So, how can I get military recruiters off my campus

SplashBeats · Guest

Klikbeep:
I don't think the military deserves praise. The military is neither good nor evil. I do, however, believe in free speech, and being respectful of the opinions of others. This sounds funny after my last post, I know, but the kind of mentality demonstrated by slipstream is something that bugs me and I flew off the handle for a bit. Sorry about that, dude.

Slipstream:
Couple years ago. I've talked to military recruiters and I never felt that any of them were trying to sell me on the idea of joining the military. It was just here's some info, what's your phone number, we'll be in touch.

Hell, the recruiters at my high school wouldn't even approach anyone and start talking to them. You had to go up to them and ask them about the military.

Regardless of my opinions on the military, or your opinions on the military, if you really think they are doing evil to your high school body, actually do something about it instead of pulling childish pranks and half-baked protests.

If you think your recruiters are conducting themselves improperly, gather your evidence and talk to the administration at your high school. If they won't listen, talk to someone at your local Dept. of Education or a school board representative.

There are mature, effective ways to deal with things you disagree with, and there are dumb, annoying, pointless ways to do it. Harassing some guy who's working a recruiting job because he was told to isn't going to accomplish anything, and it's just going to make you look like a dumb high school kid.

By the way, I find the whole outrage about the concept of military recruiting/voluntary service to be pretty funny. I mean, it's not like they used to force you to join the military or anything!

haze · la belle poney sans merci Joined: 04 Dec 2006

we had a JROTC and I can't remember recruiters bothering people all that long. maybe they'd show up maybe two days a year, not even very pushy. then again, this was before the Iraq War started.

The one thing that did get attention for recruiters was when they set up a machine in the cafeteria, and you could write down whatever on a slip of paper and they'll stamp that on a dog tag for you. my friends -- most of them in JROTC -- all joined in, getting obscene stuff printed because the recruiters didn't really look carefully.

Ebrey · Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Location: Los Angeles

Zebadayus · pelvis othello Joined: 05 Dec 2006

Dracko · a sapphist fool Joined: 06 Dec 2006

Toups · tyranically banal Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Location: Ebon Keep

I'm with gcdiaz on this one. The presence of military recruiters on high school campus strikes me as especially noxious, though it flows right along with their recent advertising message of "being in the military is basically like a super sweet FPS game!!11!!". I'd like to think that our public institutions would be above sleazy marketing tactics employed by the rest of the commercial world but I guess I should know better now.
_________________

winkerwatson · badmin Joined: 04 Dec 2006

slipstream · hates LOTR films Joined: 05 Dec 2006

slipstream · hates LOTR films Joined: 05 Dec 2006

BEIGE · Joined: 04 Dec 2006

So, America's Army.

Great video game or greatest video game?

Also, I firmly agree that color guard is for sissy fairy boys. So far I've avoided being assigned to it.

dark steve · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:06 am

I think the only objection raised in this entire topic is that the military shouldn't put their recruiting officers literally inside high school cafeterias, guys. Chill out.

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

sawtooth · heh Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: flashback

NeoEsZ · Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Location: St. Louis, MO

BEIGE · Joined: 04 Dec 2006

Go to the recruiters and engage them in a dialogue. You might both get something out of it, and at least you'll be preaching to someone other than the choir.

^^^^^ · Joined: 04 Dec 2006

Requesting that slipstream's title be changed to "tipper gore mk. 2"

klikbeep · Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Location: Tokyo

SplashBeats · Guest

klikbeep · Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Location: Tokyo

If you're going to define everything as a concept, then you can reduce everything to neutrality, since it doesn't have a net effect either way until the concepts become action. In practice, as implemented, do you think that miltary strength is value-neutral?

You can confine this to the US military for sake of specifics, if you like.

rabite gets whacked! · Joined: 05 Dec 2006

did anyone have to take those military aptitude tests in high school?

I think I aced every part except the mechanical (like, how does an engine work?) section, which I failed entirely. I think they called me once and never tried again.

Which, as I think about it, is probably quite proficient target marketing.

SplashBeats · Guest

newave · Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Location: Los Angeles

Its far more anoying to have Larouche people on your campus.....or maybe scientologists....

klikbeep · Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Location: Tokyo

Laurel Soup · Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Location: Hitsville, USA

Ebrey · Joined: 05 Dec 2006 Location: Los Angeles

winkerwatson · badmin Joined: 04 Dec 2006

the League Of Nations died a death before WWII

and America wasn't a member guys
_________________
tim?

Wilkes · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:20 pm

guys I am having a hard time keeping the Jehovah's Witness' off my campus with hard stares alone

slipstream · hates LOTR films Joined: 05 Dec 2006

internisus · shafer sephiroth Joined: 04 Dec 2006

I did not say that the UN was stronger than the individual members on its security council or that it always does what is good and necessary for the world. I was just making an example of a body that uses military force for good purposes.

SplashBeats · Guest

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

internisus · shafer sephiroth Joined: 04 Dec 2006

The military does not "cooperate willingly." It answers directly to the commander-in-chief. It is a tool without general free will.

However, its members can be held accountable for their conduct during operations -- for instance, war crimes like the rape of nan-king (sp?).

But you cannot argue that the military is responsible for evil actions like invading sovereign nations for no good reason. That responsibility falls to the commander-in-chief. The military obeys commands, and that's that. The screwdriver analogy is fine.

BenoitRen · I bought RAM Joined: 05 Jan 2007

The problem with the UN is the veto right that couple countries have, plus the US' negative attitude and abuse of it.
_________________
Get Xenoblade Chronicles!

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

GcDiaz · Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Clinton, MA

Yea, me neither. To me the military is more like a Rottweiler. A sentient being, whose behavior depends largely on how it was trained and what it has been taught. It's certainly capable of rational thought, of weighing pros versus cons, but where its master points, it goes. It all comes down to the "commander's intent".

You realize there are such things as lawful and unlawful orders, and that no soldier is expected to obey an unlawful one? Abu Graib was an unlawful situation; it only happened because the soldiers involved wanted it to. Besides, doing the right thing is HARD.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz

Let's bring sexy back!

internisus · shafer sephiroth Joined: 04 Dec 2006

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

internisus · shafer sephiroth Joined: 04 Dec 2006

I don't answer to you.

Look, I get your point, but it's a dumb argument. First of all, I know that there could not be any good reason for me to rob a bank. You might equate that with killing people, but as we've covered sometimes fighting and killing is not only justified, but righteous.

Secondly, the actions of the military hinge upon far more complex moral and intelligent background than robbing a bank. These are almost always highly ambiguous matters debated all over the world, and it is the profession of those in the government and intelligence agencies to make these kinds of decisions and call for action as follows. The job of the soldier is to carry out those orders. He is not equipped to consider their moral and intelligent character.

Thirdly, because of this, the military is largely protected from moral reprehensibility. If the American people stand up all at once and declare that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a lie, that support for the war was due to media-fed misperceptions, that the action was undeniably criminal, then the Bush administration would be held responsible, not the soldiers who did the invading. Why? Because the military is just a tool.

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

internisus · shafer sephiroth Joined: 04 Dec 2006

I already addressed this, but the military is not equipped to make decisions for itself. It's the action part of the whole complex mechanism that runs a country. The brain part is the intelligence network, and the moral decision part is the government. Because the commander-in-chief is elected in a democracy, the military is in no way misguided in assuming that he has the country's best interests at heart and that their actions are in line with that. Decision-making is not the job of the military but the job of the government, and it is the government that we hold responsible for the military's actions.

I mean, honestly, what the fuck are we even talking about? The alternative that you seem to be arguing for is a military that thinks for itself, and that would never work unless you lived in a nation that was actually run by the military.

Predator Goose · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

What I'm talking about is that I think that the military should be held responsible for it's actions, that a collection of men is more than a tool. That each man in the military must make a choice to suspend his own judgement, and should know full well the import of such a monumental action. And because of that I do believe it is possible to judge the military.

As for your comment about the commander in chief having the nation's best interest at heart, I hardly taken it for the given that you do. Beyond that though, what is best for the nation does not always, and indeed frequently does not, coincide with what is moral to do. See slavery, the near genocide of the native Americans, and probably at least a dozen other atrocities.

I would like to say though that I am only arguing that one could judge the military. I am ill informed of the current conflict, so please do not take my comments as a condemnation of the current military.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.