Supreme Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

[her209]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think Arguing this topic is pointless. What the Supreme Court ruled is that if you take Fed money, you can't deny them access to recruit... simple as that. If you don't want recruiters on campus don't take the money.

Why is this concept even being debated?

Because the same thing is not true when it comes to hospitals that refuse to provide the "morning after pill".

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

So are you saying that if you don't serve, you're nothing more than a leech?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

Yeah, it's pretty evident that they're standing in line to serve the Bush propaganda machine. That's why the recuriters have to downplay the chances of being sent to Iraq.

So, are you a recuriter?? You sure fit the bill.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
How is that a true statement?

Because females are MUCH less likely to be deployed to a combat zone. This is pretty common knowledge

Your statement is different than the statement she made. Your statement is females get deployed to "combat zones" less than men do. That could mean that a great number of women do get deployed to Iraq, which is an entirely different statement than the one she made.

This is my own standard for what "remote means, I would say that it means less than 5% of active duty women who have been newly recruited have been deployed to Iraq, I don't know what the numbers are, do you ?

From my understanding women are *less* likely to be deployed, but only because pregnancies will delay that and women are not allowed into combar arms positions. The fact that the women above died is just about a fluke as most in Iraq will not be off of a base (and therefore in danger).

Women will be just likely as men to be truck drivers (or any other support role) off base, they just won't be in combat roles. Look at the beginning of the war with all the casulties who were in support companies. Jessica Lynch ring a bell?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

I agree. Been there, done that myself. However, I did it the other way around, service then college. While it seems strange to me that recruiters would even bother trying to recruit at colleges, I am sure there are some that are getting bad grades/running out of money (hmm, seems like a good way to improve recruitment = cutting students loans) who will always join up regardless of the potential risks.

Do they even bother to recruit at predominantly rich, white colleges? Must be a hard sell regardless of who you align yourself with politically. A much harder sell than it was in the wake of 9/11 when some actually still believed that Iraq had something to do with the attacks. As time goes by and we distance ourselves more and more from the dreadful day, recruitment IMO is going to continue to tank as long as the current administration is running the show.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
How is that a true statement?

Because females are MUCH less likely to be deployed to a combat zone. This is pretty common knowledge

Your statement is different than the statement she made. Your statement is females get deployed to "combat zones" less than men do. That could mean that a great number of women do get deployed to Iraq, which is an entirely different statement than the one she made.

This is my own standard for what "remote means, I would say that it means less than 5% of active duty women who have been newly recruited have been deployed to Iraq, I don't know what the numbers are, do you ?

Look at the numbers above, they show that the ratio of men to woman in the military are the same as those in Iraq. Only the death rates are lower, most likely due to being in support roles.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think Arguing this topic is pointless. What the Supreme Court ruled is that if you take Fed money, you can't deny them access to recruit... simple as that. If you don't want recruiters on campus don't take the money.

Why is this concept even being debated?

I'll add my opinion on the op, I have no problem with recruiters having access to federally funded places of education. But, I do believe recruiters need to act in a more ethical manner. I have seen way to many cases, even my own, where the recruiters fudged on the truth or outright lied to how the military works. Recruiters should also not have access to records without the explicit permission of parents of those under 18, or the students who are over 18.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

So are you saying that if you don't serve, you're nothing more than a leech?

that all depends on what you do in lieu of service. There ARE a lot of leeches, yes. But no, that doesnt mean that everyone who doesnt serve is a leech...

then again, my personal opinion is that eveyone should serve their country at some point. I believe that a mandatory 2-3 years of service for every HS graduate would not be a bad thing...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

So are you saying that if you don't serve, you're nothing more than a leech?

that all depends on what you do in lieu of service. There ARE a lot of leeches, yes. But no, that doesnt mean that everyone who doesnt serve is a leech...

then again, my personal opinion is that eveyone should serve their country at some point. I believe that a mandatory 2-3 years of service for every HS graduate would not be a bad thing...

Seig Heil!


:roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

So are you saying that if you don't serve, you're nothing more than a leech?

that all depends on what you do in lieu of service. There ARE a lot of leeches, yes. But no, that doesnt mean that everyone who doesnt serve is a leech...

then again, my personal opinion is that eveyone should serve their country at some point. I believe that a mandatory 2-3 years of service for every HS graduate would not be a bad thing...

And in my personal opinion, I think you should STFU.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with Recruiters on Campus. Most just simply walk right on by them. This is not high school, this is an institution for higher learning. They have had to close 2 offices in my area due to "no takers". You don't need to be in college to know that joining the service during this administration's romp is a wise thing to do. Unless of course you want to end up as cannon fodder.

or perhaps there are some out there who would like to do more for their country than suck off it's teet, bitch, moan, and complain. Perhaps there are some who would like to discover the truth on the ground, in person, and have the courage to do so... perhaps.

So are you saying that if you don't serve, you're nothing more than a leech?

that all depends on what you do in lieu of service. There ARE a lot of leeches, yes. But no, that doesnt mean that everyone who doesnt serve is a leech...

then again, my personal opinion is that eveyone should serve their country at some point. I believe that a mandatory 2-3 years of service for every HS graduate would not be a bad thing...

And in my personal opinion, I think you should STFU.

profound.

GG!

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
How is that a true statement?

Because females are MUCH less likely to be deployed to a combat zone. This is pretty common knowledge

Your statement is different than the statement she made. Your statement is females get deployed to "combat zones" less than men do. That could mean that a great number of women do get deployed to Iraq, which is an entirely different statement than the one she made.

This is my own standard for what "remote means, I would say that it means less than 5% of active duty women who have been newly recruited have been deployed to Iraq, I don't know what the numbers are, do you ?

From my understanding women are *less* likely to be deployed, but only because pregnancies will delay that and women are not allowed into combar arms positions. The fact that the women above died is just about a fluke as most in Iraq will not be off of a base (and therefore in danger).

Even if they are deployed they have a way out not available to any man and during desert storm 1991 I personally knew women that used that option.😉

Pregnant troops leave the war; Central Command not counting

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Even if they are deployed they have a way out not available to any man and during desert storm 1991 I personally knew women that used that option.😉

Pregnant troops leave the war; Central Command not counting

sadly enough, I have seen a few "intentional pregnancies" occur on deployments during the past few years... makes me sick to think about it. I'd rank it up there with intentionally wounding yourself to get out of the field; and, as far as I'm concerned, each of those methods are the ultimate examples of cowardice.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
How is that a true statement?

Because females are MUCH less likely to be deployed to a combat zone. This is pretty common knowledge

Your statement is different than the statement she made. Your statement is females get deployed to "combat zones" less than men do. That could mean that a great number of women do get deployed to Iraq, which is an entirely different statement than the one she made.

This is my own standard for what "remote means, I would say that it means less than 5% of active duty women who have been newly recruited have been deployed to Iraq, I don't know what the numbers are, do you ?

From my understanding women are *less* likely to be deployed, but only because pregnancies will delay that and women are not allowed into combar arms positions. The fact that the women above died is just about a fluke as most in Iraq will not be off of a base (and therefore in danger).

The issue isn't whether or not this woman's death was a fluke, the issue is whether or not she was recruited fairly and honestly ?

It isn't reasonable to expect someone who is still in high school to know that a representative of her government isn't necessarily giving her totally honest information that is in her best interest.

If the military and civilian leadership conducts themselves appropriately, and we citizens treat soldiers and veterans with the respect and compensation they deserve, they don't need to use used car salsman tactics to get people to sign up.

If they do, which I can't say I know one way or the other.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm all for mandatory enlistment as long as it's retroactive to all sitting members of the current administration, as well as their offspring. Somehow, I don't think One-beer dead-eye dickie would go for that. I mean how many times can you get a deferment, I think he's past the point of getting his wife pregnant again to avoid enlistment.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think Arguing this topic is pointless. What the Supreme Court ruled is that if you take Fed money, you can't deny them access to recruit... simple as that. If you don't want recruiters on campus don't take the money.

Why is this concept even being debated?

I'll add my opinion on the op, I have no problem with recruiters having access to federally funded places of education. But, I do believe recruiters need to act in a more ethical manner. I have seen way to many cases, even my own, where the recruiters fudged on the truth or outright lied to how the military works. Recruiters should also not have access to records without the explicit permission of parents of those under 18, or the students who are over 18.

I agree with you 100% but the original decision was to address if the recruiters have a right to be PRESENT on campus, not how they act. That is a totally seperate issue. They have a right to be there if the school accepted Fed $$. That is the entire scope of this issue.

 

[MadRat]

No, the scope of the issue went behind simple access to the school, it included access to student files. Nix the latter and I have no issue with it.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, the scope of the issue went behind simple access to the school, it included access to student files. Nix the latter and I have no issue with it.

great point.... I don't think anybody has brought that up yet.....

What files would/do they have access to though?

 

[kage69]

I have no problem with recruiters having access to campuses to advertise and recruit, but individual info on students is completely unnecessary. We have mandatory Selective Service registration, let's just leave it at that. Recruiter behavior should be codified and enforced though, I've overheard more than a few conversations that crossed some lines.

 

[Tab]

I am actually in favor of upholding military recruiting on campuses, I love it when they bring free pizza to their recruitment sessions. 🙂

 

[imported_PowerPigg]

Originally posted by: conjur
If they're going to be allowed on campus, they should be required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

They lied to two of my daughters' ex-boyfriends and they lied to this young lady (now DEAD):
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Mar/20060305Show001.asp

Universities have no problem with credit card companies bringing their hard sell to campus and tricking thousands of college students to take on irresponsible levels of debt when they otherwise would not have done so.

Therefore, they should not have any problem with army recruiters bringing their own hard sell and tricking thousands of college students into risking their life to warfare when they otherwise would not have done so.

Then again, at least credit card companies give you some small print to foolishly ignore before you sign.

 

[imported_PowerPigg]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: senseamp
Or you could just not talk to military recruiters since they are known to lie.
Frankly if I knew recruiters for a company lied, I would not be talking to that company's recruiters. And of course, if a company recruiter lies, you can quit and find a new job any time, while a military recruiter's lies could take away your freedom to do so for years. These colleges should put big posters at career fairs saying "Warning: Believing a military recruter can be dangerous to your health."

Would you also have them put up a sign that says "Working the graveyard shift at 7-11 could be dangerous to your health"?

The US govt attaches all sorts of strings to Federal Money.
Drinking Age
DWI alcohol percentage...
NCLB
Etc...Etc...

This is nothing new and its done by both parties.

Last I checked, you could quit your 7-11 job at any time if they misrepresented working conditions. If the military recruiter lies about working conditions, you are still their slave for your enlistment period. So the consequences of recruiter lies are very different in the two cases.
And there is nothing that says school cannot put warning posters about military recruiters if it accepts federal money. Only that it must allow those recruiters on campus. I think it would be borderline negligent for schools to not warn their students to read the contract carefully and not automatically believe what the recruiter is saying.

You would think that any student that has the brains/connections to get to a college should have an ounce of common sense.

If you honestly believe it takes *any* common sense to go to college, you are a fool. Tricking college students is as simple as shooting fish in a barrel, only the latter has the added cost of ammunition.

Common sense and intelligence are two completely different things.