Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive methods to recruit youths?
 

Does a community have a legitimate right and duty to protect it's young people from predatory and deceptive military recruiting campaigns, if that is what they are?

Is military recruiting, even without officially financed and practiced deception, akin to an influence in a community not without comparison to merchants of pornographic material? At the end of the army basic training graduation ceremony I attended, less than five years ago, an army officer gave a speech describing the training to parents as, "you turned your sons and daughters over to us, and we've transformed them into killing machines !"

I think the advent of a recent change in US policy that makes aggressive pre-emptive war an SOP, muddies the issue, and it made me consider that what is being discussed in Berkeley is not unreasonable given these circumstance I've described.

I know that this will be controversial, it was touched on in Moore's Farenheit 911 film, but I think it is symptomatic of a societal denial and disorder not to discuss it, since at least in one community, historically a seat of social change, is dicsussing it and attempting to do something about it.

I'm more interested in reading what you think about this, than how you feel about it.

We already do. Some friends and I organized multiple counter recruitment campaigns at all local high schools. We provide accurate information about what actually happens when one joins the military, and how recruiters are not only allowed to lie, but it's standard practice. The military complained, but when we provided the stats backing our information there was nothing they could do. We've also had the Army kicked off campus for lying to several students.

If anyone else is interested, simply google the information you need, include it in a pamphlet, and have someone who's friendly to the school act as an intermediary. Make the case, "We simply want your students to have all the facts." I've found that likening the military tactics to those of big tobacco are very helpful in illustrating points to those who are conservatives. Be sure that you provide options for the kids, too. Kids who are interested in the military may also enjoy police work, firefighting, being a paramedic, etc. It has the same heroic sheen, but without having to murder Iraqis or drive over IEDs.

Well police often murder black people, so perhaps that isn't a viable alternative.


....

1.2 million in the past 4 years?

Murder = Malice aforethought or in execution of a felony.

Collaterral damage, insurgents, terrorism, and sectarian militias no.

Nice try though.

Edit: Also, I'll humor that 1.2 million mark, but guess what it wasn't the US military pulling the trigger. Sure X amount of civilians might've died, it wasn't the US making Al Qaeda, or Sunni Death squads, or the Madhi army doing the shit that they did.

If this pisses you off, me counter recruiting, maybe you should ask yourself why you are siding with an organization that blatantly lies to children in order to get them to risk their lives for something that has nothing to do with them.

The military's recruiting tactics are inexcusable.

Oh, and if you think that "insurgents and terrorists" are the only people to be killed by US/coalition forces, you're naive.

I have no problem with counter recruiting, I'm sure the military using janky tactics.

And I realize its not just insurgents and terrorists, but the US military did not systematically and willingly kill 1.2 million human beings.

You completely dismiss the culpability due for the sociopaths who are actually responsible.

I'm not naive, but you calling US soldiers murderers in a blanket sense, makes you a jack ass.

The occasional person may be fooled, but to act like everyone who enters is a naive 12 year old is absolutely insulting.

No recruiter EVER lied to me, and I spoke with Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. The told me what I was signing up for, 3 of them even asked if I understood my primary job would be killing or assisting in the killing of other people.

As far as counter-protests goes have fun out there, it only made me more intent on signing.

Who is actually responsible? Do you want a list? Here are some big players:
http://www.samliquidation.com/images/left-handed.jpg
http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Fe...05/01/bush.jpg
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/arc...eney%20twn.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/images/258683...owitz_paul.jpg
http://rationalrevolution.net/images/kristol.jpg
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...jpgo.widec.jpg
Being an ass is using a term like "malice aforethought" and not understanding it. All it means is intent to cause grievous injury where death is the intended result.

But hey, as long as you don't want to think of it as murder. And BTW, US soldiers are under the jurisdiction of the USMJ and Iraqi law. You should familiarize yourself with the difference between those and what's going on now.

So where can I view these 1.2 million counts of murder that have violated the USMJ? Since we are a country of laws and protocol I'm sure the USMJ has its place in how we act in Iraq, much like how military action is provided for, in this case as it is consented by congress and faithfully executed by the President.

Soldiers kill shit, its what they do. Because somebody dies doesn't make it murder, especially in the case of military action. I don't see how I in anyway shape or form had the meaning of malice out of sync.

US soldiers, US politicians are no where near solely responsible for 1.2 million deaths; calling it murder or asserting as much is delusional.

Wasn't that 1.2 million bullshit number debunked quite a while ago?

Where does it say one can enter a home without a warrant, based on hearsay that's paid for from people who have lied before, and shooting people who resist? Where does it say you can run over a car with a man in it because there's traffic and he can't move? Where does it say you can open fire on a vehicle after shouting "Stop!" in ENGLISH? Malice is having the capability, the intent, and then executing.
Ah, because you said so. BTW, someone with no experience or education in psychology shouldn't be throwing around the word "delusional", especially if that individual who doesn't believe Bush is playing games when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78
It was the 655,000 number that was debunked.

You're right it's Wolfowitz and his neo-cons sending in their operatives to crowded bazaar's or gatherings and blowing themselves up. The sleeper cells are probably activated when Kristol guests on Fox News live.

My bad.

Maybe you can tell me how many SUICIDE BOMBERS there are in Iraq. Unless you're thinking of Palestinians in Israel. Cause you are. Or are all Arabs the same?

Tell you what, if you'd like to make your corrections, let's start another thread. I don't want to take away from host's thread.

/threadjack

Getting back, I'd love to know people's responses to the articles in the OP. I've gotta say that I'm proud of Berkeley. I knew about the pro-war demonstration in October, but it was really more of a joke to most local protesters. I look forward to helping out.

They used the same method...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/arti...bomb/index.htm

Its B.S. will, that would be 1000 a day, not happening.

Is 100 a day that much less shocking?

If someone can't understand that being in the military MAY REQUIRE you to be a combat soldier who has to kill, then I have to wonder what kind of intelligence said person actually has.

To the topic of the OP:

There is evidently little oversight of the actions of military recruiters. A recent GAO report found:
Should there not be better accountability of the practices of military recruiters?

There should, but how would one get this done? Congress? I mean this may be something where you actually need a president to get this done.

It could be done by law.

Here's an example of one small change that could be made.....there is a little known provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that high schools must provide the same access to military recruiters as it does to colleges/universities and prospective employers or risk losing federal funding. This is not only allowing recruiters to participate in on-site school functions, but gives them access to the school's database of student names, phone number, addresses.

There is an opt-out provision for parents to indicate they do not want their children exposed to this, but studies have shown that few parents are aware of the option. I would change it to opt-in, where a parent can check-off which of the three (colleges, prospective employers, military recruiters) they want for their kids.

I'm not sure if it's the same to say "You can or can't go here" vs. "You can or can't say this". Wouldn't that be military policy? If one wanted to end the lies and misinformation, I mean, could Congress do this?

Well said.

When does it become too many? Is 10 alright? If so then would 20, 40, 80? If those are not shocking would 800 tip the scales?

Seems like a insane conversation, doesn't it?

Congress can require changes in military policies and practices by force of law...they just stick it in an annual DoD authorization bill....thats how we got "dont ask, dont tell" policy that few in DoD wanted.

side note:
But then again, you may have a president who issues a signing statement to ignore selected provisions of the law...like Bush did this week with the provision in the 2008 DoD Authorization Act that required more accountable of the actions of military contractors.

Yeah, who knew? Teenagers not that bright.

Yep, news to me.

Sorry to insert this as the thread as gotten back on track, just one little piece I thought I'd put in... there have been 1400 reported suicide bombings by the US military in Iraq since 2004.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html

/end thread jack

53 suicide bombers are from our ally Saudi Arabia, the most from any country... including Iraq. Iraq only had 18. That's interesting. Wonder how many Saudi bombers there were in Iraq before we invaded?

The posts I have read here are from such completely opposite POV's that I was inspired to do a looong OP on a new thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...09#post2392409

....hoping to wake just one of you from your belief that we are somehow fighting a "war on terror" against a primary enemy, that is a greater threat to us than our leadership and the corporate complex that finances and tells it what to do.

Wish me luck !!!

It's far less shocking to the other 900 people who weren't actually killed.

There are casualties in any war, its what a war does, and yes lower numbers are better and less shocking.

When those opposed to the war claim insanely high casualty rates for the sake of propaganda and demoralization of the American people, it needs to be called out.

I wouldn't say our soldiers are murders. Sure there are some that are but I wouldn't make any claims about it being the norm. No doubt civilians have and are dieing in this war but their blood for the most part doesn't fall on our soldiers and instead it falls directly on this administration.

Exactly. When a owner or head office of a profession sports team screws all the season ticket holders and/or the players you don't blame the players.

Also, yes MAYBE some of our soldiers have committed murder in Iraq or Afghanistan, MAYBE. But when you take young kids, many of whom aren't even old enough to order a beer at the local watering, put them in EXTREMELY STRESSFUL situation and ask they make life and death decisions in a split second you create a recipe for disaster, IMO.

When a president, vice president, secretary of defense, national security advisor claim Iraq was a haven for terrorists and make even more insane claims about imminent threats of mushroom clouds over the US for the sake of propaganda and demoralization of the American people, it needs to be called out.

When military recruiters insanely claim to impressionable high school kids that "we need you to fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here", it needs to be called out.

I wonder how many blatant lies were among the 6,600 cases of recruiter wrongdoing as the war in Iraq was going badly.

It was after 9/11 and before Iraq when I enlisted. You know how they got me?

"So, you wanna jump outta planes?"

They don't have to be really deceptive.

The military has that GI Joe draw.

All I have to say, is "Buyer Beware".

Kids need to be taught to be skeptical of what military recruiters say... just like anyone else that is selling anything. Recruiters are most definitely salesmen for the army, and really should be considered about as trustworthy as that greasy guy from "Bobs Used Car Emporium".

Thats about where it should end. The actions of the town Berkeley are reprehensible.

The actions of Berkeley residents are proportional. The military recruiters there have been warned before by many people (including me) that deceiving people won't be tolerated. They decided to ignore us. These are the consequences.

It's clear that the military recruiters can't be bothered to act responsibly or honorably. The military won't hold them responsible. As such, it's up to the community to hold them responsible.

So maybe change the word in your post from "reprehensible" to "responsible".

Cities can regulate the location of used car dealership through zoning and can regulate their practices through state consumer protection laws.

Why not the same for "military salesman" particularly since their "sales" are generally targeted at minors?

So...if military recruiting stations are akin to porn shops, then does my military service equate to that of a porn star? Fascinating. I don't know whether to be insulted, or grin from ear to ear.

Based upon your years of experience as an active member of the United States Armed Forces?
Oh...I see.

And yet...we let 'em vote.

And you would be......?

Reading the original stories I have to say that I love Berkeley.

Its like every moonbat stereotype come to life for me to mock.

I can only hope these types get louder and louder come next November, for what should be obvious reasons.

Since two out of three Americans oppose the war and occupation without end in Iraq (and presumably dont want their kids to be recruited to support it), the obvious outcome in November will be a larger Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a better than even chance of a Democratic president. :thumbsup:

Given the two frontrunners for the republicans are practically left wing themselves, its kinda like aliens vs predator: No matter who wins, we lose.

....waiting for the Ron Paul commercial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6981553.stm

Your phrasing was biased, obviously occupation without end is not desirable, and it should be telling to you that 1/3rd don't seem to mind that.

But if you really believe it, keep the moonbats loud and in front, I want every one of those types to be marching, protesting, waving signs, and making speeches.

People are voting against republicans, not FOR democrats, and the more the democrats remind people who they really are the better for the republicans :)

Nice spin...but unsupportable.

Every poll, on nearly every issue (including Iraq war, but perhaps not national security), the people prefer Democrats over Republicans.

Ah...but you, like the Bush mouthpieces in the WH press office and the right wing talking heads, dont care about polls....unless they support your position.

From my new "Historical REAL ENEMIES" thread; funny you should mention "moonbats", because for me, nothing in that category can beat the rich ole corporatist, war mongering, nuclear football totin' MF's who Smedley Butler spoke about in his "War is a Racket" speech. You know the ones I'm talking about, they never tire of alerting us that they are "under attack", when they control almost all of the money, political power, and the key, the war apparatus that was supposed to defend us, not make them rich off the supreme sacrifices of our manipulated 19 year olds:
,,,go over there, and read on....there was no Mafia remaining, to speak of, until the Navy OSI and the US Army revitalized it in New York and in Sicily in 1943, and that begat the heroin epidemic and hastened the fall of Cuba, and there was no opium poppy growing industry remaining in Afghanistan, after the Taleban fell in late 2001.....back when the US national debt was $3.2 trillion less, and the ole whitemen in the US, who control almost everything we're rallying the young around the flag, yet one mo' effing time.....

A community member and concerned citizen who is liberal and has too much time on his hands.

:expressionless:

Jesus, how did I miss this? No, not based on my experience. I would have been the 5th generation Army had it not been for my heart condition and political views, but that's not relevant anyway. All I need are facts. I present my verifiable facts to people and allow them the opportunity to make an informed decision. My military experience or lack thereof have nothing to do with my facts, as one can have facts about the military and not be in the military.

Facts. Facts based on...what, exactly? Google? Puhleeze. Stories relayed to you by non-hackers who didn't last through boot camp, 'cause it wasn't the wine and cheese party they thought it'd be? For me...personal experience is everything.

Look, Will...take a survey of the veterans just on this board. There are many of us. Ask us how many were blatantly lied to. I'm not talking about just having details glossed over. I mean actually out and out lied to.

I'll start you off. I was not lied to by my recruiter. I knew exactly what I was getting into. And I'll bet so did the majority of the rest of ex-service members here.

Damn straight. All these cute Google links and "I-went-to-college!" opinions are garbage unless you've actually gone through the process yourself. Hill of beans, I say!

I knew perfectly well what I was getting into when I signed up. It was part of being an educated adult who couldn't afford college and wanted to embark on a life-changing adventure to gain skills and experiences that the civvie system will never be able to provide. It was part of joining the military after 9/11 and dealing with Bush's trigger-happy get-them-evil-doers policies. My recruiter told me I could either be a paratrooper or get a huge cash bonus. I still took the wings. My recruiter told me I would be deployed after basic. I knew damn well that meant a year in sunny downtown (city), Iraq. I knew it meant stepping into an atom smasher and coming out a different man.

I was never lied to once during the entire US Army recruiting process.

I get the feeling they don't have to lie much. The job really sells itself.

The military was the easiest (or dumbest?) job I ever had.

So...

100% of the military veterans surveyed, were not lied to.

Granted...it's only two of us, so far, but that's still 100%. Statistics don't lie. They are...say it with me...facts.

I was approached by a recruiter while in ortho school.

I don't think he was lying when he told me, "well you won't get paid much but you won't have to do a lot of work either".

I don't think they wanted me for my marksmanship though :sad:

That's right, because Google can only lead you to the blogs of 15 year olds or people have no no experience in the real world. Puhleeze.
Or how about this: In the mall about 4 months ago I came across a conversation between one my my little brother's friends and an Army recruitment officer. I stopped and listened. He lied. I've come to find out that CURRENT MILITARY OFFICERS are coming forward to confirm that what I saw is not an isolated incident. My best friend was lied to by his Navy recruiter. He had to get correct information from me, someone who's never been in the Navy.

Go figure.
The "it didn't happen to me thus it didn't happen" argument is the worst kind of fallacy. Maybe you can call up your recruiter buddies and ask them how many explain the stop-loss program to their recruits.

Haha, SLSM is so popular that they're currently making a "reality" film about it.

Story of my life.

We had a LOT of time to sit on our dickbeaters in the US Army. Especially in basic training. You don't think we didn't spend endless hours talking about how we ended up in the meat grinder? Our lives before and how we got there? In a company of 300+ guys... I didn't hear a single story about a recruiter being deceitful.

Fallacy? Sure, I'm one man... but I was immersed in the system for four long years. You witness a lot of things. Recruitments. Reenlistment. All sorts of magic.

Are there statistics that quantify the bullshit present in the recruitment process? Maybe. Are they scientific enough to be any kind of proof? Definitely not.

...

We did have some guy try to kill himself with his bootlaces. His gripe? His recruiter gave him exactly what he said he'd get and the guy couldn't handle it.

Show me one person who signed a contract which upheld things other than what happened. You won't find one, otherwise you're basing your opinion off of hearsay which is not valid in any court.

Make that three.

What did he say?

No one said anything about the papers. The papers are perfectly clear. The words coming out of the recruiters mouth's are what's in question.
In answering a question by my little bro's friend, "You won't go to Iraq."

BTW, Cromp, you joined up between 9/11 and the invasion, when recruitment was soaring. I don't think they needed to lie. Now? Most of the country wants out of the war, bodies are piling up; I would imagine recruiting may have changed between 2002 and now.

Fun, fun.
Lies Some Recruiters Tell

Doesn't mean he is going, though. The army has quite a few posts that are non-deployable (training or logistics or necessary specialties that need to stay CONUS). Many of my friends are in them right now to avoid getting deployed for a third time. Would you like email addresses? They have signed contracts that say "non-deployable."

I'm a Veteran, fours years Navy. I served starting 1983 and got my DD-214 in 1987. I was lied to back then regarding the ability of the Navy to retain me past the 4 yrs I agreed to serve. Granted they didn't keep me longer. But they lied none the less.

That was then, this is now. Now there's a war going on and they're having trouble finding people to fill quotas. They upped the age limit. They've lowered the minimum educational requirements. They're taking people with criminal histories they would have shown the door to in years past.

My daughter is currently in the Coast Guard. She finished Cape May this past summer and is stationed in Florida. She considered several other services prior to joining the CG. I sat down with her and the recruiters from the Navy and the Air Force. They both lied on several issues. The Navy guy couldn't even keep his lies straight. Don't think he was used to dealing with people who do their homework.

So that's the end of the 100% of that survey and that too is..say it with me... "fact."

2 out of 3 ain't bad. ;)

...

What were the lies about, anyway? Pay? Stations? Occupational specialty?

Looking at the situation, there is simply no way for the recruiter to know that the kid won't go to Iraq. Considering what I've seen happen to my high school buddies, it's very likely that the young man would have been in Iraq had he signed up. Fortunately, I was there and gave him more complete answers including, "It's entirely possible that if you were to sign up you'd be stationed somewhere in Iraq."

Tully, thanks for coming forward. I hope your daughter is safe in her service.

3 out of 4. Why do you keep ignoring me? :(

I have 3 friends in the Military who will never go to Iraq. 2 are Logistics and 1 is trainer. So not a lie.

No one person signed a contract which resulted in different outcomes. That is the key, they are specifically TOLD TO READ THE ENTIRE CONTRACT. I went through recruitment twice, both times this was carried out. For those who don't read the contract I have as much sympathy as a person who pays 20% interest on their mortgage, it's their own fault.

Sorry, but you have a stupid friend if he thinks he signs up in a time of not one but two wars and won't fight. While possible, he should realize the reality.

Meatloaf song, dude. C'mon. I know some of you turds are older than me!

I'll assume you mean lies directed at my daughter recently?


"You're female so it not even legal for us to send you to Iraq"

"Look, you join, you get to boot camp and you find it's not for you all you have to do is ring a bell outside the dorm and you're on the next flight home. No questioned asked, we don't want you if you don't want to be there."

"You're female, we need females. The day you complete Basic you'll make E-4. E-4 will get you guarantied off base housing even being single. That alone can nearly double your pay."


I was lied to, my daughter was lied to. That's 50%... not 2 out of 3.

Your admission that my friend is stupid means that you understand that the recruiter misinterpreted the truth. Thank you for that, whether it was intentional or not.

1. Hah. Which is why so many of my guys got laid by sweaty women wearing uniforms.

2. Boot camp does not equal USN BUDS training.

3. *snort-cackle-snort-turns-blue*

Yeah, those would all be lies. Hopefully everybody could smell the bullshit.

...

And I'm sorry, but the "we need females" line made me cackle.

So you say you have three friends who will never go to Iraq, so it's not a lie...

and...

you're saying someone else is stupid if they believe that if they join during two wars they won't go to war.

That logic seems to contradict itself.

Enlisted members who have jobs that don't deploy + possibility of joining and not getting a job that is non-deployable = logic to me.

Coast Guard guy told her the same thing. She and a male friend signed and swore in on the same day. Her signing bonus was double his, 12k. I don't know the real story because she had nearly completed her B.S. degree. Don't know where he was in school.


I think the bottom line is more and more pressure is being put on recruiters to deliver. The result of that is more and more often the recruiters are cutting corners to get slots filled.

I know I read an article sometime back where at least one recruiter was using his own urine to get clean UA's on would be recruits.

Went back and read it again= still bad logic to me.


I don't see where you can respond to a statement that a person was lied to when told "you won't go to Iraq" with:

I have 3 friends in the Military who will never go to Iraq. 2 are Logistics and 1 is trainer. So not a lie.

And state:

Sorry, but you have a stupid friend if he thinks he signs up in a time of not one but two wars and won't fight. While possible, he should realize the reality.

But it does sound like you agree the guy's being lied to, just that he's stupid for believing it.

If you have half a BS, you are considered to have an Associates Degree. You get a bigger bonus plus generally rank of E2 upon leaving Boot Camp.

It does happen, the likelihood is small though. That's like saying if we knew someone won the lottery, someone spending money on it is a smart investment.

Besides, my friends were in the military prior to 9/11. Those non-deployable positions are few and far between, getting into one in a time of war is difficult to say the least (though still possible).

So you and your daughter were lied to, that is unfortunate. My question remains, did anyone present a contract which contradicted what would actually occur?

From the GAO report on Military Recruiting Irregularities in 2005, based on reporting by the DoD:
38 cases of coercion
74 cases of fall promises
38 cases of misconduct

also:
420 cases of recruiter concealing medical/criminal record of potential recruits
110 cases of recruiter falsifying documents
47 cases of illegal testing
61 cases of "other" irregularities

Not included: the more than 6,000 "unsubstantiated cases" of recruiting irregularities when it was recruiters word against the recruits.

HA! So we've gone from it doesn't happen to it does, but it's rare. Are we really going to have to dance until you finally, and begrudgingly accept this is common practice?
I already answered this strawman.
Clear enough? This is about the words coming out of mouths, not pages and pages of paper.

Nah, I'm much less enthusiastic about RP these days. I even toyed with voting for Fred Thompson for a while, even though I think his foreign policy was wrong. But I can still be a libertarian conservative, and think RP would make a bad president :)

Logic! Whee!

Logically,

"I have three friends in the military who will never deploy,"

and

"new recruits are likely to be deployed,"

are not contradictory statements. Even if we take the second statement as a certainty (ie, "new recruits will always be deployed,") there's still no contradiction inherent unless the three friends are new recruits. If we apply these two statements analytically to the recruiter's statement "you will not deploy," we still can't draw any firm conclusions although it does point to the probability that the recruiter was at the least stretching the truth a bit. Without knowing the context in which the recruiter made that statement, it's difficult or impossible to say with any certainty that he was lying. If, for example, the prospective recruit had asked "what if I get assigned to job X?" with job X being his job of choice and also being one of the jobs that is non-deployable, the recruiter could have made his statement without contradicting either of the two above.

Also, oversimplifying leads to heated arguments over nothing. 'Some recruiters lie some of the time' != 'all recruiters lie all the time.' Inversely, 'some recruiters are honest with all new recruits' != 'all recruiters are honest with all recruits.'

I am not American and I have a permanent disability that disqualifies me from service, so the larger debate really has no bearing on me whatsoever. If anyone wants to accuse me of bias, however, I will be glad to facilitate it by pointing out that if I didn't have a permanent disability I'd probably be in the forces today.

EDIT -

Out of curiosity, do you know what the overall recruitment figures for 2005 were? It'd be interesting to see what those figures amount to in the context of total recruits.

I'm a little lost on your Lotto analogy, but not sure it matters.

She walked out of basic an E-3.

In regards to contradictions by contracts. In my case yes, but the contract where basically shoved in your face and you signed then back then. Everyone I talked to in basic said nearly the same thing.

In regards to my daughter the Navy and Air Force were never pursued to the point of any contracts being viewed.

When she signed with the Guard they went through everything line by line. Even had a DVD they showed us. Everything was covered honestly, as far as I know.

Hilarious:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...327466,00.html

It should also be stated that it's VERY likely that most of this is not reported. Just looking at this thread, in which only a few military people have posted, we've already found glaring examples of dishonesty in recruitment. Either we hit the lotto, or Occam's razor tells us that this is quite common.

Federal Funding Law:

There, fixed it for ya.

Sorry, this is not a strawman. The best example of lying recruiters in recent history was proven to contradict your statement.

I had the exact same experience both times, minus the DVD.

Thank you.

I think a better measure is the number of recruiters, not the number of recruits.

There were 13,000+ recruiters, with an "irregular" practice rate of 4.7%. That roughly translates into 1 out of 20 to 25 recruiters doing something irregular, unethical or illegal, depending on multiple infractions by recruiters.

And again, these are only the "substantiated" irregularities.

An acceptable rate of unethical/criminal behavior? I wouldnt want my child to be dealing with that "one".

I've just written Jimmy DeMint. I hope he reads my message carefully:
Edit: the verification code to this page is broken. I'll be calling it in tomorrow or Monday.

A sample size of six isn't really enough to draw any conclusions, and Occam's razor is not applicable to this discussion in any way, shape or form.

What are the odds of getting a 1/6 poll from a statistic like 6,000/every recruit in the past year? Not good, which leads us to...
What is more reasonable, we got a lotto winner or it's more common? The most likely answer is that it's more common, thus Occam's Razor is applicable.

If you spoke with six people and one of them had won the lottery, would it be logical to conclude that one in six people will win the lottery? This is precisely how and why probability doesn't work on a small scale. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the result. It gets misapplied in such situations, because fractions are often reduced in such situations. This is not the purpose of reducing the fractions. Rather, it's because 1/6 is much easier to work with then, say, 874/5244.

Occam's razor isn't applicable because neither scenario ('our sample is representative' vs. 'our sample is not representative') is inherently more complex. One may be more probable, but that speaks nothing to the relative complexity.

Having worked as an Intern for a Rep, let me tell you how it'll go.

An Intern will receive the letter, look up your address, realize you're not a constituent, and toss it.

You feel better now?

By the way, why is a WTC Conspiracy Theorist mentioning the Razor?

How do you account for the approx. 4.7% of recruiters who do something unethical or illegal? (unquestionably much higher if you count the he said/he said allegations)

is that an acceptable rate to you?

So 95.3% of recruiters are doing their job.

I hope you don't look up statistics of dirty cops or negligent doctors anytime soon.

You didnt answer the question.

What is an acceptable rate of unethical or illegal behavior by military recruiters who ask young people to potentially risk their life.

BTW, the stats on police abuse/misconduct are far far less than 1% nationwide, not that it is relevant.

Perhaps UStwo has data on unethical or illegal behavior by dentists, but that would be just as irrelevant.

I was lied to when I enlisted in the marine corps.

I was told to NOT tell them about my drug expirementation with speed or they would discharge me. Well, in my 18 year old fear, I confessed.......and didn't get discharged.

That was it. So yeah, they lied to me.

And when I send 100?
Because I've actually taken the time to do research.

BTW, thank you for the honesty, DK. That's another board member to the tally.

I think it's rather sad that our nation's young folks are so easy to manipulate. Perhaps this should be a wake-up call for us to repeal the 26th Amendment and bump the voting age back to 21. I mean, if they can be easily led around like lemmings by some tricky recruiter who knows what havoc they could bring to our election system once some devious politician realizes that their brains can be molded like putty.

FWIW, my recruiter lied to me. He told me my tools of war would be a screwdriver and a pair of pliers. I had visions of sado-masochistic torture sessions dancing in my head, but was sorely disappointed when all they gave me was a rifle and bayonet.

Intelligence isn't a prerequisite for voting. If it were, our 43rd president would have been able to figure out that OB/GYN's don't "practice their love with women."
So that's 3/6 military officers in this thread.

Did you ever use the rifle or bayonet?

Turns out those things suck, too.

I think you might mean "enlisted military members." I haven't seen anything about officers being lied to.

Though the Air Force guy all but promised my Daughter Officer's Candidates School... if she did well enough in Basic. Whatever "well enough" was he couldn't quite explain. And it was clear it wouldn't be in any contract.

Ah, yes that's what I mean.

Because it gives you a higher % to putz around with :thumbsup:

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You'll get 100 thrown in the trash.

With 100% getting everything stipulated on the enlistment contract. Nice strawman argument.

The thread is called "Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive methods to recruit youths?"

Now if it were called "Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive contracts to recruit youths?"

Then you'd have a point, but it's not and you don't.

Using the word "Strawman" in a strawman argument! How quaint! For the third time, and bigger because you've missed it twice already.

HEY SEAVER LQQK!!! HERE!! HERE!!! HERE!!! SEAVER!!!

The enlistment contract is what you agree to when you sign and thus law. Although often written in legal-ese, it is not (generally) deceptive language. Anybody who believes anything that isn't written on that contract is a dumbass.

Maybe my recruiter told me that I'd become a beautiful fairy princess... but when I was reading the 30+contract... I didn't see any mention it. Hmmm.

And if this thread was about the contract, these would be valid points. It's not. It's about the words coming out of the mouths of recruiters. It's about the fairy princess stuff.

Do we agree that words don't mean shit when a contract is involved?

Yes, but it's not relevant. Kids believe recruiter's words. Many of them don't even read the contract. This thread is about stopping them from verbally lying. No one has a problem with the contract. That's a different subject.