Every few weeks or so, some guy from the Army/Navy/Air Force comes into my high school and sets up a huge desk in the already narrow passage to the cafeteria around lunchtime. There, he distributes pamphlets and stuff about why we should join the Army/Navy/Air Force, blah blah blah. I don’t like it. I want to get to the cafeteria but it’s too crowded, so I have to go all the way around and outside into the cold and in another entrance to get there. It’s very annoying. They shouldn’t even be there. Joining the military is a serious decision and shouldn’t be something you decide to do talking with a guy for ten minutes in the middle of the day. If you’re really serious about joining, you should take the initiative to talk to people elsewhere and not interrupt other people’s lives.
On the one hand, I can see that having to dodge a huge desk in a narrow corridor could be inconvenient, but it’s not really worthy of a rant. Your life is not being interrupted because you have to use another entrance to the cafeteria. God help you if you ever have any real stress in your life; you’d probably explode in a a cloud of petulant fury.
Anyway, you might not have noticed, but we have a teensy need for military enrollments right now. :rolleyes:
Ranting about it here is clearly much more effective than speaking to the administration about the inconvenience.
So, he’s not just handing out brochures and answering questions, but he’s swearing people in and bundling them into the boot-camp bus? Amazingly efficient…
For some crazy reason, I suspect that your angst has less to do with any inconvenience the table may cause, and more to do with the fact that it was placed by the US military. My hunch is that if the table were manned by members of your local Marxist Party, you’d be too busy fellating whoever was sitting behind it to bitch about the narrow halls.
But that’s just my hunch.
There’s some fun you can have with this. Do some research on a semi military thesis, preferably unpopular. (I like “I’d rather not support a standing military” myself. It does wonders. Another topic that can be entertaining is women in combat or homosexuals.)
Get really high tests scores so they hunt you down. Say no.
When asked why, mention your thesis.
When the guy on the other side regains the ability to speak, let the fun begin. You can hear them change colors.
(If you come up with another thesis, let me know and I’ll test it on my SO. I can watch him change colors. Marines are so fun.)
If every kid actually approached the possiblilty of military service in a constructive and thoughtful fashion, there’d be no need for the recruiter to visit your school.
Doesn’t happen that way.
Most highschool kids (and increasingly, the public at large) have unrealistic and highly biased views of the military (both pro and con), and in order to get a kid to consider military service, you’ve got to get their attention. In order to do that, you’ve got to go where they’re located.
Schools.
The Guy In The Hall isn’t going to sign you up then-and-there. He or she is going to sell you on an interview, which will be done in more privacy, and at much greater length. Or, if they’re doing their job correctly, that’s what they’re selling. In the interview, things such as moral and mental qualifications will be discussed, as well as the pros (mostly) and cons (a little) of military service will be discussed. Also the recruiter will be determining your “authorty to buy”, that is: Can you sign yourself up, or will you need consent? Will your parents support your decision? Do your parents need to be sold also?
And so on.
The Guy In The Hall is merely there to get your attention. Obviously, they’re doing their job, as they’ve got yours.
Having done Army REserve recruiting (Canadian Army, tho) at high schools and universities, I assure you we need to recruit, because
A) We get more recruits that way, and
B) We get better recruits.
There’s no way this is going to come out sounding good, but here it is; the people who sought US out were not the sort of folks who would make exceptional soldiers. They were disproportionately made up of guys who maybe spent a few too many dollars at the army surplus store and spent too much time playing Warhammer 30000. The people who made the best soldiers were balanced, smart, not-overly-militaristic types who were not necessarily even aware we were an option, but when presented with the sales pitch sometimes decided it sounded like a good deal. I can’t tell you how many perfectly smart, capable people gave us the old hairy eyeball because they thought we didn’t pay well or at all, or thought women couldn’t join, or thought they had to go away from their families for four years; they were quite surprised to discover it’s a good job and many of them ended up being highly effective soldiers. By and large, our best soldiers were the ones we found, not the ones who found us.
Dixon, in The Psychology of Military Incompetence, suggests that those who are most drawn to a military life are paradoxically those who make the worst soldiers. It is my personal experience that Dixon was one hundred percent correct.
Fuck you Palve and I mean that in the most disdainful possible way. You combine the values of a hippy with the initiative of a slacker, the self-centeredness of a valley girl, and an understanding of the world that of the village idiot. I pray that you are the one that the jocks and bullies target to beat the crap out of because you certainly deserve it. I hope that you can find an ounce of maturity and wisdom if you ever start to grow up.
Another vote for Dixon.
A Recruiter’s main competition isn’t other services, it’s universities. We want what’s called the “uppers”: Top 50th percentile. Upper 75th percentile, in my experience, have the best success in the service. Smart, able to do anything required, but not so smart as to have gotten arrogant or lazy. Mind you, most super-bright kids are not arrogant or lazy, but at the 75th percentile, you have the best possible mix of brains and work ethic, in my experience.
looks at gobear’s post trying to determine if this is sarcasm or real
Umm…
Yes we are below, or were below recruitment figures for the armed services.
Umm, we have what, less than a dozen (12) military deaths resulting from troop deployments (wasn’t there a crash or two a few months ago).
We’re fighting an enemy with FEWER than 100,000 troops and very few of them are trained or equipped front line soldiers. Hell some reports put them down at less than 10,000 people. We’re not really undergoing a serious drain on our military resources (cough we have what 3 carrier groups over there… thats enough firepower to annihilate an industrialized nation much less a place that at MOST had 150 stinger missiles)
The only reason why we’d suddenly need a lot of people in the military is if we suddenly became involved in a conflict and began losing tens of thousands of troops per engagement. Which is only likely if we shift troops to Iraq and began tactical weapons were being used on us (even then the only way would be backpack nukes its not like we’d not suspect a chemical weapons attack).
Which gets me to the point of chemical weapons… THEY AREN’T THAT DANGEROUS. Sure if you’re not expecting it and the bomblet is exploded right in your face you’ll die. However, the best way to defend against it is to walk away. Don’t run (you’ll breathe faster).
pictures a squad of Marines
“Umm Gunny, whats the wierd blue mist comming from that crater?”
“Dunno, private but lets move 30 feet that way and let if drift past us.”
Even if you do breathe it in, unless it specifically destroys lung tissue (and most are nerve gasses), all you do is inject athropine or some equivelent. Nerve gasses function by shutting nervous innervation (you can’t move, breathe of make your heart beat). But we have all of these really cool drugs that PREVENT THAT. You think you’re exposed you inject this stuff into your heart then you collapse since you lose nervous control but you already made it so your heart will not receive a signal from the nerve agent to stop. So you just kinda lie there for a few minutes until you start moving again then go kill the motherfuck that did it to you.
I saw something about a guy who was testing a toxin, they pumped him full of it (something like 100 times the lethal dose) then hooked him up to a resperator (the toxin stopped automatic lung functions). 30 min later they took him off and described it as really boring.
It’s a good thing Palve didn’t see my Cadet rant, otherwise he’d know I’m a Evil Capitalist Government Stoogie Pigdog™ for sure.
**
Waaah, waaah, waaah! You poor baby, you should write your state representative about such a blatant violation of your human rights.
**
And I’m sure all those people who talk to the recruiter decide within that 10 minutes to join the military. I’d be surprised if college recruiters didn’t make their way to your high school at some point. Do they annoy you as well?
Your life isn’t being interrupted you’re just behaving like a spoiled little brat. Has it ever occured to you that maybe some of your fellow students don’t mind recruiters presenting them with different options after graduation?
Marc
Ouch! Things are getting a bit hot in here.
I feel you pain Palve, but I would be glad that it is just a table. In my high school they would occasionally bring in helicopters, tanks, and other big impressive machines in.
“Hey guys! Do you feel disempowered because you live in the ghetto and have few options in your life? Join the military and you will get to play with big impressive machines. Isn’t this tank manly? Doesn’t it make you feel powerful? sign up now!”
At one point they even brought in a marine to do pull-ups in our quad during breaks. Real impressive.
It was really kind of disgusting the way that they played the insecurities of the poor to keep their numbers up. They were not looking for kids to make a rational decision about their future, they were looking to play on the fears of the disempowered.
Recently I got a recruitment letter stateing “You will have more authority and responsibility directly out of college than your graduating peers”. Something about that statement seems a bit off.
[quote]
Which gets me to the point of chemical weapons… THEY AREN’T THAT DANGEROUS blah blah spin misinformation blah blah[/quoye]
On one hand, I can see the need to recruit intelligent graduates into the military. (If we are going to have a military, obviously we should at least have some smart people leading it.)
On the other hand, if military recruiters are getting preferential treatment at schools (as opposed to universities), then there would be a reasonable argument.
A thought crossed my mind, though… imagine the furor if pornographic filmmakers were allowed to set up recruitment booths in schools.
CRorex, as you noted, the number of new recruits has gone down in recent years, and that’s what I was referring to. In addition, replacing battle casualties is not the only reason to recruit new soldiers. There are always soldiers retiring or leaving the service. In a new, fragmented world, we need to have the capacity to fight two wars at once, something we can’t do at present levels.
Even Sven, you show the typical leftist contempt for the poor, thinking that they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.
The military has always been a place for young men and women to learn new skills and to contribute to their country. An 18-year-old high school grad from Bed-Stuy may not have the grades or money for college, but in the military he can gain tech skills which will land him a fat paycheck when he gets back to the civilian world.
What’s off about it? A soldier in the field will be making more life-and-death decisions than his contemporary pouring lattes at Starbuck’s.
even sven:
Standard sales tactics.
Appeal to the dominant buying motive. The numbers must be kept up. The product of the Department of Defense is National Security. If there aren’t enough bodies to fill the ranks and do what needs doing, you’ll see a draft again. Which would you prefer? being asked to volunteer, or a random letter in the mail?
As for the poor, well, if rich kids were joining in greater numbers, then the Recruiters would be targeting their schools. Recruiters go where the recruits are. If a school has a high propensity to enlist, you can bet that there’ll be recruiters there pulling out all the stops. Poor kids & minorities join the military in disproportionate numbers because we offer them something few others do: A chance. A mertiocracy wher their own skill and determination play the largest part in their success.
::Sarcasm::
So terrible that they were being sold a paycheck, free job-related training, healthcare, money for college, and a chance to get the hell out of town. What a crappy pitch! Oh, no, a chance to join a meritocracy! Save us!
::End Sarcasm::
Did you happen to notice, say, Dupont, or Intel, or PayneWeber in there offering anything remotely comperable?
At the age of 22, I was placed at the controls of a nuclear reactor worth half a billion dollars (US) in today’s money. Pretty responsible stuff. You won’t see many other jobs where you get that much trust (and the training that generates the trust) After I left the service, I started with a consulting firm. I’ve never completed a degree. I hold no certifications. I out-earn everyone with my time in the company, despite most of them being MBAs. Why? Maybe because I learned a bit more that just where the SCRAM Breakers were located, or how to point a rifle. I learned Self Discipline, Responsibility, Accountability, and Leadership. I learned how to deal with people you couldn’t afford to offend. I learned how to think on the fly, and how to accept criticism. I learned how to accept responsibility, and how to give it to others. I learned how to be a team player, and when to go it alone. I learned the importance of taking care of your subordinates and your boss.
I learned how to achieve.
That’s what the military teaches to people, and much of that will not be found in university.
mrblue92
It’s Federal Law that permits the Recruiters on school campus. Some schools are more liberal about it than others.
CRorex, now usually I’d be the first one to support whining about the military. (See above, I’d rather not have one.)
But, if we (the US) are going to have one, we have to admit that it is currently understaffed. We have agreements to have people all over the world and they are essentially stuck there for political reasons. We really don’t have spares for things like combat. We have ten divisions and we can just barely cover our political promises.
Beyond that the military looses trained people to the private sector, mainly because it pays more and doesn’t involve pesky things like an agreement to die for your job.
Its a bitch and we polititians/civilians are really not living up to the support that we should give to the military if we want one. (even I support the people currently in the military, though a goal of my life is to improve society to the point that we don’t need one.)
From what I’ve learned from my eye opening American Way of War class, we need to reorganize our forces. Currently, they are still bickering over money and having internal spats about techniques that are not optimal in the modern environment. Most likely we will not be facing any full blown infantry war any time soon. However, we will be facing a pile of small scale conflicts (need special troops liek teh Airborne Rangers) and peacekeeping (which is entirely different than a war post combat, funny thing.) In between all of that, there is no longer a big speration between Air Force, Army, and Navy…the organizations are cross classed by geographical or political sphere. (These are opinions made from what I’ve put together in my class, not anything the prof said…he hands out facts and dances a bit…we think about it.)
The military has some problems all it own, but the lack of personel is one we as a political society gave it. Politically we need to decide if we want to be the police of the world and get the people for it oir if we want to be quiet in our own little corner and pull our people out of where we have stuck them. (Bitch about policies on gays and women and I’ll have your back.)
Seems pretty preferential then, doesn’t it? 
Thanks for pointing that out. If the OP would have cared to debate that point, they might have had more success…
As for the bit about responsibility and leadership, your point is well-received, but I submit it may be specious. Clearly the military doesn’t teach what you learned to everybody (though they may try), or else your level of success would be the norm for veterans (and that does not seem to be the case). Similarly, the university does not always succeed at its mission.
I do not mean to denigrate the military; rather, I question your implication that “learning how to achieve” is somehow done better in the military than in the university. For you, individually, perhaps it was; for others, perhaps not.
Psst… we have far more than ten divisions…