Why interventionalism has hurt recruiter efforts

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ok Specialist, for your service in Iraq you get half a goat. Which half do you want?

Neither. It looks like someone has already "used" both halves of this goat.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
Talk about loot, these 17 have a court order for $1 billion for themselves. Joining the war can be profitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/in...10POWS.html?th

"The Bush administration is seeking to block a group of American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 from collecting any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets they won last summer in a federal court ruling against the government of Saddam Hussein.

In a court challenge that the administration is winning so far but is not eager to publicize, administration lawyers have argued that Iraqi assets frozen in bank accounts in the United States are needed for Iraqi reconstruction and that the judgment won by the 17 former American prisoners should be overturned."

For once I agree with Bush.

How can someone post on a website and apparently have no brain?

Nice way to prove you have a brain by ducking the question.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Nice way to prove you have a brain by ducking the question.

What question? You're the self-proclaimed ASVAB whiz who knows everything there is to know about boot camp and how it's for pussies, but you don't know the definition of mercenary, the long-standing international law distinctions between regular national forces and mercenaries, or the (limited)conditions by which foreign nationals may join the US armed forces.

Your "question" makes as much as asking if the sky is pink because the moon oozes orange cheese into it.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What question? You're the self-proclaimed ASVAB whiz who knows everything there is to know about boot camp and how it's for pussies, but you don't know the definition of mercenary, the long-standing international law distinctions between regular national forces and mercenaries, or the (limited)conditions by which foreign nationals may join the US armed forces.

There you go with your laws of war again. Just because a law of war says a shotgun is illegal, doesn't mean they still aren't used. Just because a law of war says a national from one country, fighting in the army of another, voluntarily for pay, isn't a mercenary, doesn't mean it isn't a mercenary. International law is just a way for politicians ie liars to make their actions look good.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Duuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

"I don't care what the meaning of the word is, I'm going to give it my own meaning and insist I'm right, and everyone else is wrong..."

Any other words you want to redefine for your little personal exercise in verbal autoeroticism?

Believe it or not, just because you want to pull a new definition out of your ass, doesn't make that definition valid, except in your own little world, deary.

I'm going a lot farther than with laws of war. For one thing, US law requires that for a foreign national to join the US military, they must be a legal resident of the US and meet all the legal requirements for citizenship, other than waiting period. The oaths for enlisted personnel and for officers are also identical - there is no distinction for citizenship.

That creates a hell of lot more restrctive conditions than apply in the French Foreign Legion, for one example, and the FFL is not a mercenary force. So you can make up whatever little special definitions you want for playing GI Joes in your room, but the real world operates on the standard definitions.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I'm going a lot farther than with laws of war. For one thing, US law requires that for a foreign national to join the US military, they must be a legal resident of the US and meet all the legal requirements for citizenship, other than waiting period. The oaths for enlisted personnel and for officers are also identical - there is no distinction for citizenship.

other than... meaning they are not U.S. citizens.

mercenary: a person who serves merely for wages; esp: a soldier hired into foreign service.

MExican not citizen= foreign

Mexican serving in US army = a soldier hired into foreign service

Now my definition is from the Merriam Webster dictionary, verbatum.

What do you got? Line 1665 from the international rule of codes and conduct, page 62 paragraph 14, sidenoted in section's b & f?
Where it clearly states that one can form in the service of another nations army but still be considered a regular for that army in amount of toilet paper one may recieve while on patrol in the artic ice shelves of iceland.

So save your insults until you learn how to use a dictionary.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega


other than... meaning they are not U.S. citizens.

mercenary: a person who serves merely for wages; esp: a soldier hired into foreign service.

MExican not citizen= foreign

Mexican serving in US army = a soldier hired into foreign service

Now my definition is from the Merriam Webster dictionary, verbatum.

{snip}

So save your insults until you learn how to use a dictionary.

Says the troll who can't even read his own "definition."

"a person who serves merely for wages;" - did you somehow forget about that part, or just find it inconvenient?

Did you know that little abbreviation "esp." means "especially" i.e. that the second part qualifies the definition in the first part (the one you missed?) Are you sure you weren't looking at your ASVAB results upside down when you saw the grade? I know it's dirt easy, but still...

By definition, someone who swears an oath that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" is not serving merely for wages.

Try again.

What do you got? Line 1665 from the international rule of codes and conduct, page 62 paragraph 14, sidenoted in section's b & f?
Where it clearly states that one can form in the service of another nations army but still be considered a regular for that army in amount of toilet paper one may recieve while on patrol in the artic ice shelves of iceland.

And this gibberish is a perfect example of why people should "Just say NO!"

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
By definition, someone who swears an oath that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" is not serving merely for wages.

Oooh, an oath! It's almost as unshakaeble as a jinx, but not as unshakeable as a curse.

I mean, are you seriously trying to tell me that some Mexican in the Army joined for any other reason THAN MONEY? Are you that F****n delusional?

Wait, lemme guess, they want to fight for the star spangled banner and apple pie right? Eh holmes, The U.S. is in tlubble mahn. We need to stick up for our brothers 'cross the Grande mahn! Yeah, mahn, the constitution.

I mean, if they aren't fighting for money, what do you propose they are fioghting for. Oh, I know, wait, this is better, this is better, They want to Liberate the Iraqi people! Yeah, the Mexicans care deeply about the oppression in Iraq!

[Pekka]

NeOmega, For other reasons than money? Why not?
I'd do it, if it was possible. And it still might be at some day, so I'm holding that as an option. For free if that was the only option.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Oooh, an oath! It's almost as unshakaeble as a jinx, but not as unshakeable as a curse.

I mean, are you seriously trying to tell me that some Mexican in the Army joined for any other reason THAN MONEY? Are you that F****n delusional?

My, aren't we having a little hissy fit?

Any foreign national has to be a legal resident of the US, eligible for citizenship, prior to enlisting. That means, and I'll say it real slow with little bitty words so it sinks in: They can apply for any job they want and work legally for a lot more than E1 to E4 pay. So, like most other volunteers, they're taking a net pay cut compared to the majority of civilian jobs available to them. If they can't legally work here or they don't live here, they can't join up.

Wait, lemme guess, they want to fight for the star spangled banner and apple pie right?

Se llama "pay de manzana" pinche babosa.

Eh holmes, The U.S. is in tlubble mahn. We need to stick up for our brothers 'cross the Grande mahn! Yeah, mahn, the constitution.

Your level of intelligence speaks for itself.

I mean, if they aren't fighting for money, what do you propose they are fioghting for. Oh, I know, wait, this is better, this is better, They want to Liberate the Iraqi people! Yeah, the Mexicans care deeply about the oppression in Iraq!

Probably as much as most Americans. Or I should say "as little."

[Berzerker]

And this gibberish is a perfect example of why people should "Just say NO!"

HEY! Can ya'll on sobriety leave the druggies out of your insults?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Any foreign national has to be a legal resident of the US, eligible for citizenship, prior to enlisting.

look I'm MTG

I throw in unnecessary 's because I think it makes me look funny or smart or condensending!


You just absolutely refuse to admit they are not citizens of the United States don't you?
Close counts in horseshoes and handgrenades, and this isn't either.
So take your GI Joes and go home.

[Thucydides]

NeOmega, your correct about the military being dependent on mercenaries, but not for the reason you think. Any soldier who enlists puts himself under the UCMJ, therefore he has no choice but to follow the orders of those appointed above him or face going to jail. I personally wish I could decide I'm not being paid enough to quit my job because I'm not being paid enough like in almost any other job, but to do so would land me in jail.

Anyway, you are right though because the military is becoming highly dependent on Contractors to do a great deal of the work, which are obviously mercenaries. They don't have to directly answer to military authority and could and at the worst case can be fired. The military in times past didn't use contractors to a fraction of the extent that they do now.

As for females having different pt standards, that's a tricky issue. Females just aren't designed to be as athletic as males are, yet the military still needs woman to sign up to fill their quotas, so they resolve the issue by barring woman from the most physically demanding mos's and have them fill out most of the support roles. Besides which older people also have different pt requirements, thus if the charge of sexism can be used against the military in this case, so can ageism be used as well. In the end, I think it's up to individual commanders to require higher pt scores and that people are alot more fit then they're required to be to pass a PT test.

As for legal immigrants becoming soldiers, they are actually barred from a good deal of the jobs in the military that require security clearences. Still, it seems to me that the biggest reason a foreign national would want to join the military would be to reduce the waiting period it would take to require becoming a citizen, in which case they would be joining for reasons other then money, thus having other then mercenary intentions by joining.

As for the conundrum of fighting a war you don't believe in, I'm in the exact situation right now. I'm about to go over to Iraq in roughly two month. Yes, I am a pawn and have no say in this war or it's consequences. All I can say is that if I found a way out and left the military, someone else would take have to place. All I can do is go do my job and maybe document what I see if I can, as that's the only way I can maybe contribute anything against the war is to be aware of what's going on, ask questions, learn and pass the knowledge on.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I throw in unnecessary 's because I think it makes me look funny or smart or condensending!

Just laughing at you.

You just absolutely refuse to admit they are not citizens of the United States don't you?

Whoooooooooosh. Guess that point went over your head. I'll try one syllable (ooops) words.

Since they have to legally live here, they can make more money at other jobs than in the Army. So it is not "for the money."

Sorry, there's some two syllable words, and even a big three syllable word, but I hope you can handle those.

[NeOmega]

As for the conundrum of fighting a war you don't believe in, I'm in the exact situation right now. I'm about to go over to Iraq in roughly two month. Yes, I am a pawn and have no say in this war or it's consequences. All I can say is that if I found a way out and left the military, someone else would take have to place. All I can do is go do my job and maybe document what I see if I can, as that's the only way I can maybe contribute anything against the war is to be aware of what's going on, ask questions, learn and pass the knowledge on.

Yes, I live in a military town. After a couple of beers I hear this from a lot of dudes. (Not the majority, but alot) Good Luck.

BTW, doesn' the army have some kind of clause where they can keep you indefinitely in cases of emergency? I mean, if they don't institue the draft, and find themselves short handed, couldn't they conceivably keep you for many more years than you enlisted for?

[Thucydides]

BTW, doesn' the army have some kind of clause where they can keep you indefinitely in cases of emergency? I mean, if they don't institue the draft, and find themselves short handed, couldn't they conceivably keep you for many more years than you enlisted for?

Yes, when someone initially signs up for military service they sign up for a total of 8 years, 2-6 being active depending on what you want out of your contract (I signed up for 4 years), and the rest being spent in aninactive reserve. Inactive reserves can be called up to become active in emergencies, but while their inactive all they need is a way to contact you. A bigger problem though is stop loss, which is where they decide not to let you leave on the normal date you leave because of emergency situation, although I believe it's based off the same clause. This happen for certain jobs after 9/11 but has since been rescinded.

Anyway, it appears the Army is actually surpassing it's recruitment and retention goals right now. Whether it's because of the poor economy, a general feeling of patriotism, the new snappy ad campaign, or even a feeling that people are getting to do their job in some cases, for whatever reason the army has avoided so far what seems to happens after every major conflict, a slump in retention and recruitment. If it keeps up for the next 14 months I should have no problem getting out, and once I'm out It's possible but much less likely I'll get dragged back into active duty.