead then help?

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    4. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Nothing is ever the military's fault. Never ever.

    5. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by LaserSamuraiHead · · Score: 1

      i'm just goign to reply to you because i find your view offensive.
      most of the people willing to sign up already have. this is the last step before going to a draft because people don't want to die, especially for a war the many people don't support.

      we became free in the first place because we were being oppressed by the british: paying taxes but not having a say about anything (no taxation without representation), having their privacy infringed (the quartering act), and were drafted (impressment)

    6. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by optiknerv · · Score: 0

      I'm replying because I find your views to be similar to mine.

      "paying taxes but not having a say about anything (no taxation without representation)"

      Hmm, taxes, no representation...you mean like we have now? This country is run by the haves and the have-mores, just as Bush joked about once at a fundraiser. Corporations are not people, yet they have more rights, influence, and voice, in government that any human. Votes don't matter because the available options for candidates are all controlled from the outset. * If you can control the options, you can control the outcome. *

      So, good for you, I didn't sign up for that selective service either.

    7. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by briaman · · Score: 1
      When you say Fight the system and die free, HOW DO YOU THINK WE WERE FREE IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's because those people who entered the military services and fought for it. Fine, the current war by Bush is a big screw-up, but don't take it out on the military.
      With respect, the real reason that any of us have any freedom is because ordinary people rebelled against former oppressive and/or foreign rules. Normally, the members of the armed forced act to support the existing regime : people generally do not enlist into the armed forces of a regime that they oppose.
      --

      ==========
      Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
      Abort / Retry / Ignore ?

    8. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by cenobyte40k · · Score: 1

      You should read a little history. The Boston tea party and the like where caused by the British choosing to stop taxing things. This causes 'partiots' to rebel because their business (Smuggling tea and the like) was now being undercut by the British goods sold free of tax. The quartering act, was followed up in our consitution with a system that allowed military personel to be quartered in private houses, and we also allowed for the draft (And did it for almost every major war after becoming free from our opressors) I swear sometimes that /. people are so left leaning they are unable to see anything on the right side let alone except that sometimes things are done for good reasons.

    9. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by flynns · · Score: 1

      No selective service?

      Have fun without college scholarships.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    10. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by slashhax0r · · Score: 1

      That is well and good, But the problem I had with selective service was this. I was 18 when living in the USA and signed up. I was not a citizen but a permanent resident at the time. However, because I was living in and benifiting from the USA I figgured
      registering was the least I could do.

      Then I moved home to Canada. The selective service people would *NOT* de-register me. I had turned in my greencard.. They would "guarantee" that I would be de-registered at age 26. That bugs me, as I am no longer in the US, I should be allowed to be de-registered.

      Perhaps all people should register, I dont know.. but if you are, you should be able to un-register.

    11. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by LaserSamuraiHead · · Score: 1

      actually i never mentioned the boston tea party but since you brought it up lets talk about it. the americans were more likely to buy tea that was smuggled in because a) it was cheaper (no taxes) b) americans were profitting from it. when the british dropped the tax to encourage more sales, the americans had none of it and turned the ships away since they were already doing their own thing and directly profitting from it as opposed to a british company. this pissed the british off obviously and you know the rest. as for the draft remember when we got rid of it? why was that? because up until that point many of the wars were supported by the majority of americans. during the vietnam war, which was obviously not overwhelmingly supported, people bitched about the draft becuase they didn't want to fight a war they didn't believe in, along with other reasons. there was enough support behind it to get rid of the draft in 1973. Anyway both of our arguments are flawed since we're both taking history and omitting parts to suit politics

    12. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that not registering for Selective Service, assuming you are a male citizen, is illegal, right? And that you won't be attending any sort of higher education, not even a trade school, if you're not, let alone elimination of eligibility for scholarships. You can have yourself declared a conscientious objector, but you really cannot do much of anything with your life as a male citizen of the United States without at least being registered.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:I'm refusing to register for Selective Service by andy_shepard · · Score: 0

      I refused to register, and never had any trouble attending college or getting financial aid. If you don't register, all they do is send three or four threatening letters and then you never hear from them again. They haven't prosecuted anyone since 1986. See http://www.duckdaotsu.org/resist.html.

  30. It sounds like you disagree with this. by khasim · · Score: 4, Funny

    That will be recorded in the database.

    It sounds like you are not happy with this.

    Failure to be happy is treason.

    In Soviet Amerika, our new Overlords welcome you.

    1. Re:It sounds like you disagree with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No there are many choices, the USSA (United Socialist States of America), the UFSA (United Facist States of America), USRR (United States of Rules and Regulations) just to mention a few.

    2. Re:It sounds like you disagree with this. by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1
  31. Sounds like selective service by Chairboy · · Score: 1

    Maybe the real anger here should be aimed at the waste of government resources. This data is already tracked under the mantel of 'Selective Service'. Currently, all males in this rough age group need to remain registered so they can be selected as 'recruits' (if the draft counts as active recruiting).

    Why not just modify the existing system instead of creating an expensive, possibly error prone new system that'll draw the ire of privacy advocates?

    1. Re:Sounds like selective service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the privacy act prohibits the use of Selective Service registration for marketing. The military is an organization that actually believes in defending the constitution.

  32. WARNING: The WP Will Sue Over Copyright... by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1
    1. Re:WARNING: The WP Will Sue Over Copyright... by zoloto · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the heads up. But I HAve a retort.

      And the coral cache network won't be sued? I did leave the copyright notice and a coral cache link to the page that holds the advertisements right on it.

      *shrug*

    2. Re:WARNING: The WP Will Sue Over Copyright... by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Typically, you will receive a takedown order first and then legal action will be initiated if you choose to not comply.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:WARNING: The WP Will Sue Over Copyright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is sometimes helpful to have a copy of the article if we fear the site will be slashdotted into a fine mist.

      But, I see no need to post the content of an article hosted by a major news site. In fact, I would consider that kind of behavior to be harmful to a news service. You have shown that you value their content by your desire to post it word for word.

      So, I say let the hosting site get their fair share of advertising revenue.

  33. This costs money... I don't want to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have no interest in paying for this troop shortage. Maybe we can have an American lapel-pin flag tax on all the cheap patriotism out there so that they can get what they want.

    Maybe the government could get more recruits if they didn't sound like such a fascist organization:

    "You believe in America. Strength. Integrity. Dedication. Making a difference for the nation. ... You are the one our warfighters depend on. You are Intelligence. Be DIA."

    This is from a job posting for the DIA. The kind of people that would be attracted to this are the kind of sheeple that would ignore the non-existance of WMDs in official reports.

  34. Selective Service by rbrindle · · Score: 1

    I thought we already had the Selective Service with requires compulsory registration... What happened to that database?

    1. Re:Selective Service by richdun · · Score: 1

      Ha! One government program sharing data with another government program, differently named but obviously similar (or identical) in purpose and even in the same department?

      Come on people, this isn't Star Trek. We can't expect instantaneous communication between the light years that seperate various government offices. I'm sure that once the Selective Service office hears about this after the message has enough time to travel through that new electronic mail they are using, they'll quit duplicating and decide to save money by just using the database already in place.

      But seriously, chances are:
      1) the home state of the company to host the new database has a powerful Senator/Representative
      2) the new database will create X more jobs at the Pentagon
      3) they really think that calling it a "voluntary recruitment" database or something will keep everyone from using the "d" word ("draft") since everyone knows that's what the SSS is for. TFA did say they are working with a marketing firm.

  35. you are soooooo going to get drafted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and soon!

    if you're not worrying, start now!

  36. Probably option 3 by wiredog · · Score: 1
    Option 2 (reinstate the draft) won't happen. Because if it does, the people who "think that somebody other than themselves and their loved ones" should do the fighting will find their kids getting drafted, and they will all vote for the other guy come the next election.

    The Republicans would rather destroy the Army and lose in Iraq than lose the next election.

    1. Re:Probably option 3 by Tassach · · Score: 1
      The Republicans would rather destroy the Army and lose in Iraq than lose the next election
      That is one of the most insightful observations I've ever seen. Of course, it would apply equally to the Democrats if they were in control.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  37. Surprised they haven't done it before by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here keep moving along.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  38. I decided not to waste any time by manifestcommunisto · · Score: 1

    anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. I wanted to opt out, and decided to do it as soon as possible before they close this loophole -- suckers. Unfortunately the article did not mention to which marketing firm I should send my info. I assumed it's the one mentioned in the article below this one -- DoubleClick. You guys should waste any time either... P.S.: Do any of you guys know why they asked for my credit card number?

  39. In Germany such Database wouldn't be possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have something called "Datenschutzgesetz" (Law to protect Data) which says that:
    -data may not be collected without the approval of every person (opt-in)
    -if a person demands it, the databaseentry concerning him has to be given to him AT NO CHARGE (for free)
    -the data may not be shared with another company without the approval of every person (opt-in)
    -one can demand the deletion of the data

    If you don'T comply with these rules, you face fines and prison (up to 5 years)

    Every company has to appoint a person responsible for compliance with the law and train it's employees every 2 years.
    --
    So much for "the land of the free"...

  40. Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A draft will be needed for the upcoming invasion of Iran, which Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) says has already covertly started.

    Indeed, Iran is not like Iraq. Iraq was a very splintered social and religious community, while Iran is far more coherent. Iran is well armed. Considering how poorly the Americans have fared in Iraq, Iran is out of the question for anyone with half a mind. Unfortunately, such people are not at the helm of the United States.

    I'm praying for all the American youth who may get mislead into dying in some desert battlefields in third-world nations.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      A draft will be needed for the upcoming invasion of Iran, which Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) says has already covertly started.

      They already have nukes, so it won't happen.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by periol · · Score: 1

      They already have nukes, so it won't happen.

      We think they already have nukes. We know they have nuclear production capabilities because they have nuclear power plants. We're pretty sure they have nukes, which makes attacking even harder because ideally if we attacked them we'd want to take out their nukes.

      But we don't know enough about their nukes to try anything. Besides, would you trust American intelligence these days?

    3. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      We think they already have nukes. We know they have nuclear production capabilities because they have nuclear power plants. We're pretty sure they have nukes, which makes attacking even harder because ideally if we attacked them we'd want to take out their nukes.

      But we don't know enough about their nukes to try anything. Besides, would you trust American intelligence these days?


      I'm not relying on US intel, but on other foreign news sources and inferred intel.

      The only explanation for our behavior - or lack thereof - is that they do have nukes and that's why we won't be invading Iran.

      I think the next Five Year Plan is for Iceland.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by periol · · Score: 1

      The only explanation for our behavior - or lack thereof - is that they do have nukes and that's why we won't be invading Iran.

      That's just not true. Bush probably *wants* to attack Iran, but Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran. We need a *huge* army to attack them, and we need to neutralize the WMDs first, whatever they have (which we don't know).

      If we were sure they didn't have nukes, we would probably start bombing them. But we aren't at all sure that they do. From globalsecurity.org:

      It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack. Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

      The best explanation for our behaviour is that we don't want Iran having nuclear weapons and destablizing the region, but we know that even with a draft the U.S. doesn't have the manpower to attack Iran. For crying out loud, we don't even really have "inferred intel" (whatever the hell that is) - we simply have no intelligence operations in Iran to speak of...

    5. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by ravenspear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Scott Ritter is a raving lunatic and his unwavering hatred for Bush causes him to say a lot of irrational things.

    6. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, scott ritter took time off from molesting children to blurt out another lie.

    7. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by smutt · · Score: 1

      No one ever claimed he molested anyone. You don't get a class B misdemeanor for molestation. The facts of the case are sealed but apparently he communicated with an FBI agent posing as a 16 year old. 16 years is the age of consent in some less puritanical countries. If you read the article you link to he wasn't even officially convicted as the case was dismissed with an ACOD.

      ...blurt out another lie.

      I just caught you in a lie. Kind of ironic isn't it.

      --Smutt

      --
      The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
    8. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      >>Considering how poorly the Americans have fared in Iraq

      In a stand-up fight or vs. an IED? I'd imagine the US has done very well in stand up fighting. It's very difficult to fight an inanimate object, right?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    9. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      And we can always count on the enemy to fight in such a way that gives us the advantage, right?

    10. Re:Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion. by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Never claimed such a thing, though I wouldn't consider planting a roadside bomb fighting, either.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  41. Remember! by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Funny

    Service guarantees citizenship!

    Do your part!

    Would you like to know more?

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:Remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dina Meyer and Denise Richards?

      Heck yeah, sign me up!

    2. Re:Remember! by ChaosCube · · Score: 1

      Now that is awesome. A truly good book.

      --
      BDR Gear
      Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
    3. Re:Remember! by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

      Great book, bad movie...

    4. Re:Remember! by ndansmith · · Score: 1

      From the film "Starship Troopers" if anyone is wondering.

    5. Re:Remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND Amy Smart!

    6. Re:Remember! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      In the book, I'd argue that civillians have more rights (such as the right to peacably assemble) that civillians in the modern United States seem to lack.

    7. Re:Remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the "book" Starship Troopers. The movie (same names, different plot) was miserable.

    8. Re:Remember! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      A roman centurio could have said this too - much closer to the current state of the USA if you ask me...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  42. Supression file? by raider_red · · Score: 1

    So what exactly do we do with the kids in the "supression file"? Or maybe a better question: what do we do with their parents after their kids are hauled off?

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    1. Re:Supression file? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Suppress them, obviously.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:Supression file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they supposed to be suppressed?

      -- my 2 cents

  43. No story here.... by jarich · · Score: 1
    1) It's not news for nerds, it's a political piece

    2) The government knows who you are... hmmm... that's not news either

    3) The government is getting more saavy and is kicking into some targetting recruitment. Just like every advertising firm on the planet.

    (humor tag) How did this get posted on /. ? Is it because they used a database?

    1. Re:No story here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct.

      But remember YRO is actually the comedy section of Slashdot, it mainly consists of the clueless identifying themselves and their views for easy tagging by those they complain against.

      Laugh, it's funny!

  44. its ok. by hosecoat · · Score: 0
    '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file.

    its ok, because you can opt out of being included in that suppression file. It will kept in another suppression file.
  45. Data ready for purchase by RayMarron · · Score: 1

    To me, the scary part isn't that the Pentagon wants to aggressively market to potential recruits, it's that all this data is already compiled and available on these kids, ready to purchase. A great many of them are still minors. Do schools sell this information? How did the marketing company/ies get all of it? It seems the moment you're born you're in the database... Yuk.

    --
    ON DELETE CASCADE
  46. Re:Marketing? During the election they said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you do realize you are going to get modded down to hell for posting something that is contrary to the slashbot way of thinking, don't you?

    you never point out inconsistancies in democrat rhetoric, you just pretend like the words were never uttered by anyone.

    personally, i agree with your post...

  47. Troll by ArielMT · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Take a friggin' hike, troll. I disagree with many of TMM's posts, but he presents arguments that make me at least think. What have you contributed to improve slashdot, troll? Name one thing. Just one.

    I thought so.

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
    1. Re:Troll by ArielMT · · Score: 1

      Whoops, he got modded troll, making my post appear misplaced. This is who it was directed to. Sorry 'bout that.

      --
      It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  48. Age of recruitment by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    Just slightly off topic, but I have never understood the logic in the U.S. as to how someone can have the maturity to make the decision to give his or her life for their country and yet lack the same capacity to make decisions regarding the use of alcohol.

    The same arugments that are used to justify restricting alcohol sales to those under 21 can be used to justify restricting enlistment in the armed services. Does any 18 year old really understand the life and death decision they're making?

    It's obvious to me that Pentagon officials understand this and exploit the naivite of young people in their drive for recruits.

    1. Re:Age of recruitment by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Because in military, your focus is on killing people of other nations. When you drink alcohol, the people you kill tend to be of the same nationality. Beside, joining the military is sort of a crash course in understanding the life and death decisions they're making. You can't learn how to drink-and-drive.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  49. Selective Service? by TripleE78 · · Score: 1

    Don't we already have the selective service system for this? I remember those "it's the law" commercials making damn sure you filled out that card when you turned 18.

    Do we really need yet another system for this? Privacy issues aside (and there are *tons* of those), this seems redundant.

    I guess it does start earlier, but do we need to be tracking 16 year olds while they're still in highschool? Ridiculous.

    ~EEE~

    1. Re:Selective Service? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I think they're trying to find out who's most likely to accept an enlistment offer.

      Think about this, students that does extremely well in academics (minus sports) might be more willing to accept an analytical position in the military. Tracking what classes students take can allow the military to decide what's the best offer for said student, provided he/she is willing to join the military.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Selective Service? by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Think about this, students that does extremely well in academics (minus sports) might be more willing to accept an analytical position in the military.
      And be made an infantryman straight away. Like they're looking for an analyst. That's what contractors are for.

  50. My how things have changed by shoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When I was in high school:
    • I didn't have a social security number
    • I didn't have a driver's license
    • I certainly didn't have any credit cards
    But I did have a:
    • Savings account. Paper passbook. I imagine that all the numbers were in some computer somewhere but it sure wasn't networked with anything else.
    • Student info folder at school. All the grades etc. were kept track of by secretaries and typewriter.
    • Selective Service registration (I turned 18 my senior year).
    The place where I did finally interface with some national databases was when I took the PSAT's. All of a sudden a bazillion colleges were sending me mail. (No, not E-mail!)

    Of course, now all my kids got Social Security numbers at birth. If you don't get them one, you can't use them as a deduction...!

    1. Re:My how things have changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't sell out your kids for a mess of pottage. Check the box on that birth information form marked "No, screw the SSN, you Commie bastards". Secretly photocopy the completed form. Record the conversation when the nurse comes in to verify your box-checking. You will need these later.

      When the Social Security card comes in the mail two weeks later ANYWAY, don't even open the envelope. Take it back to the nearest SS office and tell them to destroy the card and delete the application information. You will need to be very persistent, as a "parent objecting to enumeration at birth". Show them your photocopy. Play back your recording. See what happens next, and then tell me if you still believe Social Security is just there to help people.

  51. pentagon cereal prize inside? by ohzero · · Score: 1

    "is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm ..."

    Try new missile defense sugar crisps?
    Drive a tank, win a car?
    You'll never get a rush like the crushing sound of a little dictators neck?

    I am truly frightened.

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
  52. Banning by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    Arent we trying to block businesses from doing this? Do not call lists and stuff like that? But who is going to put through legislation to stop the pentagon from spamming and calling us all?

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  53. Every Army Recruiter Already Has A Database by jac1962 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called (or was called ca 1993 - 1997) a "P-card" (Prospect card)

    A P-card is what that poor bastard uses when he calls you or your slacker kid every freakin' night of the week, trying to get the two "sits" (appointments) his staion commander told him he had to get before he could go home for the night.

    P-card databases are built from a variety of automated and non-automated sources. The armed forces have bought mailing lists targeting the male 18-24 year group for years. Recruiters also use high school year books, phone books, mailing lists provided by schools, and the ASVAB test you took to get out of PE for the day, and other students to build their P-card database.

    The Penatagon building another database is redundant as any recruiter will tell you. Most of the leads it will generate will likely be useless, but recuriters will be forced to refine them, adding more work to an already never-ending day on the bag.

    I imagine many army recruiters are wishing they were in Iraq right now instead of cold-calling people with little to no interest in volunteering to serve in the military.

    At least in Iraq they get to shoot back at the bastards.

    --
    "I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
  54. This is not new . by hirschma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A couple of stories that may add a historical perspective:

    Plastic Army Men
    ----------------

    Remember the great deals on plastic Army men that you could get on the back covers of comic books? This was back in the early '70's. My friend and his brother weren't satisified with their "one per customer" offer, so they made up a bunch of fake siblings with silly names and sent orders it their name.

    About 10 years later, the brothers were getting a ton of military recruiting junk mail. As were their fake siblings...

    Riflery Team
    ------------

    I was a member of the Riflery team in high school, circa 1981. I lived in a pretty liberal place at the time.

    At on practice, I looked down at the bucket of spent .22 casings, and wondered: who was paying for the bullets? I couldn't imagine that the left-wing PTA would ever budget for them.

    I asked the teacher-coach. He looked at me funny, and said: "The Army pays for the bullets".

    It took me a second to absorb this, and I asked what the Army was getting back in return. The teacher-coach said: "Your target scores".

    Now, my parents hadn't agreed to that, and neither did I. I quit that day, not wanting to be "special need" drafted as a sniper.

    jh

    1. Re:This is not new . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The army would hardly "draft" someone as a sniper considering the amount of training needed. I believe they'd rather use recruits for that.

    2. Re:This is not new . by dhasenan · · Score: 1
      Au contraire--the better someone is with a rifle before drafting, the less marksmanship training they'll need. So if you need a sniper quickly, you'll ask for a military marksman, then a civilian marksman. If you just need snipers, you'll draft/recruit more, keeping an eye out for marksmen.

      The military can use bullet stoppers on occasion, but you're more valuable if you can shoot and hit what you're aiming at. Just because you can shoot well doesn't mean the army will call you tomorrow, but if they know you shoot well and might be receptive to scholarship offers, they'll probably be quite interested in you.

      Not to mention the fact that law enforcement officers might find that information useful....

    3. Re:This is not new . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why was the Army interested enough in kids' target scores to pay for the rifle team's bullets in exchange for them?

    4. Re:This is not new . by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Now, my parents hadn't agreed to that, and neither did I. I quit that day, not wanting to be "special need" drafted as a sniper.

      How were you going to be drafted if the draft was abolished? You're either naive or have an extremely large ego if you think the Army would just up and take you, give you a Ghillie suit and send you out in the field based on your ablity to shoot a paper target with a .22. Sniping is a lot more than just the ability to put a hole in a target at a distance. Possibly even more important than the ability to shoot is fieldcraft, and that can take years to develop properly.

      Incidentially, I was an Army sniper. I speak from experience.

    5. Re:This is not new . by BlightThePower · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would be the idea, more that a personalised approach could be made. If someone is known to be into target shooting for example then an approach along that line can be made; "We hear you are into target shooting and pretty good at it. Your hobby could be part of your new job. We're looking for people just like you." Y'know, make people feel good about whats on offer. Nothing too evil about that, its just targeted (hehe, pun) marketing I guess. Its not different from the way credit card companies and other direct marketers suck up to you with an initial bout of ego polishing about being in an 'exclusive' group of discerning successful people with 'special requirements' outside the ken of Joe Sixpack.

      --
      Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
    6. Re:This is not new . by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

      A little OT, but this reminds of something that happened when I was in grad school. As part of a class project, one of my classmates, who was an avid Civil War reenactor, compiled a directory of local units and individuals involved in reenactments. Word must have gotten out that he was working on it, because he eventually heard from the NRA (National Rifle Assn.) asking him for a copy.

      He may have liked running around in a Civil War uniform with a musket, but he was lefty enough to despise the NRA - he told them to fsck off and do their own recruitment.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    7. Re:This is not new . by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Au contraire--the better someone is with a rifle before drafting, the less marksmanship training they'll need.

      Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Everyone gets exactly the same amount of rifle training in basic training, regardless of prior experience. The Army doesn't need civilian marksmanship scores to find good shooters. By the end of basic training they already know who the good shots are, which gives them a much larger pool of potential snipers than they'll ever actually need. Combine that with the fact that (as an actual sniper noted above) the real difficulty of being a sniper is getting into a position to take the shot in the first place, and your armchair analysis falls to pieces.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:This is not new . by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      Then why was the Army interested enough in kids' target scores to pay for the rifle team's bullets in exchange for them?

      They weren't interested. I guarantee it. Collection of scores is probably just typical government aggregation of pointless data. It sounds to me like there's some failure to understand how the DCM/CMP(Director of Civilian Marksmanship/Civilian Marksmanship Program) works. It was created in 1908 by an act of congress to encourage rifle proficiency among an increasingly urban national population that was showing a dimishing familiarity with firearms. It's administered by the US Army, but has its own budget. It's no fiendish plot by dark forces trade bullets for recruitment leads, it's a nearly century old and largely irrelevant government program. DCM hands out free bullets, and generates useless reports saying "scores show that marksmanship has improved; good job we're doing; continue to fund us".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:This is not new . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...while today your scores playing America's Army get uploaded instead.

  55. Mr. President... by super_ogg · · Score: 0

    Prepare the golden probe.
    ogg

    --
    Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
  56. If One Was To Say No... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If someone decided to "opt out" by providing their name, social security, and pictures of their hairy butt, should they expect a visit from the FBI?

    The FBI was looking for my brother in the early 1970s after he pissed on a recruiter. Eventually, he did go into the Navy but they kicked him back out after training. I think he pissed off too many people.

  57. Re:Marketing? During the election they said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, but they told me I could go home 6 months ago. Maybe that got lost in the mail.

  58. They should just contact India. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    If they're desperately in need of such information, they could always just give a call over to India to obtain such private data. Indeed, they could probably arrange a bulk purchase deal discount.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:They should just contact India. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They dont' really need to go all the way to India. CardSystems Solutions can do a much better job in US itself. Oh wait....

  59. Suppression DB is standard practice in marketting by SupremeChalupa · · Score: 1

    Anyone that has a widespread marketting audience imports lists every other week. So a suppression list is required given that if I "delete" you today instead of move you to a suppresion list and I import you tomorrow because I bought a new list from marketting agency "We Sell Stuff". Then I'm not respecting your "Do Not Mail" request. This "keep a seperate list" is what every marketting DB manager worth his salt will do to avoid complaints.

    So take off your tinfoil hats and move along.

  60. Prior Art by harvey_peterson · · Score: 0

    Haven't they (the military) been doing this for years now?

    When I was ten or eleven, my mom filled out some survey and instead of using my name, she used the alias "John".

    When I turned 18, we got all sorts of phone calls from the Army/Marines/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard asking to speak with John. We tried to tell the recruiters that he was fictional, but they didn't believe us, instead choosing to believe the name on their call sheets.

  61. And here's the code that processes the data: by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    if subject.father in {politician,oilman}
    then goto alabama
    else goto iraq
    Note that there have been a few minor changes since the Vietnam era.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:And here's the code that processes the data: by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Note that there have been a few minor changes since the Vietnam era.

      Yeah, now the sons of rich politicians don't need to scam themselves out of the draft, because there isn't one. They just sit back and wait for the recruiters to prey on minorities and white trash to go do all the fighting for them.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:And here's the code that processes the data: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being rich has never been better. I have no problem with poor people dieing in Iraq and middle class paying for it.

    3. Re:And here's the code that processes the data: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Patriotism is for sucks, eh?

  62. that's not an opt-out... by meldir · · Score: 1

    It's a 'do not contact'-flag, it's not an opt-out. Even with the 'do not contact'-flag, they will keep all your information (grade points etc.), continue to gather new information, and even pass it on for purposes outside the military.

  63. Re:Open letter to T/\/\/\/\ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a Karma Whore. Those unfamiliar with your posting tactics are the ones modding you up. This unknowingly makes them Karma Johns.

    LOL. Nice one.

  64. It's only going to get worse by diggem · · Score: 1

    Storage is cheap, processing is cheap. They're both only getting cheaper. I would nearly expect this trend to keep happening until the length, width and mass of your last turd is recorded for posterity and instantly available on an FBI agents desk near you.

  65. Yet More Five Year Planning Tools by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    So, do you still believe the Easter Bunny about how we're winning?

    If you do - and most of us ex-military don't - you're going to love paying for it.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Yet More Five Year Planning Tools by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      That hope has been dashed for a long time. Unless we resort to heavy weapons (the A in ABC), it will be a difficult (aka impossible) to win this. Let's just leave them be and pull out.

      P.S. We could have a reality show out of this, watch Iraq tears itself a new one from civil war.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Yet More Five Year Planning Tools by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      That hope has been dashed for a long time. Unless we resort to heavy weapons (the A in ABC), it will be a difficult (aka impossible) to win this. Let's just leave them be and pull out.

      From your fingers to God's eyes ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  66. Re:Not Meeting Recruiting Goals = Desperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With so few people in the military, how can the United States carry out its obligations as a world power? One obligation is providing disaster relief like that in January of 2005 in Southeast Asia.

    By stopping all their stupid wars, duh! That, and stopping to call themselves silly names like "world power" and "leaders of freedom and democracy". Give us a fucking break, 20th century called and they want their cold war back.

  67. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This is just the tip of the iceberg, too...soon this will be expanded to all americans eligible for military service..


    Huh? You mean like this? Man, Americans don't know shit about how their own government works. No wonder why you freaked out like you did. Ignorance leads to fear and all that.

    Look, for whatever reason, the military was unable to get this info from the SSS, they had to go to a marketing firm in order to solicit their own citizens. Christ on a cracker, you think this is Orwellian? Military service was mandatory for a very long time in the US. It's mandatory in a huge number of countries, many of which you'd probably even consider liberal democracies.

    1. Re:Nothing New by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Please reference this comment for your response, as I cannot be bothered to type it out all over again.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  68. Holy Fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its True! The US Government is using Scientology!

  69. Anti-recruiting lists? by smagruder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Makes me wonder if the schools with cooperate with "anti-recruiters" who are trying to starve the armed forces so the U.S. won't also go into Iran or Syria based on yet another pack of Bush lies. Normally I would be opposed to such activity, but as long as we're invading countries illegally (i.e., as long as Bush is in office), this would seem to be a prudent effort.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    1. Re:Anti-recruiting lists? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Let's just leave them along. It's much worse for those soldiers over their hearing that we're not going to send reinforcement. Like it or not, we're in a war, let's just finish this quickly (a few dozen megatons of bombs would work nicely)

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Anti-recruiting lists? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Yes, a few dozen megatons of boms would work great --- if we wanted to prolong this war for another decade...

      The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" gung-ho cowboy mentality is what got us mixed up in this Middle East mess in the first place!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  70. There is not going to be a draft by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does everyone keep bringing this up? It's a neat scare tactic but it's not going to happen. There is still an excess of reservists and guard units which have not been called up. (I know this because I know a lot of them which have not been called up or have been rotated home from duty). Barring another war taking place on US soil there will not be a draft.

    Committing to a draft would actually hurt the military more than help. A dramatic increase in personnel would strain existing logistical resources and money allotted to the department of defense. There would have to be a extreme increase in military funding before any drafting would occur.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    1. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      There would have to be a extreme increase in military funding before any drafting would occur.

      For some reason a lot of people (usually leaning left) seem to forget that the military, even with ~500 billion, does not have to buy clothing, food, housing, equipment, fuel and munitions. Or do things such as research, supply health care and base upkeep.

      Lets see, at $15k/year pay check+ at least another $15k per year of housing/food/equipment and other necesities that's $30k per person per year minimum, lets say we have 30 million people between the ages of 18 to 25, that would be 15 million males. Say a third can not do so for medical reasons. That leaves 10 million males at $30k/year. So the military would need at least $300 Billion more for a full all out draft. Then there is the cost of equipment and training...

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:There is not going to be a draft by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Training is the big one. When you consign soldiers against their will, it's really hard to make them into competent front-line fighters (which is what draftees, for the most part, become). They're not only unwilling but also not filtered by recruiters for "soldier material."

    3. Re:There is not going to be a draft by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you that another draft is unlikely. With all the technology like stealth bombers, smart bombs, predator drones, surveilance devices and some very skilled special forces, the US can cause a fair amount of damage with a fraction of the force that we used in bigger wars like Vietnam & WWII.

      Barring another war taking place on US soil there will not be a draft.

      Why does it need to be on US soil? Another sizable war taking place anywhere would use up the existing reservists.

      China & N. Korea have been getting a little more agressive lately, if you haven't noticed. And we may still need to contend with another big terrorist network based in yet-another country.

      Bless their hearts, but let's not forget that reservists and guard units aren't as experienced or trained as the full-time units. They are not as capable, and we would still need to move some of the experienced units from the existing fronts to the new front.

    4. Re:There is not going to be a draft by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

      Why does it need to be on US soil? Another sizable war taking place anywhere would use up the existing reservists.

      The reason why I posted this is that the political landscape today would not allow a second front to open up. If it did I believe Iraq would then be left to fend for itself as political pressure would say let them fight for their own country while we protect our interests elsewhere.

      --
      Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    5. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If thre was a war on US soil there's no way we'd need a draft. Many MANY people would volunteer to fight that kind of situation. Even after 9/11 there was a huge, but brief, surge in people wanting to join the military, as well as the police and fire departments around the nation.

    6. Re:There is not going to be a draft by colmore · · Score: 1

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/

      *cough*

      It won't take a war on our soil. All it will take is another 9/11, which shouldn't take too long since very little of any real worth has been done to prevent or deter terrorism.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    7. Re:There is not going to be a draft by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Barring another war taking place on US soil there will not be a draft.
      Besides, if we really needed our military for self defense, we could pull out of Iraq tomorrow. It would be a shame to see Iraq revert back to dictatorship, but winning Iraq isn't a tactical necessity for us.
    8. Re:There is not going to be a draft by temojen · · Score: 1

      The pentagon has repeatedly said that they've missed their recruitment target. A draft does not nescesarily mean they draft EVERY eligible person, just enough to top up to their target. The fact that they've missed their target means that they have the money. Draftees cost the same to train & equip as volunteers. They may even cost less if you don't have to pay 40 hours each of recruiter time.

    9. Re:There is not going to be a draft by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      There is still an excess of reservists and guard units which have not been called up. (I know this because I know a lot of them which have not been called up or have been rotated home from duty).

      So why the "stop loss" policy, why do they still keep solders in Irak even though they served what the term they signed for? It makes no sense.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    10. Re:There is not going to be a draft by MSBob · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The oil wars are just starting. A lot more rednecks will have to be sacrificed before all the major oil fields are controlled by the US of A. Thus a draft will be necessary.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    11. Re:There is not going to be a draft by wardk · · Score: 1

      I agee it won't happen, as it will cause civil unrest. oh, and we may have to face issues like, "should rich kids, and/or college students get drafted too, out of fairness?".

      bring on the draft, make Bush face the public for once.

    12. Re:There is not going to be a draft by lgw · · Score: 1

      As long as we keep our nuclear program strong we'll never need a draft. We could not fight a *conventional* war on a new front today, given existing committments, but we could win any number of wars on new fronts very quickly if so motivated.

      Fighting a war using well-trained troops and smart weaponry to minimize collateral damage is a choice. If we were pushed hard enough, we'd make different choices, as we have before on many occasions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:There is not going to be a draft by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

      Because pulling out one division and replacing it with another is not like hitting next song on your iPod. If you have a trained division experienced in the area it is in rather than replacing it with another which does not have the intelligence on the area is not the best thing to do. Further rotation of a division is not done as easily as it sounds on paper. It's not like a movie where you just walk out. Continuity of defense and service are sometimes more important than rotating individuals home.

      Furthermore, when you sign up for military service you sign up for a fixed period of years plus a few years in the ready reserve. The ready reserve means that if you are needed you are called back into service. So, it not usually the case where someone has done their duty and is totally being prevented from leaving. They know they could be extended and had the ready reserve requirement to fulfill at the end of their enlistment.

      --
      Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    14. Re:There is not going to be a draft by demachina · · Score: 1

      "With all the technology like stealth bombers, smart bombs, predator drones, surveilance devices and some very skilled special forces, the US can cause a fair amount of damage with a fraction of the force that we used in bigger wars like Vietnam & WWII."

      Uh....all those high tech weapons are completely useless in an urban guerilla war like the one being fought in Iraq, and that is the war they can't get people to volunteer to fight. In case you don't watch the news that war consists of manning check points to try to stop car bombers, patrolling streets on foot or in Humvess as people snipe at you or set off bombs next to you. You usally never see who is trying to kill you, or if they do they suicide, so you can't point your high tech weapons at them.

      This war also means breaking down doors at night and rounding up "suspects", and occassionally it means flattening urban areas like Fallujah which you can do with all the high tech weapons as long as you don't mind killing lots of innocent people.

      Oh and you need lots of people, who don't value their lives to much, to drive trucks to move supplys from point A to point B. Truck convoys are especially tempting and easy targets for snipers and roadside bombs. You can use airlift to move supplies around but it costs a bloody fortune and quickly wears out all your airplanes, helicopters and pilots and at that point you are basicly admitting you don't control a place you are telling everyone you control.

      All in all you are thinking wars means "Shock and Awe", "Desert Storm" and tanks racing across the desert to a glorious victory in a week, because the DOD and the press told you thats what it was, and show you pretty pictures to proce it. Well that is one form of war and America and its weapons are great at it.

      Unfortunately once the "Shock and Awe" part is over if there are enough people, who really hate you, to start a flourishing insurgency they can tie up the U.S. military in knots, indefinitely and all the high tech weapons are next to useless. At that point you need a whole lot of grunts patrolling streets and kicking down doors and even then they still probably wont win. Its pretty rare to defeat an entrenched insurgency with military force. Only way you win is figure out a way to make the people of the country not hate you and get them to stop supporting and fueling the insurgents, and the U.S. is REALLY bad at doing that.

      --
      @de_machina
    15. Re:There is not going to be a draft by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1
      From here:

      Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists.

      From the article you quoted:

      Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis

      In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal . . . by nearly 2,800 recruits

      2800 / 1,199,000 = 0.0023352793994995829858215179316097

      --
      Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    16. Re:There is not going to be a draft by KlomDark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely! I would join up in a heartbeat if it were a war on our own soil, or something honorably directly threatening. I would give my life for my country if I knew my death would have a direct effect.

      However, I have no interest in risking even my little toe for these current punk-ass "world police" bullshit sand/oil wars.

    17. Re:There is not going to be a draft by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how this works, somehow I didn't imagine a whole division being replaced at once. My guess was that people that done their service would go and other people will replace them. Maybe things are not as simple. However I heard cases in which solders sue he Department of Deffence because they were kept in Irak more than they should have been.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    18. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy? Haven't you heard of a little thing like 'stop-loss orders'?

      The US military is dramatically understaffed. That's one of the reasons why companies like Halliburton can continue their war-profiteering using contractors. Hell, it's so bad that most US government officials going to Iraq and other countries rely on privately contracted body-guards instead of military or other US forces.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    19. Re:There is not going to be a draft by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      If it did I believe Iraq would then be left to fend for itself as political pressure would say let them fight for their own country while we protect our interests elsewhere.

      True, that's basically what we did to Afghanistan. The UN helped a little bit, but Afghanistan is basically in the shitter, and it's questionable if they'll pull themselves out of their current crisis anytime soon.

    20. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      With all the technology like stealth bombers, smart bombs, predator drones, surveilance devices and some very skilled special forces, the US can cause a fair amount of damage with a fraction of the force that we used in bigger wars like Vietnam & WWII.
      Except for SF, tell me where and when we've used any of the technology you've described in the M.E. in the last two years.

      Your argument went out the window when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and our adversaries changed from the militaries of nation-states to insurgent guerillas.

      We need the grunt on the ground, in the enemy's face, today as much as the Roman Legions did 2000 years ago.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    21. Re:There is not going to be a draft by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I would join, too, to fight a war on American soil. However, leaders of the world have more difficult decisions to make, sometimes based on shit intelligence. And sometimes, waiting for the other side to strike you is not the best course of action if you want to save lives.

      If we had recognized the threat from Hitler in 1936, and acted on it, we could have prevented World War II and saved millions of lives. But we didn't.

      Who is to say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't avert a similar future tragedy? Who is to say what will happen in the future if we didn't start applying similar pressure to Iran and North Korea?

      It is easier to react rather than act, but many right decisions are not easy. Do you think Bush honestly wants people to die, or do you think he is honestly trying to save lives? Occam's razor tells me he is trying to save lives, even if history may show he went about it the wrong way.

      Hindsight is 20/20.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    22. Re:There is not going to be a draft by SEAL · · Score: 1

      Just a small perspective from someone who has been deployed to a lot of places:

      I agree with you that hindsight is 20/20. However I do not agree with G.W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

      I did agree with the first Gulf War. I thought we did the right thing. Iraq invaded another nation, one that we were more-or-less on friendly terms with. We pushed the invaders out.

      The current situation in Iraq though, was completely unnecessary. I held that opinion before the war, and I hold it now. I also believe that Bush and his close advisors to some degree premeditated an Iraq invasion even before he got into office. He wanted to be a "war president" and 9/11 was just an excuse to kick things into gear.

      Afghanistan was a smart and reasonable reaction to the 9/11 attack. Iraq was not. And even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction... so what? Many countries do - including many we are not on good terms with: Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, and don't forget of course, we're hypocrites because we have chemical, biological AND nuclear weapons of our own.

    23. Re:There is not going to be a draft by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

      There is not going to be a draft

      And what if something goes wrong in North Korea? Or if Nigeria destabilizes?

      Still no draft, eh?

      The US is in a situation like a particular South Pacific telecoms provider who had an incident this week, resulting in the cutting off of that nation's capital and shutting down their stock market.

      Their multi-path redundant fibre network suddenly lost its redundancy due to a rat chewing through some fibre on a bridge. As they were fixing that fault, a post-hole digger on the other side of the country knocked out the remaining path. Oops.

      Having a huge, highly trained army of willing volunteers on standby is a great thing. Does the US have such a beast today?

    24. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you think Bush honestly wants people to die, or do you think he is honestly trying to save lives? Occam's razor tells me he is trying to save lives, even if history may show he went about it the wrong way.

      A. That's a false dichotomy. There are more than the 2 choices you supplied.

      B. Therefore, Occam's razor certainly doesn't apply.

      Personally, I think all the available evidence points to Bush being a sociopath. Therefore he certainly doesn't give a shit about saving lives because he does not even posess the ability to feel.
      Now, find some actual evidence to refute that. Obviously anything that he has said is worthless, sociopaths are great at gaming people.

      Can you name even one action he has taken that would support your belief?


      Who is to say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't avert a similar future tragedy? Who is to say what will happen in the future if we didn't start applying similar pressure to Iran and North Korea?


      And who is to say the opposite is true? Who is to say that the truth couldn't be anything?

      That's right. It's pure speculation any way you look at it.

      We do know that Afghanistan is somewhat safe in one major city and basically run by warlords over the rest of the country.

      We do know that the blatant lies that were our sole justification for the invasion of Iraq have given legitimacy to our critics. We also know that most of the admiration and respect we had built up in the world was pissed away in the rush to invade a country that we knew full well had nothing to do with the attack on us. That action, quite rightly, demonstrated to the world that integrity, honor, truth and justice are *not* qualities that America respects.

    25. Re:There is not going to be a draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal . . . by nearly 2,800 recruits

      If only you'd quoted the whole sentence...

      In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off [sic] its target.

  71. Hi I work for the government by Vertdang · · Score: 1
    Highschool recruiter: "Hi, I'm taking all of your information so we can draf...errr, recruit you."

    Student: "I don't want you to have my information, and I don't want to be recruited."

    Recruiter: "Oh, well in that case, I need all your information so we can put you on our 'draft immediately'... errr, 'do not call' list.

    --
    Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
    Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
    1. Re:Hi I work for the government by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Um... I seriously doubt they'll draft people who ABSOLUTELY do not want to be in the military. Its a waste of their resources trying to train those people, and those people make lousy soldiers. Unless they're going for the cannon fobbers, then general asylum population will work better.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Hi I work for the government by Vertdang · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt they'll draft people who ABSOLUTELY do not want to be in the military

      I'm sure that'll be a comfort to many vietnam vets. "don't worry, you didn't want to be in the army, I'm sure they didn't want to draft you."

      --
      Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
      Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
  72. If you want to stop this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take up arms

    Form a militia

    Lawfully uninstall the new king's men

    If you think anything less is going to stop the USA's constitutional train wreck, you are deluding yourself.

    P.S. SCOTUS just ruled that your property rights now come at the descretion of your local king's man. Make sure you can pay more tribute than a private developer and they just might let you keep it.

  73. If people realize this... by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    If the poor people see military conscription as a means to get rid of poor people, they'll be angry. If they seem likely to acknowledge this possibility as fact (regardless of whether it actually is factual), then conscription efforts will quickly become egalitarian, else target richer people outright.

  74. I for one... by Wazukkithemaster · · Score: 1

    ... welcome our new suit-wearing, list-making, teen-stalking overlords.

    --
    Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
  75. Overreact much? by sterno · · Score: 1

    This isn't a privacy violation. This is the exact same tactics used by telemarketers, etc. They get profiles of potential customers and then call those customers. Nothing new here, just taking existing publicly available information and putting it in a database. The Pentagon has no authority to get information not in the public record, so they aren't going to have GPA's, school subjects, etc, unless it's publicly available.

    If you opt out of course they have to keep you in a different database. If they didn't then every time they reviews their records you'd keep getting added back to the database. How else would they keep track of the fact that you didn't want to be in their database in the first place.

    As for sharing the information, the only bit of information they would have that would be new is your response to their inquiries. Fine they can tell people that you don't want to be in the military. Given the size of our military compared to the country's military age population, that's a pretty big list.

    This notion of being labeled a dissident is just plain silly. Not wanting to be in the military is a common enough thing that it's insufficient for profiling "dissidents". The FBI has enough to keep track of with more active dissidents that they don't have the time to go through the Pentagon's database and find out who didn't want to be in the Marines.

    So stop with the paranoia, it isn't 1984 yet.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Overreact much? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      This isn't a privacy violation. This is the exact same tactics used by telemarketers, etc.

      Once again, I'd like to direct your attention to the privacy advocates' letter to the Pentagon:

      Direct Marketing Is not an Appropriate Government Function

      Although labeled a "Joint Advertising" database, the level of personal information proposed to be collected by DOD suggests a massive direct marketing campaign. As we noted above, the Privacy Act mandated that each agency "shall maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency."[12] But this proposal goes far beyond traditional government uses of personal information into activities that are only appropriate for the private sector. Direct marketing to individuals who have expressed no interest in recruitment simply is not an appropriate function for a government agency. The DOD should abandon this approach as it is inconsistent with the Privacy Act, and will lead to increasing demands for individuals' personal information.
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Overreact much? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      And, for the record, GPA, etc are *not* public record. The school has to be authorized by the student (or the student's parents/guardians) to release that information.

      This new plan would give them that.

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    3. Re:Overreact much? by sterno · · Score: 1

      That's a matter of interpretation. The letter claims that building a database of potential recruits is not with the Pentagon's purview, but the Pentagon thinks it is. This is definitely directly related to their basic operations.

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    4. Re:Overreact much? by sterno · · Score: 2, Informative

      And, for the record, GPA, etc are *not* public record. The school has to be authorized by the student (or the student's parents/guardians) to release that information. This new plan would give them that.

      Actually, readin the article, this new Pentagon plan has nothing to do with that. This plan is merely collating information that they already have. The GPA information was part of previous legislation tied to no child left behind. That I think is a privacy invasion and that that particular of NCLB should be challenged. But the Pentagon's database itself is not the issue.

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  76. This isn't new. by rindeee · · Score: 1

    The US Navy and the NSA (or what there was of it at the time) used a very similar method to recruit crypto staff during WWII and after. Same during conflict with USSR/Cuba, and so on. Like it or not, the military in this country needs specialized skills (math, engineering, etc.), particular personalities (intel, ops, etc.) and so on; and this is not a bad way of recruiting said talent. If you can get past the idea that "all things done by the Fed are evil", you might consider the outcome if they do not find talented persons to serve. The idea that the military exploits poor, stupid people is a fallacy. The average person that I work with (in the Navy's CT community/NSA) are in the top few percent in terms of intelligence, knowledge, skills and ability. Are their stupid people in the military? Of course, just as there are in the civilian world. Are there poor people that join for financial reasons? Of course, just like there are poor people in the civilian world who take unpleasent jobs for financial reasons. Get over yourselves...Slashdot is not exactly the bastion of geniuses.

    1. Re:This isn't new. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to say anything about the "smart versus stupid bit" (though, many studies show a correlation between family income and academic performance), but the "military recruits are poor" point is quite accurate.

      From a DoD press briefing:

      "Now, in terms of median income, for whites -- now again, this is enlisted versus -- and this is against the entire civilian population, so it's not quite the right comparison. But for whites, the median total gross household income in 1999 for our enlisted population was about $33,500, versus $44,400 for the civilian population. Again, that omits officers from the DOD numbers --"

      The situation is similar for blacks:

      "For African Americans, however, the total gross household income of our active duty personnel, their parents, that is, was $32,000 versus $27,900 for the population at large".

      The guy kinda spins it by saying that the family of the average black recruit is richer than the average black family, but that's a weird way to look at it. A total household income of $32,000 is low-income, whether you're black or white. It's a full $10,000 less than the median income of the average American family in 1999 (the year the statistics in the press briefing were taken from).

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:This isn't new. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Correction: In the last paragraph, "median income of the average American family" is a non-sensical statement. It should be "median family income in the United States."

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:This isn't new. by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      The problem with your military numbers is it doesn't take into account the on-base benefits, like cheaper food, cheap or free housing, etc.

      If you get free housing and free/cheap food, that $10k/year difference isn't such a bad deal anymore.

      Also, isn't military incoming non-taxable? I don't really know.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    4. Re:This isn't new. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The numbers don't refer to the incomes of military recruits. They refer to the incomes of the families from which military personnel. The statistics suggest that the military tends to recruit from poorer families, which is certainly not new information.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  77. The most feared sentence in the English Language by davmoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

    This line causes more people to run in fear than any weapon of mass destruction.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  78. Re:Marketing? During the election they said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It must have been lost in the mail. Have any of you recieved your draft notices yet? When do you ship out?

    You'd be funnier if these people weren't dying.

    But oopsie, point out that the Bush administration is full of liars who have a pathological fear of the truth, and suddenly you're a seditious liberal hippie communist. Point out that modern religions don't like it when you bear false witnesses, and neocons scream "Why do you hate America so?!"

    Besides, Bush can't even keep his story straight on Iraq. What would the kids be going to fight? The war on 911terroristWMDfascistbrutaldictatoroil?

  79. Impressive... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my country, so called people's army had exactly such a database of all students, because every student was actualy a recruit on delay.

    But that was deep past in the totalitarian communist era. Today it would be illegal to keep such data for any reason. What's exactly going on in the USA??? Is it a precursor to conscription?

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Impressive... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      We're trying to force everyone to be Righteous Christian Capitalists.. spreading democracy and freedom around the world in name only.

    2. Re:Impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should get more aquainted with the ways of the USA before spouting off like a total idiot.

      You ever heard of the Selective Service? I thought not. Look it up because it totally destroys the point of your comment.

    3. Re:Impressive... by joelgrimes · · Score: 1

      Is it a precursor to conscription?

      No, the precursor to conscription is the Selective Service, which has been in force in one form or another since Franklin Roosevelt signed it into law in 1940

    4. Re:Impressive... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      In my country, so called people's army had exactly such a database of all students, because every student was actualy a recruit on delay. But that was deep past in the totalitarian communist era. Today it would be illegal to keep such data for any reason. What's exactly going on in the USA??? Is it a precursor to conscription?

      You mean like how everyone upon turning 18 must join the service (for min 2 years) like in Germany, Switzerland, Israel...

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    5. Re:Impressive... by rylin · · Score: 1

      Funny, me living in a country like that (Sweden), I simply told the kind officers "I don't want to join the military. You're better off spending the money on someone who wants to join", and that was that.
      "Must" is a very strong word. Feel free to not use it until you really understand it.

    6. Re:Impressive... by Neoprofin · · Score: 0

      "Sweden In Sweden military service is mandatory for men only. As of 2002, Quick Facts about: Sweden A Scandinavian kingdom in the eastern part of the Scandinavian PeninsulaSweden's government asked the army to consider mandatory army service for women. Less than a third of the Scandinavian country's eligible 19-year-olds are actually drafted each year. See Sweden considers mandatory military service for women.

      Men may choose to do unarmed service, for instance as a firefighter. Generally unarmed service is longer than armed."

      http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/C/Co /Conscription.htm

      I'm not saying that proves anything, nor do the other sites that had little snippets saying the same thing that I read before getting to that one. I'm just saying that if Sweden does not, in fact, require military service there are a grave number of people who are misinformed.

    7. Re:Impressive... by rylin · · Score: 1

      Well, you're actually forced to go to a military drafting ground. Failure to go there results in a lovely police escort and a fine.

      That said, depending on how you score on the tests they take (intelligence, physical strength, physical endurance, psychological evaluation), you have something of a say in the whole matter of you being drafted.

      While not scoring above average on the physical tests, I scored rather high on the psychological evalutation and the iq test.

      The psychologist I was talking to asked me what kind of service I wanted (eg. military (if so, what kind), civilian), and I simply told him I wanted to graduate and keep working with my employer.

      He filled out some form, and after that, I haven't had any contact with the military since.
      This was five years ago.

  80. You're most likely being tracked now. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    Now that you've made such comments, there's a very good chance you'll be added to a list of potential trouble makers. You'll probably be amongst the first to be drafted.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  81. You mean they arent already doing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have thought they are already doing this. As a nuclear engineering student, I get mailings from the Navy once every few months. Ive never talked to a recruiter before, so why would the Navy be sending me all that crap? And not other branches?

  82. One step beyond.. by PopeAlien · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thats funny - they already get names addresses and telephone numbers from schools in exchange for federal aid as noted in this article

    A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

    I guess this would fill in the gaps and really make sure 'no child is left behind'.

    I wonder would this lead to more or less stories like this:

    In one well-publicized case in Colorado, Army recruiters were tape-recorded encouraging a student journalist posing as a high school dropout to create a diploma from a non-existent school to comply with military enlistment requirements. They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.

    1. Re:One step beyond.. by snorklewacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.

      The fake diploma thing is downright dishonest, but I've had employers tell me before a drug test "just drink a whole lot of gatorade a few days before and take a b12 tablet the day of the test". It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.

      Before shipping him off to get him killed for the commander-in-chief's personal vendetta of course.

      By the way, it'd lead to less stories. They'll be able to screen out those pesky journalists. Word to the wise student: take journalism.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    2. Re:One step beyond.. by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      I guess this would fill in the gaps and really make sure 'no child is left behind'.

      Unless they happen to get left behind enemy lines.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    3. Re:One step beyond.. by Raistlin77 · · Score: 0

      Heh, my employer told me (months after I was hired of course) that if you are not smart enough to pass a drug-test, then you are not smart enough to work for him.

    4. Re:One step beyond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some things I've noted during my time in service.

      Army recruiters (the ones out there actually doing the recruiting) are often under pressure from their first sergeant to produce names, and have a certain quota for each month. This is a bad way to do it, in my opinion.

      When I finished AIT (Advanced Individual Training, which is training for your specific job) I was able to get Hometown Recruiting. I didn't want to enlist anyone, or anything along those lines. I wanted the extra two weeks at home with my family.

      When I reported for duty, I signed a counseling statement saying that I would come up with at least three "leads" within the first 72 hours, and that I must get at least two people to enlist while I was there, or else I would be put on leave for the amount that I had requested and then be sent to my first real duty station.

      I play the good soldier, because damn it, I want to spend two weeks with my family. I was constantly pressured every day for leads, and was told to go through the LRL (Local Recruiter Listing, I believe -- Books that have the phone numbers, etc., of HS students that have graduated or are going to graduate) and call up any names that I recognize.

      Myself and the others that are there on HRAP are sent out daily with anywhere from 200-600 fliers, and told to distribute them throughout neighborhoods and apartment complexes, (some of which are gated, which we were told to ignore) and place them on doors, etc.

      (Fun note: Most of the time we went and got wasted at this one guy's house, and just trashed the fliers.)

      Anyways. Recruiters are nefarious not only outside the Army, but within it as well for being... unethical, at best. (I will make a note, that not ALL recruiters are evil tools of the government. Some of them are downright awesome, and do the right thing.) The fact of the matter is, though, that they've got pressure from their chain of command to produce names. I guess that makes some of them not care how they get those names.

    5. Re:One step beyond.. by sgtrock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As bad as this sounds, it used to be much, MUCH worse back in the late '70s. Back then, the All Volunteer Force was just getting off the ground. Also, many civilians really believed that anyone who wished to serve his or her country in uniform was either a latent baby killer, or a complete incompetent who couldn't make it in the 'real world'.

      I was lucky enough to have an honest recruiter for the Navy warn me up front about what I'd be facing if I put the uniform on. However, once I reached boot camp I heard plenty of horror stories; lots of recruiters who lied about conditions, guys whose recruiters took the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) for them, faked drug tests by recruiters, recruiters who lied on the paperwork about recruits' educational background, etc.

      Why was this going on? Well, mostly because the Navy would severely punish sailors who did not meet their recruiting quota. When you have some guy with 15 years in uniform who was struggling just to support his family (on food stamps no less!), staring at the possibility of the loss of his pension because he's about to lose a stripe (which puts him below the minimum rank to be allowed to re-enlist to reach 20 years), he'll do what he has to to avoid it. When you have guys who are facing the possibility of time in the brig if they don't meet quota, they'll do what they have to to avoid it. And forget ever making chief petty officer if you get a letter of reprimand because you missed one monthly quota!

      Because the risks to a career were so high, recruiting duty at the time was considered as unpaid hazardous duty by many. Sailors used to volunteer for back to back sea duty tours just to avoid it.

    6. Re:One step beyond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are no enemy lines in a guerrila war.

    7. Re:One step beyond.. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1, Troll

      Am I the only one who is chilled by these kinds of stories? At what point will the average american say 'this is the thing which has made it clear to me: they have gone too far!'?

      Seriously: your president has lied to you (often, and on a larger, more important scale than lying about a blowjob), the administration is demonstrably corrupt (Enron and Halliburton) and it's hypocritical (allows pornstars at their functions). Your governments policies have created poverty, debt and terrorists as if it where actively pursuing that purpose; it has screwed up education to the point that illiteracy and innumeracy are reaching third world levels; and now it has created a recruitment agency which literaly leaves no stone unturned. There is now literally no way of getting away from the recruiters...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    8. Re:One step beyond.. by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Good perspective. Today's all volunteer force far outshines that of 30 years ago.

      Wish I had mod points for you.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    9. Re:One step beyond.. by AnotherEscobar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, in looking at how I would go about homeschooling one of my kids, I found that I could create my own high school diploma for her when I had determined that she had graduated.
      Now, I only began looking in to home schooling, and I am sure that someone more familiar with the subject could probably correct me, but I dont believe there is such a thing as a 'fake' high school diploma.

    10. Re:One step beyond.. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      "if you are not smart enough to pass a drug-test, then you are not smart enough to work for him"

      People that ignorant aren't worth working for.

    11. Re:One step beyond.. by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      There are no enemy lines in a guerrila war

      +1 Captain Obvious

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    12. Re:One step beyond.. by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      "Also, many civilians really believed that anyone who wished to serve his or her country in uniform was either a latent baby killer, or a complete incompetent who couldn't make it in the 'real world'."

      How is that any different from being a terrorist or a cokehead dropout in today's terms?

    13. Re:One step beyond.. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      "Am I the only one who is chilled by these kinds of stories? At what point will the average american say 'this is the thing which has made it clear to me: they have gone too far!'?"

      They're all just bricks in the wall. It's hard to get a proper perspective without seeing the big picture. That's very difficult in the face of the propaganda.

    14. Re:One step beyond.. by webview · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was lucky enough to have an honest recruiter for the Navy warn me up front about what I'd be facing if I put the uniform on.

      I always thought the Navy was upfront about the life threatening work you would be doing.

      You know. Navy. Accelerate Your Life.

    15. Re:One step beyond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      "And forget ever making chief petty officer if

      you get a letter of reprimand because you missed one monthly quota!"

      Bingo. Happened to my dad. Despite glowing recommendations from his superiors, many commendations, and acing the chief's exam he was passed over every time. Before drawing recruiting duty he was a star. Afterwards he was an untouchable.

      Recruiting damn near killed him too. His blood pressure went through the roof for those three years.

    16. Re:One step beyond.. by Neoprofin · · Score: 0

      Most cokehead drop-outs and terrorists really don't have a promising future. Is that different enough?

    17. Re:One step beyond.. by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, nevertheless, it's concerning to see that we've been slowly rolling backward over the past few years.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    18. Re:One step beyond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In every situation it is wise to ask yourself who really pulls the strings, who has to gain the most, and who has to lose the most. Follow the money trail, all $5 Billion US a year. Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Cheney,... Mistavarim...

    19. Re:One step beyond.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same Army that made me sit on the Group W bench?

    20. Re:One step beyond.. by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      As a man who was coerced into the military only to find out that I was sworn in under a condition that could land me in a living hell for years, let me tell you one thing:

      The military ain't at fault. The recruiters are.

      Let me further iterate, the military is great, it kicks ass. The people put on recruiting duty however, are chomping at the bit to meet quotas and get back into the field. Not the military's fault they find it prudent to switch up their personnel in order to prevent rank stagnation and even worse: corruption. What is their fault is that they put some jackass in charge of setting quotas, and making it somewhat imperative to meet them.

      So again, it's not the Military at fault, it's the politics that SHOULDN'T be involved in the recruiting process yet they are. Don't hate the military or the people in it, they're good people. Hate the politics that got involved with it.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    21. Re:One step beyond.. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Quit trying. I have seen the enemy.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    22. Re:One step beyond.. by Morlark · · Score: 1

      Good for you! I've seen the enemy too. On TV, making speeches about this 'war on terror'. In fact I hear there's a whole bunch of them enemies going to that G8 conference. That ought to be fun. Oh wait... you mean that wasn't the enemy you were talking about? Well then I'm sorry to say it, but you haven't seen the enemy.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
  83. Nothing new here... by dustymugs · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Dept of Education is planning on creating a national database too. This database is for college students across the country with "unit-level" records for each student. What does this mean? The government will collect every class a student enrolls in and measure that student's performance. So far, this is gonna be for the undergraduate level, but can be expanded for all levels of college.

    More details are available here... http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i14/14a02201.htm

    Is this something worth being shocked about? Not really, student data is shared all the time in the academic system. This includes everything about that student and their families.

    Personally, I say "eh!". The government (and everyone else with your info) has been doing it for 50+ years, so having one more is no biggie. I think these things are hyped a little too much.

  84. Bring back the draft by winkydink · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Make 2 yrs of government service mandatory and offer non-military options (Peace Corps, etc...) as well.

    I think we will see a draft return sometime in the next few years if the military continues to fail to meet recruiting goals.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Bring back the draft by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting


      "I think we will see a draft return sometime in the next few years if the military continues to fail to meet recruiting goals."

      There are a few people in the camp of "things need to get a whole hell of a lot worse before people really start getting mad and taking action", who think a draft would be a step in the right direction.

      There are also people who believe that a conscript army has a chance of becoming a revolutionary force that ends up cleaning up the mess.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Bring back the draft by eyeball · · Score: 1

      I think we will see a draft return sometime in the next few years if the military continues to fail to meet recruiting goals.

      Unfortunately, right or wrong, we're now in an indefinite war. The terrorist enemies are invisible, without borders, without command structure, etc. Unlike the major conflicts in the past, we will never know if and when we have won (although we certainly will know if we've lost).

      I'm a patriotic American who loves his country and the principals it was founded on, and I'm so afraid for our country's future. Nobody has the resources to fight an indefinite war.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    3. Re:Bring back the draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are also people who believe that a conscript army has a chance of becoming a revolutionary force that ends up cleaning up the mess.

      Because the only thing better then being ruled by neo-conservative "republicans" is being ruled by a military junta.

      Wow, It's been 35 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment. Looks like it's getting tougher to be anonymous.

    4. Re:Bring back the draft by webmosher · · Score: 1

      If a draft happens, it will happen relatively soon. Otherwise, it becomes "someone else's problem". Whether that is a step in any direction, who knows, but I don't think it will be as devisive as those few people may think. As independent and self-absorbed as American are, we are all trained in conformity from birth. That's what the government is really for, isn't it? Or, is that the public school system?

      On your other point: The people who believe that a modern conscript army will become a revolutionary force are clueless and haven't spent a day in real military training. Independent thinking isn't a primary learning point in even day-0 of basic boot camp. From the time you get off that bus, you are no longer Johnny P. Teenager, you're who they want you to become, and they will drill that into your head until you agree wholeheartedly. Those that do not prove themselves willing and eager to conform to the team standard are typically washed out sooner than later.

      However, idealogically inspired (religious or otherwise) militias: that's another kettle of fish. Islamic (or otherwise) terrorists are bad enough, but there are plenty of born-and-bred US citizens that are trouncing through the outbacks of rural America that have their own militant agendas.

      Now I have entered enough primary keywords in this post to ensure I find my name into a database of my own.

      Cheers,

    5. Re:Bring back the draft by dotmax · · Score: 1
      I started this reply on another subthread where the OP wrote about recruiters only targeting poor schools and not rich schools. Mostly (tautology alert) because recruiters get more recruits from Poor schools than Rich ones, but it seems more aprapos here...

      What this pentagon list flap really says is that the wealthy class is perfectly content to let the poor fight and die while they go to frat parties, and we're running out of poor suckers.

      Personally, as am ex early 80's submariner (C-w0lf) and third generation volunteer vet, i find offensive in the extreme the notion that the upper classes are so blithely content as to allow such a fundamental risk of citizenship rest almost soley on the shoulders of the lowest classes. The class refraction of the recruiting process illuminates an ungly, priveleged and aloof contemptuous attitude among those with the greatest gifts. It is not merely Un-american, it is Anti-American.

      In peacetime, AVF is fine. But when it comes time for the killing and dieing, everyone deserves a fair chance.

      I fully support a bi-gender across the board draft, with no non-medical deferments, and especially no college deferments, in times of us military adventure. Volunteers should get preferrrence in training/assignment.

      Drag a few 10k's of kids from Harvard, UChicago, Brown, Skidmore and Stanford etc off to be enlisted infantry and i think our national priorities would snap into a laser focus.

      I am 100% sincere about this. If our future is important enough to kill off poor blacks and latinos, then it ought to be important enough to spend our Winnetka (rich chicago suburb) treasure on too.

      dotmax

  85. Re:Marketing? During the election they said... by SigveK · · Score: 1
    It must have been lost in the mail

    You're not using hotmail, by any chance?

    Oh, wait, it's not somewhere after November yet...

  86. Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    children maybe they would have more luck. I almost enlisted in the army, but I wanted to talk it over with my family beforehand. I called and canceled my appointment only to have a recruiter call me up and try to play mind games in order to pressure me into joining. I played a game called "Propaganda" in Academic Games in high school, and I was identifying every single technique he was using. He was playing mind games with me like I was 12. If the Army wants to play games, let them play games. Meanwhile recruits will dwindle as they get treated like shit for the chance to die for Dick Cheney.

    1. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by zx75 · · Score: 1

      The defence to such manipulation techniques is education, and the people most likely to fall to his tricks would be the uneducated. They are precisely the kind of people he is trying to prey on and would make good little soldiers for the army.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    2. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you knew he was trying to manipulate you, you weren't army material anyway.

      You should go talk to a Special Forces recruiter. You are definitely made of superior material. Or are you frightened? ;-)

      Something like that?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by Doug+Dante · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great game! Too bad it's no longer available: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5647#summary PS: This game wouldn't be allowed within 50 feet of my old High School.

      --
      The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
    4. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      You actually don't need to buy anything, a better overview of the game is found here. You can find plenty of sample questions online if you search around for Academic Games. I played competitively in high school, there are 2 different leagues and each has it's own "national" tournament(I say National because only about 10 states really participate). You can order some of the official materials online(you need to if you want the cube games). For more info go to AGLOA's site

    5. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like children maybe they would have more luck. I almost enlisted in the army, but I wanted to talk it over with my family beforehand. I called and canceled my appointment only to have a recruiter call me up and try to play mind games in order to pressure me into joining.

      They weren't treating you like a child, they were just being typical salesmen. You'd get the same damn treatment in any other high-pressure sales field (e.g. car dealership), and the reason they do it is because it works. Being a straight shooter and letting the [customer|potential recruit] come to you isn't an effective sales method. What a discovery you've made! Salesmen use mind games! Alert the media!

      Really, if you were truly interested in joining the military you'd have told the recruiter to lay off the hard sell, or would have joined anyway, independent of some chairborne former Ranger staff sergeant's badgering.Getting all huffy and abandoning the prospect illustrates one of two things: either a) you never really wanted to join, or b) you are essentially a whiny 12 year old who'll let the gatekeeper's attitude keep you out of the dance. Crimony, I saw my recruiter literally three times (once to arrange my enlistment, once for testing, and once more for a ride to the MEPS station) and have never laid eyes on him since.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by imthesponge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So then as far as recruitment goes, an educated young populace is a bad thing?

    7. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by zx75 · · Score: 1

      An educated young populace is one thing that a military needs to have, because they are the people who generally make good officers. But out of all young people, the well-off and educated are the least likely to see the military as a positive career option. If you want to be a successful military recruiter, then you need to present as an attractive case as possible using all the tricks in your book to the people who are most likely to see the military as a positive career, or are likely to be swayed by a convincing recruiter.

      Those, unfortunately tend to be the poor and uneducated. So it all depends on what the military is looking for, but if they're out for strong backs that can fire a gun, you can be sure they won't be out canvassing Beverly Hills. (I'm not American, any upscale community with quality schooling and a high percentage of university level students would work.)

      --
      This is not a sig.
    8. Re:Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like by A2Dconvert · · Score: 1

      Special Forces won't look at you until you are an E4 with security clearance in hand, Commander's recommendation etc. It's not like you can walk in off the street. it would take several years in the green machine first.

  87. Big Brother - Stay Home by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    I understand the need for the DoD to market for new recruits, but this is ridiculous. The gov needs less information, not more.

    1. Re:Big Brother - Stay Home by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Government making decision on less information... isn't that where a lot of the trouble started?

      Example: 9/11

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Big Brother - Stay Home by dhasenan · · Score: 1
      You mean, "People need more privacy, not less", correct? Or would you forbid the government alone from collecting this information?

      Surely if the government can't do it because it violates your privact, corporations and citizens should have the same restrictions?

    3. Re:Big Brother - Stay Home by writerjosh · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course. Corps should be restricted as well. I just feel that the gov is in a different category than corps. The gov can do more damage with the invasion of our privacy. Just look at history. Anytime a gov gets it's hands on our personal lives, it's always downhill from there.

      Let the DoD have their TV commercials, etc, but stay away from my personal info. That's mine.

  88. Because someone else by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

    sold them some new software package. And we know how the government loves to buy things. Talk to the FBI, they love new software; they keep spending more and more money on it each year.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  89. Obligatory Simpsons Reference by richdun · · Score: 1

    At least they trying to field a boy band to plant subliminal messages... "Yvan eht nioj, yvan eht nioj.." Man I love that song, can't remember where I heard it though. Well, I'm off to join the Navy!

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons Reference by finse · · Score: 1

      Ha ha!

      --
      Paranoid tinfoil hat crowd say Y here, everyone else say N.
  90. Your ears decieve you then by Usaflt2003 · · Score: 1

    Remeber though that this new database covers down to 16, covers males and females and is an opt-out while selective service starts at 18, is males only and is an opt-in. Yes, I realize it is the law and that you will be denied certain financial aid/loans/jobs if you don't but there are people that do not register and still live productive lives.

    No, I don't agree with the new database and yes I think it is a waste... just for different reasons than you do.

    --
    Honor is like virtue, if you must tell people that you have it then chances are you don't.
  91. US getting ready for oil wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The US is running out of oil fast and there is a sense of urgency in the Whitehouse to secure what is left for the benefit of the USA.

    Iraq is the first stop point on the path to control of the Middle East oil reserves. Of course, so far it hasn't worked very well in case of Iraq (in fact works much worse than "Oil for food") program ever did but that fact doesn't deter Washington from trying. Draft is inevitable as is more conquer in the Middle East.

    The US energy security is in jeopardy and the cheap energy addicted Americans need their fix. Get ready for more trouble.

  92. Re:Marketing? During the election they said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope your stupid family dies from a roadside bomb, you retarded internet nerd.

  93. I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they send off the lower income folks to some desolate country, while the higher income conservative folk can stay home comforting each other on how neccessary the war was, and how the soldiers sacrafice was for the greater good.

    uh huh.

  94. Barbara and Jenna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they call Jenna and Barbara! Hey, W could do a lot to help the war effort by persuading Jenna and Barbara to enlist! Others will surely follow their example. They are perfectly qualified. Bush thinks it's worth the risks and the sacrafice right? We're building a stronger, democratic Iraq!

  95. I didn't get the joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anything, it's showing the decline of /. - or I'm just noticing the crap more and more.

  96. Democrats AND Republicans will love this troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's funny, the last two presidents would have been ineligable for office if we had a policy like that. Maybe that's not a such bad idea.

    Plus, having served in the military, one would assume that someone would have some understanding for what it can and can't accomplish. And a basic respect for the institution and the people that make it up.

  97. recruiting shortfall by danharan · · Score: 1

    Wired carried a story two weeks ago on the army's recruiting shortfall. A lot of different media starting reporting on that then.

    So this is not surprising. Now why anyone would want to advertise to the Pentagon that they do not want to join is beyond me. Constituting a separate database of unpatriotic scum sounds rather sinister to me.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  98. Heh. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > are belong to us.
    (Score:5, Funny)

    I knew the old nag was good for one more lap.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  99. It ends up being really simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just say no. The poor bastard E5 that is calling you has a job to do. And if he doesn't meet his quota, he rotates to something else. And the next poor bastard in there goes through the same thing.

    Pretty soon, the Army doesn't have to talk about "downsizing" anymore. The Navy doesn't have to downsize. The Army doesn't have to downsize. It's a self-regulating system. The system will take care of itself, if you just give it the chance.

    As long as you have a fucking choice, just tell the guy you're not interested and hang up. He's not going to fucking take it personally, like you just insulted him. It's just part of the job. He has to make a record of everyone he calls, and if he's called 200 people in a day and absolutely no one wants to sign up, the fucking CEO might have to change his business plan. Like getting right the fuck out of South Korea; hell, they don't want us there anyways. And get the hell out of Germany and Italy. They don't want us there, either.

    They loved us back when we were "fighting" Russia, because we gave them cash-money just for their fucking company. It was like an allowance, and they loved that shit like a 13-year-old. Now we aren't sending them free cash, and they don't care for our company. Fine with me, bail the fuck out.

    Anyway, I think the Army and Marines and Airforce should be patrolling our southern and northern borders. See, their fucking job STARTS at those borders. That is how the system is setup.

    Let the Border Patrol handle the domestics. Searching and regulating. But have the fucking Army and SEALS and Marines out, playing in the field with their toys. Just declare an 8km DMZ, and shoot anything that moves. Cats, dogs, chickens, monkeys, Mexicans, Columbians, Zetas. Fucking arabs. Whatever.

  100. That's fine... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    My kids will learn to love cold weather and Molson Beer.

  101. Re:Selective Service starts at age 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not obliged to register until age 18. The goal of this database is to start recruting people aged 16 and 17.

  102. War Inc. by webzombie · · Score: 1

    Private armies protecting US companies for a $1,000 a day per hired gun, driving around in brand new SUVs while regular US soldiers struggle to get flax jackets... it's no wonder the Army now wants to start conducting a marketing cull for America's youth.

    Hey, I got a idea sign up for a tour of duty and get a FREE iPod! Yeah the US Army Rocks!

    Really fuckin' sad!

    Screw karma... it's highly over rated

  103. Recruit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change "recruit" to "draft" and you've got it right.

  104. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, wait. This is Soviet Russia. Nevermind.

  105. Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Listen folks, here's the deal. Many people are opposed to the war, both inside and outside of the military. This is inconcequential to this discussion. People are using this issue to present thier own personal interests. Parents are calling foul play because they don't want Johnny or Suzie getting blown up in Iraq. Other people are fearful of their privacy, so this sounds all too "big brother" to them. The reality of the entire issue is this: We are a nation founded on revolution and war. Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force. Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period. Don't cry to me about big brother or dead children. Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you. (I'll stop short of the Christ reference) If people really don't want thier children getting blown up, then don't vote for a president who will go to war so easily. If you are afraid of "big brother", don't use credit cards, save your money and pay for everything in cash. Our modern society is productive because of our ability to exploit knowledge opportunities. Now that it's being done for the defense of the country, people want to complain. If a marketing company sent you a free box of Tide Detergent in the mail you wouldn't bitch, because you're greedy like that. Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done. No one forces the hand of the individual to sign the paper. So shut up about all the crap, take a deep breath and try not to choke on the sweet air of freedom. Went to school? Thank a teacher. Learned in English? Thank a soldier.

    1. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I'm having a little trouble tracking down exactly the point of your rambling dissertation, so I'll just pull a few of the most objectionable points out at random...

      We are a nation founded on revolution and war. Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force.

      Okay, I want you to think long and hard about that statement. Your nation is founded on revolution and war, against the tyranny of a militarily superior or at least equally powerful enemy. And now you find your position is reversed, you don't have the right to use the founding struggle to justify your acting like the original agressors.

      And correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the American strength was the American dream, which always had to do with freedom to be whoever you like, opportunity found nowhere else? You seem to painting the strength of America to be mere transient force of arms...

      Our modern society is productive because of our ability to exploit knowledge opportunities. Now that it's being done for the defense of the country, people want to complain.

      Don't confuse the defence of the country with the invasion and domination of more or less defenceless third world states. It might upset people and cause them to do things to bring the reality of the matter to the attention of the American public, like flying planes into buildings for example.

      Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done.

      If by freedom you mean being listed in a database by a government with dubious interest in the well being of the citizenry that voted them into power, well then you're positively drowning in freedom. Well done.

      No one forces the hand of the individual to sign the paper.

      Yet.

      Learned in English? Thank a soldier.

      English soldiers. Remember them? The original oppressors?

      I mean come on, surely you can do better than "take ya medicine or ya legs'll fall off"?

    2. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      If you are supporting the dissolution of American military force, then you are wrong. A strong military is a key factor in influence and power. As I stated in my rambling, I'm not arguing if we should or should not be doing the things we are doing. I am only saying that we are a military nation. Our current position requires us to maintain an effective military force. How we got here and if it's good or bad is inconcequential.

      In response to your second point about flying in to buildings and whatnot. Again, you are not talking about the issue. I'm talking about using a marketing firm to find military recruits. You are talking about justification of war. Please stay on topic.

      Your next point, well, if you don't like the freedoms here, you are welcome to relocate. Should you already be relocated, please stay there.

      Finally, my statement about learning in english refers to certain wars involving Japanese, German and Russian language speaking people. Any of these could be world dialect, but as you can see, They all still exist.


      Oh how I wish I had the luxury of being near sighted. I understand everything you are saying about war is bad, we are wrong, shame on us

      But hey man, here's the reality, you want to let the military fall apart NOW? (Oh, and besides, if you think that the Government doesnt already have a HUGE database on citizens... Look at that 9-digit number on your Social Security Card)

    3. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      I don't think the point is to dissolve the US military force. The point is that we shouldn't need a BIGGER military force. Because that is the way it looks like it's headed.

      "Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z."
      "Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place Q"

      2 months later...
      "Hey, we don't have enough troops to defend our country, we need more people."

      1 month after that....
      "Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z. Oh, and Q."
      "Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place W".

      Rinse, repeat.

      The real argument is whether or not the current military actions are contributing to the national security. If they're not, the military shouldn't be there, simple as that.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    4. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically the United States has ebbed through periods of isolationism, expansion and even empire building. You are correct the topic is not whether or not these goals are "good" or "bad" it is whether the government needs another all inclusive repository to track the freedom and qualifications of its populace to support the current empire building dynamic.

      The concern that is real here, is why the government is bypassing its own laws of gathering information by contracting with a private company to do the work for them. Why am I paying for the opportunity to gather information THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE again? Not why they are gathering it to fight wars or add states 51-60

    5. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      That's my point! People are using the issue of using marketing to recuit military to argue other issues. 90% of what is said in these threads is about the war in Iraq and the fleecing of our privacy. All valid points, but totally off topic.

    6. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force.

      I've got a genius idea to solve our problem: stop invading and occupying countries that posed zero threat to us whatsoever.
      --
      [o]_O
    7. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your
      >freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of
      >Americans who paid the price for you.

      I've never believed this sentiment to be anything other than a
      self-serving lie spoken by bullies. Given that there is no economic
      model that I'm aware of that posits freedom in terms of price, it's
      equally probable that we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the wars the
      government has engaged in.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    8. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Maybe in World War II, military intervention helped stop the Western world from being overrun by Nazi evil. In fact, it unquestionably did.

      Quite how the whole Iraq fiasco saved anyone from anything, other than saving many thousands of people from the torture of having to breathe, I have no idea.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    9. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      I would love to hear your argument how we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the US fighting in WWII. Unless you are blonde.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    10. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If a marketing company sent you a free box of Tide Detergent in the mail you wouldn't bitch...

      Actually, using Tide detergent on my clothes makes my skin itch. ;-)

      Other than that, preach on, brother! However, you are preaching to a group of people who have allowed their ideology to metastasize into a malignant... something. I don't know what to call it anymore because words fail. There are people out there, and some post here, that think the current USA is the worst and most oppressive society to have ever existed.

      It's bizarre and scary. They actually think we are no worse than WWII Germany. Worst than the killing fields. Worse than the great European witch hunts of the middle ages where entire villages were slaughtered. I have actually had these sick people make all those comparisons, so I didn't pick examples at random.

    11. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force. Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period.

      The armies used to fight World War I and World War II were conscription armies. The force used to win those wars has never been maintained.

    12. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      Quite how the whole Iraq fiasco saved anyone from anything, other than saving many thousands of people from the torture of having to breathe, I have no idea.

      And that's exactly the problem. You and a frighteningly large segment of the populace don't know shit. You are ignorant beyond human comprehension, and settle your minds down into safe little ideological viewpoints, all the while believing you are the superior thinkers. It's sad and pathetic, and it will eventually undo all that our forebearers have built.

    13. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      A strong military is a key factor in influence and power.

      Ah yes, which explains why the EU is so helpless and weak in international affairs. Heheh. What you are actually saying is that a strong military is the key to keeping control of nations your rightfully should have no control over.

      You are talking about justification of war. Please stay on topic.

      One step at a time here soldier, marketing firm gets recruits, leads to a larger army, leads to... thats right! War! Which brings us right back to the justification for the marketing firm, which in fact is the very same as the justification for war. Or lack thereof. If you do not possess the ability to see your arguments through to their logical conclusions, I suggest you stay out of arguments.

      Your next point, well, if you don't like the freedoms here, you are welcome to relocate. Should you already be relocated, please stay there.

      Yikes, and leave the country to people like GW and his version of "freedom" to molest to his heart's content? Let me ask you, what would you do in my position?

      Finally, my statement about learning in english refers to certain wars involving Japanese, German and Russian language speaking people.

      Yeah, strangely ironic that you picked the English as a good example of freedom. Then again that seems to be the trend throughout your arguments.

      Oh how I wish I had the luxury of being near sighted.

      Well thank god for you! I say it again, thank god we have people like you, who see so clearly that the rest of us needn't even bother thinking. With far sighted individuals such as yourself leading the way, America will be uber alles until the sun burns out. Or, to put it another way, learn from history, marine. I draw the attention of the audience at this time to the sad and sorry cases of Rome, Greece, Persia, and just about every other empire whose glories armies once bestrode the land.

      But hey man, here's the reality, you want to let the military fall apart NOW?

      Why not? What do you have to lose? Who would be insane enough to invade America? The glassy knolls of Nagasaki and Hiroshima should be warning enough. And if you think the army prevents terrorists, well all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't stop Timothy McVeigh, savvy?

    14. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Crizzam.

      Take your condescending nonsense and shove it up your ass.

      Your whole post is the authoritarian parent routine where you're basically going to tell us what's what.

      Just because you act superior doesn't mean you are.

      You're a fucking asshole and I'd happily put a bullet in you to preserve my freedoms...freedom especially from totalitarian, conservative, christian, capitalist assholes who will tell me that what's good for them is good for me.

      Go fuck yourself, moron.

    15. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by lysium · · Score: 1
      Learned in English? Thank a soldier.

      Funny. The only time America's sovereignity was actually, you know, THREATENED, it was by the British. If they had retaken the colonies we would still be speaking English. Unless you know of any other times in history that America was invaded and patriotic citizens had to defend their homes against tyranny?

      Yeah, it didn't happen, ever. Nor will it ever; in case you hadn't noticed, we are bordered by oceans. No one launches invasions over fucking oceans. I had hoped a Marine would know something about amphibious assaults, but I suppose not.

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    16. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, as long as the casualties are $CASUALTIES_FROM_ATTROCITY - 1, we're ok, then?

      Which is actually more scarey?

    17. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >I would love to hear your argument how we enjoy our freedoms *in spite
      >of* the US fighting in WWII.

      There was never a threat to our "freedoms" in WWII. If you're going to
      bring up Pearl Harbor, I simply don't think that counts as an invasion.

      >Unless you are blonde.

      Huh huh, good one! Way to invoke the specter of the fratboy bully.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    18. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      At one time, Japan and Germany posed no threat to us whatsoever. Or so we thought. Food for thought.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    19. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      That's funny: I thought your country was founded on a couple of documents.

      Face it: after you wiped out the native indians, Mayans and Inca's and before you got hold of Hawaii, the US didn't need an army much, anymore. Geography has seen to that.

      "Learned in English? Thank a soldier."

      Wow: you have been indoctrinated. Ghandi has proven you wrong, you bloodthirsty idiot. And if there's anyone to thank for any military victory, it's the scientists who cracked the codes, invented radar and built the bomb.

      I'd really advise you to read, not just the greek classics, but more importantly (for you) the great military leaders: freedom comes from the people. The military industrial complex (which past US presidents have warned you about!) however has seen to it that 'freedom' has to be imposed on far-off places in ways which just don't work. Every conflict after WWII has bitten you in the ass because you weren't wanted there. Your military is actively fucking up 'freedom' in any area it has gone into since WWII, and is making your country a less safe place, necessitating restrictions of freedom in your own.

      So you should have ended your military sermon with the word 'Have your freedoms been restricted lately? Thanks your governments use of it's military to further corperation's goals'.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    20. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      There was never a threat to our "freedoms" in WWII.

      Jesus, are you kidding me?

      Yeah, no threat to our freedoms, only a threat to all of our allies, by a madman who thought nothing of exterminating millions of people. Germany was also working on the bomb. If Japan could fly to Pearl Harbor and bomb it conventionally, what do you think Germany would have done to us once they defeated our allies, got the bomb working, and looked at "who's next" on the invasion list? Maybe we should have waited until German uboats nuked the east coast off the face of the earth before getting involved?

      There's pacificism, and then there's suicide.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    21. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      At one time, Japan and Germany posed no threat to us whatsoever. Or so we thought. Food for thought.

      Right, and then Japan attacked us (because we had the oil embargo on them) and Germany & Italy subsequently declared war on us. We never said, "Whoo, boy, this oil embargo ain't working, we'd best invade Japan, yeeeeeehaw!"
      --
      [o]_O
    22. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by dedeman · · Score: 1

      Perspective of a US Marine
      Hey, I'm glad that you are a Marine, but in my plentiful experience, serving in the military rarely gives one a more in depth prospective upon political ideology.

      And, as such, please don't pull this bullying attitude of "guys like me are the reason that you have freedom". People are more concerned with the erosion of freedoms, these days. Freedoms are to be carefully maintained, not reminisced about.

      Back when I was on an amphib, I was in the Adriatic when we were bombing the pee out of Slobodon Milosovich. We received boxes of anonymous cards and letters from the supportive public. It was nice to see the outpour of support, but the suprising part were the sentiments themselves. Almost every letter was a thank you about how we were "supporting freedom and democracy", or some interweaving of those words. Strange, I don't think that's what we were doing then, and I don't think that's what we're doing now. It's a bit oxymoronic, occupying a country to make them free.

      We are a nation founded on revolution and war

      True, but does that mean that both of these must inevitably take place? And if it does, what side will you find yourself on? If this is a country founded on revolution, it follows that there will always be an element of dissention. That is one of the freeoms that we should hold most dear.

      Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done

      Odd, it wasn't until recently that computers and research have been necessary to insure freedoms, nor should freedom be dependent upon either of these things.

      I'm sorry to have had to use your quotes, but it kind of frustrates me when I see people use their military relationship to inspire a sense of keen political insight. You know as well as I that just because someone is in the military, it gives them no greater opinion on the funtioning of America then a civilian. I applaud your decision in supporting the fundamentals of our nation, but don't portray your carreer as a means to really let people know that they should ".. shut up about all the crap, take a deep breath and try not to choke on the sweet air of freedom."

      And as for relocating, if someone doesn't like what's going on, please realize that this country is not yours alone, and you can't tell someone to "love it or leave it", people don't have to do either.

      To clarify, I am a 1st class PO, was on an LHA from 1995-2000, with lots of Marines. Some of them were the best guys I've ever known.

    23. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Hrvat · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was referring to the obvious impending victory of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you think that the only threat to our freedom is the short term, immediate one, you're wrong. If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    24. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is nice. However, our nation wasn't meant to be an endless war machine. It is a nation that would prefer peace over war. While the war on terrorism is no longer fought (why else would Bin Ladin be in Saudi Arabi and Bush not care?) and the war became war against OPEC. We are fighting for oil companies, not security. We are fighting a war so conservatives can take away freedom before another nation can. Conservatives want more power than what that nasty COnsitution says they can have. By letting 9/11 occur and allowing Bin Ladin to hang with his Saudi royal homies, Bush set up a nice method to become a tyrant just as all conservatives want him to be. Conservative agenda is just another way of saying dictator.

    25. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me be the only one around here to thank you (and others in the military who've posted) for your service.

      anonymously because i've already moderated in this story...

    26. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people really don't want thier children getting blown up, then don't vote for a president who will go to war so easily

      I didn't. In fact, I voted against our current President four times; twice in th eprimaries and twice in the general elections.

      In fact, Bush lost the last election by a HUGE landslide, as 70% of voters in my state voted for Kerry.

      As long as the foreigners who own and run the multinational corporations (like Ford, whose Pres was Singaporean until the Firestone mess) are allowed to contribute millions to both candidates in any election, who have access to those politicians while we ordinary voters don't, OUR VOTES ARE MEANINGLESS.

      Perhaps if we paid for our campaigns differently, or had more parties like the civilized countries do, our votes wouldn't be so meaningless. But to tell me "well don't vote for him" is just stupid.

    27. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Sacrifice · · Score: 1

      Forebearers?

    28. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we're speaking in one-liners:
      "The only propaganda machine that rivals that of Stalin is that of the United States Marine Corps."
      --Harry S. Truman

    29. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by euxneks · · Score: 1

      I've got a genius idea to solve our problem: stop invading and occupying countries that posed zero threat to us whatsoever.

      I think you're a little confused on that issue, Iraq has a lot of control over our (our as in North America) oil that we so ravenously consume, and upon which we are highly dependant. i.e. They can control our oil supply -- dangerous.

      I think the better idea is to stop invading and occupying countries under false pretenses. I wouldn't have minded if Bush went to war because he wanted to control the oil - I'm sure a lot of Americans would have minded, and hey, I'm not American, but at least he would have been telling the truth.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    30. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.

      This is entirely speculative, just as is the assertion that war causes freedom. I'm not a war historian, but from what I remember, Hitler seemed to be more interested in moving east. So, I guess you're saying that Hitler would have invaded the US after he conquered Russia. Seeing how the invasion of Stalinville was going in 1945, Hitler invading the US afterwards seems unlikely.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    31. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are some other ideas...

      Japan never attacks Pearl harbor. Hitler defeats the USSR then the UK. Then like the betrayed the USSR, they attack the Japanese. Hitler never develops the bomb. The invasion of Japan costs million of lives on each side. What's left of the German population is not strong enough to take on the US. A cold war beings. Israel is never founded. Saddam never tries to make nukes to shoot at Israel. Bush never invades Irqi.

    32. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      Yeah. That's three bears and another one shows up for a poker game. :)

      Ignore my post up there. I was in a pissy mood.

    33. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      Well, I see we agree to allow you to run amok in the conversation and I attempt to contain it to the issue.

      Oh Well, I like to hear all sides, the thing is, I agree with most of what you are saying. Completely. But I also agree with the use of marketing tools and databases to track viable cantadates for military service. That was my point. It's just good business sense.

    34. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      What do you think would have happened if the US lost WWII, or never joined?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    35. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      No one launches invasions overseas? So how did we get to Iraq, I suppose we flew all the tanks and trucks over there... huh? You sir, are a moron.

    36. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      And if there's anyone to thank for any military victory, it's the scientists who cracked the codes, invented radar and built the bomb.

      All those bombs back in the revolutionary war. Wow, they really saved the day. Remeber all the planes we dropped them from? Wow, good thing we had them.

      Your military is actively fucking up 'freedom' in any area it has gone into since WWII

      South Korea? Extermination of a race? Wow, you are blind. Vietnam? Well, yeah, but that was a result of poor military posturing before the war. IF we had taken a stronger stance with Russia, we wouldn't have had to go to Vietnam anyways.

      America, it's not perfect, but it's still the best.

    37. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Ah yeah didn't mean to go mad there, and if I was going to analyse the effectiveness of the method from the standpoint of recruiters, I'm actually surprised they didn't do it sooner, so on that level I agree with you. However its a mistake to treat these issues in a vacuum. Sometimes its hard to see the wood for the trees, so on those odd occasions when you get the chance to see the big picture, you should take it, not meaning you personally, but in a broader sense.

    38. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      And who built the planes? And if you had taken a stronger stance with Russia (with that psychopath Stalin at the helm), wouldn't the logical conclusion be that nuclear war would've broken out? Yup...as I said, read some history (especially on the military side of things...from both sides).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    39. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >What do you think would have happened if the US lost WWII, or never joined?

      How should I know?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    40. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by indiechild · · Score: 1

      The US did the right thing in WWII. But that doesn't mean it's doing the right thing now in Iraq. Just because the military has protected our freedoms in the past does not mean it is protecting our freedoms now by invading and fighting in Iraq.

      Jesus Christ, is that so hard to understand? If the US wasn't fighting in Iraq, the enlistment problems would be nowhere near as bad.

      I'm sick of the idiots who think that the actions of the US in WWII is equivalent to what the US is doing in Iraq now.

    41. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I've never believed this sentiment to be anything other than a self-serving lie spoken by bullies.

      Your views are entirely understandable. In this post you disavow any meaningful knowledge history. That would explain why it seems to escape you that Blacks were freed in the South due to the North winning the Civil War after paying a terrible price in human lives. And that also explains why you don't know that the Germans really did pose a threat to the US in WW2 since they were specifically building long range aircraft, missiles, and submarines to attack the US. (Oh yes, they were also trying to build those atomic bomb thingies.) (And for your benefit: the US sent massive amounts of food, weapons, supplies, and fuel to the Soviet Union to help prop it up during the war, not to mention helping to split the German Army so it couldn't concentrate entirely against the USSR.)

      And yet, despite your self-professed ignorance you do seem to have some very strong opinions about these matters.

      I also find it amazing that you try to reduce the cost of freedom to an economic model (as if that was the only measure) and then profess ignorance of any model that could explain it. Even insurance companies can figure out how to attach a value to human life, like the lives of the soldiers who have been killed while fighting to keep us free. (Wow, life insurance value on lives of soldiers + cost of weapons and material... that might be the start of an economic model that you could understand.)

      Well, why leave this as a thought experiment... if you hurry you could take a trip to Europe and talk to some of the rapidly diminishing number of living Frenchmen who lived in France before and after the Nazis conquered them. Maybe they could help you figure out if losing that war resulted in any change in their freedom. You could also ask them if the liberation of Western Europe, paid for by a couple of hundred thousand American lives made for any difference in their freedom. Maybe you could also get a Eurorail pass and go visit a few concentration camps or extermination camps and find out what real butchering bullies are like.

      If you can't make it to Europe, and make no more effort to educate yourself, then you will remain as you seem now: ignorant, opinionated, unimaginative, intellectually lazy. I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that you will only be kept free by the efforts of your betters.... or is that "bullies" to you?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    42. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that fairly inconsistant with your other post, then? If you don't know how the services protect you, how can you claimed they are bullies?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    43. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      If you actually read what I wrote you will be unable to draw the conclusion that I equate the war in Iraq with WWII. I used it as an example to another ignorant person regarding another slanted view. Completely unrelated to your slanted view.

    44. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by Crizzam · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. There was a call made to Washington where the US basically stated a "no position" on Korea. Russia interpreted this as a green light. Since we weren't clear that we would be opposed, they moved ahead. So if we would have taken a position, it may have been avoided. You sir, need to read some history.

    45. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >Isn't that fairly inconsistant with your other post, then? If you don't
      >know how the services protect you, how can you claimed they are
      >bullies?

      No, it's consistent. I said that it's equally probable that the
      military doesn't actually protect US freedoms.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    46. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >And yet, despite your self-professed ignorance you do seem to have some
      >very strong opinions about these matters.

      Your totalizing generalizations are patronizing in the least and ignorant like those you accuse. Where you get that business about the Civil War I'll never know, but that's beside the point.

      Outside of your completeist labeling there is a wide gulf between "ignorant" and "war historian", which includes any number of articles and bits of knowledge to draw upon. So let's talk.

      The Germans did not pose a threat to the US in WWII. They had almost no Navy and whatever they were inventing as long-range vehicles were already being created in the US military (except for perhaps the U2, but that wasn't transcontinental). If the Germans had developed a nuclear bomb, it would have come to fruition only after the US developed theirs. Much like Germany, Japan simply did not have the manpower to conquer an entire ocean. You underestimate the degree of isolation and resources available to North America. This is also beside the point.

      But "what would have happened?" is all speculation! What are you left with when you leave out all of the guesswork and fantasy? I can't find any proof that war protects freedom, and if you can't either then I'll consider my point to stand up to scrutiny.

      I'm not the one who asserted an economic price for freedom, the "US Marine" in the OP did. So do many others. It goes like this: the price of freedom is war. So the theory would have to be that the freedoms we want to retain require a certain amount of military assertiveness in order to keep. In other words, if we didn't go to war, we would be slaves under a foreign dictator (or something equally fanciful and draconian). I don't believe this, and I don't think anybody can prove that war=freedom (one should consider the Edo period in Japan at this point). I said it's equally probable that preserving freedom doesn't require war.

      Please do let me know if there are any pertinent portions of your shrill screed I have ignored by mistake. The issue is not what would have happened if WWII ended differently, the issue is whether the military engages in war to protect the freedoms that US citizens currently enjoy, and whether that strategy is effective in achieving that goal.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    47. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      I thought you said you didn't know what they did in WWII? If you don't know what the US did in the biggest war in human history, how can you say the military doesn't protect US freedoms?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    48. Re:Perspective of a US Marine by jubei · · Score: 1

      . Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force. Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period.

      Iraq was threatening our military might?

      How can you advocate fighting for freedoms when our freedoms are being eroded by the current administration under the guise of fighting terrorists?

      You praise the fact that our nation was founded by revolution, but yet oppose revolting against an abusive government (our own).

      WTF?

  106. Re:Age of recruitment; marketing opportunity? by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

    There is no logic to it. It's the government and they make the laws and there is no logic or continuity to the laws. I think they should pass a law saying if you enlist you get a special card which allows you to drink. How about that for a marketing concept?

    On another couple notes, you can enlist with parental or guardian approval at 17. So you can be in the military and not drink or smoke. Further, most rental car places will not let you rent a car unless you are 25. So, you can drive a tank, a Humvee, handle nuclear weapons but you can't rent a Ford Taurus.

    Lastly, with regard to the drinking--if you are in the military and at a military function the base commander can waive the age requirement and let underage individuals drink. So, don't worry, if you are in the military and need a drink you can get one.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  107. The Pentagon ain't in charge. by kahei · · Score: 1

    The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.

    Very true. They'd also rather still be in charge of logistics, and they'd rather get the equipment they need rather than the equipment industry wants to build.

    Unfortunately, letting the armed forces do things their own way doesn't create value for investors.

    People talk of 'The Pentagon' and 'The Military/Industrial Complex' as if there was one giant organization, but there are two competing blocs -- the actual gun-carrying military, and the vast community of lobbyists and contractors around it. These days the military has been losing ground to the contractors.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  108. Sigh. By rote. by LifeMatesCanada.Com · · Score: 1

    [insert generic Orwell quote here]

    --
    Single? Canadian? We can help. Visit http://www.l
  109. How is this any different from before? by htrp · · Score: 1

    The pentagon already had all such information from your schools, it's just centralizing it now. If i remember correctly, your standardized test scores (SATs etc) could also be sent to the department of defense and other interested colleges. (unless you specifically forbid ETS from sending out your score range) Now i'm pretty sure that 16 year olds are taking the SAT, and I'm pretty sure that very few of them check the box to make their scores private. I don't think this is exactly newsworthy.

  110. Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    insert into PENTAGON_PROSPECTS
    select * from SECRET_GOVMNT_DB
    where
    age >= 16
    and
    age

  111. Forget US schools. Mexico is a better option. by christoofar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm all in favor of the DREAM act. Since 1890, Texas has been dealing with a flood of illegal immigration, which didn't abate after the amnesty program in the 1980s.

    Seriously, these are kids who aren't interested in the Service, and they're only signing up because they're being sweet talked into it like a crack whore lookin' for a fix. Soon after they're shipped off for BT do they realize what a mistake they've made.

    So, where else is there a pool of semi-muscular blobs that can be turned into killing machines? There are two... a) the prison system and b) illegal immigrants.

    Illegal immigrants want to become citizens. They keep saying when they come over that they'll just work for a few years and go back home. That never happens.

    Why not convince these people to actually do something meaningful for a change and stop debasing wages? That's right! These pobrecitos who are picking our oranges and driving our trucks can make MUCH better money in the E3-E6 paygrade... WORLDS better than back in the coloñias or the barrio.

    Let these immigrants prove their worth! In exchange for their service they get citizenship and GI eligibility.

    Mexico benefits as well as the US here. The military fulfills its quotas and can stop harassing the preppy white kids in schools. Mexico's population declines to a level its government can support. Everybody wins (oh except the kids that won't join up... you get to fight for white collar jobs that haven't left for India).

  112. -sigh- by evol262 · · Score: 1

    Comments on our "Orwellian" government are worthless. If the DoD was going to sell/give this information to other goverment agencies, why wouldn't they simply get it from the IRS (also Federal) or your local DMV (local/state, and they have no jurisdiction whatsoever over this without subpoenaing for it with a justifiable legal cause). Tracking you is not a -bad- thing. Most of us have probably registered for Selective Service already, so we're in a database of some kind. This is useful for tracking "undesirables" (as in undesirable for service, not terrorist sympathizers or anything). Studies have shown that an all-volunteer military is significantly more effective than a drafted one, because they WANT to serve their country. Compulsory service (ala Israel) works if people are patriotic/worried enough about their national wellbeing. We, clearly, are not one of those nations. The idea that all your information suddenly becomes available for search by any goverment agency (or even most of DoD) is silly. Goverment agencies are massive things, and everything is very segregated, not only because of departmental pride/antagonism, but because a lot of it is unnecessary/invasive if everyone has access to it. Note: NSA/Homeland Security probably has all this information and more (anybody else remember the massive ramdisk they got?), but your average recruiter doesn't even have access to your school/medical records, much less tax info or anything else that's been suggested.

    --
    "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
  113. You mean outsourcing? by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

    Actually, why do that? They can just outsource the military instead to India.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  114. I love USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is that? What are you americans waiting to do something with your country?!

  115. Removal by tympanic · · Score: 1

    If this database is intended to help the DoD keep track of likely recruits, will they purge it annually of the people who graduate? If not, then this is just a front for a full government database of its citizens.

    --
    "Memo to myself, do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppet head." -TMBG
  116. Must be fun to be an American Now by Rac3r5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jokes aside..

    This is getting sadder and sadder. It seems that the American ppl keep on loosing their freedom and right to privacy every time.

    It seems that the US be becoming a big brother policed state funded by Greedy Corporations.

  117. Opt-out == Opt-in by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much do you want to bet that those that opt-out of the recruitment database are automatically opted-in to a database of people to profile as to WHY they opted-out. :)

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  118. Other countries by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Canada (and many other countries) it would go something like this:

    Officer: How many girlfriends have you had?

    Candidate: None. I'm gay. A real faggot.

    Officer: So what. Go pick up your uniform, maggot.

    It's a shame the way things have worked out. Done right, you get the right people volunteering, and you have a dedicated corps of people who put their asses on the line for their country. Not because they were ordered to, but because they want to. This is not something to sneer at. Ever.

    I considered a military career myself, but for a variety of reasons didn't do it. Something must have rubbed off, though, because people routinely assume I have military background somewhere...

    ...laura

    1. Re:Other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people don't even need country to stick their ass out on the line....

  119. Mod Parent +5 Duh, Mod GP -5 Lobotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  120. No Child Left Behind by wass · · Score: 3, Informative
    Yeah, few people realize that the No Child Left Behind Act isn't only about raising standardized test scores but also helps recruiters get unimpeded information about potential recruits. See this article from 2002, long before there was the current recruiting crisis due to the Iraq war.

    Also - there are ways for high school parents and students to "opt out" of the recruiting campaign. If you're a high school student or parent of such a student, you might find these links helpful:

    --

    make world, not war

  121. Alternatives? by medcalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, so let's drop the empty sloganeering, FUD about the draft and such for a few moments. The military exists. It only takes volunteers. To get the needed number of volunteers, the military recruits, which involves advertising.

    Any organization which advertises attempts to reach the target most narrowly suited to the message being generated (in this case, preferable to military service). So what is scary about this? What is wrong about this?

    Are you arguing that the military shouldn't recruit? If so, are you further arguing that the military shouldn't exist?

    If the military should exist and should recruit, what is the problem with the military using the same techniques that every private organization from CocaCola to MoveON uses?

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    1. Re:Alternatives? by hburch · · Score: 1
      If the military should exist and should recruit, what is the problem with the military using the same techniques that every private organization from CocaCola to MoveON uses?
      1. CocaCola does not have a federal law requiring* schools to turn-over records to them for marketing.
      2. CocaCola does not have a federal law requiring* schools to allow marketers on premise.
      3. CocaCola is selling a product, not a job that is effectively a lifestyle.
      4. CocaCola is designing broadcast material, not sending out recruiters to individuals.
      5. CocaCola is not the government. This has many implications, including that CocaCola is unlikely to arrest me based on the information, if , say, learning Middle-East History is later decided to be un-American.
      6. CocaCola is a private company, in which I do not personally own shares. In as much as it makes sense, I own shares in the United States Government as a citizen and tax payer.
      That said, who says I'm happy with the level of database aggregation being done by private organizations?

      * Technically, the law is that schools cannot get federal money if they do not turn-over the information. This is a sham, similar to many other de-facto laws to avoid the fact that the federal government would likely fall afoul of the Constitution if they tried to make it a proper law. I would love to see a court case finding that these rules are, in fact, de-facto laws and, as such, are unconstitutional.

  122. Draft number... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

    Well, they already have my draft number, what else would they need?
    Maybe the government could use the "dwindling numbers" to shrink down the military, since we don't really need a standing army that's larger than the rest of the world combined.... Who else here thinks the US should go back to its original philosophy of not having a big standing army, since that's one of the reasons it declared and fought for independance from the British?

  123. Mind games is what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The role of the military is to turn otherwise rational people into state killers. It is all about the rituals of mind control that perform this transformation. It provides a framework that allow fighters to maintain a feeling of morality while they kill and maim. It is a necessary function of the military NOT to treat you as an adult. You must be broken down into a child and remolded as an adult that the military can use. It is by design that you were treated as a child. You are simply too much of a fully-formed individual to serve in the military.

    1. Re:Mind games is what they do by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      The role of the military is to turn otherwise rational people into state killers.

      My role in the military was to become an operating room technician. It did this by giving me an associate's degree in biology upon completion of a year of 50-hour-a-week schooling. Fortunately, almost everyone in my class lived in off-base civilian housing, so there was plenty of time to try to learn to surf, enjoy the San Diego night life, and otherwise enjoy being a young adult in SoCal.

      I think your perception of military life is bizarrely wrong, at least for those in technical jobs. Sure, the Army has a big infantry. I never personally knew a single person in the Navy whose direct job was killing, though.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  124. I love systems like this. by dayid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love how people can just "assume" you want to take part in it - and then you have to go out of your way and jump through hoops to be able to "easily opt out." It's the same thing with freaking spam mail and all other crap like that.

  125. Draconian by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go ahead and rant. Go ahead and tell your kids not to listen to the evil recruiters. At that age you virtually gaurantee they will want to join. The military is a valid career alternative for anyone regardless of their highschool grades or economic status. The military cranks out more skilled tradesmen and managers than any other organization or school.

    I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nucleap power plant in two years. When I did finally go to college I was at the top of my class. I credit the Navy for gettign me where I am today.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Draconian by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny
      I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nucleap power plant in two years.

      Homer Simpson? I love you man!

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    2. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The military cranks out more skilled tradesmen and managers than any other organization or school."

      ...and corpses.

    3. Re:Draconian by idsofmarch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nuclea[r] power plant in two years.

      Am I the only one who finds that fact slightly disturbing?

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    4. Re:Draconian by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. If I only would have taken that typing class in highschool.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    5. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could have taken a typing class in high school.

    6. Re:Draconian by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      So, how are you Mr. Simpson, how's work at nucleap power plant?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    7. Re:Draconian by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      I'll chime in with my story...

      I'm white, and come from an upper middle class family. Went to high school in a "bedroom community" town full of other white semi-rich to rich people. Like many other idle bored teenagers, I was lazy, undisiplined and didn't give a crap about today or tomorrow. Sure, I was in AP classes, but never studied or applied myself, so barely skated by on test scores and quizzes. My GPA was embarassing. Spent all my time growing my hair, and debating the virtues of Metallica vs Megadeth. Suddenly, school was over and I had no idea what to do next.

      I floated from mediocre job to mediocre job for a while waffling in despair, when I received a call from a recruiter that I spoke to once while in high school. I signed up for 4 years and volunteered for the infantry. I got exactly what I needed: self-confidence and discipline. When I got out, I had the drive to go out and accomplish whatever I set my sights on.

      Now? I'm senior systems engineer for a $3 billion dollar firm. I'm in charge of a $40 million dollar network. I'm happily married. None of thi would have happened without the military. People who knock service are usually the ones too afraid to try it. But that's OK because the military will protect them too. We always have and always will.

    8. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is sad how people have to be beaten or scared into a mind frame of self improvement.

    9. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its so fantastic why do they need this database to actively target people? Surely they'd be turning applications down by the shed load if its such a great career
      (/rant apart from being killed/blinded/paralized/captured/tortured, and thats just by your own side. Seriously America's army is full of drop out morons who couldn't get a job anywhere else and they end up behind a Big Gun and shoot anything that moves. Their army's biggest problem is themselves /rant).

    10. Re:Draconian by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Did I say I was ever beaten or scared into improving myself? No.

      The Army gave me the opportunity to see what I was capable of accomplishing, and at risk of sounding like an old Army commercial "be all that I can be". None of that involved getting hit (except during pugil stick training) or being scared into doing something. Neither of those techniques create a quality soldier.

    11. Re:Draconian by front · · Score: 1

      >I credit the Navy for gettign me where I am today.

      Breathing, above the ground, or not breathing, in a box below it?

      The only entity to credit for your success is yourself and your own dedication.

      This story is about a sneaky database... a database which will be used to target the unsuspecting. It will be used to drag them into a career path in which they will never be well informed enough to understand that they may one day be required to take a bullet in the head as a condition of employment... before they graduate from your "trade-school".

      It is not a story of how you came to be all you could be.

      cheers

      front

    12. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you talking about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island nuclear plant?

    13. Re:Draconian by Widowwolf · · Score: 0

      And one thing..were you ever stationed in a war zone overseas?Ever see any real combat. No i bet not...

      Oh and they only pump out specified tradesman..hell, if some rich bastard could drive a hemitt down the middle of the street i would probably have a mechanics job..

      And i hate to say it but it wasnt the military who turned your life around. The gave you some guidance and some rules. You turned your own self around..I hate how everyone says the military changed thier lives..no you changed your own damn life to become the military's robot.

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    14. Re:Draconian by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      I guess to some people it is difficult to explain the self enlightment gained from pushing youself past what you believe your limits are. I'm trying to ithat lesson in my kids too. We spent the last three weeks driving to Mexico to explore Mexico's Copper canyon.

      Over a three week period they got to experience some really long hikes to waterfalls, cliffs and caves. They got to explore ruins and ride through the the hills on a horse. At one point we hiked over 18KM to find a waterfall and back. We took a train ride though the mountains and stayed in a town that tooks a 45minute ride up a steep mountain to access. Not bad for three kids aged 6,8 and 9.

      And I'd be proud of any othe them if they decided to join the military when they grow up.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    15. Re:Draconian by Weirsbaski · · Score: 1

      The military is a valid career alternative for anyone regardless of their highschool grades or economic status.

      Then why haven't Jenna and Barbara Bush signed up? They're currently looking for jobs...

      --

      I am not a sig.
    16. Re:Draconian by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nucleap power plant in two years.

      That's almost as scary as going from a C student with a drinking problem to President of the United States!

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    17. Re:Draconian by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      18k hike? I think some of the dotheads here would accuse you of trying to do some kind of Bataan death march.

      It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't gone through it, especially when they're so fed with propaganda, Hollywood and just wrong information. I actually had someone ask me once if I had to march around the barracks grabbing my crotch and singing "this is my rifle, this is my gun".

    18. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't pointing out the typing. He was pointing out that you went from being a near drop-out to operating a nuclear power plant in _TWO_YEARS_.

      I find it disturbing as well. (The fact that you thought he was attacking your typing reinforces my fear.)

    19. Re:Draconian by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      The last 2KM they where whining quite a bit but after an hour of rest they were bouncing around. Granted, they are pretty active kids. Here are some pics from the trip:

      http://lowing.org/mexico/

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    20. Re:Draconian by britehawk · · Score: 1
      ...a sneaky database...

      A DB can be sneaky?

      I love to be the bearer of bad news, but each of the military services has had their DB's used to "target the unsuspecting" for years now. This new DB will consolidate the information across the Department of Defense. Each of the services will then be able to draw from the same source, as well as find out who not to call on the opt-out list.

      It will be used to drag them into a career path in which they will never be well informed enough to understand that they may one day be required to take a bullet in the head as a condition of employment...

      Are you saying the "target age group" 17-24 has no clue that we are fighting a protracted war? Military recruits understand quite well that they will more than likely be going into a combat zone and they could be one of the 0.1 percent that returns home in a flag draped casket.

    21. Re:Draconian by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Why haven't you?

    22. Re:Draconian by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      People who knock service are usually the ones too afraid to try it.

      So, it was good for one goal-less depressed teen, so it must be good for everyone? Not trying to burst your bubble, but I left high school with self-confidence and discipline. So what would I have gained? I have worked in a senior technical position at a multi-billion dollar firm in charge of a multi-million dollar network. And I didn't need someone to yell at me to get me to realize that I can do whatever I want to (given reasonable wants).

      I'm not trying to one-up you. I'm not saying the military didn't help you. I'm saying that you are quite mistaken in your implication that everyone would benefit from the military. You are quite mistaken in your belief that no one can understand it without having been through it. And the protective roll of a military with such a huge foreign presence is quite debatable as well.

    23. Re:Draconian by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Nope. Didn't even say that (marvellous how people are reading things in my posts that aren't there).

      I said that people who knock military service are usually too afraid to try it. I didn't say that it would be a good thing for everyone. I've seen people who enlisted where they didn't make the cut, but at least they tried.

    24. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Two years is the training time required for a new recruit to go through Boot Camp (~8 weeks), A School (mechanical or electrical - about 3 months), Nuclear Power School (about 6 months), prototype training (first hands on experience - about 6 months), plus qualification time on the boat or ship. Then they are sitting at the control panel of the reactor.

      It may be disturbing but it works - the Navy does have a stellar track record for safety.

    25. Re:Draconian by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I said that people who knock military service are usually too afraid to try it.

      Well, then I'll make this plain and simple:

      I know many people who have served who knock military service. Many of them were drafted, others served voluntarily. But I've found that most people don't like admitting that they made a mistake, and saying "I joined the military, but I made a stupid mistake" is an admission of failure of their own choices, so the criticisms are usually muted. But that is getting away from the point that I know many people that have served that still knock it.

    26. Re:Draconian by SierraPete · · Score: 1

      Recruiters are not, in themselves, evil. Liars, maybe. But that could also describe most of the politicians in Washington, DC.

      In peace time, the military is a valid career alternative for kids who didn't let school interfere with their high school education or for kids who went to college, couldn't make it/afford it, and don't want their typical workplace conversation consist of, "Would you like to Super Size that?"

      However, with this unpopular war becoming more unpopular by the day, parents are going to object highly to their children going off to support something THEIR PARENTS don't support. That's why a draft with exceptions only for those who are demonstrably morally opposed to the war (i.e. long-term membership in an anti-war religous denomination, long-term membership in a pacisfist group, etc) is the way to go. And I mean for everybody, rich and poor, all ethnic groups, both genders, and all sexual preferences. When everybody has a fair shot at going to war, the chances of anybody going to war will drop dramatically.

      --
      Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
    27. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nu-cu-lar. It's pronounced nu-cu-lar.

    28. Re:Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that is getting away from the point that I know many people that have served that still knock it.

      Jeeze louise, so you're enlightened now and know about the military without having been through it? Actually, if you qualify you should sign up. I'd put money that you'd change your thinking.

    29. Re:Draconian by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      [i]And I mean for everybody, rich and poor, all ethnic groups, both genders, and all sexual preferences. When everybody has a fair shot at going to war, the chances of anybody going to war will drop dramatically.[/i]

      That's not necessarily true, for if a culture is represented by a 'warrior-class' or 'warrior-ethic' than it is more likely to go to war. The problem has never been the general population, but rather the old men (we call them politicians) who seek the glory of battle even as they will not be engaged in it. They either wish they were in battle and so use general-ship to live vicariously, or they remember the glory and so seek it again for the youngest citizens. War will stop when presidents are sent to the field.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  126. They are just now starting to do this...? by xen0side · · Score: 1

    I'm actually surprised they didn't have something like this in the first place. During my senior year of high school in 2003 while I was living in Bismarck ND I received 4-5 pieces of mail from every branch of the military a week, on top of a phone call. I just happened to be in a family considered lower income. None of my friends were getting so much recruiting material thrown at them. One of the recruiters kept pushing that fact that he knew I liked computers and I could work with all sorts of computers in the army. I soon found out that because of the no child left behind act schools had to turn over student's info to recruiters for federal funding. I moved to Portland OR to go into computer science. I was in college for a little over a year and switched majors, so I to Grand Forks ND and will be attending school probably in fall. I have been off the educational grid for about a year because of this. I recently spoke to my mom and she informed me that she has been getting weekly calls from recruiters trying to get my address in Grand Forks. She told me that one of the recruiters said he knew I moved back to North Dakota and just wants to know where exactly. So I cringe to think what its going to be like once I start attending classes again and they can easily get access to my personal info...

  127. OK... I'll bite by dsrtegl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man. EVERY amercian owes a debt of gratitude to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman who serves or has served this country. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting here on slashdot spouting your displaced self-loathing. Only the last couple of generations of Americans are so self-involved that they cannot see the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country. I am an 8-year (disabled, service-connected) veteran and I appreciate the experience, motivation and pride that came with my service. I am now a much more successful person because of what I learned while in the service of my country. As a result, my work shows more motivation and attention to detail than almost any of my co-workers, and employers DO take note of performance. Yes, there were times when what I was called upon to do had a very high "pucker factor". There were times that I almost lost life and limb. I am thankful that I didn't, but that doesn't mean that I should whine, cry or run away from the responsibility to ensure that the Grand Experiment lives on. By all means, hold hands, sing Cumbaya, but realize the necessity of the defense of our country. And if you don't think islamofacism can spread to your back yard, read this: http://www.detnews.com/2005/oakland/0506/22/B04-22 3573.htm peace, out.

    1. Re:OK... I'll bite by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to
      > serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the
      > history of man

      -nod- This is one of the areas of damage done by the Bush administration that I think doesn't get nearly
      enough attention. With the current state of affairs, there is arguably no way for a conscientious American
      to serve their country through the military.

      When the military is being misused and abused by the civilian leadership in ways that demonstrably
      hurt this country and make us less safe, nevermind needlessly sacrificing the soldiers themselves,
      what choices is a patriotic American left with in order to serve their country in this way? All I've been
      able to come up with is to vote, be politically active, and volunteer for and donate to good organizations
      like the Red Cross, the ACLU, BlackBoxVoting.org and Operation Truth.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    2. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.
      People > country > goverment. This is all I have to say on the topic.
    3. Re:OK... I'll bite by pegr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

      Freedom and liberty are NOT "gifts" from the government, but inalienable rights bestowed by the creator! Governments do NOT serve the interests of man, but their own self-interests! True freedom is defended from government and paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants!

      Love freedom, not government.

    4. Re:OK... I'll bite by dsrtegl · · Score: 1

      Freedom and liberty are NOT "gifts" from the government, but inalienable rights bestowed by the creator!

      True that, but the point that I was making was that in order to preserve those freedoms, every American should do their part. It is one thing to find fault and point fingers, it's another thing entirely to DO SOMETHING about it. Never point out a problem without providing a solution.

      If you don't like the way the Government is operating, run for office and change it.

      ...paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants!

      What you were alluding to was this:
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

      This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever know. (I know... slave owner, blah blah.) One could argue that this is what the Bush Administration is doing...

      And before I'm modded flaimbait again. At least I'm posting as myself, and not an AC...

    5. Re:OK... I'll bite by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your service. People forget that freedom isn't free.

      "If you're reading this, thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a veteran."

      Wish I had mod points for you. Apparently the readers here cannot separate service to the Constitution from support for the current administration.

      "Hate the war. Love the warrior."

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    6. Re:OK... I'll bite by jepe · · Score: 1

      "Never point out a problem without providing a solution."

      Pointing a problem is the first step to finding a solution...

      And sometimes the guy who could find a solution to a problem is unable to see the problem in the first place...

      and the guy who see the problem might not be able to come up whit a solution by himself.

      Problem pointer (or whiners) are a key element in the problem solving (and problem causing as well) machine that is society.

      All revolution or innovation start with someone whining about something. Often without a solution to provide.

    7. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      serving in the army =! fighting to keep freedom ...

      of course ... it could be ... this is not a rant against the army of a country ... but this point of view you have ...

      To support freedom and human rights, you have diffrent ways ... the primary of these is to get involved in politics, not the army.

      If you think that a person must show ANY form of gratetud to history or his country ... you have really missunderstood the word of freedom ...

    8. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP's problem isn't his anti-war stance, but his false generalizations and his completely ironic hostility.

      Innate aversion to serve? With all due respect: hardly. The military is not the only or even the best way to sacrifice your life for your fellow man. Nevertheless, we as a nation (US) do give special honor to our servicefolk. They have holidays, pay, benefits, and (despite dicks like GP) a special kind of respected individual status in our society.

      The other thing is that just because you are sacrificing for a cause, it does not neccessarily follow that the cause represents a service to your country. It can just as well be a disservice. That may be demoralizing to hear for those sacrificing in the field right now, or it may not, depending on how much or how little doubt they already harbor. But in either case, it doesn't make sense to shoot the messengers. I hear troops complaining about protesters and dissenters, and this really makes as little sense as jerks who disparage the troops. Most troops are not mindless killing zombies, and most protesters are not ignorant hippies who are scared to fight and have never worked a day in their lives.

      It's up to each of us to decide how best to do good, and while we should certainly lobby our leaders and our institutions to lead a certain way, we should respect each other's individual opinions and choices, even if we vehemently disagree with the overall direction our country is taking. There is a limit to how much you can twist someone's arm, and there is a limit to how much responsibility you can ascribe to one person when talking about a collective phenomenon like foreign policy. If you're going to blame anyone, blame the current leaders (maj and min) in congress, in the executive, and in the major war opposition groups. They are there for the very purpose of making decisions and being responsible and accountable. Hold them to it.

      And finally, if you feel underappreciated, let me be the first to say thanks for your service, and I beg you to note that as a nation and a society across party lines, we are doing trying to express gratitude in many ways, tangible and sentimental alike.

    9. Re:OK... I'll bite by leecn · · Score: 1
      One could argue that this is what the Bush Administration is doing...

      you are a peasant, and, clearly a stupid one.

    10. Re:OK... I'll bite by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

      Ah, there's that famous American modesty.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:OK... I'll bite by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "With the current state of affairs, there is arguably no way for a conscientious American
      to serve their country through the military."


      Depends on where you live. By federal law, "state gaurd" units (or whatever your home state decides to call it) cannot be called to serve outside their home state. They're still subject to any potential drafts, but it's still service to the state without being considered part of the federal armed forces.

      Of course, since the feds don't pay for it like they do with the National Guard, many states opt not to have one.

    12. Re:OK... I'll bite by jthayden · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

      Don't get down to Gitmo too often do you?

      I've never been that patriotic, but I did believe that the US was in the top tier of nations that respected human rights and individual freedom. I think we've begun to fall in those regards.

    13. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man ...

      My experience is very different. Having lived in a number of places, including the States, I'd say that US residents get to experience an average to low amount of freedom and liberty. New Zealand, Finland and Denmark top the list of actually free societies in my books.

      Funnily enough, many of these places have conscription armies, so people aren't expected to venerate those with military experience as demigods or somehow better people than any servants of state, from tax inspectors to bureucrats. Career army people are seen as the necessary fools they are. In countries which have armies that see non-defensive action, if not quite as much as the US army, soldiers are seen to be on the moral level of any person who chooses voluntarily to engage in strongly immoral behaviour.

      Naturally, in every country there are immoral jingoists who try to get the soldier worship syndrome up and going, but since most countries, except China, UK, India and US, have stopped engaging in actual imperialism, their popularity is waning.

    14. Re:OK... I'll bite by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> it's still service to the state without being
      >> considered part of the federal armed forces.

      I like this idea a LOT. It would also ease the strain that governors are under due to the extensive
      deployments of the nat'l guard, such as Montana's forest fire problems.

      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06 /05/montana_in_a_tug_of_war_for_guardsmen/

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    15. Re:OK... I'll bite by aaqubed · · Score: 1

      The problem, of course, is that the military is NEVER used to defend our country. Sure, "national security" is cited as a pretense for many things the military does, but the last time the military was used to repel an invasion was what...1812?

      --
      Need help - license plate reverse lookup. NY plate CSE-2960. Guy almost hit me, blamed me, pissed me off.
    16. Re:OK... I'll bite by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "True that, but the point that I was making was that in order to preserve those freedoms, every American should do their part."

      And when you say do their part you mean join the military:
      "the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country."

      Can't you see that just blindly joining a government military is in no way "preserving freedoms"?

      Are you actually saying that the war that Bush is waging is to preserve our Freedoms? Are you that naive?

      The only thing constructive i have seen in both of your pro-military pro-war stances is "If you don't like the way the Government is operating, run for office and change it.", otherwise just because you think it is honorable to wage war for any other reason than defense of your homes and countrymen, doesn't mean any of us are less "righteous" because we have a differing opinion...

    17. Re:OK... I'll bite by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      "the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country."

      In case I'm mistaken, the government is here to serve our interests, and not the other way around. We have no "duty" or "obligation" towards an entity that decides to give us things, especially a compulsory one.

      Let me put it this way: A salesman walks up to your house and offers you $1000. You gladly accept it, but subsequently ask if there's a catch. The salesman says that there is, and that it's one month of extremely hard and excruciating labor away from your friends, family, and real job. At this, you change your mind and decide to give the money back. "Oh, no," the salesman replies, "you are required to keep the money. It's a rule. And now you're coming with me for a month." At that, two armed thugs grab you and forcibly drag you into the back of an unmarked van sitting outside.

      Sound silly? You're right; it does. But that's what governments do every day. Should you have the right to refuse the salesman's money, and with it the consequenses? Of course. Should you be able to do the same for government handouts? I don't see why not, especially since the government isn't supposed to be giving out handouts anyway. Check the Constitution; do you see anything in there about subsidies, Social Security, or Medicare? Didn't think so.

      So, therefore, NO ONE has a duty to serve his or her "country."

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    18. Re:OK... I'll bite by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Only the last couple of generations of Americans are so self-involved that they cannot see the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country.

      You're right. The debt is too high. We should pay it down by outsourcing.

      The point here is that while I very much appreciate the sacrifice that the men and women serving now are making, their leaders seem to be doing everything in their power to make sure that their service will tarnished by their (the leaders', not the soldiers') lies and moral turptude, just as was the service of those in Vietnam.

      If you want to see what we're involved in, look at the UK in Northern Ireland from ca. 1965-2000. Belfast or Baghdad, it makes no difference. And think about how that fight ended (is still ending?) - a political settlement that saved face for all but the folks who tried to keep everyone from killing each other. You cannot destroy a terrorist movement by military means. The best you can do is to try to keep a tenuous peace long enough that cooler heads will prevail, allowing parts of the terrorist group to form a legitimate political group, and then negotiate it into a stable govenment. And, as the British situation showed, this takes decades. You can see this process repeating again between Israel and the PLO/PA as we speak.

      We're past the point where a clear military victory can be achieved. Our choices now are threefold:

      • Prop up the Iraqi regime until they can "defend themselves" and then find a Nixonian "Peace With Honor", leaving the insurgents to continue destabilization, probably escalating to a civil war, after we leave;
      • Hang out for thirty to forty years getting our people killed until the people there get tired of fighting;
      • Get out now and let the chips fall where they may.

      It's not clear to me that there's a whole lot of difference between the first and third option at this point and I, for one, am not willing to let my fellow countrymen die for decades while we wait for this to happen. At this point, I believe the best way to support our troops is to do everything in my power to get them the hell out of Iraq as quickly as possible - even if that means getting out without a clean "win".

      --
      That is all.
    19. Re:OK... I'll bite by seriesrover · · Score: 1
      Can you name a country with a list of freedoms greater than the US?

      Being a UK ex-pat living here in the States its obvious to me that there certainyl isn't a European country that comes close. I mean the US has had the Constitution for 200 years which has the ideals of freedom and liberty enshrined in it. Contrast that with Europe, for instance, that comes out with a 300 page legalese constitution that takes away freedoms from member states.

      So modesty isn't what I'm concerned about, but accuracy.

    20. Re:OK... I'll bite by cynyr · · Score: 1

      I would have no problems serving my country on my country's soil, DO NOT ship me off stateside, for any reason other than there is a battalion of missile launchers poised on a beach somewhere, and by all means DO NOT make me the one responsible for forcing a "democracy"(aka Constitutional republic) on anyone anywhere anytime. I have friends that have served a deployment to Ar Ramadi, Iraq, and Tongduchon Korea. So yes i have heard first hand accounts. And yes i acknowledge the danger and fully support the troops in other countries, i hope every single one makes it home unharmed, but i do not support how the Republicans(the bush's in particular) have used the armed forces in the past. I also am very sorry for you personal loss. PS i'm only 19 so i could only vote in this most recent election, for the record it was democratic(wish it was socialist). I'm sorry but the U.S.A is not the worlds police.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    21. Re:OK... I'll bite by meta.chris · · Score: 1

      "People forget that freedom isn't free."
      The word freedom has becoming far too pliable in its usage. Please don't make it any worse

      "If you're reading this, thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a veteran."

      My mom taught me and my 4 siblings how to read before we entered school. Most of the teachers i've had weren't much more than just school district employees, not Teachers - those who really care about their job.

      I'm reading it in English because the English came across the Irish Sea long ago, and were kind enough to 'teach' my ancestors English. Should I thank them?

      "Hate the war. Love the warrior."
      Does that apply to loving the enemy's warriors as well?

      Please note: I don't bear ill will towards a country for something that happened before we were born. I believe in the need for an active military, and i do care quite a lot about the well being of the troops. I do not, however, care much for jingoistic nonsense.

    22. Re:OK... I'll bite by Shalda · · Score: 1

      Nice troll. I'll happily and proudly sign up when my country needs me. However, it'll be a cold day in Hades when I commit to a futile, pointless, preemptive war that only makes the problem of islamofacism worse. For every terrorist that's killed in Iraq, 3 more take his place. The fact is, I don't trust the US governemnt to use my service responsibly.

      Of course, the dumbest thing I hear people say is "I'm against the war, but I support the troops." Bullshit. You can't oppose a war and support the people responsible. Responsibility for a war starts at the top and goes all the way down to every man and woman stationed on the front line. How the hell do you think Saddam Hussien stayed in power for so long? He had a quarter million loyal troops.

      The reason the Pentagon can't meet recruiting targets is two-fold. They don't pay enough, but more than that, High-school grads don't believe in the war and don't trust the government to use them in an honorable and just fashion. Some creepy database isn't going to fix that. (Ha! See, I got on topic!) If you took the money it takes to build and run this database and put it into enlistment bonuses, you'd probably get more recurits.

    23. Re:OK... I'll bite by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      My quotes were aimed at U.S. citizens, since TFA is about the Pentagon and the U.S. military. But thanks for sharing your heritage and upbringing.

      That "jingoistic nonsense" allowed the U.S. to give "proper thanks" to the English 229 years ago. Maybe you're wishing you had some of it so you could be reading this in Gaelic today.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    24. Re:OK... I'll bite by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      ... or Celtic. Whatever.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    25. Re:OK... I'll bite by meta.chris · · Score: 1

      Celtic referes to 'a people' and Gaelic is the language. The language i speak makes little difference to me - i brought it up in reference to the whole freedom thing and my concern over it's misuse.

      Also, i was born in Philadelphia and live in the USA today - my family first came to the states just in time for the great depression.

      I still stand by my previous words.

    26. Re:OK... I'll bite by Darby · · Score: 1

      True that, but the point that I was making was that in order to preserve those freedoms, every American should do their part. It is one thing to find fault and point fingers, it's another thing entirely to DO SOMETHING about it. Never point out a problem without providing a solution.

      Sure, but it has literally been decades since our military has been tasked with defending us.
      It is far more patriotic to *not* join the military than it is to join up and serve the aims of self-serving politicians who's interests are, for the most part, diametrically opposed to my interests, your interests, or the interests of this country as a whole.
      That was the lesson we damn well should have learned from Vietnam. The question is why did you fail to learn that lesson?

      This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever know. (I know... slave owner, blah blah.) One could argue that this is what the Bush Administration is doing...

      One could make a feeble attempt to make such an argument, but it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.

    27. Re:OK... I'll bite by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Apparently the readers here cannot separate service to the Constitution from support for the current administration.

      And you seem to be unable to separate service to your country from serving the whims of whichever of 2 scumbags won a popularity contest funded by people who make a lot of money by sending US soldiers to die for their own personal profit.

    28. Re:OK... I'll bite by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      And if you don't think islamofacism...

      Nutjob alert.

      Users of the term islamofascism are adherents of the whacked-out "Michael Savage" radio personality.

      If you don't know him, read his website - it should only take a minute or two to convince you just how distorted his world view is.

    29. Re:OK... I'll bite by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This is one of the areas of damage done by the Bush administration that I think doesn't get nearly
      enough attention. With the current state of affairs, there is arguably no way for a conscientious American to serve their country through the military.


      What nonsense. The number of people whose mind's have been changed by the Bush administration are few and far between. To the extent that anyone's minds have been changed they have largely changed to be closer to the views of the Bush administration by the attacks of Al Qaeda and company.

      Your list of ways to serve is rather anemic, and a bit revealing. Here is an entire page of links to organizations and programs for patriotic Americans to aid their country and the service members defending us from the butchers who have stated they have the right to kill four million Americans. This isn't Vietnam where we can just pack up and leave and nothing bad happens to us, they came to our country and intend to destroy us. How many remember that Bin Laden's first demand (Q2) to America was that if we want his organization to stop attempting mass murder against Americans that we become a Muslim nation, which for him would be a Muslim of a very specific extremist, intolerant sect? (I can already hear the pathetic, deranged howls about the "right wing Christian theocracy we live under" now.) Well, just keep donating to the ACLU, I'm sure they will be keeping us safe from suicide bombers in our shopping malls with all that they do.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:OK... I'll bite by GlenRaphael · · Score: 1
      Can you name a country with a list of freedoms greater than the US?

      Sure. Hong Kong has typically had more economic freedoms such as the freedom to import and export without being taxed. Holland has more freedom to sell marijuana. Israel and Switzerland have more freedom to own automatic weapons. Russia and France have more freedom to copy software, and so on.

      --
      I play Nerd-Folk!
    31. Re:OK... I'll bite by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I won't argue with your point, but I take great issue with statements like "the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man."

      What about England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, India, and many, many others.

      Your statement implies that at *no time* in the history of any other nation has the freedom of the individual been as great as that in the USA.

      If you can explicitly define what you mean by "freedom" (it's quite a nebulous concept) then it's trivial to show examples in pretty much any country where the freedoms enjoyed by the masses were as great as in your own country.

      Certainly the freedom I have in Australia is at least equal to what you have in the US. I'd argue it was greater, but I'm biased ;)

      In many ways, I agree with your point that every nation owes a debt of gratitude to the military forces that protect it. These people are willing to go out and die in our name, and they believe that the leaders have the moral authority to ask them to do that.

      That's powerful stuff.

      While I may disagree with the political decisions, I can't fault the Australian soldiers over there for what they do. That takes a lot of bravery and skill.

    32. Re:OK... I'll bite by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> they came to our country and intend to destroy us

      Please list the Iraqis who attacked us on our own soil. Clearly I've missed something.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    33. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

      This is exactly the kind of nationalistic patriotic tripe that makes Americans known as arrogant and ignorant. More freedom than any country in the world? Yes, if you're white and Christian, I'll agree. How long did it take us to abolish slavery? How long did it take for the civil rights movement to gain momentum? What about the genocide of native Americans through conventional and biological warfare, huh? Or what about our completely inexcusable bombing campaign of Japan that decimated over 50% of its urban infrastructure under the guise of getting the population to capitulate? Strategic bombing theory has been since discredited, and McNamara himself acknowledges that he and Curtis LeMay would have (and should have) been indicted as war criminals. We killed more women and children in one week than all American casualties in Vietnam.

      America is a pretty nice place, but it's still a nationalistic plutocracy beholden to business interests, and we've done our fair share of dirty deeds that we still refuse to acknowledge. I've got family in the service and I respect and admire their committment to duty, but blind nationalism is just as bad when its in American.

    34. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is the saddest thing I've ever seen. Wait, what's even sadder is that it was marked "Insightful." I guess if you find complete and utter BS insightful, it makes complete sense.

      I'm curious, what industrialized country is a threat to democracy? What exactly is the army protecting America from? The non-existant weapons of Afghanistan or Iraq? Hmm, maybe Korea though, right? But wait, the army isn't dealing with that. I get it. HOWEVER, do not misunderstand, in the past, I'd say the army was far more useful and effective. Right now, I do not see it being used legimately.

      And the reason to make me post "And if you don't think islamofacism can spread to your back yard, read this: http://www.detnews.com/2005/oakland/0506/22/B04-22 3573.htm peace, out. "

      Honestly, I read that article and it reeked off BS. First understand the god damned religion before you make ignorant statements. In Islam you aren't supposed to even have pre-marital activities with the other sex (e.g. dating) EVEN WITH OTHER MUSLIMS. So it makes no sense whatsoever. And EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE, are you saying that there aren't insane christians/jews/etc or better yet, satanists? No, no, let's suck up the media's utter BS and regurgitate it out on slashdot for the insightful marks. And nice way of showing your obvious bias "islamofacism", just tell, how much of the religion do you know before you let your mouth run betraying your naivity and ignorance?

      Also, if you're basing your thoughts of a religion by extremists, that's just pathetic. Let's say all Buddhists and Christians are crazy but those are the primary religions in N Korea, alright? Seems logical.

      Also, great facts. Everything on the internet is true; moreover, everything on the news is true too. Put together, that's some concrete evidence you have yourself there.

      (I normally lurk on /. so I forgot my username/pw, but that post was just pathetic and rated up, so I had to post.)
      "peace out."

    35. Re:OK... I'll bite by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1
      It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

      Please provide detailed evidence as to how the United States of America provides people "with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man". In doing so please make specific refence as to how the US provides more freedoms than all of the following countries; Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Please be sure to note the freedoms that the citizens of these countries are allowed that you are not in the US, and advise as to how you determine that the US affords its citizens with "the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man".

      Please also provide evidence that you aren't the drooling, flag-waving, clueless moron that you appear to be.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    36. Re:OK... I'll bite by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      We're saying the same thing. You just chose less eloquent words.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    37. Re:OK... I'll bite by dsrtegl · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, Never heard of him. What I have heard of are atrocities committed in islamic countries and the stone-age laws that they have.

      Like the girl and their mother who were tied to their bed and burned alive in Pakistan last week because the girl was caught having sex with a neighbor boy.

      In Iran, you can still be stoned to death for certain family transgressions. Buried up to your neck, they chuck stones at you until you're dead. If you claw your way out of the hole and run away, they just shoot you (this happened about a month ago I believe).

      In Saudi Arabia, you can be imprisoned for daring to expouse the virtues of being a Christian.

      If that's not facism, I don't know what is.

    38. Re:OK... I'll bite by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Well I feel pretty free in Canada, and I don't have to join the armed forces. Heck, we barely have any armed forces. You know what? We aren't actively defending our country because the "terrorists aren't out to get us" either. I am one man living my life. I don't need to train for combat to fight evil forces. I would rather work and donate extra money, or proactively help people instead of strapping on my guns. It's great that you learned respect and a hard work ethic from being in the military. I learned these things in general society. People who fight, who prepare to fight, especially when they want to fight to prevent fighting, are the cause of most of the problems in the world. Everyone fights because they think their view is right and the other is wrong. Nobody does anything they don't feel is justified. Until everyone stops, there won't be peace. Joining the military is a waste of a life, IMO. This rant would have been more thought out, but I have a conference call - good day.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    39. Re:OK... I'll bite by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      First of all, like any other job, some people are fit for military duty and some aren't. In a free country, if you are so inclined, you volunteer for the army. The connotation that it is an obligation is a blatant disregard for the very freedom that you are supposedly fighting for.

      Second of all, and I'd like to think I'm speaking for more than just myself, I have the utmost respect for someone with the balls to throw themselves into a combat situation for their career, because I would not ever do that. That's on a person-to-person level. When I start to think on the broader level of the fact the the military has seemingly become the muscle of power-hungry screwballs who throw around the term "freedom" like used car salesman, I become concerned.

      Third of all, there are many people who feel that violence begets violence, and that it is a perversion to suggest that "real" peace can be brought about by military action. Any such "peace" would be rooted in the fear of violent retribution, which isn't really peace at all.

      Fourth of all, terms like "islamofacism" around cannot rightly be considered without the context of any other religiously based facism. Hitler thought he was doing Christ's work, for crying out loud. Read about Machiavelli's take on religion and controlling the masses.

      I *think* that many of the folks who express anti-military sentiment are not personally attacking any singular person for achieving success within the military and with skills learned in the military. It's just that learning to kill ain't for everyone, especially when the battle cries of "freedom" and "democracy" can arguably be translated to "live American or die."

    40. Re:OK... I'll bite by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1
      If that's not facism, I don't know what is.

      That's easy, here's what the "father of facism" had to say about it:
      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
      --Benito Mussolini


      So, as you can see, you are way off in your use of the term.

      Meanwhile, in response to the kind of brutalities you've listed with the implication they are due to the "islam" part of "islamofascism" - that's not islam, that's ultra-conservative pre-islamic tribal behaviour that the practicioners find convenient to cloak in the trappings of islam. But that stuff is no more in the quaran than the murdering of homosexuals, wife-beating and slavery is in the bible.
    41. Re:OK... I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -- serve the country that has provided them with the
      --most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the
      --history of man

      Snicker :P

    42. Re:OK... I'll bite by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Blah blah blah...

      Look, the United States itself has never been under any military threat since World War II, which means that the vast majority of surviving veterans, no matter how honorable their service, did absolutely nothing to protect the freedom of the American people. They did a great deal to protect the freedom of the South Korean people, the Kuwaiti people, and perhaps the Afghan and Iraqi people, and they're people too so maybe it was important to protect their freedoms. But the idea that we have the military to thank for our freedom is absurd. And you think all Americans should be obligated to serve two years? You would enslave millions into military service in the name of freedom? Read some history. Standing armies have never been an asset to freedom, they have only been a threat.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    43. Re:OK... I'll bite by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      In Hong Kong, you cannot burn the Chinese flag or vote for your leaders. In Holland you must pay higher taxes and I don't think you can express certain fringe political viewpoints. In Israel the police powers are like Patriot Act on crack. In Switzerland you must enlist in the military. In (Soviet?) Russia, you can't effectively campaign for office unless your name is Vladimir Putin, to say nothing of the police powers (the KGB is still around, it just has a nicer-sounding name). In France, you can't put a sign out unless the sign is written in proper French.

      Sure, some countries have some freedoms better than the US, but in aggregate, the US is pretty high up there.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    44. Re:OK... I'll bite by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Well, World War II technically (the Phillippines were US soil at the time, and Japan seized them as well as some of the Aleutian Islands).

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  128. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheesh, slamming AACP with Overrated is so damn cowardly. Afraid to use a real mod because they'd get marked Unfair in metamod.

  129. They can't get the answers they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They can't seem to get the answers they want from Social Security or the IRS, despite the ominous quality of those databases.

    Until the next Act. Maybe a classified one. Then the DB connection will happen suddently with no-time-to-react.

  130. You got that all wrong, this is a good thing. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Scenario: I'm in college and the Pentagon collects all this info on me. I'm cool with it.

    Anyway, I graduate and I'm having trouble getting a job and so on and I'm living at home.

    I'd really like for my local recruiter to get a list of people who have recently graduated, but don't have a job and are still living at home and maybe even cross-index that with newly acquired debts (buy a car recently?) so he can call me up and offer me some free training and governmental help with those school loans.

    Maybe even flag people in the database as the law enforcement agencies (yes, it can be shared with them) ask for checks on it. Like if you're in a traffic accident and your car is wrecked.

    No, I see no possiblity that this will be abused and lots of ways that it will help our young people through a trying time of personal and emotional maturing. Yes.

    I'm sure that there never be, under any circumstance, any "evaluation" of the criteria contained in that database to determine someone's "recruitability rating" similar to how your "credit rating" is determined now.

  131. revolution..... by megarich · · Score: 1
    I think its time we resurrect George Washington and the rest of our fore fathers from the dead because we need a new governemental structure.

    I'm sorry but this government just isn't working out anymore. I can't fully blame the government because people has gotten to complacent with the way things are.

    It's suppose to be we the people, a government for the people but when the people stop getting active and giving a fuck, i guess this is the end result of that.

  132. Marketing principles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose you are selling a product which "relatively poor" people purchase many times more often than "relatively wealthy" people do. Will you spend your limited sales resources selling to the wealthy or to the poor?

    More recruiters in poor areas simply makes fiscal sense for the military. They are spending their marketing resources where they will get the most results. This does not make them evil, just market smart.

    Maybe you could argue that the military needs to work to make military service more attractive the the "relatively wealthy" but simply advertising more to people who enlist less is a waste of resources.

  133. Imagine that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass.

    Ironically, this corporation happens to fall under one of my compromised IP ranges:
    Name: pine.benow.com
    Address: 198.136.200.48

    Name: tpcmac.benow.com
    Address: 198.136.200.49

    Name: willow.benow.com
    Address: 198.136.200.50

    I can go on and on.

    Don't worry kids, your SS# is safe with me.

  134. Junk Mail by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

    This should make you feel better.

    Take that postage paid envelope they send you. Pack it full of their (and other) junk mail, and send it back.
    Sends a nice powerful message at their cost that you don't appreciate the junk mail.

    Wait a second... I think I just supported vengeful behavior. That's not exactly something I support. I guess I am a hypocrite.

    1. Re:Junk Mail by HeXetic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      http://www.chmodoplusr.com/
  135. Kingdom of Spam by KoReE · · Score: 1

    We will never be free of spam, as long as it is this intertwined in our society. When our own government is basically spamming, how could anyone actually take antispam tactics seriously? While I'm sure they're not spamming by the classic definition, I bet this list isn't opt-in :D Sure, it appears it's opt-out, but even in opting out, they're not purging the information, they're just putting it in a database that's off to the side. I bet people who opt out still will get called. And if they do get called, there will be nothing they can do about it. I'm sure the do not call list does not apply.

    --
    Instant Karma's gonna get you...
  136. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coming from outside of the USA the current direction of the USA looks really bad.

    * The USA has nearly 50% of the world military budget.
    * There is a rising recruitment pressure in the USA
    * ...

  137. Reminds me of Orwell's 'Goals of Government' by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

    Didn't Orwell say the following

    There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.

    1984 was right after the bomb, so that mission is accomplished, but they still can't read our minds...yet.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  138. No, they care - Nam was a good lesson by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Back in the 60's and early 70's, all of us were subject to the draft. Yeah, the wealthy got out of it by staying in college (clinton was a good example), or by having friends in low places that could get you military positions where you would never be in harms way (bush being the most famous). (of course, when the draft was not needed, you had a number of ppl who simply did not enlist such as Cheney and Rumsfield). Problem was, that the wealthy who were drafted and went to 'nam, then had their family fighting to stop the war. That is, you had wealthy ppl fighting against the war. They had money. They had influence. They had friends in interesting places. And that was hard on the administration.

    No, this admin does understand that there is a difference between the wealthy and the poor.

    And that is why very few member of congress and none in the white house have their own kids in this military.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:No, they care - Nam was a good lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should require that any person running for the House, the Senate or the Presidency and anyone in an office appointed by them automatically have their children enlisted for a 6 year term (only those 18 years of age or older of course) in the armed forces.
      First in peace, first in war.

    2. Re:No, they care - Nam was a good lesson by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      You know, Heinlein's idea of mandatory government service to get the vote is a bit silly, but what if there was mandatory government service to run for office?

      You want to be the police chief? You're required to have at least two years on a force.

      You want to be an elected judge? You have to have operated as a lawyer. (Actually, we kinda do this, but it's not legally required.)

      You want to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces? You have to be in the damn military. (Or, at least, attempt to be there.)

      Actually, maybe you should only have to have been in the military if you try to use the military, outside of a constitutionally declared war. If you weren't in the military, all you can do is use it how Congress says.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  139. You are talking out of your asses by wsanders · · Score: 1

    In fact, if Charles Rangel D-NY has his way, a draft will be instituted to force the rich sons and daughters of yuppies to fight for their parent's right to drive cheaply-fueled gas guzzlers.

    Good NYT reprint here:

    http://www.radicalmiddle.com/military_mirrors.htm

    The soldiers currently KIA in Iraq actually fall on one side of a rural/urban demographic line than a white/nonwhite or rich/poor line. This is getting Congress' attention FWIW:

    http://www.house.gov/skelton/pr050228.htm

    Well, they do have all those pickup trucks in the Heartland. If you want to start a class war, say let them fight for their gas guzzlers.

    Me, I say, what do you do when you find yourself deep in a hole? Stop digging.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  140. Is this new? by atteSmythe · · Score: 1

    I got probably dozens of invites to join the Navy when I was in college. They really seemed to want to put me on a nuclear sub. Isn't this just a different/more efficient method of doing what they're already doing?

  141. Equal Rights==Equal Access by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    You're misreading the implications behind the Pentagon move to database recruitment. There are whole categories of opportunities behind this data which confers advantage based upon access through earned rights.

    The part about Women's liberation where they wanted all the priviledges of men will be a National Debate at intersection of Conscription and Liberty.

    The Pentagon is fine tuning women's role in the military to get the obstacles to service overcome before women become conscripted with young men. Why? One female driving a forklift, frees up another male trigger finger on the frontlines.

    This is not Military Draft olde-style... it is restructuring 21st Century-style through earned citizenship into a capitalist economy. Citizenship, employment, credit, etc... will be means tested at the BeNow Inc. database from 18 yr of age onward for a lifetime.

    -r

  142. Re:Open letter to T/\/\/\/\ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    an early post filled with regurgitated article with something that deserves a +5 Insightful

    You're just jealous because you can never get "frist psot" anymore.

  143. That's the bad news. The good news... by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... is that the database is running on MS SQL Server 2000.

    --

    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
  144. Duh... by SierraPete · · Score: 1

    Of course they're going this route. The military is being run like a business. A business who's main product is killing people and breaking their stuff, but still a business. Do you think that the Pentagon is the only organization that is keeping a big ol' database of me and you and dog named Boo. Geesh. I'd guess that over half of the Fortune 500 is doing that, and not restricting it to just the 16-24 crowd. Major corporations use data mining and database building to mold their pitch in every conceivable way.

    The reason it gets the negative press is that we've got an unpopular war. Another duh. An all-volunteer force is a great idea in peacetime, but in war then you have to work harder to recruit people.

    Do you want to end the bitching and the databases? Go back to the draft. With NO deferrals and no exemptions except for documented religous aversions to war (i.e. you've gone to Quaker church for the last ## years). When everybody can go to war, chances are low that anybody will go to war.

    --
    Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
  145. Opt-out information? Suuuure by six_zero_four · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the scene in Fahrenheit 911 where the military recruiters tell the kid he can fill out the information and they will never contact him again? And then after he leaves they laugh because he just signed up for a lifetime of military propaganda at his door? Opt out my ass.

  146. The math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why does everyone keep bringing this up?

    Because people can do math. Our current troop level in Iraq is 130K, which is roughly 25% of the number of troops actually needed to occupy the country. The number of troops actually needed was known before the war but ignored in favor of Rumsfeld's plan of war on the cheap. The military pays the price every day for this shortfall of roughly 350-400K troops.

    When Rumsfeld's original plan faltered, he shifted to outsourcing the war to the Iraqis. Unfortunately as with most outsourcing, the Iraqis (while cheap to hire) are not as skilled and not up to the same workload as those they replace. As a result, it is probably going to take two Iraqi soldiers for every US soldier. That means there will have to be 1 million Iraqi soldiers to effectively control the country and allow the US soldiers to come home.

    In two years, the US military is estimating that there will be roughly 200K Iraqi soldiers trained. Even keeping the same US troop levels in Iraq, we will still be short the total number of troops needed by about 50% (130K + 200K/2 = 230K). Which means, the insurgency will not be defeated and the war's incessant violence will continue unabated.

    At some point in the next 1 to 2 years, a drastic change in troops levels will be required to win the war. (The change is actually needed now but nothing is going to happen until after the congressional elections next year.) When it happens (and it will if we want to win), the draft will have to be considered. It may have to be some hybrid draft to get passed, where those drafted do not go to Iraq but replace those volunteer soldiers that do. But in any case, the currently reality is bad and the future is not bright. The alternative is losing but given the recent reports that Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists, that doesn't seem like a good option.

  147. Hashing? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Can't they design a 1-way hash for their SSN's so when you opt out, only your hash gets added to the DB?

    And the next time they try to enlist you, the hash database will be consulted. No personal info.

    1. Re:Hashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not enough SSNs to work.

  148. Selective Services by Hrvat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Selective services already registers you (required by law) if you are a man between ages of 18 through 25. Even if you are a permanent resident. Or on a student visa. This merely widens the record keeping to include a wider age range and both sexes.

    --
    TANSTAAFL
  149. WWJD? THOU SHALT NOT KILL. by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Thou shalt not kill.

    That's a commandment, is it not?

    Why is Bush's gov't looking for more young people to train as professional mass murderers?

    What would Jesus do?

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  150. Big Brother joke, but it's really not funny by egriebel · · Score: 1
    In Soviet Russia...Big brother watches You!!

    Oh sorry, my goof. It should read: "In Soviet America, Big Brother watches you!!"

    Or...

    I, for one, welcome our new database-mining governmental overlords!

    I, for one, welcome our new-and-improved minimally invasive military recruiting overlords!

    I, for one, welcome our war machine overlords! Go Bush!

    --
    ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
  151. Why are most military personel middle class? by cenobyte40k · · Score: 1

    If the military is only going after the poor kids then why are the vast majority of those serving in the military today from middle class families? The answer is that groups that tend to be anti-military like public school teachers, secondary school teachers, Collage teachers, and the media in the US wants you to believe that the system is designed to be hurtful or discriminatory. It's in fact a lie that everyone seems to buy in to.

    1. Re:Why are most military personel middle class? by dick+johnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking as a veteran, I would say that the reason is that the easiest way to pay for a college education for a middle class student is to go into the military.

      College costs big money. It's not an easy thing for most lower-middle and midde-middle income families to take on the kind of debt that is required to obtain a college degree.

      The reality is the United States has a draft today.

      It's just an economic draft.

      Kids who can afford to pay for college do so. Those who can't afford to pay for it and still want an education go into the military.

      --
      - dj
    2. Re:Why are most military personel middle class? by cenobyte40k · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point.

      First, I was really poking fun at all the people that keep talking about how only the poor are recuited when I fact most of the military is middle class not the poor.

      Second, I came from a middle class family yet I went to collage without the military and without my parents paying for it. There are lots and lots of options for getting into collage that don't require them military. Loans, grants,gifts, etc and the lower your income the easier it is for you to get them. Now obviously you would have to have done at least OK in school to get these but you can't blame the military for not doing well in school.

      I understand the angst that people have over this. But if people are going to complain about something they need to first look at all the facts which the vast majority of those posting on this topic have failed to do.

      I currently know 6 different people in the military, all of them could have afforded collage on there own (2 of them did, then joined). When talking to them about complaints I here on places like /. There responce is that these people don't understand what it is to give something of yourself for all that has been given to them.

  152. You're confusing "country" with "political party". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Listen folks, here's the deal. Many people are opposed to the war, both inside and outside of the military. This is inconcequential to this discussion.

    No. You're wrong. There is a REASON that this war is BECOMING unpopular.

    And tracking kids so the government can pressure them into fighting such a war is the PROBLEM.

    The reality of the entire issue is this: We are a nation founded on revolution and war.

    No. Look up "Boston Tea Party". Our country was founded upon the belief in certain Rights.

    Our power in the world was won through superior military force.

    Only recently. Before that, it was because of our vast natural resources and distance from the established armies of the other nations.

    We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force.

    You might want to look at the Founding Fathers' views on a standing military.

    Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period. Don't cry to me about big brother or dead children.

    That sounds a bit too much like "the ends justify the means".

    Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you.

    Here's the flaw in that claim.

    Because some people joined the military and fought and died for Freedom does not mean that everyone who dies in the military furthers Freedom.

    Check out Kuwait. We "Freed" them from Iraqi invasion ... but they still don't allow women to vote.

    This "Freedom" thing is a bit tricky, no?

    If people really don't want thier children getting blown up, then don't vote for a president who will go to war so easily.

    So people who didn't vote for Bush are exempt from this database?

    If you are afraid of "big brother", don't use credit cards, save your money and pay for everything in cash.

    And now you're into "blaming the victim".

    Why not just make it illegal for those companies to collect that information on me?

    Our modern society is productive because of our ability to exploit knowledge opportunities.

    That can mean anything from filing a patent on your new, effective, cold fusion generator to filming your neighbor in the shower.

    Now that it's being done for the defense of the country, people want to complain.

    This is not about "defense of the country". Iraq was no threat to the USofA.

    If a marketing company sent you a free box of Tide Detergent in the mail you wouldn't bitch, because you're greedy like that.

    Getting a sample box of Tide == tracking kids to target them for recruitment

    Right.

    Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done.

    No one "gives" anyone else "Freedom".

    And tracking kids is the OPPOSITE of Freedom.

    No one forces the hand of the individual to sign the paper.

    That is correct. But this isn't about forcing them to sign. This is about tracking them to specifically target them.

    So shut up about all the crap, take a deep breath and try not to choke on the sweet air of freedom.

    You use that word a lot, but I don't think you understand what it means.

    Went to school? Thank a teacher.

    Okay, but shouldn't I also thank the people who funded the school system and paid the teachers' salaries?

    You are, of course, aware tha

  153. better ways to serve by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    From what I've read it takes a few months to train a raw recruit to become a soldier. It takes years to train a high school graduate to write competent software. Who do you think adds more value to our country?

    1. Re:better ways to serve by dsrtegl · · Score: 1

      You obviously underestimate the intelligence, skill, and ability of the American Military Men and Women.

      So did King Charles, Santa Ana, The Kaiser, Hitler, Hirohito, Gorbachov, Moammar Khadafi, The Entire Taliban, and Saddam Hussein.

    2. Re:better ways to serve by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Without the soldier you wouldn't get the opportunity to make the software.

      To paraphrase George Orwell:
      We code safely in our air-conditioned offices because rough men stand ready to do violence on those who would do us harm.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    3. Re:better ways to serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those Viet Cong. Oh, wait...

    4. Re:better ways to serve by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Huh? Your "understanding" of extremely basic economics is fatally flawed.

      If I train for years to become a pen twirling champion, do you think I've added value to our country? No, actually, I haven't. The difficulty of doing something has nothing to do with the amount of value it adds.

      Same thing, Bush prepared to be President his whole life.

    5. Re:better ways to serve by Rule_Of_The_Bone · · Score: 0

      I would suggest...with respect...that you put down the book you read (Archie & Jughead?) and re-evaluate your position. Competent software? Value to the country? You have to be kidding. A monkey can code given the right training...and try explaining the value of java-enabled porn to every troop who has served since the days of the Continental Army...value indeed.

      --
      "We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
    6. Re:better ways to serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the koreans, er...

      BTW, didn't Santa Ana win the alamo?

      Wasn't WW1 basically a war of attrition with the final ending being WW2?

      Japan was deafeated by nuclear bombs, not marines,

      Communism in Russia collapsed on it's own, (china is still going strong tho)

      Saddam hussein might have fallen but can you really say we have won the war in Iraq? Maybe if your name is dick or donald...

    7. Re:better ways to serve by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      ""People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
      Alternative: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."
      Notes: allegedly from Rough Men by George Orwell. There is no evidence in existence that Orwell ever wrote or uttered either of these versions of this idea. While these do bear some similarity to a comment made in an essay that Orwell wrote on Rudyard Kipling, the two statements above are considered to be illegitimate by Orwell scholars."

      This quote is from a different website than this link, but the link also decries this GO quotation:
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

      It is funny that you would support your POV using george orwell though...

    8. Re:better ways to serve by dsrtegl · · Score: 1

      South Korea has remained free. Our objective there was to stop the spread, not conquor the North.

      Santa Ana won the battle, but lost the war. The backlash caused by some good spin and his brutality to the people of the Alamo ended up costing him everything. The movie != the whole story.

      WWI was not pretty, but it was won. The harsh restrictions placed upon Germany after the war was over is what let to the environment where Hitler could seize power.

      And who delivered those bombs? Who conquered the islands that the planes flew from to drop the bombs? Who crewed the ship that transported the bomb to said island?

      Communism collapsed because their economy could not keep up with us. It was a cold war, but it was won.

      Saddam's army no longer exists as a fighting force. It was obliterated. The guerilla forces in Iraq have no hope of militarily driving the U.S. out of the country. The fighters are not an army. They have no uniforms, command structure or national flag to fight under. They do not fight under the auspices of the Geneva Convention.

    9. Re:better ways to serve by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      So did King Charles

      You mean King George III, who was defeated by American militia and the French military.

      Santa Ana

      Texas militia.

      The Kaiser, Hitler

      With some significant foreign assistance.

      Hirohito

      Defeated by the American physicists and engineers of the Manhattan Project.

      Gorbachov

      Never faced the US in a shooting war. Caused the political collapse of his own country.

      Moammar Khadafi

      Never faced the US in a full-scale shooting war, despite a minor skirmish with the US Navy.

      The Entire Taliban

      Escaped mostly unharmed into the hills of Afghanistan. Quickly forgotten.

      Saddam Hussein.

      With significant foreign assistance the first time. The second time, he was disarmed and his country's economy was destroyed by a decade-long embargo.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  154. Any going to ask why the military is doing this? by cenobyte40k · · Score: 1

    Any going to ask why the military is doing this? I can tell you. See when the recruiters show up to career day, staff at schools tends to tell them to get lost. They are deigned the same access to students to talk about what they can do that is given to some of the worlds largest polluters, and strong arm monopoly holders. Do you think that if they got fair access even just most of the time that this would not need to be done? Like it or not we need a strong military and the attitude toward military service from the public education system is repulsive to the point that congress is forced to pass laws that seem offensive in return. If you want to point fingers, go to school tomorrow and tell you kinds principle that you are for equal rights for everyone, not just institutions that s/he thinks are expectable.

  155. But what else will be done with the information by Odocoileus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    After serving 6 years in the millitary myself, as an 82nd airborne paratrooper, I am a firm believer that the millitary can really do a whole lot of good for a lot of people- provided your not in an MOS with a short life expectancy. I don't see any harm in the gov't having this information- as long as it is strictly for recuiting purposes.

    But as someone else said, this information could, and most likely will, eventually be shared with other agencies. That, I think, is the real evil here.

    --
    ...
  156. Not true. by pointbeing · · Score: 1
    Department of Defense says the host nation sets the 'drinking age' - unless you have a war on US soil this is a moot point. The drinking age in most European countries is closer to 18 and younger soldiers can drink on- and off-post.

    The military doesn't have a drinking age - in the US the age is set by state (not federal) law.

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
    1. Re:Not true. by Deagol · · Score: 1
      From what I understand, like many issues, the universal 21-year driking age now found in all states was strong-armed by the federal government by threats of pulling highway funds. It's a de facto federal law.

      However, my main point was that we as a nation think these kids are too irresponsible to own firearms and drink alcohol, yet we expect them to have the wherewithal to consent to being put in such grave danger, and, conversely, to determine the fate of citizens of those nations we occupy. Doesn't that strike any reasonable person as contradictory?

  157. And if you believe that... by gmknobl · · Score: 1

    I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in buying!

    Seriously, does anyone still believe these guys under the fascist Bush administration? They have got to be kidding if they think people are still that stupid.

    OOPS! I forgot! Around 49% of the American public supposedly voted for Bush last time. I guess there are some truly gullible, or worse, out there!

  158. LOL, you're incorrect. by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A lot of "irrational things", huh? Like him saying before the Iraq war that there were none of the weapons that Bush and Blair knowingly mislead the public about? He was correct, you know. I'm sure it'll hurt your Republican pride to admit that your president lied to you about that, and that Scott Ritter was 100% correct in what he said. And he'll most likely be correct about the invasion of Iran. Double the ouch to your Republican pride! LOL!

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  159. And this would be needed..... by Rule_Of_The_Bone · · Score: 1

    .....WHY? I am pretty sure that I volunteered for my military service and registered for selective service upon turning 18. This DB tool is not needed and I firmly feel it is not only an intrusion of privacy but a nice waste of tax $$ as well.

    --
    "We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
  160. Religion makes for better soldiers. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    When you actually believe there is an afterlife, and that after you die your consciousness will continue...this allows you to take bigger risks in combat.

    The military gets more bang-per-buck out of religious soldiers...

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Religion makes for better soldiers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military gets more bang-per-buck out of religious soldiers...

      Don't you mean "more buck-per-bang"?

    2. Re:Religion makes for better soldiers. by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Interesting, and I suspect to a large degree true.

      However, from a world view where if you die, your gone, it's over - there's nothing bad in it for you. You just hurt your loved ones by dying.

      From a religous (particularly christian) perspective, there's risk involved, particularly for someone who has may have just spilt blood. Plus there is the whole 'Thou shalt not kill' issue and a lack of time to ask for forgiveness. I'm sure theologens have decided that it isn't an issue, but it migh make me tentative.

      While I think you're right, I don't think you're describing rational behavior from either camp.

  161. weed & poland by SpecialRider · · Score: 1

    let it be know you like to smoke weed and have a girlfriend in Poland...you will be safe from any potential recruitment.

  162. Hahaha...nice joke. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Didn't Heinlein write a book about just this scenario?

    --
    Blar.
  163. He pissed ON a recruiter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is a federal offence (since the FBI was after him)?

    1. Re:He pissed ON a recruiter? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Isn't being anti-war considered a federal offense back then? The way the Republicans talk today, you would think so.

  164. You are aware of the fact.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    that all of your network transmissions ARE monitored. Yes? That means that they do know that you are saying that you have no plans to register. In addition, all major ISPs here in USA may or may not be giving up information to the Miltary/CIA/NSA/ or the FBI. Combine that with the DB that is being talked about here, and assuming that you are 16 y.o. and are trolling from your house (which is most likely), then they know who YOU are.

    I wonder, is it a crime to not register?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  165. Actually the "send to jail file" by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    When martial law strikes, I'm sure those will most likely be the "leftist tree hugging peace loving hippies" as will be so eloquently described in the Pentagon system, who will be arrested and sent to prison camps for not being patriotic. :P

  166. Brrrrrrrrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it cold in here? I certainly feel a draft.

  167. The Army would "clean him up"? by ianscot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.

    Is that the same Army whose recruiters attempted to commit two clear ethical violations just in the process of getting him in the door? You're right, sounds like a good influence.

    I've had three pretty close friends enlist in the services -- two in the Navy, one in the Marines. The levels of alcohol and drug use they described were frighteningly high. That's anecdotal, okay -- but these were straight arrows going in, and they weren't anywhere near clean while they were in uniform. One at least was more Boy Scout than was maybe good for him before he joined. Two of them have returned to those selves after leaving, but the third is a hard drinking, hard smoking, heavily-tattooed and generally scary fellah now. Wants to talk about how cynical he is about "how things work," mostly.

    (This story is basically "The services are desperate to recruit, and they got this 'in' in Bush's education bill to do it with." Why are they desperate to recruit? Because W., having talked so much about the armed forces not being ready for confict during the 2000 campaign, has spent his term in office making those predictions come true on his own watch. Everything the guy claimed about Clinton decimating the military's ability to fight, he's done himself in spades.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Ummm...of course the military is full of hard drinkers. It's traditional, for Pete's sake! Heck, until the 1970s the Royal Navy still had a daily rum ration for the sailors.

      If you were in a high-risk life-or-death profession, wouldn't you want to have a drink or three?

    2. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've had three pretty close friends enlist in the services -- two in the Navy, one in the Marines. The levels of alcohol and drug use they described were frighteningly high. That's anecdotal, okay -- but these were straight arrows going in, and they weren't anywhere near clean while they were in uniform. One at least was more Boy Scout than was maybe good for him before he joined. Two of them have returned to those selves after leaving, but the third is a hard drinking, hard smoking, heavily-tattooed and generally scary fellah now. Wants to talk about how cynical he is about "how things work," mostly.

      How exactly is this different from all my friends who were clean-cut, straight arrows in high school, and then turned into similar beasts as you've described above once in college and on their own?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by coopex · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is the Royal Navy full of cannibals?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    4. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How exactly is this different from all my friends who were clean-cut, straight arrows in high school, and then turned into similar beasts as you've described above once in college and on their own?

      PS: also the one that don't go to college or the military. I think this has more to do with being on one's own for the first time, and learning one's limitations. A cross section of all people age 18-22 is going to show a hefty portion of them partying more than one reasonably should.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Darby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, but is the Royal Navy full of cannibals?

      Ummmmm.... Yes. Yes it is.

      Sorry to any Royal Navy people out there. I'm just curious where you're going with this one.

    6. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by coopex · · Score: 1
      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    7. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Aha.

      Thanks.

    8. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Misanthropy · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy who was in the Marines. He told me that they couldn't smoke pot because of the regular piss tests. So, instead they all took acid!

      Just who I'd want to be around, some wigged out Marines...scary!

    9. Re:The Army would "clean him up"? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "The levels of alcohol and drug use they described were frighteningly high."

      If some holier-than-thou asshat were to ship me out to fight a bullshit war in a third world hell-hole for 6 months crawling with people who just want to kill my ass on sight, you're damn straight I'd be cocked and loaded.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  168. I KNEW IT by Archades · · Score: 0

    i knew it man, the goverment are collecting our details and they're gonna randomly make us disappear and turn us into soldiers. the sith have won, we'll be fighting in republic ships with no minds

    yes i was given ritalin as a kid...

  169. No child of military service age anyway. by crovira · · Score: 1

    If you like to watch Barney or any other PBS program, you can take it up the ass.

    I'm a student but I'm over 51 and a citizen of another country, so if they call me up, we'll have to have a little 'chat'.

    I LIKE PBS Its all I watch 'cause everything else is damn poor. Now PBS is going to be as poor a choice as anything else.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  170. Existing petitions to block this... by mrch0mp3rs · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is already some organized activity to counter the provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires public high schools to hand over private student information to military recruiters. They counter this by supporting, instead, the Student Privacy Protection Act of 2005, which reverses the current legislation and requires schools to first obtain parental permission before releasing private student information to military recruiters.

    Here's a link to more information:

    http://www.themmob.com/lmca/about.html

    --
    --- -a- "I'd love to change the world, but it'd be easier if the universe exposed its API."
  171. Ob: Simpsons: Re:You are expendable pawns. by Specter · · Score: 1

    http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/information/scripts/5f 01.shtml

    "LISA
    Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

    HOMER
    You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. (he starts pushing Lisa) Do you want that? Huh? Do you?"

  172. No Problemo by gluteus · · Score: 2, Funny

    All you have to do is state you're a member of your local Gays for Communism campus club, and they'll leave you alone.

  173. You confuse "government" with "political party". by khasim · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.
    "Country" and "government" and "freedom" and "liberty".

    I can serve my country and still be opposed to the demands of our current government. Bush and Co have not done anything to increase my Freedom. At the moment, it is unclear whether they will have done anything to increase the Freedom of people in Afghanistan or Iraq.
    EVERY amercian owes a debt of gratitude to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman who serves or has served this country.
    Bullshit. Just putting on a uniform is NOT enough to earn respect.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.pro file/
    Without them, you wouldn't be sitting here on slashdot spouting your displaced self-loathing.
    You're a bit confused on this thing known as "history".

    Because some people fought back in the Revolutionary War, does not mean that some mechanic in the Army is the reason I can type this.
    Only the last couple of generations of Americans are so self-involved that they cannot see the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country.
    No. It is only the last couple of generations that have seen their current government use the military to further their own aims rather than to protect the USofA.
    And if you don't think islamofacism can spread to your back yard, read this: http://www.detnews.com/2005/oakland/0506/22/B04-22 3573.htm peace, out.
    That's Islamic Fundamentalism, not "islamofacism".

    It is very similar to the Christian Fundamentalists you see in the good ol' USofA.

    We should get the best people we can in our military and we should train them hard, equip them with the best and only use them when we or our allies are invaded.

    Right now we have a military where people are being held in, without the right equipment and being killed in a country that was no threat to us.

    It takes a LOT more guts to stand up and say that the government is WRONG in that circumstance than to just go along rah-rah-rah support.
  174. Re:Forget US schools. Mexico is a better option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the Army. I also refuse to learn Spanish just so I can do my job.

  175. Re:You're confusing "country" with "political part by Widowwolf · · Score: 0

    i couldnt have said it better!

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  176. Re:WHO HAS SERVED? THE ANSWER IS HERE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Who served in the military?

    Prominent Democrats

    Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
    Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
    Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
    Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's Service
    Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
    Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
    Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
    Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
    Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
    Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
    Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
    Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
    Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)

    Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. (1, 2)
    Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
    Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
    Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V." (1)
    Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. (1)
    Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
    Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - lengthy military career.

    Prominent Republicans

    Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
    Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
    House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
    House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)
    Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1)
    Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)
    Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

    Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. (1) Served as President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East and met with Saddam Hussein twice in 1983 and 1984.
    GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
    VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1)
    Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

    Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. (1)

    Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1), too busy being a Republican.

    Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1, 2)
    Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight

  177. Another Uber-DB Target by 350zDriver · · Score: 1

    Names, SSNs, Driving History, HS/College, Courses, etc.

    Sounds to me like another massive collection of private identity information to be hacked into and distributed.

    It's hard to blame a theif for stealing someone's identity when it's stolen from the government who stole it first.

    Does this mean those without high school diplomas and college degrees are at an advantage? Talk about turning the tables!

    -atk

  178. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  179. Re:Not Meeting Recruiting Goals = Desperation by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Navy and Air Force recruiting are still doing ok. Most jobs in the Navy and AF are pretty safe and away from the roadside bombs. Plus the job market for 18 year olds out of high school isn't so hot either.

    We have enough people and equipment in the military to do lots of missions like humanitarian and peacekeeping. We can still destroy any other conventional army in the world. We just don't have the people (or the stomach) to do an imperial occupation. Call it what you will, that's the mission now.

  180. Uhhh... by temojen · · Score: 1
    HOW DO YOU THINK WE WERE FREE IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's because those people who entered the military services and fought for it.

    Actually, it's because people fought the system

    Except here. Here we just convinced Queen Victoria that responsible government was better than losing part of her realm.

  181. Do Elaborate. by lysium · · Score: 1
    oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.

    Oh? At what point did "some dictator" launch an invasion of America that threatened our safety so? When did dictators assume control of all of the other fucking democracies in the world, the ones where you can "post self-righteous crap" without thanking a fucking military machine?

    I must really be out of touch with history, I dunno.

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  182. Re:Any going to ask why the military is doing this by mrch0mp3rs · · Score: 2, Informative
    Any going to ask why the military is doing this? I can tell you. See when the recruiters show up to career day, staff at schools tends to tell them to get lost.

    That's a load of crap. I was a teacher for four years, and while I can certainly rant plenty about the deterioration of localized public schooling, I can tell you that especially in depressed and urban areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a teacher who wouldn't counsel a student considering the military to go for it. The vast majority of teachers I've worked with in the midwest are aredent supporters of our armed forces and the character/career building it provides to young men and women.

    Take a look at communities like East Chicago; Gary, IN; Flint, MI; Johnstown, PA; Viroqua, WI. These are public schools, and many students from these school systems graduate and serve in the military.

    If you don't like the fact that enlistment is low in mid-to-upper-class suburbia, direct your anger elsewhere. Not every kid needs to grow up to be a soldier. We need civilian leaders, too.

    My problem with this program is that as active as the government seems to be in enlisting kids (yes, at 16 or 18, you're still a kid), we as a society seem disinterested in encouraging civil leadership in our poorer communities. It would be nice if the military was an "attractive option" instead of the "only option" for these kids.

    --
    --- -a- "I'd love to change the world, but it'd be easier if the universe exposed its API."
  183. Re:WHO HAS SERVED? THE ANSWER IS HERE! by homerules · · Score: 0

    You forgot: Bill Clinton, hid out in Russia to avoid the draft

  184. So fight back by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I'm currently in a cold war with Capatial One. They like to send me 2 per week. However part of those mailings is postage paid return envelopes. So I send them back, usually filled with rocks (lots of tiny rocks). Now perhaps because of this, perhaps for other reasons they decided to make a different style of envelope that has a hole in the front where you need to place an insert with the return address. Rocks fall out of the hole. However I have a roll of packing tape and the rock mailings continue.

    As soon as I stop getting mailings, they stop getting rocks.

    1. Re:So fight back by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      I've heard of people doing stuff like this. I used to simply send back the empty envelope every time.

      Then they started adding a little warning on the back, saying that tampering with the envelope or the contents would be prosecuted.

      Now, I'm not stupid enough to think that they can make something illegal simply by putting a warning on the envelope. But they very well might have bought a law making it illegal if they warn you about it. So I stopped doing that.

    2. Re:So fight back by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      That notice is to the postal carriers. With the rise of identity theft, it's plausable someone might want to snatch a completed for to get the info. That's illegal. It is not at all illegal to mail them shit other than their forms.

  185. People of faith that became objects of ridicule by speedfreak_5 · · Score: 0

    Here's a big one.

    Senator Bill Frist.

    Feel free to google for more information on others.

    Oh, BTW, and the paranoia has been justified by the actions of the "Republican" party and their closeness with fundamentalist christians with money. :)

    --
    Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
  186. Nonsense by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    People who opt out will not automatically end up on nofly lists, they will not automatically be excluded from grant lists.

    The reason is simple. To end up on a nofly list a number of weighted parameters are added up. By itself opting out has not enough weight to exceed the threshold.

    Anyway, people only find out the database exists after the recruiter tells them. Too late to opt out then, innit?

    Ok, so maybe I'm sarcastic. And cheating too.

    But talking of databases, think of the good they can do have people opt-in on everything.
    I'm sure a recruiter can be quite persuasive if he has access to the surfing logs of these young male teenagers.
    You don't want your mommy to find out, do you?

    Woops , did it again. Sorry :)

  187. Skills Draft by version5 · · Score: 1
    Rumsfeld:
    "To my knowledge, in the time I have served as secretary of Defense, the idea of reinstating draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered, or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."

    This is technically true. The discussion went on in the DoD:

    "...the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense manpower officials have stated recently that a draft will not be necessary for any foreseeable crisis. They assume that sufficient fighting capability exists in today's "all-volunteer" active and reserved Armed Forces for likely contingencies, making a conventional draft of untrained manpower somewhat obsolete. Yet, Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc... a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis."

    Then they started setting up the databases, designing the draft cards, started putting out the call for draft board volunteers, and hired Widmeyer Communications to "secure compliance and... mold public opinion" to support it.

    Rumsfeld employs classic Bush Administration spin tactics by changing the subject, arguing that the Administration has never considered bringing back the Vietnam-era draft, which is true. But the substance of the claim is that a Skills draft will be instituted, which Rumsfeld cleverly avoids by talking about something completely different.

    Where I come from, this is called lying.

    --

    "It's Dot Com!"

  188. Re:Any going to ask why the military is doing this by cenobyte40k · · Score: 1

    I am very happy to hear that the school districts that you have worked in as far as you can obvserve as a single staff member in those districts seems to not treat military recurters like pure evil itself but it's not indicitive of the country as a whole. Look harder into how this piece of legislation came about. I can sit here and tell you about hundreds of reports of recuiters being baned from schools, teachers telling kids to stay away from them, faculty of preaching anti-military 'leason plans', teachers taking away recuriting forms and swag from students, Recruiters being called names and harrassed by faculty and even going so far as trying to sue them to keep them off campus but you are not going to believe me. However I do ask you to do the research yourself. This problem is huge and has gotten worst and worst in the last 15 years or so. Do I think that civilian leadership needs to be improved in poor communities? Sure but most of the problems occure in middle to upper class districts. (Remember most of the country is middle class)

  189. I wonder... by m3talsling3r · · Score: 1

    Why duplicate the information you already have with the social security numbers and mandatory draft registration?

    --
    My sig is as boring as you...
  190. Still think Tinfoil hats are for crazy people? by Eskimore_ · · Score: 1

    Still think Tinfoil hats are for crazy people?

    1. Re:Still think Tinfoil hats are for crazy people? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      no, sadly I don't anymore.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  191. How is this flamebait? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry to break it to ya, but this is what mainstream Christianity believes. They believe in a personal god that (at least to some extent) manipulates world events. This being is completely invisible and traceless and supposedly exists in heaven (which is protrayed in the bible as existing above the earth.) We were "made in his own image", so it's not too inaccurate to call it a man--oh yeah, and God is almost always referred to as "He."

    "An invisible man in the sky that manipulates world events" is an entirely valid description, and like it or not this belief does tend to fly in the face of logic and rationality. Mind you, I'm not dissing Christianity here--there are more things to life than common sense and rationality, and I don't think most atheists understand the true importance of religion--but when explained to an outsider, it's still a silly-sounding belief, and one that will very naturally lead to some degree of ridicule.

    In a sense, the parent's post wasn't flamebait, but most flavors of Christianity are by nature of their very claims. If you are a Christian, then it's your responsibilty to take those flames in stride, and avoid attacking them with flames of your own.

  192. This DB is redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC - when a young man turns 18, he's REQUIRED to go to the Post Office and complete the Selective Service card so if there is a draft, he's on the list...

    I think you had to do it between 18 and 24... And you had to certify that you did it under penalty of perjury as a condition of receiving federal student loans. ... so when they have the info, why do they need it again? Is the Army really going to say "oh yeah, we really need those geeks with the 4.0's? or we needum grunts - get the football players with the 1.0's?"...

    It's all bullshit so it can be used for *something else* as a way to numb us against the privacy issues...

    If everyone opt'd out of this shit, they'd stop doing it. But most people don't take the time to do so...

  193. You forgot by phalse+phace · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. We'll pour huge amounts of money into hiring more mercenary forces to augment our armed forces;
    2. We'll reinstate the draft in one form or another;
    3. We'll claim victory, pull our troops out, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
    4. We'll claim victory, ensconce a substantial number of troops in hardened, remotely-located permanent bases, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
    5. We'll get a massive surge in recruitment and will be able to meet our military needs with a full-strength volunteer service.
    6. The insurgency will die and a stable Iraqi government will take hold.


    You forgot

    7. Profit!!!

  194. Their recruitment targeting is still off... by mwooldri · · Score: 1

    I'm at college as an undergraduate. I'm 30. I'm a USPR, not a US Citizen.

    I've been invited by mail recently to join the Army on two occasions. Problem is that I was too old when I came here to sign up for Selective Service. But I am not too old to receive advertisments/invitations for me to join the Army.

    I wonder if many people over the age of 30 have been receiving the invites to join the Army. Am I really too old? At 32 I'd be too old for the Territorial Army, but unsure of age limits for US. Not that I would sign up but there is this curious cat in me...

  195. Re:WWJD? THOU SHALT NOT KILL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is okay to murder innocents becuase they don't believe in God anyway. They're not really real people in God's eyes.

  196. I'll shred. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    My country is six feet tall, covered in white skin with hills of long dark-red hair growing atop, two anti-masonic near-sighted eyes, and a mouth of teeth. I need to defend this country before I can defend an other or Questionable country. The more I learn about my country, the better I can help others. I need to be careful, because there are some clonse out there that try to say that I voluntarily donate money to them when in fact it was stolen at the barrel of a gun. My country is the people, not lifeless soil hidden behind two-peice suits; living water.

    --
    without prejudice
  197. facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like college kids are willing to give up their information to some shadowy national database... /self included =(

  198. Sounds like they need to hear from us. . . by brotha_peace · · Score: 1

    Call them, or have your recruitable friends/sons/daughters call them. . .

    BeNOW may discover that helping
    the government violate the rights of millions of young people carries
    more responsibilities than they thought. Who is managing this thing. Do they have their opt out system up on day 1?

    Think about nationwide call-ins of people asking them to take them off the list.
    800 numbers are not cheap, but they have a responsibility to hear us on this.

    Staffing people to handle that volume of
    calls (think a thousand a day) is even more expensive, but we are within our rights to request to be taken off the list.

    I just called and talked to a nice lady in the sales department who took
    the time to refer me to the Marine Corps. They also have a receptionist
    and a company directory. I am sure it is your duty to let as many
    people as possible in the company know that you would like to get taken
    off the list. To put it on the company "To Do" list as it were. :) Make
    sure when you talk to someone, they take the time to give you the full contact info for
    the guy over at the Pentagon who is handling these inquiries.

    Be nice, but make sure they know you are calling to be taken off the
    list. And make sure you talk to a real person, or at least leave a
    lengthy voicemail about how they can get back to you with information
    about how to get taken off the list. Then use that information.

    Contact info for the company is below.

    www.be-now.com
    BeNOW
    500 Edgewater Drive
    Suite 525
    Wakefield, MA 01880
    800 660 5125 tel
    sales@benow.com

  199. I am very happy that desperation is an excuse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for our government to toss civil liberties out the window. You know this is going to be expanded to the rest of the population at the drop of a hat when no one is watching the store. Heck no one is watching the store now!

    They already have a database.. it is called the selective service. That is MORE than enough!

  200. The government already keeps all this information. by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    I might be beating a dead horse, but the government already keeps all this information plus more on you.

    The IRS knows where you live, where you work, what you own, and can find out any sort of financial transaction that you made with the exception of cash-only transactions less than $10,000. Public primary schools, and ALL universities store all your educational information and must give it to the Department of Education on demand or lose funding. All your health information is given to the government by your health insurance company as part of the "regulatory process"... unless your health care is taken care of by the government, in which case the government has even more information.

    Sorry people, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a police-state without police. It is impossible for the government to provide all the services you want, and to put all the restrictions on behavior that your demand, without putting together massive databases and tracking / survalence of the population. So the government is creating yet another database. Big deal.

    Everything has a price. The price you pay for not breathing second hand smoke at a bar, or for making sure no-one tells jokes that might offend you, or for "free" as in beer municipal wifi, is a complete and total loss of privacy.

    How can your Big Brother take care of you if he doesn't know things about you?

  201. not surprising, but then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't they do this already?

    when I was looking at colleges I received a letter from the Navy Seals, which contained a lot of information about my educational background (IE CS (I had a few awards from state CS stuff which probably grabbed their attention) as well as mentioning things I was interested in (IE "rock climbing, hiking, skiing etc)) as well as an emphasis on nautical stuff (I have been around boats my whole life)

    so that was pretty interesting, but...

    then my younger brother started getting the same kind of stuff from them in regards to HIS activities IE your endurance from running would help... or your nautical expertise would be a great advantage.

    but then he was diagnosed with diabetes... and the letters stopped almost INSTANTLY.

    still gets letters from the other branches though (army, etc).

    so this all sounds like stuff they already do on a small scale being expanded to all branches.

  202. Re:You're confusing "country" with "political part by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

    Nail, meet hammer. Perfect.

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  203. Re:WWJD? THOU SHALT NOT KILL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The commandment you stated is from Moses, not Jesus.


    Second, as conservatives point out, Muslims aren't Christians so it's OK to kill them. Their Bible says so.

  204. How do you sleep at night? by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    If you don't get them one, you can't use them as a deduction...!


    To date, there is no requirement, but a presumed requirement. Ignorance is the new replacement for charagma. You just assigned these children as chattel to that so-called unrevocable contract; the beginning of all requirements for corporate registrations, harassment from credit monopolies and related fictions; created a perpresture in all upper-case letters. Did you not know that only God can birth children into the world? Read the Constitution for the nearest state because it needs to acknowledge God before it can acknowledge the people. Use negotiable-instruments law, accept for value under threat/duress/coercion, and dba Liveing-Child to UNDEAD CHILD HELL.
    --
    without prejudice
  205. Vote Libertarian, or it won't really change.... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this is going to be seen as "just more fringe political B.S." by some - but the last few administrations seem like clear evidence to me that it's so.

    If the L.P. could garner enough voter support to be viable, their political attitudes and agenda would finally break the cycle. But with the "Republican" vs. "Democrat" status-quo we're working under today - no matter who gets elected, indiividual rights and freedom gets further trampled on. Under the Clinton administration, you had acts like the D.M.C.A. signed into law. With Bush, you have soliders being sent off to die for a war that seems no more likely to ever be won than the "War on Drugs" of the 80's.

    Just today, I believe a Supreme Court ruling decided that states DO have the rights to take away individuals' property for ANY reason (not just if they can show it is in the greater public interest to do so). These types of changes happen right under our noses all the time, slowly chiseling away at those grand concepts like "Freedom" that we supposedly fight for in the services.

  206. FYI by ajhenley · · Score: 1

    A huge part of vietnam was fought on the water and in the air. Vehicle commanders, air and water, are, by default, officers, albeit fighting officers. If you took those figures and eliminated the pilots and boat commanders, your officer fatalities fall way down...

  207. Re:Forget US schools. Mexico is a better option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't see a problem in outsourcing defense?

  208. yup, and I opted out by TLouden · · Score: 1

    but they still keep calling to recruit and now they have more information because of my opt out form. I should feel bad about how I treat the recruiters and bad mouth the government, but I don't. If they were a company they'd have to prosecute themselves.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  209. no police state without police by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    You can't have a police-state without police. It is impossible for the government to provide all the services you want, and to put all the restrictions on behavior that your demand, without putting together massive databases and tracking / survalence of the population. So the government is creating yet another database.

    Right on -- you hit that nail square on the head.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  210. you forgot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Student C seems to exhibit several of the marked sociopatic/left-wing-bleeding-heart-liberal tendencies ennumerated in section VII of DocumentX (Identifying Potential Threats to the Current Establishment). Mark Student C's file for observation, and potential action.

    and... further on, down the road...

    Agent Jones... this journalist is being a real p.i.t.a. I looked up his file, and it looks like he was Student C, back in high-school. Why don't you leak some of the information on his juvinile record, to the syndacates... just the juicy stuff... get him off our case.

    then... eventually...

    It looks like the following students deviate significantly from the preferred classification of Student Type A and Student Type B... mark them down for disciplinary action.

  211. He definitely said this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  212. In journalism they call such claims "libel" by coopex · · Score: 1
    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  213. Interesting little note, it's called FERPA by s2k2vidguy · · Score: 1
    The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 as amended allows only certain information to be released to any agency or person, including government agencies. Under the Act, information designated as "student recruiting information" can be released without consent to the armed services. This information is defined as:
    [T]he student's name, local address, telephone listing, age (or year of birth), level of education (freshman, sophomore, etc., or degree awarded for recent graduate), and major [32 CFR 216.3(c)].
    As you can see, it says nothing about grade infomation. So my question is this: under what law does the government have the authority to collect grade-point average information on students? Or is it a secret law?
  214. NOT FOR SALE. by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you.


    Hello merchant Marine. I don't know what you are selling today. You are selling FREEDOM just as the Rothschilds and Morgans. No thanks, I already have one that is better. I was born with it, it tends to run out every once in a while, but I give it a free-Will refill. No, you can't see it!

    I en-joy my freedoms because its otherwise unjoyable; I need to say they are joy, so I can identify who is willing to hold them ransome if I do not perform as an murderer from time to time. Do you realize how difficult it is to maintain my freedom to shower? Ask any rank geek; they're freedom is waining cold, can't you comprehend? My country is six feet tall with red hair on the peaks; I'll defend that first so I can defend others.

    The landing is closed, their is NOT SAIL on the mast; the state flag is right-side up on the aft, 50 standing stripes; thus no national emergency. I freely come and freely go; no amendments beyond the 13th.

    Har!
    --
    without prejudice
  215. You must be French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe? No, Canadian?

  216. MOD PARENT UP: Well argued points! by LibrePensador · · Score: 1

    The parent makes a compelling argument and lays bare the propaganda that the US military as it is currently constituted serves any other purpose than to advance an imperial foreign policy of occupation.

    The numbers he offers are compelling and the sources check up. It would suck for this respone to get lost. So, mods do the right thing, even if you disagree with the overall promise, he argued his case well.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  217. Best article I've read on draft rumors by scoobrs · · Score: 1

    http://democracyrising.us/content/view/196/164/ This is an excellent article and it's the best I've read on the draft rumors. Summary: The rumors of secret draft plans are only rumors, but the military can't keep using mercenaries to account for their poor recruiting numbers. Sooner or later, the merc recruiters are hiring the same people at higher cost who could've served in the military and bodies are needed on the ground in the field. Like with police, you need support people for every person on duty. You can retrain some troops for infantry combat and ship them, but you can't cannibalize all corps and lose the support people to win the war. Nevermind that we went to war without any clear victory conditions set.

    --
    -Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
  218. Service records: by frAme57 · · Score: 1
    FWIW a friend emailed the following list to me. Sorry about the formatting. I put a break after each entry so it would be an easy to read single column list but the slashcode pissed & moaned about too few characters per line.

    Democrats

    * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

    Republicans

    * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Roy Blunt: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism. * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Richard Shelby: did not serve. * Jon Kyl: did not serve. * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. * Christopher Cox: did not serve. * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor. * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies. * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. * Phil Gramm: did not serve. * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve. * John M. McHugh: did not serve. * JC Watts: did not serve. * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years. * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. * John Engler: did not serve. * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer. * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

    Pundits & Preachers

    * Sean Hannity: did not serve. * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.') * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. * Michael Savage: did not serve. * George Will: did not serve. * Chris Matthews: did not serve. * Paul Gigot: did not serve. * Bill B

    --
    "In a hierarchy every employee will rise to his level of incompetence". The Peter Principle
    1. Re:Service records: by binarytoaster · · Score: 1

      "In a heirarchy every employee will rise to his level of incompetence". The Peter Principle
      Psst... that's the Dilbert Principle, which is based off the real Peter Principle.

  219. Re:WWJD? THOU SHALT NOT KILL. by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

    "Thou shalt not kill" is in the religious cannons of Christians, Jews and Muslims -- Muslims through Abraham (it is in their sharia ?sp? law, from the Hadith), Jews (Torah), and Christians by Old Testament. So. All from Moses. And Moses was guided by God. Ultimately, the 10 Commandments came from God, not Moses. The very definition of sin for 3 major world religions all comes from the same source.

    Jesus was a Jew, and instructed his students not to sin.

    When GW Bush says he is guided by the question "What would Jesus do?" apparently GW thinks Jesus "Turn-the-other-cheek" Christ would bear false witness against Saddam Hussein for the 911 attacks, bear false witness a second time regarding Iraq having wmd's, and then bear false witness a third time regarding Saddam's intention to use them. Then GW-Jesus would commit murder 20,000 times against Iraqi civilians, among others, and then he'd steal the oil under their graves.

    My question is how the Christian coalition could possibly be deceived by such a monster. GW's clearly not guided by anything Jesus ever did, or said.

    ps. It's sad, to me, that slashdot has so much anti religious tendency that it cannot even see the strength of the christian religion AGAINST a GW Bush. I got downmodded to flamebait just for using religious doctrine to emphasize GW's hypocracy in the draft policy.

    If you call yourselves open minded then stop being so narrow.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  220. I'll hazard a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

    Maybe it's because of people like that that the US has as much freedom and liberty as it does? Think about that for a bit, and look at history. Serving your country blindly (with words like 'duty', 'obligation', 'debt of gratitude' - please) in the name of self-defence even when it's not actually for self-defence means you're helping the government take away freedom, not defending freedom.

  221. Re:The government already keeps all this informati by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

    But I don't want a police state! I don't know anybody who would want a police state.

    Why on gods green earth would anybody in their right mind want a police state?

    Police states only take away from peoples rights and lead to societies like communism! And why after the soviet uninon and china not to mention korea would anybody in their right mind want that!

    Police states NO! comunism NO! loss of privacy NO! NO! NO! a Million times NO!

    You keep the cake and eat it i'll be happy just to lick the pan thank you very much.

    --
    Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  222. sucks to be be ages 16-college.. by Quadfreak0 · · Score: 1

    WTF does Age college mean!
    "The Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits. "

  223. This is News!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've had this for years.

    Back when I was a senior in high school, I got a recruiter call me up. My mom answered the phone, told him I wasn't interested, and got into a conversation with the guy... turns out he could quote exactly what my militant pacifist (yes, they exist) sister told him when _she_ got a recruitment call the year before.

    Not only that, the past several years my parents have hosted exchange students (Russia and Germany). The two most recent have gotten recruitment propaganda. Evidently, this database doesn't track whether or not you're actually a U.S. citizen!

  224. Best B-movie quote ever by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1


    "They sucked his brains out!!!"
    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  225. Re:That's the bad news. The good news... by HeliumHigh · · Score: 0

    Correct, was running MS SQL Server 2000... :)

  226. Opt-out is easy. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Opt-out is easy. What you do is you send the kids home with a form that says that the school wants to send their child's personal information to the government for keeping in their database. This form has a "yes/no" and a line for a signature. Basically the same as any other permission slip. Then the child returns to school with the signed form. Here is where the magic happens:

    If the parents marked "no", then they never collect and send the child's information in the first place.

    There is absolutely no reason to keep the name of the child in a government "opt-out" database because the government should not be receiving the child's information to have to compare to the opt-out database.

    Yes, opt-out becomes more difficult when you automatically and without express permission gather information about students en masse, and then try to "un-collect" their information after the fact.

    So the simple solution is to not do that. Opt-out is simple, privacy is maintained, and if you opt-out there is no record of you in any database at all.

    Instead, they are keeping your information anyway, but in a separate database. That isn't opt-out at all!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  227. Re:+5 Interesting by http · · Score: 1
    Look, if you think Bush isn't a dictator, you either haven't been paying attention or are using a -very- funky dictionary.
    From WordNet 2.0:
    dictator
    n 1: a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine
    2: a ruler who is unconstrained by law [syn: {potentate}]
    3: a person behaves in an tyrannical manner; "my boss is a
    dictator who makes everyone work overtime" [syn: {authoritarian}]
    He's managed to sidestep the US Congress to initiate a war (of aggression, no less, which in itself violates the laws of the Unted States) against an opponent whose capacity for resistance had been...minimal. Hint: search for who said, "...unable to raise conventional forces against his neighbors...". Once you've answered that to your own satisfaction, ask "What are the odds that this person could have bent the president's ear at some point?".
    Oh, and in case I was unclear, I got two words for you: due process.
    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  228. Just Draft 16 to 20 year olds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time to bring up a bill requiring all 16 year olds to donate 4 years of service to the USA - they would get a GI bill school money of course, and three hots and a cot.

    This would help ease up the burden on public schools, by putting large numbers of kids to work for good ole' Uncle Sam.

    It wouldn't have to be a direct Draft into the military, 16 year olds could put Americorps as their first choice, national parks as their second choice, and walking point on house to house searches in oil rich countries as their third choice.

    - Of course the government does the picking... ;)

  229. Get your facts straight by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying the members of our military aren't smart, skilled, or able. They just don't need the same level of training as many civilian professionals.

    Mexico, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq never seriously threatened American security. We fought wars there for economic gain or political posturing.

    Every war hawk brings up the Revolution and the World Wars to justify a strong military. I don't see those types of conflicts in today's world.

  230. And, of course, there's America's Army by Animats · · Score: 1
    And then there's America's Army., the online FPS run by the United States Army Recruiting Command. Do well in there, and you will hear from a recruiter.

    "Why are we here?" "You have been chosen to defend the starleague against Zur and the Codan Armada". "Oh, NO!" -- The Last Starfighter

  231. Gotta love nukes! by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    Nukes, not troops, keep other countries from even thinking of attacking us. Personally, I think we ought to outlaw China tomorrow and start bombing!

  232. Boo hoo by linzeal · · Score: 1
    Cry me a river. Try rape camps. American service members represent a fraction fo the armed forces worldwide, why do you only include american studies? Try Russian troops in chechna or any one of a hundred small civil wars around the world. Anyone who brings statistics up to defend alegations has no idea how futile that is online where there are studies to prove anything. Which is why I usually link google searches so people can find their own information instead of selecting particular sites that say one thing or another.

    The reason I chose rape and domestic violence is because it was what I knew from writing an essay on the subject that it was markedly greater in violent careers such as police officers, abortion doctors, slaughterhouse workers and armed forces. I guess I should include the fact that suicide is greater as well but not yet great enough to stop the rape and domestic violence unfortunately.

  233. Re:You're confusing "country" with "political part by indiechild · · Score: 1

    Awesome post.

  234. don't they have this already? by Ambush_Bug · · Score: 1

    I got probably no less than 50 recruitment flyers my senior year of college. And they were *targeted* I was a physics major, and every single letter referenced this.......

  235. Re:You're confusing "country" with "political part by Neoprofin · · Score: 0

    Let's look at the founding fathers stances on a standing army. The Fedralists such as Hamilton and Adams, were greatly in favor of a staning army as the means to defend the nation and enforce the strong central powers. Jeffersonion Republicans such as Jefferson (duh) and Jackson thought that levying taxes to fund a nation force was an enfringement on states rights and that that a military in general was an economic burdon So to put it bluntly, don't use "the founding fathers say . . ." as an argument, because they rarely agreed, on this or on anything else.

  236. backoff, jackass by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why haven't you?

    Who's to say he hasn't? Moreso, these chicken hawks might be a little more cautious about war if it their own kids stood some danger of dying in it, as opposed to someone else's kids.

  237. Re:WHO HAS SERVED? THE ANSWER IS HERE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for your unbiased list.

  238. Re:The government already keeps all this informati by riprootin · · Score: 0

    Way back when they had the lottery, the one where you could win a free trip to 'Nam for your eighteenth birthday (this was way before PowerBall) the local Selective Service boards were routinely getting lists of eligible young men from public high schools. It wasn't considered any big deal. They actually prosecuted guys who failed to register. I had friends who left the country, who went to jail, and who got shot. But things have gotten much better. Now, to get kids killed far from home, you have to ask them first, or at least tell them it's just like the video games you've been peddling.

  239. Kidnapping kids. by Funksaw · · Score: 1

    > "Preying"? You make it sound like the recruiters are kidnapping these kids and pressing them into service.

    Uh... I don't know if you haven't been paying attention, but at least two recruiters in Seattle have been doing exactly that.

    1. Re:Kidnapping kids. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      So I've heard.

      Anyway, is this a particularly commonplace occurrence, or just a stand-alone example of recruiters gone amok? There's a followup article to the one you linked, and it notes that a few readers wrote to the reporter to indicate they had been pressured heavily by their recruiters as well. No details on the severity were given, so some people might be equating "frequent and annoying telephone calls" with the shenanigans the Seattle recruiters were pulling.

      BTW, the followup article also mentions some good ways to get recruiters off your back, like mentioning (true or not) that you're a regular drug user, a convicted felon, or even better yet, that you're gay.

  240. You are talking out of your ass by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

    since you decided to stray OT with a personal soapbox, I will bite:
    how do you get mulch, rock, and plants home for your garden ?
    how do you bring home your new ladder for working on your deck/roof/gutters/etc ?
    how do you bring home your new washer and dryer ? (insert large furniture or appliance here)
    before you diss pickup trucks, get a life.
    then you may find out why pickup trucks are useful
    for more than just getting from point a to point b,
    which is all the electric/hybrids are good for

    it is easy to pick out a choice someone else has made and diss it, seeing as how you are not affected.
    try turning the finger back at yourself more often and you wont come off as such an
    impetuous jerk who wishes death on someone because of the vehicle they use.

  241. Re:The most feared sentence in the English Languag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the most feared sentence in the English Language today is the one that begins "To serve you better..." followed by fine print explaining how you're going to get screwed.

    Hence publc antipathy towards things like social security "reform."

  242. Don't get all emotional on me by coopex · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that Toronto was now in America. I choose studies from North America because that's what was available, and we are in a story about the American military. As for "where there are studies [online] to prove anything.", prove it, and then disprove the studies from The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the FBI, Air Force, and Toronto PD. Then provide proof for your claim of rape and domestic violence.

    You say you choose these subjects because you wrote an essay. Fine. Let's see the studies that you drew those conclusions from. Until then, the point stands that you have an axe to grind with the military by choosing emotional subjects.

    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  243. Freedoms we enjoy that others don't. by dsrtegl · · Score: 1

    You asked for it, you got it. While I don't have time to research each country you inquired about, I'll just do a few that I'm aware of right off the top of my head.

    In most of the european countries and Australia, the average citizen is not allowed to own firearms. If they are, they are severely restricted and hanguns are right out.

    In Germany, you are not allowed to deny the holocaust. In America, even if you are a complete nutjob, you have the freedom of speech to say anything you like politically, regardless of how wacky it is.

    In The Netherlands, you can be picked up for any reason and be held up to 14 days even if you are not an actual suspect in a crime, and the police do not have to show just cause to do so.

    In Canada, it is illegal to say all kinds of things, including disparaging certain groups of people and talking bad about the government in some ways.

    I could probably go on, given enough time to do some research, but you get the idea.

    Get this straight, I'm not a cool-aid drinking republican. Pres. Bush has done plenty that I disagree with, but Gitmo is not one of them. I've been to Gitmo, albeit before the prison was there. What I do disagree with is the treatment of Jose Padilla, he was a CITIZEN picked up INSIDE the country. He deserves due process and he should either be charged and tried, or released.

    What I was alluding to was that a person should not have a problem serving his COUNTRY (not to be confused with a particular administration). I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the Bush or Clinton administrations that I served under. There is a very distinct difference. In fact, in my original post, I never said I supported the war, only pointed out that there is an aversion to serving one's country. That was an assumption that a lot of people made, but it was partially incorrect.

  244. like I said ... by wsanders · · Score: 1

    ... I didn't want to start a class war. But to keep on topic the DoD is doing their recruting for what a lot of people (especially outside the US) think is only the first of a string of wars to fight for cheap oil. Who's next on the list? Cuba? Venezuela? Iran?

    This is still on topic because high school students and parent should be asking these questions: Will this war bring Iraq eventual peace and freedom in spite of the bogus circustances under which it was begun, and will it have been found to have been conducted for the right reasons?

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"