How far will the Army go?

because of its nature, has both ethical and unethical people in it. Some areas attract unethical people more than others, but its a generalization to say that all army recruiters are unethical, or to infer that this is common.

James

The recruiters ARE the face of the Army, they are the representatives of America's military.

Just as Bush is the face of the Republican Party and all that goes on within it. They screw up and he's the public's fall guy, he chose to run for that opportunity and was elected the representative, therefore also assuming responsibility.

But you are right, this doesn't generalize ALL recruiters, but it does fall into the genralization of the US Army.

by dc_guy May 2, 2005

If the citizenry of a country is so unsupportive of its army's endeavors that the army can't recruit enough citizens to keep these endeavors going, isn't it time to question whether it's time to cancel the endeavors or at least curtail them?

The only "better way to recruit more soldiers" would be conscription, which is as reprehensible as the things they're already doing.

America should be putting its efforts into getting the workforce to telecommute. Just getting the majority of us off the freeways -- the majority who have no earthly reason to "go to work" because we already have a computer and a telephone at home (duh) -- would cut our oil consumption in half.

Less dependence on imported oil? Bingo! Suddenly all the smoke screens about democracy and women's rights in the Middle East would blow away and it would become politically correct to state that every sovereign nation should be free to direct its own future. Which, if you all remember, is what we used to scream at the British and French during the era of de-colonialization.

by tbragsda May 2, 2005

As for everyone telecommuting, I do know people, including myself, who have had that opportunity. It DOES work in some/very few cases.

Too many companies would suffer tremendous loss of productivity, and efficiency. NO a home telephone does not replace a business line, unles syou only have a single line you use at the office. a second over-ringing line doesn't work either.

When I moved away from the office a few years ago, it was mainly because their larget client was on the island and it made sense for SOMEONE to be there. I also had VERY expensive lines and a OPBX installed for it to all work properly though.

So I see it failing in MOST cases for two reasons,

1) Lack of production/efficiency
2) Client equipment costs

by absolutely May 2, 2005

Yes, real problems deserve real solutions, while ideological problems should be addressed with ideas. If women's rights in Muslim countries are such a big deal now, why was there no government spending on suffragette campaigns in the past 5 decades? If the CIA had been conducting Black Ops to liberate the oppressed Muslim women, I'm sure the "kill everyone but the fetus" party would have told us about it by now. To paraphrase the fabulously quotable Dan Quayle, demagoguery has no place in our society!

by jdclyde May 2, 2005

or discussion because you had honestly heard about this before this three day old article came out?

Some people delight in making the military look bad as often as possible. Is that the case here? Sure looks that way.

"the overall credibility of the country is seriously lacerated" as you stated in another post shows you understand that and intentionally further that damaging of the credibility just because you do not like the current administration.

It is always pathetic politics to make everything look as bad as possible because what is bad for the country and current administration is good for the party that is not in power.

Think before you look for reasons to make people look bad, and make sure your hurting the right people for the right reason.

by aldanatech May 2, 2005

I actually overhead it from a guy in a conversation early today. (Gee, sorry for using "recently" instead) Maybe that guy is the kind of people that delight in making the military look bad as often as possible. Never the less, I decided to confirm it, because if there is anything like that is happening in our military then it should be addressed and solved as soon as possible. Who did you think I was hoping to hurt? The military in general? No. The report doesn't say that every recruitant does that, but any single recruitant that does it should be stopped. Don't you agree?

I watched the report last night about interrogation at Guantanamo.

The source was a book and interview from one of the military intelligence interogators, and from emails the FBI released(the FBI was very concerned that the military was ruining potential information sources). They alledged that there was physical torture(bound in the fetal position for 24 hours, gagged with duct tape etc) as well as psychological torture - making them feel unclean so they wouldn't be able to pray by women touching them provacatively, pretending to touch them with menstral blood.

Put that in context, these recruiters were trying to assist those who wanted into the army. the prisoners at Guantanamo, they just want out.

James

by jdclyde May 2, 2005

Yes, in this ONE case there was a bad recruiter and he should be nailed to the wall over this.

My questions came as the tone of the original post made it sound as if this was a wide spread problem rather than a single "sales rep" doing anything to get a bonus.

I then went and looked at some of your previous discussions to get an idea of where you are coming from and saw you have many anti-bush posts, thus I asked for you to make a gut check to make sure you are posting this because you feel this practice must never happen again or if it is just another dig at the administration.

Your tone of this and other posts led me to suspect leaning towards the later, but have withheld judgement for now.

This isn't to try to provoke you, or to attack your politics. Just to make sure you are honest with yourself and others here as to why you did the post in the first place.

by dr dij May 2, 2005

see Oz post - the story may be less than honest.

by dc_guy May 3, 2005

I know you weren't talking about me, but I'm a Libertarian. I have equal disdain for both Conferences of the Republicrat League. The Clinton administration that perpetrated the outrages at Ruby Ridge and Waco is not substantively different from its successor.

The only difference between the Dems and the GOP is that one wants to take away our money first while the other wants to start with our civil liberties, but both want to dispossess us of both. They have come so close to achieving their objectives that they're both just cleaning up the few leftovers, small piles of money and a few pesky rights.

of the media? Quite frankly, since 9/11 the media has really been beating up America and Bush's policies. Now I am not a fan of Bush, but I think it looks pretty bad for American's because the media goes to town on anything negative to report.

In response to your posting, I wonder how much of people's attitude toward the military is because of the negative media stories that appear to outnumber the positive stories.

I'm kinda sick and tired of this idea that the media is picking on the president.

Like thats never happened before.

I was a child of the 60s. But I can remember the media taking on Richard Nixon pretty hard, even before Watergate broke. I remember them making fun of Ford. I remember them crucifying Carter. I remember that Reagan had a bit of a honeymoon, but in the second term, they tore into him. They also took on Bush Sr. They loved Clinton for a while, then went after him like piranha.

No president gets a free ride. The media isn't left or right, its for ratings and advertising revenue. It spans the spectrum. Fox isn't left, CBS isn't right. They aren't picking on the president, their job is to be critical of whoever is in office, because thats how they get ratings.

James

HAven't viewed the link YET, but my first thought is to create more poverty in the USA, the US Army has always been seen as America's answer to the welfare system.

As for 'Clean-pee', 'Goldenseal' 'XXXtra Clean' etc. That stuff's been used for many years, to pass drug tests for all government, and now other positions. How do you think Bush got into office? :D

Service members and contracts regularly have to take drug tests, so you are talking about the same folks taking golden seal.

Is it right to do it? No. Is it done? Yes. Can you stop it? No.

That isn't to say the recruiter shouldn't be nailed (a nice field grade AR15 should clear things up), but it is so common that I'm not surprised.

I worked at a company that WANTED to drug test one year, after much unrest, the tests were done volountarily.

The guy in charge of implementing the tests was a P/T marijuana dealer (someone who is merely a smoker and buys quantity to save money and then resells some at a cut rate to friends, not for profit though).

He actually offered to supply P-clean drugs to anyone who needed to pass the test, he was in charge of bringing about. Most people didn't take the test, HE did but only after a weeks detox. He then said there would be no further tests done unles son new employees and they would be given two weeks notice so they can detox if needed.

It was a MAJOR ocean freight company so it looked goo din their record to have government cleared and rug free employees. Yet nobody had government clearance (well a few did like the security guards I suppose) nor could most pass an impromptu drug test. But the press looks good anyway.

Thought it was Saturday night though, how time flies!

But to dismiss acts of wrongdoing on your own soil (I think that's what you meant to do) to focus on others is not a solution, is it?

There have been bad recruiters as long as there has been a military. English used to press gang, others draft, its all bad.

But the scale is different. The recruiter in question did some bad things to help some boys get into the army....not great but not a civil rights abuse - these kids wanted in, and the recruiter helped them break the rules. But thats not as bad as the recuiters getting kids in by lying to them.

James

I wasn't really sure what your intent was other than TWO WRONGS??

But I have since watched the tape, and agree that while it is reprimandable, the Army is reacting exactly as would be expected by any reliable organization. It is aware of and investigating the issue. How is this then to be seen as a red mark on the Army's record?

It's hardly newsworthy, it's like saying;

"How far will the SCHOOLS go?"

A 15 year old kid was being allowed to smoke in class by his grade 5 teacher!
And then reporting that the school is investigating the teacher and apaulled at the information.

Uh yeah, so where's the news? The school denied it? They encouraged it?

by it_lobo May 2, 2005

Pisses me off. You are judging the Army as a whole by one dishonest recruiter.

Using the Army to push your Anti-bush rhetoric brings down all the brave men and woman serving in the Army.

If you can read this, Thank a teacher!

If you can read this in English, THANK A SERVICE MEMBER!!!

....the government, or the army, then you no longer have democratic rights.

James

It is NOT appropriate to critisize the US Army and the Government because of the actions of ONE man who broke the rules and is getting punished.

If he had orders and this was wide spread as a practice then go after the organization. It isn't so don't.

I expected better from you.

He hasn't JUDGED the Army as a whole. The title is straight from the article, not contrived by the poster.

I think your own 'generalization' was FAR more out of line then the original poster's.

Anti-Bush rhetoric?

Anything said against a political issue is too easily dismissed as Anti-Bush rhetoric, it has nothing to do with Bush, he was never mentioned. It's YOUR Pro-Bush rhetoric that makes you blind to the issue. In fact you have not commented at ALL on the issue, which IS an issue even those who you deem GOD's are taking very seriously.

Now if THEY had told the kid or CBS4 that it was dismissable Anti-bush rhetoric, then you WOULD have a major problem in your military.

The fact that the military officers obviously don't think as you do, is exactly WHY this issue will be resolved, instead of ignored and thrown back as rhetorical BS.

Very clever demonstration of who SHOULDN'T be in charge anyway.

Are you not able to see ANY flaw in a system that you deem ideal? Has your government or military made no mistakes and anyone accusing them of such is purely Anti-Bush?

Wake up and smell the fart, Republican's s**t stinks just as bad as the rest of them.

or to put it in your words;
"BAAAA BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAA, BA BAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA."

by absolutely May 2, 2005

As is any utterance other than: "My country right or wrong!" or "Anything for petroleum!"

BAAAA!

Wow, I have read some of your post in the past and thought you read into them, but this one takes the cake. I am not a Rep or Dem, I could give a crap about either one. I will ALWAYS err on the side of the soldiers, if that is wrong, then I am wrong. No one needs our support more then the men and woman who put there lives on the line, NOT THE OFFICER WHO SIT IN TENTS AND DRINK COFFEE AND DECIDE WHICH ENLISTED IS GOING TO DIE TODAY. I know there are problems in the military, I am not blind.

I see you have jump right back on me for not reason but to make yourself seem high and mighty.

I am not impressed.

The recruiter who did this should be punished, but not used to soil the name of the US Army.

Waiting on your post to tell me how wrong I am and how you know better then anyone else.

You are also forgetting the people that log on and then proceed to not do work. While surfing the web and checking your stocks kills productivity at work it is 10,000 times worse with most telecommuters.

Another problem is that broadband isn't cheap enough for companies to absorb the cost. Until dark fiber drops in price, it just isn't going to financially viable for these companies to have everyone telecommuning.

First of all this is a jounalism student, creative writer most likely.

While the tapes are seemingly real, there is a flaw in what is said.

First of all they say he CONTACTED (not specifically 'visited') the Recruiting center and he has a recorded conversation of a PHONE call where he was told to get a fake diploma. He is then asked for his reaction to the information OVER THE PHONE, to which he says he was amazed because he was
"...sitting there looking at a poster that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect' and he is telling me to lie."

Are we to assume he has army recruiting posters on his wall? What other explanation is there? He wasn't IN the recruiting office when he heard the suggestion,it was tape recorded over the phone, not while sitting in the recruiting office."

As for passing a marijuana test, who are they trying to kid, has everyone forgoten Vietetnam or even WWII where smoking marijuana was just another way of coping and relaxing off duty?

The recruiting officer did hesitate when he heard 'drug problem' but brushed it off when he heard marijuana. I can only guess at the immense number of troops in America's, Canada's, England's and even Iraq's army that smoke marijuana or hashish but I am sure it is well into the tens of thousands.

One point that needs to be addressed is the army's reaction to such a story, even if 'in the know' at one point, those interviewed were EXTREMELY adamant about stopping this and stating that it is not acceptable behaviour.

Now if they DIDN'T give a damn, or denied it, then it wouldbe different. But their reactions to the allegations are exactly what any upstanding army SHOULD have, they will investigate and put an end to it. What mroe can you ask for other than action to repress it?

Anyway, he's got his 5 minutes of semi-fame, he won't be joining the US army any time soon, and the Army is aware of and apparently addressing the issue. Done deal....next!

by roger99a May 2, 2005

Maybe he just assumed the guy didn't inhale. It's kind of hard to reject a marijuana smoker when US voters elected one for President.

I have heard stories that one way to escape prison in the old days was to volunteer for the Army. Minor offenses of course.

Down on your luck?
Need a life?
Have no skills or employable abilities?
Need some government dough?

Join the Army!

Now, in defense of those soldiers who ARE there to pretect what they believe in, I have complete respect for any soldier in practically any force of any country, but the US Army recruits en-mass, a little hard to conduct any reasonable quality assurance that's for sure.

I wouldn't say it is completely fictional, but perhaps elaborative. Maybe his comments are a little elaborated for drama. "sitting there looking at the poster on the wall"? Nice impact but I don't think it sits well with the rest of the story.

Either way, the army is taking it seriously, or at least they say they are, so what more can you want from them?

The story seems a little off. Having gone through it a for a second time it seems a little like Chicken Little.

While this could be a problem, it might very well be someone trying to make a story of a non-issue.

by roger99a May 2, 2005

In spite of the mass recruiting, it's still a pretty good army, and the folks that go in usually come out better for it. Except their knees and backs.

I served with a guy that had the IQ of a coconut. He was pretty slow, but he rose through the ranks (god knows how) and eventually became a NCO. While in theory this isn't so bad, he was high enough up the chain to cause problems.

Once he was on one of our dipole antenna and was up near the actual wire. He screamed to me to key the mic (to see if he "fixed" the problem). While I was tempted to push 10,000 volts through his body, I didn't.

The point? There are a lot ofpeople in the military that are too stupid to live. Darwin will have his way eventually, but in the mean time they are serving.

Now this isn't to say everyone in the military is dumb. Quite a few of the folks I served with were just there for the college money.

by garion11 May 2, 2005

Maybe its just me...but I work out of my house and I have never worked harder or ENJOYED it more. In fact, I will never go back to an office job if I can help it, ever. From talking to other people who have done telecommuting, they state that they do more work when working from home then they do by going into the office.

You are right it takes a certain kind of worker personality to be efficient when working from home, but I think its a majority that have this personality than a minority as you suggested (I don't think they know that).

Although it depends on the job, with current high speed access, cell phone/pager/blackberry, and a business line a company can achieve efficiency much more than you think. In fact they can save lots of money by saving on electricity, etc.

Client equipment costs: Not sure what you mean here...unless it is a specific job related issue.

I believe telecommuting would work with greater gains in productivity and efficiency while reducing costs for companies, its only a matter of time before this is implemented.

Any business with half a clue would never allow you to work from your home on your home system that the kids are using to P2P and get game hacks on. How about a firewall? Of course the business should insist on there being a hardware firewall between work system and the internet. The more coherent ones will not even allow the home systems on the same lan as the work PC because of all the trojans that can hope over a lan now.

Then there is the added expense of liability. What if you have an accident while working at home? There have already been cases where the employee can go against the employer over an environment that they can't control.

Productivity. Which will you work quicker on, a 100baseT line in the office or a 3M cable modem with all the VPN encryption overhead and internet traffic knocking that bandwidth in half for usable width?

I look back at many jobs and even in the office I see a difference in the way people work when the boss is around compaired to when they aren't. If they went to no supervision, MOST of them would be useless within a month.

I would say [b]you are the exception,[/b] not the rule. Most people are followers, not leaders.

Yes, I drive an hour each way everyday plus traffic and weather. Then if I have to go to a remote location it goes up to three hours each way and it is just for the day.

I have a pretty busy multiline telephone system, when the last company I worked for installed it, they paid well over $14K to have lines run up here.

I know I am pretty remote, but even some homes on the edges of Vancouver needs serious line upgrades and multi-line services that a single blackberry, or standard residential over-ringing line just won't handle.

I lucked out because I worked for a telephone company, cabling and installation is just time and materials. I HAD two PBX's at home, now have kept one for my own business. But there's no hope that I could survive on standard residential line service and a 2 or 4 line phone.

So people in busier positions will require multiline telephone systems to communicate with each other. This would then become an EXTREMELY expensive system if shared between several employees to increase efficiency as it would then all need to be networked from either smaller KSU's at people's homes or installing full systems for each.

Otherwise you lose ALL of the fatures that makes a business telephone system valuable, PROPER caller ID (not that telco shite), PROPER Voice Mail (not that Telco shite), Proper VoIP (not that bridging crappo), 4-digit extension dialling? (Good luck! for less than 40K for every couple of employees), Direct transfer, whisper paging, Conference calling etc. Would all become a HUGE and extremely expensive issue, and no, the stuff the telco offers as a line bundle isn't even in the same balpark to what I am referring to (that even the most inexpensive and commonly used Key System offers).

So equipment costs rise, maintenance of that equipment rises too. Productivity FOR SOME will increase but only short term in many cases, it's too easy to NEED to do something really important all the time. Tax breaks for offices would disappear, write offs would be abused and the whole personal income tax system starts ro crumble.

It would be next to impossible to properly manage, fire, train someone and costly when you did.

As I said, for SOME employees in specific positions, it makes sense. For MOST employees in MOST positions, it would be unmanagable, expensive as hell and simply NOT effective at all.

For someone such as yourself who probably doesn't have two or three lines ringing all day, doesn't need to conference several employees a few times a day, doesn't need to have fast extension dialling and direct call transfers, it must seem so easy to work from home, but when you add in all the others, it is no longer feasible at all.

by roger99a May 3, 2005

This a knee jerk reaction that has been conditioned in the far right advocates. Some liberal journalist is likely to grab this kind of story and run with it without bothering to investigate or verify it in an effort to villify the military or the President. In many cases the facts don't matter as much as the seriousness of the charge. Happens all the time. Remember those forged documents that made the 6 o'clock news?

Some of the most critical people I know of the armed forces are ex soldiers.

On the 60 minutes piece, the most effective critic was a retired colonel who specialized in intelligence gathering.

Now, let me be clear, when I say critical of the government or the army, I don't mean the foot soldier or the government clerk - I mean the people making decisions, more to the point, the ones making bad ones.

James

by dbertsche May 3, 2005

Good Post, I have noticed the same things you've pointed out relative to this individual. I noticed he hasn't responded to your post yet.

will find many ways to push it.

I tried to question this without making it a personal attack, but i have never been the most sensitive person in the world so it may not have gone well?

I don't think Aldanatech expected people to look at pervious posts before responding to know what point they are coming from.

Oh well. If they have an agenda, at least be honest about it (for a change). This is the very type of thing that cost Kerry the election last time and will cost the election next time because the propaganda and paranoya is just getting worse.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=wE5VroOBbq&isbn=006050532X&itm=2

Well I myself am known to despise Bush, and while I haven't agreed with all of the democratic issues either, and I do see some pretty radical lefties here, I still get blamed for the exact same thing regarding ANY issue about the current administration.

Aldanatech KNOWS everyone see's him as Anti-Bush, IF he was, IF he DID have an agenda, how does that detract AT ALL from the actions of these recruiters?

Whether you are pro or anti-Bush, makes no difference. This is an issue the US Army has deemed worthy of further investigation too, therefore does this then make THEM Anti-Bush? Do the military officials interviewed have an agenda?

NO.

It is a separate and isolated incident, no matter how people think of Bush, THIS has nothing to do with him nor the Republican administration.

Thus any speculation of the intent is purely irrelevant.

by fluxit May 3, 2005

The Armed Forces have had a serious recruiting problem for years and its getting worse. None of the services are able to reach thier recruiting goals. The Navy has had as much as 70% turn over in the first couple of years of enlistment. After trying a variety of legitimate efforts to boost numbers the services I think have concluded that citizens for the most part do not want to serve.

So they are turning to more automated methods of warfighting using remotely piloted vehicles (RPV's) and unmanned airborne vehicles (UAV's). This is to be followed by robotics and employment of nanotechnologies. Its the nanotech stuff that will advance minaturization, asynchronous computing, and biological computers eventually leading to AI that controls the robots.

While much of that is far off in the future the advent of the RPV and UAV are very real. During the last war many of these systems were in use being tested in the battlespace. It has lead to a reduction in combat forces but there still remains the need for occupational forces. Even at that we turned a large amount over to the Iraqi people.

It is bothersome to me that US citizens are so unwilling to serve thier country in the Armed Forces. On the horizon is 'red sky in the morning' or the potential for massive conflict as the East ascends into power.

by dc_guy May 3, 2005

"It is bothersome to me that US citizens are so unwilling to serve thier country in the Armed Forces. On the horizon is 'red sky in the morning' or the potential for massive conflict as the East ascends into power."

Wrong on two counts. First, US citizens always prove themselves ready to serve their COUNTRY when necessary. What they're unwilling to do is serve HALLIBURTON CORP.

Second, there is a huge grass-roots movement for moderation and peace in the Middle East. This includes a kind of secularization that European Christians might not recognize as such but nonetheless would keep an Ayatollah Khomeini or a Taliban from ever gaining power.

The reasons that the Middle East seems so close to attacking us are legion, but many of them are of our own (the West's and later the Soviets') making. The "colonization" of proud ancient civilizations never sits well. During the Cold War the leaders of most Middle East nations were for all practical purposes appointed from either Washington or Moscow. Treating them as petro-banana republics doesn't help either. Remember Bush begging the Iraqi army not to shoot up any oil fields on their retreat?

One of the foremost reasons that young men grow up willing to be suicide bombers is that groups like Al Qaeda are virtually the only ones who build schools in the region. Parents have a choice of raising their boys without an education at all or taking a chance on what might be a Taliban training camp.

Support the Central Asia Project. It's an American endeavor. People go to places like Pakistan and Afghanistan and build schools that teach values we can support -- and it's in their charter that they must admit girls.

An educated female populace is the key to peace in any society.

by fluxit May 3, 2005

For nearly 20 years the US Military has been struggling with recruitment rarely making thier numbers. Granted following 911 there was a brief recruitment boom but that has subsided and we returned to the continuing struggle to meet the numbers. The Navy especially has been experiencing very high turn over rates in the first couple of years of enlistment. Efforts to curve this have generally failed.

US Citizens despite patriotic talk fail to demonstrate a willingness to serve long term or even serve at all. There are countless times I heard men hiding behind thier wife remarking, "I'd go but my wife won't let me." Many women just say, 'ehhhew!'

As for the middle east democratizing, I am not certain what that has to do with US citizens serving other than there is a huge shortage of people all through the war and following it. They need Civilians, Military, and contractors but there just seems to be not enough? Coincidentally, Democracy comes directly from the Judeo/Christian Bible - Islam is in direct denial of Judeo/Christian values. So thier style of Democracy will be very different than that in the US.

As for the Homocide bombers, you should read 'Terror In The Name of God'. The madrassah's instill a violent idiology in those Islamic generations but it seems that they get the bombers from societal rejects, brainwash them for 48 hrs with religious readings, then send them out. The bombers are young low income males generally who have no future in the Arab world.

Another interesting book is 'The World Is Flat'. In this book it discusses education and its importance in societies. According the book the US is falling away and Asia is on the rise as a global power.

'Red sky in the morning - sailor take warning. Red sky at night - sailors delight' is an old axiom.

It is too easy for people to bother you or for you to just distract yourself if you are home instead of at work.

On days that I would have to work from home testing remote access I would not be able to tell the Ex as she thought this meant I could run some errand for her and take her out to lunch. Hello? Working here? I could NOT work full time from home. There is just too much internet porn out there just begging to get looked at!

by dc_guy May 3, 2005

The fact that telecommuting is basically workable is a no-brainer. Human beings have worked for themselves under their own control for millennia. This current lunacy in which everyone spends two hours a day or more moving themselves back and forth across the landscape in order to do whatever they do in a large group is an aberration. It's the Industrial Era pardigm lingering on into the Post-Industrial Era, and it doesn't work.

Yes, not everyone has the discipline to work hard. Throughout most of history those people would simply have faced the choice of cleaning up their act and starving to death. Unsurprisingly, most people discover that they have discipline when the alternative is death or just losing a good job. One of the most basic people skills that every good manager must have in order to do his job at all is to just KNOW whether his people are working. It doesn't matter where they are. Managers who have to see their staff in order to know whether they're productive are incompetent and their staff will easily fool them.

Yes, many homes have distractions. There's a solution to every version of this problem. Family thinks you're off duty? Turn one room into your office, close the door, and make it clear that it opens only for breaks or emergencies. Families learn and adapt, soon you won't need the sign and they'll be able to visit you as often as your noisy, disruptive coworkers do in the office. Personally I find just having my dogs with me is such a boost to morale and inner peace that my focus and productivity improve despite any and all other distractions.

No technological resources? It costs your employer an amount greater than your salary in overhead to keep you working. A huge portion of that is the real estate upon which your office sits. Sell it off and move to a downsized building, the proceeds will keep you in Buck Rogers technology for the rest of your life.

No, telephony is not a substitute for the occasionally necessary face-to-face meeting. But most of them are NOT necessary, just once again the result of managers with no people skills. A webcam with videoconferencing does an adequate job for most of us. You need three screens: your own workstation, videoconference, and documents under discussion. Problem solved for finite costs. The poorest company can afford broadband for what they're spending on janitorial services alone.

Of course not EVERY job can be telecommuted, just as not EVERY job can be performed in an office. There will always be a portion of the population who has to travel to do their work. But that's a far cry from EVERYBODY. If only the people who really need to be on the road were on the road, there would be no traffic jams, no urban crowding and sprawl, no dependence on foreign oil, and no need for every family to own three or four automobiles.

Ergo my original conclusion, telecommuting would make unnecessary the lies about why we have to have troops in the Mideast.

BTW, if energy weren't such a critical issue, we might get them to abolish Daylight Saving Time too.

That's not a business line service you are going to get at hoe that actually works as well as a business communications system.

YOU may be in a position where one phone, a cell or pager will suffice to get the information back and forth.

IF the receptionist was also workign from her home, she would then need a KSU and multiline DSS console for handling calls. In order to transfer those calls, efficiently, she would then need all of teh staff to have linked systems, again with multi-line phones. This would cost more than building a brand new facility in the long run.

Then you have the issue of networks, in order to maintain your security standards you would have to install separate computers and allowable software for all home users, then monitor and maintain it remotely from the IT managers home. Oterwise you wouldbe dictating what people can use on their home PC's, alowing them to use whatever P2P software they choose and download as they please.

So whie I agree that SOME workers can work remotely, an entire company (100-3000+ users) would NOT gain any benefit from spending immense sums of money to set up each user with a key system, business telephone lines, a computer and internet connection, firewall, and then the tech's time running all over town (and the suburbs) 24/7 to take care of users.

Given how money hungry most larger employers are these days, if it was even somewhat feasible, they would be all over it. As a person that designs and implements office efficiency upgrades, comunications systems and networks too, I know that this is a ridiculous concept, until they find a better way of converging communications at residences.

The old Centrex platforms of the days of yore MAY have offered a telecom solution, but even that doesn't work for larger companies, nor has the dialling/transfer capabilities required by people NOT in IT positions.

You have to remember, IT is not the only position in teh company, most couldn't live with the barebones equipment used for most IT depts.

Everytime an employee leaves you have to go and reclaim all that equipment, hire a replacement and set the equipment up from scratch at the house of the new employee.

Next week I REALLY do have to go to one of our sales reps houses to set up his wireless network with VPN back to the company as per my bosses orders. It will be about a three hour drive EACH way, and only that much because I will go from my home which is an hour north of my work.

Will need to go pick up some new tunes for that road trip. Looking at taking my boys along as a late "take your kids to work" day as on the actual day I was going to be stuck in my office all day fixing spreadsheets for the accounting department. Not much of a day for them to see.

During the summer I take them when I go on the road trips and have them help me. How many kids do you know that by the time they were 11, had built and configured their own computer, can do cable runs AND know the color order for Cat5b and can make the cables up to code? Such a cool thing.

by aldanatech May 3, 2005

Although I do disagree with many of this administration's policies, rest assured that this discussion's sole purpose is to address a specific issue. Don't worry. I don't feel you try to provoke me or that you attack my politics. I am open-minded and your comments are as welcome as from any other.

It might be worth having a go at, but when your post is nothing but false assertions and poor assumptions, how can someone offer a fair reply?

YOu went off on a rail at Aldanatech for Anti-bush rhetoric. My point is, ANYONE how criticizes the Army or government is accused of AntiBush rehatoric and the claims are too quickly dismissed, making the original poster look like the fiend, not the issue being addressed. This would then qualify as 'Pro-Bush' rhetoric. Anyone that says some thing negative about ANY arm of facet of the government is deemed Anti-Bush, that is rhetorical in itself, not to mention bloody tiring ('our leaders do no wrong' mentality, BS).

What Aldanatech brought up was not Anti-Bush rhetoric at all, it was a clear commment based on current events.

You flamed him , and brushed it off as slanderous, instead of even mentioning your thoughts on an issue that was clearly a serious concern of the military themselves.

THat mentality helps nobody, it just pulls woolover the eyes and shoots the messenger, instead of agreeing that there was/is a very serios problem with the recruiting center detailed in teh report, if not others.

How can you dismiss such issues so flippantly?

Do you even read my post anymore or just assume they are ripe for your attacts?

Recuiters are under alot of pressure to meet certain quotas. If this guys ends up getting an Article 15 out of the whole mess then there should be an investigation of the recruitment system as a whole. Recruiters have been spinning lies and "helping" substandard people into the military since the dawn of time.

All the origanal posted was doing is to perpetuate false notions people have about the military.

Just because my view of the military does not match your does not mean I am wrong, nor are you wrong. We just sit on diffent sides.

The recruiter is to blame, why make it an issue of the Army as a whole? He has other post which show how anti-bush he is and using the Army to continue his attacts should not be tolerated.

Saying I am pro or anti Bush without knowing who I am is a leaping assumption to say the least. I am pro soldier, I hate to see soldiers used as political pawns.

Proof I read your post.

"Recuiters are under alot of pressure to meet certain quotas. "
No they aren't, watch the video clips.
"Sir, listen...it doesn't matter what the quotas are. It doesn't matter if your quota is 1 or 10 for this month. It's unacceptable."

Also noted in the transcript is that they receive a small reward for obtaining quota but nothing is done if they do not.

And you are 100% correct, it is a problem with the US Army's Rectuiting process. Which is exactly what Aldanatech originally posted, using the SAME title as used in the report, "How far will the Army go?"

So far, no foul no unfair play.

You accuse ohers of not reading, yet you seem to have read something into it that purely wasn't there.
"All the origanal posted was doing is to perpetuate false notions people have about the military."

WRONG

All the original post did was echo a news report on corruption inside of the US Army recuiting system, which you have happily agreed with yourself. So therefore you agree with the original posters comments. You are taking his previous agenda of not favouring the current government and running with it, the facts were not fabricated by the original poster to twist the story in any way whatsoever, that's YOUR "false notion".

Your view and my biew on the military? YOu haven't got the foggiest clue what my view of the US military is, in fact the ONLY views I have expresed about US soldiers is that they are brave and upstanding men and women, just as pretty much any army in any country is. Yet once again, you "perpetuate a false notion" that we sit on different sides.

"The recruiter is to blame, why make it an issue of the Army as a whole? He has other post which show how anti-bush he is and using the Army to continue his attacts should not be tolerated."

First of all, read it all again, YOU have taken it way out of context yourself.

Aldanatech posted nothing but evidence, that is being investigated, that the US Army had a few bad recruiters, nothing more. YOU took it out of context and contrived an intent based on previous comments regarding OTHER issues within the government that Aldanatech disagrees with, Aldanatech did no such thing himself, it's all in your head and you hold a bias that has clouded the reality of the post. There is NOTHING in his post to demonstrate any prejudice.

And furthermore, how is HE using the Army to contiue his attacks? He hasn't, someone else has, he has just reported the actions. And since what time in a democratic nation did it become "intolerable" to question a wrongdoing that even the Army is investigating?
One has been suspended and one brought back from his overseas deployment to answer for this horrendous practice, does this then make the Army intolerable and show that they are attcking the system?

Your predetermined conclusions are just not clever, or 'tolerable' in a democratic nation that prides itself on following the correct path and giving each man and woman the ability to scrutinize the country's policies and practices.
At what time did they make such comments intolerable? Are you in China or something?

As for my saying you are pro-bush or whatever, you have made more rash assumptions than anyone else in this thread, stick to the facts, drop your prejudice and you just may see what this really is; Corruption in the US Army's recruiting process that is being addressed. Talk about someone with an agenda!

Should this not be discussed and simply swept under the carpet like so many other mistakes over the last 4 years?

Can we only shed light on these issues if we are all of the same political belief?

Give your head a shake and think again. Some people hate to see citizens used as political pawns too.

by itgirli May 3, 2005

I don't see a problem with it. So they want to get kids fake diplomas and help them to pass drug tests, great! they should do more of just that. It will be keeping these kids off the streets and teaching them disciple. Yeah, it may be unethical to do it, but I bet it would do those kids a lot of good later on down the road. It's kind of like a scared straight program, only a lot more real. Good for them to help get these people off my streets and onto the front lines.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the ends justifies the means? Given the corruption that we are seeing in the news, is it really better? look at what happened at Abu Grahab (sp?) prison in Iraq and what our soldier did.

Could there be a relationship? This is discipline?

Just curious. This isn't sarcastic or negative. I am truly asking these questions regarding the topic we are all discussing.

Thanks.

by itgirli May 3, 2005

There will always be a few bad eggs. I do not agree with what are soldiers are doing in the prisons, however, they are doing things far worse to our soldiers that they take prisoner. No, it doesn't in any way give us a right to reciprocate, but I'll not lose sleep over it. oh no! the prisoner was naked! I'm a little more concerned about them showing our soldiers being decapitated. naked or decapitated? I'll take the naked. I still think that in the long run, in the grand scheme of things, a lot more good would be done getting those people in our military. Maybe at least half of them would become better people, and half is better than none.

by cactus pete May 3, 2005

Those commissioned to uphold what we stand for are doing exactly the opposite.

Would it not have been better to not fake it, but aid them in earning the diploma? Clean them up?

I have known many servicemen [not many servicewomen] who have come out being drunks and heavy smokers, too. I never could understand how they allow it on base... That's damaging Government Property!

You will find if you read my earlier posts I was not advocating an over-reaction, based on one recruiter. I did post that what has happened at Guantanamo is much more serious, and shows larger issues - certainly not the work of one or two, and decisions were made at the highest levels of government.

I neither argued that all recuiters are saints or sinners. I have heard of bad recuiting tactics for decades - its not new, and to a certain extent tolerated. As I suggested, its not as serious in this case, as the recruiter was helping the recruit, not running a con on them.

I expected better from you. Take another read.

My comment about democracy was in answer to several posts that suggested that we should never criticise the army or the government.

James

I took your post as a direct reply to the pervious post, which made it appear that we should critisise the army and government over every little thing that one or two people do.

How about when camandos were used to retrieve Elian Ganzalas (sp?) under the orders or Janet Reno? How about when she had them use a tank and burn them out in Wacco? Ruby Ridge? How Janet Reno isn't in chains is beyond me.

Yes, we should be able to stand up at the right time for the right things. And yes, you have to decide for yourself when the time is and what the things are. When it is just done because what is bad for the administration and the country is good for the Democratic party is a pathetic reason to give the rest of the world more reason to hate Americans than they already have.

Elian Gonsales was a case of standing up for the rule of law. It wasn't commandos if I recall correctly, but Federal Marshalls.

Was Janet Reno right to surround Waco - undoubtedly. There were definate issues with illegal weapons, and allegations of mind control and child abuse. Were they too hasty, sending in tanks? Yes in my opinion. Same thing in Ruby Ridge. But in both cases, they were right in principle to stand up for the law, but too heavy handed in its execution.

To me this has nothing to do with party politics. Both parties have been involved in issues which stretched the boundaries. Its part of being in government in the world's most powerful country.

James

That it would make them better. What I worry about (having worked with the military on military contracts) is that it will bring down the military to a lower level. Instead of these people rising and becoming better, they bring the whole down.

You know "one bad apple spoils the bunch". That idea. Maybe the news media has just gotten to me too much and we are being inundated (sp?) with "bad US soldier, bad US soldier, etc" We bad.

http://www.patgodwin.com/audio.htm

remember the bodies burned and hanging from bridges. Your not supose to remember the videos of people getting their heads sawed off while they are pinned down begging for their lives.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Those weren't even soldiers because they were too afraid and unable to do such things to anyone except for unarmed citzens. You know, dangerous people like journalist, truck drivers and aid workers.

You are just supose to cry for the poor "torutured" Iraqi because he had his feeling hurt.

If it saved any Americans from being cowardly attacked (most of which violate the Geniva Convention) then it is worth having a few Iraqi soldiers humiliated.

listen to the "Iraqi Prisoner Song".

I was not saying "poor Iraqi". I was talking about how putting people into the army who did not have HS diplomas was good or bad.

Some of my other threads discuss what you are talking about, which is the media's influence on our opinions. I am not happy about what has been happening to all the Americans and other soldiers, private citizens, aid workers, etc that are over there trying to help put the country back together after we removed Hussein.

I agree with some of the sentiment. But here is a question, does two wrongs make a right? Terrorism is cowardess. I still don't think we should sink to that level of behavior. But that is my opinion.

by itgirli May 3, 2005

How can we be stooping to their level? we're not decapitating their people. I find your reasoning invalid and off course. The point is that perhaps boot camp can straighten out the lives of some of these kids. That would be great. One bad apple spoils the bunch? never happened in my apple trees. Perhaps you are just a pessimist that believes that people are born bad. I really don't care. I think it will do more good than harm and good for it, too. It could teach them pride and responsibility, things they have never had. What a blessing to be given a chance to turn a life around. Has anyone ever given you a chance? I would.

Is it ok to torture people? If you don't want your people tortured, then don't torture.

I'm not suggesting that if you stop torturing people that your opponents will stop, but if you continue to have torture, you won't encourage anyone to stop torturing and murdering civilians in Iraq.

If you want people to respect the Geneva conventions, then respect them yourselves - as in Guantanamo. The army intelligence officer who was there stated that out of the 600, only a couple of dozen were terrorists. Many of the rest were conscripted by the Taliban, or low level foot soldiers who don't know any Al Qaeda secrets. Thats not my assessment, but the assessment of a military intelligence officer, and the FBI.

James

For the most part I think torture is wrong, but there are time when torture must be used. If it helps save millions of people lives to torture one turd then it is justified. Most of the torture they were doing in the prision had nothing to do with saving lives, but more of a punishment for Al Qaeda's and the Taliban's crimes.

First it is pathetic to catogorize sleep deprivation and humiliation in the same group as cutting off someones head, burning bodies, dragging them through the streets and hanging them from bridges.

It is disgraceful to even imply that they are on the same level.

Remember that Danile Pearl was beheaded a few years back by these scum, long before we even went into Afganistan let along Iraq so don't try to pretend that they were in retaliation for anything we had done.

Forms of interigation that do not result in death or physical harm ARE legal and should be used to the fullest extent.

Remember this is a culture that has no value on life, and as the people doing the REAL torture are brainwashed and fanatical you can not reason with them or expect them to react in a rational manner.

It could be good. The only reason I asked in the first place was to discuss it and get other points of view. I am not a pessimist. I haven't made my mind up on the issue. I am discussing to get an idea of what other people think that is not laced with a lot of emotional content even though this is an emotional subject.

By stooping to their level, I am saying that we treat people poorly just as they are doing. It doesn't have to be the same offence. Therefore, my logic is not faulty. The point is do we see who can be more degenerate or do we see who can improve conditions more.

If we are going to be there, I would like to think we are there to help make things better. As to the idea of boot camps, well I know someone who works at a boot camp for kids. It is a last chance type place to help get them on track. He told me that they have about a 30% success rate.

I don't believe people are born bad. I believe the opportunities and environment turn them bad. Sometimes they can be pulled back, most times I am not sure they are or want to. I have not made up my mind on that point though.

j.lupo@...

The boot camp for kids is MUCH different the the one for the Army. The one kids for the most part they have no choice to be there. The Army, people have to sign up to be there and are more apt to make a change for the better. I have seen this on many occasions when I served in the Army. A kid would enter the Army make some supid mistakes and get punished for them. Something that rarely ever happened to them before. If the person does not make a change for the better they can be discharge from the Army. Bad appl gone either way.

The Army is a good place for people to start if the don't know were they are going after HS.

Thanks I appreciate your view. I have worked with the military on IT contracts, but it helps to have your view. As I wrote, I have a friend that works with the boot camp for kids. He is ex Army. I will have to have a deeper conversation with him.

Yes, military life can and does straighten out a lot of people that have grown up in this "progressive" society where there are no standard or expectation that have never had to strive for anything because they were always told that they couldn't do something anyways.

Yes, for lesser offenses judges would give (and I think they still do) you a free pass if you go into the military.

I know several people that the military has turned into really great people that would have been check to checkers at Kmart if they were really lucky.

Torture does not always work.
You get false information just so you stop the torture.
They may only give you enough to send you on a wild goose chase.
They may not give any info, at that point there is nothing you can do. You can't kill them, you can't let them go interact with the other prisoners, your "snarfed".

I am a realist in this matter. Torture is sometime not the best thing to do, especially iraqs.

That torture of Americans is ok?

The whole point of a treaty is to bind two or more parties to an agreement. In the case of the Geneva convention, the idea was that if everyone signs up then everyone's own soldiers will be treated fairly. It didn't work consistently in WWII(German prisoners in Russia, Russian prisoners in Germany, any prisoners of the Japanese) but it was still the right thing to do.

There was a long standing tradition among European nations that assasination of a country's leader was not done, as if one did it, it would give an excuse to others and lead to an escalation in political assasinations.

If you accept that a country can unilaterally abridge the Geneva convention treaty without consultation, you set a precendent that others can as well.

You have to wonder whether by attacking Al Qaeda with cruise missles, Clinton made it more or less likely that Al Qaeda would increase the level of activity.

James

Torture is NEVER right, it doesn't NEED to be used, EVER under any circumstance.

Your country prides itself on such ability to enforce it's own ideals upon others without using torture. So your comments seem to be that when all else fails you sometimes need to kick a guy while he's down or publicly humiliate him to achieve the desired results. I know it was all just a smoke screen, but wasn't that what GWB reverted to as his reason for removing SAddam in tehfirst place? Intolerable torture of those he deemed worthy of torture?

Where's the book that determines THAT line?

Do they teach proper torture ettiquette in the US Army too? When to torture, when not to torture?

Again, a ridiculous comment, and based on the rationality you have shown here thus far, I would not want someone like yourself to have the ability to decide when torture is to be used or not, that's for sure!

by Member 25348569 May 3, 2005

I wouldn't normally come in on a discussion that is purely American but we, Brits, Aussies, etc are in there with you and what you do has an impact on how WE are percieved and treated in return.

"Forms of interigation that do not result in death or physical harm ARE legal" . I think you'll find that there were some methods that the US routinely used in Guantanamo Bay were not unless you seriously rewrote the rules!

"Remember this is a culture that has no value on life" Then it would be good to demonstrate to them that our culture DOES put value on ANY life.

Most significant of all - Torture does not work! It is a stupid, wasteful strategy. Any person being tortured will confess what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear in order to make the torture stop.

All nine of the British citizens banged up for years in Guantanamo bay were eventually released without charge. Most - if not all - of them said that they had been treated very badly and described what had been done to them. In all cases, an impartial judge would regard it as torture. And we found out NOTHING!

Neil

Just like Marijuana should be legal but cocaine shouldn't? Wow, it's gonna take some time to write those rules out!

Torture:

Acceptable forms of torture and unacceptable forms of torture?

Torture:
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

3. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.

4. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

So as we can see, torture covers pretty much anything beyond a minor inconvenience. Yes, beeadding is torture, fast and a devestatingly destructive waste of human life.
No food or water is also torture, slow torture that results in agony and mental anguish.

So wile the two FORMS of torture may not be comparable, they both constitute forms of torure that are prohibited by the Geneva Convention, thus two wrongs DON'T make a right...unless the US wants to make a point?

reading in to it again. Alot of what you said I agree with, so why do you continue to attack me? You are making little to no since in your post. It seems you only read a few words and it some how set you off to write a long winded post trying to tell me I am wring and should not have an oppinion that is different then yours. So much for freedom of speach.

Without the 2nd there would be no 1st.

While I agree that you hae said it doesn't always work, you must see that torture is NEVER the answer as it is illegal for a government to inflict ANY form of torture upon a human, damn most people even go nuts over animals being tortured!

If you don't like Iraqi's, for example, and an Iraqi killed your friend, you DO NOT have a right to torture him no matter what he knows, no matter how you feel and no matter what he has done to your friend. Torture is NEVER the answer, ther's no way of defining it internationally so it can't be a sliding system, it's just a big NO.

The original post and the way the article was written are intended to make more of this than it is. "how far will the army go" is not an honest question when it is ONE recruter.

When you take something and INTENTIONALLY make it look worse than it is, what is the reason? To make us aware that one man is getting punished for breaking a rule? Or to make the organization look bad. They are trying to imply that because of the Bush Admin and everything that has happened that they now HAVE to resort to this to get recruits.

Or have I just watched too much Oliver Stone? Could I be way off base here? maybe, but I don't think I am. Think back to your opinion yourself of before and after you read the actual article. How big of a deal did you think this was from the discussion posted before and after? Turned out to be a real non-issue didn't it?

"Where's the book that determines THAT line?

Do they teach proper torture ettiquette in the US Army too? When to torture, when not to torture?"

SF and MI have trained on this. They are trained to use torture and when. SF is also trained on how it feels to be tortured.

I get it you don't like torture, that is your oppinion and I respect that. Can you respect someones elses?
Please keep posting false information, it brings you down to earth.

breaking down is more effective than the ripping off of finger nails.

I don't advocate beatings and such.

Not letting them sleep, playing loud music, and other means of breaking them down mentally should be used to it's fullest effect.

If that includes humiliation, so be it.

This is interigation, NOT torture. Although I am sure that some of that DID happen, it wasn't what was all over the news.

Again, you have completely failed to read the post. I agreed with you and then explained what I didn't agree with, whihc were directly quoted comments by yourself.

You'll learn one day, stick arounf TR and you will soon see how to post without absurd conclusions.

I proved quite clearly that while you accused me of not reading, that you hadn't even viewed the original posts information. You then created some predetermined conclusion of the original posters intent, that was neither echoed or touched upon by the original poster at all.

But as always with people here, shoot the messenger, don't address the issue brough tup that make your post look like a doily. Change the subject, try to turn the tables and detract from the focus of your own mistake.

You have uttered so many assertions about where I am coming from but included not a single statement with counterpoint, have completely ignored several "quote and counterpoints" pulled from your own mispost and decided to just flame the poster instead.

You gotta do better than that if you wish to make it here.

Sorry, no go with that tripe.

How about you counter some of the points I addressed in your post that clearly show your errors first?

by synthetic May 3, 2005

Charming, all the SUV's with Bush stickers on the back. So ready and willing to go to war, with overwhelming evidence, AT THE TIME, and lack of support, lies after lies. So, this recruitment issue can be easily solved. All those who supported Bush, even after his debacle as chimp in chief (we all know the ghoul Cheny, where ever he is really wears the pants in this relationship), should have there sons and daughters enlist today. The services have raised the minimum age for entry, so plenty of you 30 somethings so smart in your ecaldes with made in China support our troop flags, should out up or shut up and be down at the recruiter today. We solve the recruitment dilemma, and get rid of a swath of the population who have relegated their thinking to PACs, and advertising firms. Now, how do we get the uber libs to join up as well?

That makes me laugh. Support our troop flags have nothing to do with Bush and supporting our tr oops does not mean you are a Bush supporter. I did put up, I served 7yrs in the US Army, no it is your turn. Lets see if you can put up or shut up.

Gee, I wonder who he voted for??

by synthetic May 3, 2005

first year ever, but I found the vote on the national election to be a big fat waste of time, my vote, was not cast in protest of one loser versus another. And while I support those who diligently, and legally support their country, and support a volunteer army, I have had many menders of my family in the services, some still in, Air Force and Marines, you have missed something. Bush has made this about being for him and by extension the troops, or against him, and by extension the troops. Sorry your unable to get past that point instead of adding to the central theme of my argument. Where are all those who gave lip service of fealty and support with token flags made in a communist state, and free bumper stickers by for Bush, who has done more to manipulate the media, raise taxes, enlarge government, and quite distention, which is very capitalistic of him, but not at all Democratic. Had I voted, it would have been green, but I have no question who you voted for, adding to the issue of your comrades coming home in body bags, that in this democracy we can not take photos of, having squandered all worldly good will, killed civil liberties, encouraged terrorism (where is bin laden, wasn't HE the one, without Iraq help that attacked us on our soil) when we have real rouges out there like N. Korea who have no problems stating they have WMDs. very predictable the answer should be a nuance issue, while the real question remains answered.

by garion11 May 3, 2005

In some ways I wish that John Kerry won. Because I wanted to see the looks on all the Democrat supporters' faces after he implemented a draft. Yes I am sick and twisted that way. Sue me!

Vote for one of these two guys, like it or not.

by jellimonsta May 4, 2005

I had heard parents of troops saying "I am voting for Kerry". Were they naive enough to think our troops would be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he stepped foot in the Whitehouse?

But you would still insist that you know best. I have made points but you fail to see them, instead you insist on reading more into them and failing to see my point. You keep stepping on peoples toes on these forums, I am sure it give you an inflated sence on self.

Well I have had fun in these forums until running into you. For the most part people accept the fact that other people have an opinion. But you, if the opinion does not match your, well then it must be wrong. We see thing differently, I can accept that, but you continue the attacks.

Without the 2nd there would be no 1st.

Can you figure that one out??

support your central theme?? And what does this post have to do with recruiting??

There are many errors in this post, but it is not my place to tell you which ones. Do your own research.

Leave the politics out of the military.

Support our troops.

But he refrained from personal opinions, he just stuck to what he saw as more striking news against the war, and perhaps even the current administration (yet I don't think that has anythign to do with it).

He didn't write the story, he merely echoed it in the exact same fashion it was reported, talk to CBS4 if there's a problem.

Yes, I know exactly what you are saying and I agree he has an agenda, but this isn't exactly the same as running off at the mouth and shouting it form the treetops that the war and the government is screwed.

You know I hate Bush's actions in office, I hate the pathetic excuses for not properly justifying this war, but anyone on either side of the fence should be aware of issues like this. It's no different than complaining about rising gas prices in the news, really, you can say there is an agenda there too, but whether or not there is, it is something that is newsworthy.

Your VERY FIRST comment were shots at the poster and you didn't read, reveiw the video's nor address the issue at all. You just started bitching.

[i]"Pisses me off. You are judging the Army as a whole by one dishonest recruiter.

Using the Army to push your Anti-bush rhetoric brings down all the brave men and woman serving in the Army.

If you can read this, Thank a teacher!

If you can read this in English, THANK A SERVICE MEMBER!!![/i]

THIS is an absurd comment, it is out of line and I'm not reading too much into it, you ran off on someone and it was complete BS.

When this was proven to you, point by point, you tried to attack me as a poster instead, still failing to address a single issue or explain your own comments in any way, not even an ATTEMPT at enforcing your comments, just bitching and whining that your rant wasn't accepted by someone.

So while you accuse others of having an agenda, while you flame people and provide no counter argument, you've done the exact same thing and will have to get used to some debate.

Get with the program, you made a rude and absurd comment at someone, that was completely incorrect (Aldanatech didn't write it, he reported it), nobody has blamed the whole army except those that reported it on the news (proving you just went off on a rant without investigating the story at all).

You even followed up by sending me peer mail with nothing but a flame about your right to an opinion (not your right to attack the original poster for no reason at all though), you STILL didn't address the issue in any way and have completely forgotten what you said to begin with. And once again, please keep your comments online, peer mail is not for side-whining.

But in that same sense, denying its existence is no different than German citizens in Berlin denying knowledge of the death camps of WWII.

What you are referring to would be considered interrogative measures. As others have said, there are acceptable forms of breaking down a person mentally, this is not generally physical torture though. That would be against the laws of the Geneva Convention, which at last look you were still SOMEWHAT respective of.

Please provide the false information I posted.
I believe you will find an incredulous post, not an assertion. Actually I can't find a single statement about US Army training of 'prison guards', yet alone a SF or MI, now that I reveiw it myself.

Someone feeling a little overly defensive perhaps? Have you had a lambasting on another site and have a 1 second fuse now, before you throw up your rash reply?

by j.lupo May 4, 2005

picking on the president. I guess where my concern with the media exists in how they focus on "hot stories" and influence peoples opinions. There is always more to a story then they say. What happened to the days of NEWS not hype or grand standing. It just seems they inflate stories for what you said - "ratings and advertising".

Being critical is fine, but balance that critisism. Report both sides. Provide all the information. It seems the media has become very biased in their reporting and that concerns me.

at least for ratings. They are just out for that big zing, and once they smell blood look out.

There is also a trend to cast America in a bad light to the rest of the world buy people that feel guilty that we are such a global force. I wonder why the rest of the world would hate us? Maybe because the bad is all they ever hear or see? That is just as acturate as all the people that STILL think Toronto is Canada's capital...

by jamesrl May 4, 2005

If you step back from your background and upbringing, you might see how the US can become disliked by some of the rest of the world. Any global power makes enemies, even from its friends. Its not just the media, its the actions of your government. And if you want to blame the media, blame Fox news - they appear to be on a crusade to make people hate the US by consistently insulting the citizens of the rest of the world.

As for the perceptions of Canada being wrong, I blame Disney. There was a recent article about the Canadian pavilion at Epcot showing this hoary old movie with bucolic country scenes, and the pavillion hosts wearing lumberjack shirts. There was one quick shot of Toronto, home of 20% of the population of the country(if you count the Greater Toronto Area/GTA for short). Canada is more urban that the US, but all Disney wants to show is the vast beautiful countryside. Its hardly reality.

Toronto(York in the old days) was never considered for Canada's capital because it was a capital of one province(and the territory before that) so if they had made it a capital it would have angered the rest of the country. Kingston, halfway between Toronto and Montreal, was capital of the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada(before Confederation) but it was too close to the US, so they chose Ottawa for its position on the border of two large provinces.

James

there should be true punishment. I agree that we should not (and did not) sink to their level of torture and abuse, but it did get out of hand.

It just sickens me to hear people talk about the horrors of the naked pictures as if they are on par with the video of them pinning this guy down and sawing his head off.

Do you understand the point I was trying to make? Not advocating or excussing real abuses, but the mind games are still fair in my book.

And this whinning about "two wrongs" crap is just that, a bunch of crap because the "two wrongs" are not even in the same category. That is the equivilant of saying because you were speeding, I can rob a bank. You tripped someone so I can stab someone with a knife.

The beheadings and hanging of chard bodies gets a free ride from the "liberals" of the world. Why? Where was the outrage or protests about that? Answer, because it might in someway help the Bush Administration and that can't be done at any cost. Not political?