U.S. commander decries Iraq timetable

[one...two...tree 2,762]

JROTC is a good program and they aren't the only ones marching in HS. I wasn't in JROTC in HS but I joined CAP (Civil Air Patrol) and we learned how to march, wore uniforms, etc. Young teenagers need to feel they belong to something (sports, music, etc). JROTC is one of those ways.

Also want to add that (ROTC) is in preparation for becoming an officer as opposed to being enlisted. So the focus of the training is in leadership as well as preparing the trainees for the military.

Thank you Steven.

However.... I am against the recruiters being on the HS campuses. I don't think they should be talking to the kids who are under 18.

Didn't hurt me any. I did the delayed enlistment and got the school I wanted after boot camp. I also got E-4 rank after Navy school was done. It was a really great deal for me. It's like anything else. If you don't like it then don't do it. But please don't make that decision for others.

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Ah. In the schools around here they make them take PE PLUS whatever activities they're in. I think your school district has an idea there.

But with JROTC the marching is only part of it. Maybe that part could serve as gym and the rest could be done after school?

Perhaps. I attended HS in Arizona and the area had a huge population of Mormons. They had a building that was across the street from the campus where the students would go and study their religion. I could be wrong, but I think students were essentially able to go during school by signing up for a 'free' period. But again, it was off campus.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[DeadPoolX 9]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

[GaryC 7]

JROTC is a good program and they aren't the only ones marching in HS. I wasn't in JROTC in HS but I joined CAP (Civil Air Patrol) and we learned how to march, wore uniforms, etc. Young teenagers need to feel they belong to something (sports, music, etc). JROTC is one of those ways.

Also want to add that (ROTC) is in preparation for becoming an officer as opposed to being enlisted. So the focus of the training is in leadership as well as preparing the trainees for the military.

Thank you Steven.

However.... I am against the recruiters being on the HS campuses. I don't think they should be talking to the kids who are under 18.

Didn't hurt me any. I did the delayed enlistment and got the school I wanted after boot camp. I also got E-4 rank after Navy school was done. It was a really great deal for me. It's like anything else. If you don't like it then don't do it. But please don't make that decision for others.

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

If your under-age then the parents must sign. I joined when I was 17 and my father had to meet with the recruiter to give his permission. If he didn't want me to join I couldn't. What is wrong with talking anyway? It's not like they are tying you down and forcing the kids to listen. They just set up a table in the gym and if you want to talk then you could. If you didn't want to talk then no one forced you. It's giving the opportunity for the information, not forcing it on them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

[GaryC 7]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

Oh trust me Steven, they WANT you to finish HS before you join. In fact it was a requirement for what I wanted to do. They told me in no uncertain terms that if I dropped out or didn't get my degree then the deal was off. They don't just want bodies, they want people that can think.

[Sinergy 3]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

There are MANY undergraduates in our military today, and they do just as good a job or sometimes better than ones who are graduates. my father for example was an undergraduate, and for 30 yrs made one hell of a tank commander. retired with more stripes, metals and honors that most of the men he was with who were graduates.

oh yea and he can think very well!!

just bc you dont graduate, does not mean you can not think, or are any less useful to join the military. it sickens me to see such things said. no one said you need to be a freakin rocket scientist to join the military, if that was the case, wed have hardly no military at all!!!

Let me also add, that while my father was in the army for 30 years, he was the one who was protecting you, your families and your country, while you sit here and state he can not think and is JUST a body due to being an undergraduate. way to show appreciation to your veterns and service men and women who are undergraduates!!!

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ionescu

[GaryC 7]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

There are MANY undergraduates in our military today, and they do just as good a job or sometimes better than ones who are graduates. my father for example was an undergraduate, and for 30 yrs made one hell of a tank commander. retired with more stripes, metals and honors that most of the men he was with who were graduates.

oh yea and he can think very well!!

just bc you dont graduate, does not mean you can not think, or are any less useful to join the military. it sickens me to see such things said. no one said you need to be a freakin rocket scientist to join the military, if that was the case, wed have hardly no military at all!!!

Let me also add, that while my father was in the army for 30 years, he was the one who was protecting you, your families and your country, while you sit here and state he can not think and is JUST a body due to being an undergraduate. way to show appreciation to your veterns and service men and women who are undergraduates!!!

First of all please thank your father for his service. I really do appreciate what he did. If you are referring to my comment I in no way wanted to infer that someone that does not graduate can't think. I was just relating what I experienced when I joined. They test you up one side and down the other before during and after boot-camp. The military isn't just guns and guts anymore. It is very high-tech.

[Sinergy 3]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

There are MANY undergraduates in our military today, and they do just as good a job or sometimes better than ones who are graduates. my father for example was an undergraduate, and for 30 yrs made one hell of a tank commander. retired with more stripes, metals and honors that most of the men he was with who were graduates.

oh yea and he can think very well!!

just bc you dont graduate, does not mean you can not think, or are any less useful to join the military. it sickens me to see such things said. no one said you need to be a freakin rocket scientist to join the military, if that was the case, wed have hardly no military at all!!!

Let me also add, that while my father was in the army for 30 years, he was the one who was protecting you, your families and your country, while you sit here and state he can not think and is JUST a body due to being an undergraduate. way to show appreciation to your veterns and service men and women who are undergraduates!!!

First of all please thank your father for his service. I really do appreciate what he did. If you are referring to my comment I in no way wanted to infer that someone that does not graduate can't think. I was just relating what I experienced when I joined. They test you up one side and down the other before during and after boot-camp. The military isn't just guns and guts anymore. It is very high-tech.

exactly, and i was just making it clear, that a graduate OR undergraduate, if you can pass the tests they give you, then you are more than good enough to be in the military, the way you worded what you were trying to say was the opposite and the reason i took offense and i apologize if i was rude.

[GaryC 7]

exactly, and i was just making it clear, that a graduate OR undergraduate, if you can pass the tests they give you, then you are more than good enough to be in the military, the way you worded what you were trying to say was the opposite and the reason i took offense and i apologize if i was rude.

No problem, I am sorry if I miss-spoke. I am a STRONG supporter of our military and I am deeply grateful for their service. The sacrifices they make is what keeps this country free.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, it's just a consistency thing for me. I wouldn't want any adults whose job is to recruit people talking to my kids while they aren't adults about making such important decisions. After they are legally an adult, then I'm fine with that.

Technically...recruiters then could be allowed on high school campuses. Hear me out there: Most high schoolers are 18 at or before graduation. In the U.S., individuals are considered adults at 18 for most purposes (including the military), so if a recruiter was on a high school campus, and spoke to a high school student who was 18, he'd be talking to an adult.

A technicality, to be sure, but it's certainly one that might be used.

If you've ever dealt with a recruiter - the effective ones are like used car salesman. Young, impressionable teenagers don't have the wear-with-all to deal with someone like that, IMO. Even many 18 yr. olds are still wet behind the ears. Perhaps then it should be that the student must be 18 and already a HS graduate. Do we really want undergraduates in our military?

There are MANY undergraduates in our military today, and they do just as good a job or sometimes better than ones who are graduates. my father for example was an undergraduate, and for 30 yrs made one hell of a tank commander. retired with more stripes, metals and honors that most of the men he was with who were graduates.

oh yea and he can think very well!!

just bc you dont graduate, does not mean you can not think, or are any less useful to join the military. it sickens me to see such things said. no one said you need to be a freakin rocket scientist to join the military, if that was the case, wed have hardly no military at all!!!

Let me also add, that while my father was in the army for 30 years, he was the one who was protecting you, your families and your country, while you sit here and state he can not think and is JUST a body due to being an undergraduate. way to show appreciation to your veterns and service men and women who are undergraduates!!!

Today's military is much more dependent on technology for one. Secondly, and honestly, and generally speaking... during your dad's era, people were taught more common sense. That's more a criticism of today's high school students than anything (more people read for one...but that's whole other topic). Look at 30 years ago, a man could make living without a college education. Nowadays, it is much more difficult to do. My grandfather never went to college either. He joined the Army and fought in WWI - he went on to make a decent living as a border patrolmen in Southern Arizona. It's not a condemnation of those who don't finish school but recognizing that our world is much more complicated today than it was 30 years ago, and the military has changed with it.

[Sinergy 3]

agreed, but during the changes in technology over the 30 yrs, tanks changed remarkably, with going from manual run to complete computer ran as they are now. not only did my dad have to learn all this, but when he retired he was the top instructor on Ft. Knox for the M1-A1 and newest tanks and their technology which is in some ways more difficult to run than most super computers. IMO and my point i was making was, for an undergraduate, with all the new technology, he didnt do half bad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

agreed, but during the changes in technology over the 30 yrs, tanks changed remarkably, with going from manual run to complete computer ran as they are now. not only did my dad have to learn all this, but when he retired he was the top instructor on Ft. Knox for the M1-A1 and newest tanks and their technology which is in some ways more difficult to run than most super computers. IMO and my point i was making was, for an undergraduate, with all the new technology, he didnt do half bad.

I'm sure he did well.

I'd compare this to - would your dad had told you to drop out of school and get a job because he did it and made out fine? Generally speaking, staying in school is always best. It doesn't make people smarter, but it does help them to prepare for the real world.

[Sinergy 3]

I do agree with you on that. and no my father never gave me the option of dropping out of school for ANY reason. he did it bc his father became disabled and could no longer provide and it became a priority for him to drop out and take care of his family, later to take care of our family. tho even if i had done it, i do not think he would not have looked down on me at all as he has always allowed me to make my own decisions.

also for the record, i believe you need a GED to even join our military, so technically since a GED is a general education diploma, you still have your degree when you join the military, you just choose to go thru your 4 yrs of high school in a matter of 3-6 months, so even if our "now-a-days" drop outs are joining the military, they still have a high school degree, just in the form of a GED without walking up on stage to recieve that diploma with the rest of their senior class.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ionescu

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary also seems to think that the Patriot Act is a good idea - including the parts that are deliberately ambiguous.

You betcha! We need to be flexable to deal with changing situations. I want the Patriot act strengthend and expanded. You asked me if I like the Patriot act because of the name? I think you don't like it for the same reason.

Since when was ambiguity in legislation considered a strength - unless you count making something open to potential abuse to be a strength

[GaryC 7]

Gary also seems to think that the Patriot Act is a good idea - including the parts that are deliberately ambiguous.

You betcha! We need to be flexable to deal with changing situations. I want the Patriot act strengthend and expanded. You asked me if I like the Patriot act because of the name? I think you don't like it for the same reason.

Since when was ambiguity in legislation considered a strength - unless you count making something open to potential abuse to be a strength

Have you ever seen a law written without ambiguity? They are all like that. This one is no different. I still like the Patriot Act. I want more of it.