Is it immoral to sell kids on the military?

[edward]

That will work well - how will he pass random urinalysis? A drug offense while you're in the military is a virtually automatic discharge. (Plus, just because the judge gave the offender the choice doesn't mean the military has to accept him.)

You are right, ironically either way in this example the defendant is off the hook.

The ones who join as part of a plea bargain are usually required to stay clean or have charges refiled. Currently the Army is not at all picky about minor drug charges. A person can have several drug convictions and still get it. Each branch of the military has it's own "formula" for deciding ie the amount and type of drugs , the number of convictions, the laws in the state involved.

In AZ a person in possesion of less than one ounce of pot is given a written citation. It is handled like a traffic ticket. Go to court, pay the fine and go home.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That will work well - how will he pass random urinalysis? A drug offense while you're in the military is a virtually automatic discharge. (Plus, just because the judge gave the offender the choice doesn't mean the military has to accept him.)

Well, I guess the results of this case didn't happen then?

Why are you claiming the contrary when a person actually posts a case where it DID?

What is happening is that the offender is probably checked on a weekly basis and if he offends, is sent directly to jail ... do not pass go.

The intent is to put the offender into an environment of dicipline rather than dropping him into a prison population to learn 'other skills' and widening the spiral downwards in society.

This is seen as a 'chance' to a person has really done nothing other than having a disorganized life and possibly no motivation to improve by the judge.

The intent is correct ... the effect is in question. Does the armed forces improve the offender or does the offender drag the armed forces down?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The intent is correct ... the effect is in question. Does the armed forces improve the offender or does the offender drag the armed forces down?

If he "drags them down" in any noticable way he will be discharged.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If he "drags them down" in any noticable way he will be discharged.

Unless it only becomes apparent in certain situations like the cluster f**k known as Abu Ghraib?

By then, it's too late ... the damage is done.

There have also been incidents around bases in the Philippines, Okinawa and South Korea and an American Soldier was tracked down in Europe for grooming an English child and transporting her to France.

It seems organizations requiring sacrifice for enrolment are plagued with this type of behaviour.

I mention the US forces but we can equally apply this to the Catholic Church on an international basis.

The Canadian forces and Brits have also had problems in this area. Both have actually destroyed the 'colours' of regiments found guilty of abhorrent behaviour.

So ... before you all point and say "American basher" ... America is only the visible target at the moment.

Remember Lynnie England was considered a good soldier because of her malliability and her willingness to follow orders with enthusiasm. It was also her downfall as it was the force that employed her.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

What is happening is that the offender is probably checked on a weekly basis and if he offends, is sent directly to jail ... do not pass go.

If you mean while they're in the military, doubtful. The tests cost too much and the person running the GCMS usually has had only a crash course in its operation and they're more likely than not in a place where "optimal testing conditions" cannot be achieved, ie, the closet next to the head that hasn't been cleaned in a hundred years. Punishment can take a long time. I've seen people reduceed in rank to Private after 20+ years and given ca-ca jobs for up to 6 months just for the humiliation factor and to be used as an example. I've also seen people discharged almost immediately post conviction/confinement. It really depends on the Command.

The intent is correct ... the effect is in question. Does the armed forces improve the offender or does the offender drag the armed forces down?

It's hard to say, the dark side is so appealing. It's kind of a "thin blue line" thing. If you aren't into playing ball with the rest of the group, whether or nor they are good or evil, then don't expect them to come to your aid when you need it. On the other hand, sometimes a kid can straighten up permanently after a swift kick in the pants like you're talking about and realize he has been given a great chance to improve his life.

If he "drags them down" in any noticable way he will be discharged.

Not entirely true. I've known people that were "certifiable" that were kept around because of their skills while hard working kids were discharged because their wives wrote too many bad checks to the PX. Like I said before, its dependent on the Command. If the infantry commander thinks its a good idea to let his troops be bloodthirsty and he encourages them to blood battlefield virgins for the ritual of it all, its his call as long as he stays below the radar. If he wants to have only "gentlemen soldiers" under him that follow the rules of war to the T, again.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you mean while they're in the military, doubtful. The tests cost too much and the person running the GCMS usually has had only a crash course in its operation and they're more likely than not in a place where "optimal testing conditions" cannot be achieved, ie, the closet next to the head that hasn't been cleaned in a hundred years. Punishment can take a long time. I've seen people reduceed in rank to Private after 20+ years and given ca-ca jobs for up to 6 months just for the humiliation factor and to be used as an example. I've also seen people discharged almost immediately post conviction/confinement. It really depends on the Command.
It's hard to say, the dark side is so appealing. It's kind of a "thin blue line" thing. If you aren't into playing ball with the rest of the group, whether or nor they are good or evil, then don't expect them to come to your aid when you need it. On the other hand, sometimes a kid can straighten up permanently after a swift kick in the pants like you're talking about and realize he has been given a great chance to improve his life.
Not entirely true. I've known people that were "certifiable" that were kept around because of their skills while hard working kids were discharged because their wives wrote too many bad checks to the PX. Like I said before, its dependent on the Command. If the infantry commander thinks its a good idea to let his troops be bloodthirsty and he encourages them to blood battlefield virgins for the ritual of it all, its his call as long as he stays below the radar. If he wants to have only "gentlemen soldiers" under him that follow the rules of war to the T, again.

You sound experienced. And insightful.

 

[edward]

A recent discovery shows that the pre frontal lymbic system in young people does not develop until the early twenties. This system of the brain controls, among other things, the propensity for risk taking. Recruiters have been made well aware of this.

Ron Dahl, a pediatrician and child psychiatric researcher at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, says a desire for thrills and taking risks is a building block of adolescence. The frontal lobes help put the brakes on such behavior, but they're also one of the last areas of the brain to develop fully. Located right behind the forehead, the frontal lobes actually grow larger than adult size in puberty. But the process is far from complete; refinement of the frontal lobes can continue into the early 20s.

http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030518/030518teenbrain.html

 

[Art]

In Britain there was a humerous parody of the armies recruitment ads around some years back;

"Join the army, travel to foreign exotic countries, meet interesting people and kill them!"

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not entirely true. I've known people that were "certifiable" that were kept around because of their skills while hard working kids were discharged because their wives wrote too many bad checks to the PX. Like I said before, its dependent on the Command. If the infantry commander thinks its a good idea to let his troops be bloodthirsty and he encourages them to blood battlefield virgins for the ritual of it all, its his call as long as he stays below the radar. If he wants to have only "gentlemen soldiers" under him that follow the rules of war to the T, again.

I'm not quite sure of how the US forces work but I had an associate from the UK at one point who was ex-SAS ... (honourable discharge).

His take on the military sort of backs this up.

The SAS required a 'messed-up' mentality and he has a little story he likes to tell of when his CO found him making a letter bomb for his mother-in-law and he spent 2 weeks in the stockade. (Punishment didn't exactly fit the crime)

He was actually quite brilliant but had a lager lout mentality.

He ended up in the forces as a way of escaping poverty in the North of England.

He LOVED his job and the forces loved him.

When the job to be done requires an animal, why are we surprised when the animal is considered a deviant by normal society rules?

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

When the job to be done requires an animal, why are we surprised when the animal is considered a deviant by normal society rules?

Yes, and when the serviceman is released back to society there's not a whole lot done to ensure that his state of mind is compatible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan has based his statements not only on his experiences but upon his opinions. He dislikes the fact the the Marine re-upped in order to use his Marine skills in combat. "In other words he wanted to kill people". This oversimplifies the desire of the Marine to fight, down to a desire to murder. If you believe they are the same thing, that is justifiable. But many of us do not believe that.

You have misunderstood what I said. First of all, I never said murder, you did. But no matter what you choose to call it, killing is killing. Also, at the time I didn't dislike the Marine or his intent but I was shocked. I had never met someone would WANTED to experience combat. I had always assumed that like me, any desire to join the military was based on the hope that no actual combat would ever be seen. And albeit a single example, it was an example of someone who, directly or indirectly, desired to use his skills in killing people en masse. If you wish to assume that he really just wanted to play soldier and the killing is only considered consequentially, then all the more to the point. And this is more my take on it. I think he had dissociated the concept of killing people from that of killing enemy combatants, or whatever language is popularly used to dehumanize the enemy. As you know, language is a big part of the brainwashing technique used. Consider for example the "free fire zone" from Vietnam - a place that was destroyed and the occupants all killed.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html

I guess all for free? Free; the most effective word to use in any sales ad.

Another point misunderstood is that of the statistics. I was talking about people who see combat. Surviving is only the beginning. Not only will an experience like this be with you for life, if you see terrible things it could well destroy your life even if you come home otherwise unharmed. I think the current statistics place the rate at about 1:6 - 1:8 who are coming home from Iraq with mental problems. Additionally, the image of the Vietnam Vet begging on city streets is common to the point of being a cliche.

I haven't read the whole thread yet but this jumped right out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the brainwashing generally, I would agree that the Navy and AF are both known for their relatively easy boot camp training. I will dig around a bit but in fact boot camp is designed to do exactly what I said. In order to protect their lives, soldiers must be trained to be...soldiers - killers. In combat, reactions and discipline must be automatic if one is to survive. This is why people are made to do things such as cleaning toilets with a toothbrush. This is why drill sargents yell and scream and treat people like dirt. You break the person down and then build them back up again, and in the process the person is changed forever, which is the whole point.

Why would anyone entrust their mind to a government institution?

 

[Integral]

Of course, IIRC, you barely missed going to Vietnam.

Yeah, The carrier I was aboard was scheduled to leave Norfolk Va. for Vietnam in Apr '73. That's a topic for a different thread.

When I went through Navy boot camp in the fall of 1969 we spend our time marching with a dummy rifle from class to class. The classes covered everything from basic hygiene to fire fighting ( the flames were very real!). It rained the day we were supposed to go to the 30 caliber rifle range, the back up plan was an indoor range with corkscrew barreled 22's. We did not receive ANY self defense or "fighting" training. We were taught to live on a ship and stay alive.

Brainwashing to a degree occurs at all levels, in a sense military command relies on brainwashing. In times of need sailors (or infantry on the battlefield) must respond without thought or consideration to the orders of a superior officer, the training to do this requires a form of brainwashing.

 

[Diane_]

As I understand it, one of the purposes of boot camp is to get a group of people to quit acting as individuals and begin acting as a team. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on the circumstances. I think we all value our individuality, but it's also certainly true that that same individuality can get in the way when there's a need for a cooperative effort. An army is, in some sense, the ultimate cooperative effort, hence the training.

I also remember reading somewhere that the actual fraction of soldiers that fire their weapons in combat is something on the order of 1:10. Assuming that's true (and I can't back it up, as I don't remember where I saw that), it would seem that the "brainwashing" doesn't work very well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it was in the Korean war that one study found that at times, as much as a third of the soldiers at the front lines would run and hide; and no wonder! I once talked with a vet who was there. He said the Chinese would just keep throwing bodies at you until the machine guns overheated and failed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's a difference between lack of respect and de-sensitizing.

Talk with a combat hardened vet about his enemy; no matter who it was.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Talk with a combat hardened vet about his enemy; no matter who it was.

If you go outside the USA, you can usually ask the general population, never mind the 'combat hardened vet'. That's merely a peculiarity of the American situation.

Until now, that is.

Ask most Americans about 'Moslems'.

 

[russ_watters]

Tom Browkaw called the generation that won WWII "The Greatest Generation". It used to be that people had respect for people that made such a sacrifice for their country. Then came Vietnam... I had thought that since then, the respect had come back, but apparently, there is still a lingering distrust of the institution that some don't understand.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Tom Browkaw called the generation that won WWII "The Greatest Generation". It used to be that people had respect for people that made such a sacrifice for their country. Then came Vietnam... I had thought that since then, the respect had come back, but apparently, there is still a lingering distrust of the institution that some don't understand.

Respect for the men and women in uniform is without a doubt there. Respect for the idiots that made stuff up and sent them to war, no. I akin it to a schoolyard wussy(the administration) slapping the bully(military/american people) and then pointing at some innocent kid(anyone who appears to be middle eastern) and saying, "he did it!".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not entirely true. I've known people that were "certifiable" that were kept around because of their skills while hard working kids were discharged because their wives wrote too many bad checks to the PX. Like I said before, its dependent on the Command. If the infantry commander thinks its a good idea to let his troops be bloodthirsty and he encourages them to blood battlefield virgins for the ritual of it all, its his call as long as he stays below the radar. If he wants to have only "gentlemen soldiers" under him that follow the rules of war to the T, again.

This is why I added the word "noticable" in there. If someone in the chain of command ignores or covers it up it will go unnoticed, at least for a while.

Unless it only becomes apparent in certain situations like the cluster f**k known as Abu Ghraib?

By then, it's too late ... the damage is done.

There have also been incidents around bases in the Philippines, Okinawa and South Korea and an American Soldier was tracked down in Europe for grooming an English child and transporting her to France.

It seems organizations requiring sacrifice for enrolment are plagued with this type of behaviour.

I mention the US forces but we can equally apply this to the Catholic Church on an international basis.

The Canadian forces and Brits have also had problems in this area. Both have actually destroyed the 'colours' of regiments found guilty of abhorrent behaviour.

So ... before you all point and say "American basher" ... America is only the visible target at the moment.

Remember Lynnie England was considered a good soldier because of her malliability and her willingness to follow orders with enthusiasm. It was also her downfall as it was the force that employed her.

I'm not sure how reliable the source is but someone who was stationed in Iraq told me that Abu Ghraib was where they sent the f**k ups mistakenly thinking that by putting them there for the time being they wouldn't do much harm. BIG mistake that turned out to be, if true.

At any rate, can you give me any idea what the military should do to make sure soldiers will be reliable in an actual combat scenario without putting them in one? And just how economical and effective do you think it would be?
Also do you have any statistics that show how current military match up against the general population so far as competency and mental stability?

I think that in just about every job I have ever had I worked with people who were not all too competent or mentally stable. How about you?
My last employer hired a guard and put him through a full background check (mandatory) which he came through clean (also manditory) only to find out that he was a professional criminal a couple monthes later, after he had stolen from the property he was working on, and turned him into the police.
Currently I am working with someone who has a felony on his record because my employer decided to be lazy and not put him through a background check. The felony is related to physical abuse towards a minor while training in the police academy. He is now working as a security officer on a college campus because he bull****ed our employer and they don't want to let him go because we're short handed.

 

[Entropy]

I think it was in the Korean war that one study found that at times, as much as a third of the soldiers at the front lines would run and hide; and no wonder!

In the civil war, only 10% of the soldiers ever fired their rifle, there are also similar statistics in WWI and WWII. It was only until Vietnam when they started training soldiers to instinctively shoot that the firing rate went up around 90%.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

At any rate, can you give me any idea what the military should do to make sure soldiers will be reliable in an actual combat scenario without putting them in one? And just how economical and effective do you think it would be?

The Marines have several ways to do this. I'm not sure, but I believe every major base has a "combat town" that is basically CMU's slapped together to simulate urban territory and there's always the hundreds of acres surrounding military bases to use except when the Red Cockaded Woodpecker decides to set up shop. The Marines have 29 Palms, CA which is basically 900-something square miles of desert target and a mountain warfare training center not to mention many, many cooperative training efforts with sister services both within our country and abroad. Some major commands have simulators that have weapons connected to air hoses to make noise and provide blow-back and a movie is projected on a screen, etc.. you get the point. Lat but not least, that I know of, is the PC video game. And I don't mean Politically Correct. A civilian version is available to desensitize your children and indoctrinate them as early as you wish.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Marines have several ways to do this. I'm not sure, but I believe every major base has a "combat town" that is basically CMU's slapped together to simulate urban territory and there's always the hundreds of acres surrounding military bases to use except when the Red Cockaded Woodpecker decides to set up shop. The Marines have 29 Palms, CA which is basically 900-something square miles of desert target and a mountain warfare training center not to mention many, many cooperative training efforts with sister services both within our country and abroad. Some major commands have simulators that have weapons connected to air hoses to make noise and provide blow-back and a movie is projected on a screen, etc.. you get the point. Lat but not least, that I know of, is the PC video game. And I don't mean Politically Correct. A civilian version is available to desensitize your children and indoctrinate them as early as you wish.

While live fire excersizes may be dangerous and can result in injury or death if you **** up I'm pretty sure that they realize they aren't going to be hurt unless they **** up. It may weed out some of the ones easily broken but actually being out there in another country not knowing when someone might shoot at you, knowing that when the bullets fly they are actually aimed at you, watching people die, actually shooting at real people... I'm sure the psychological effect is quite differant. I realize there are ways to prepare people but there is no way to be certain that anyone is going to be able to hold up under the pressure of actually being in that situation. The military isn't the only job like that either.

 

[BobG]

Welcome back
I think your perception of who joins the military is a little out of date (but, then again, considering recruiting numbers in the last couple years, maybe it's current again).
The military probably had a higher number of minor offenders in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, but recruiting standards have been raised every time the discrepancy between military pay and civilian pay is reduced. I'm not sure the story of a judge letting a minor offender avoid jail or prison if they joined the military was ever all that common, but it's an out of date myth today.
Adjusting to an all-volunteer force by reducing the gap between military and civilian pay, offering enlistment bonuses and education assistance, etc has allowed the military to be pretty selective in who they pick. The image of quick US victories in the first Gulf War and Kosovo adds prestige and allows the military to be even more selective. Among things that are easily measurable, military recruits are generally above average (definitely above average when the economy is poor, about average when the economy is booming). They have higher ASVAB scores than the population as a whole and they have fewer people with criminal records than the population as a whole.
Of course, they still have a problem getting the top scorers on the ASVAB to join. Most folks scoring up in the high 90's probably have a few options to choose from besides the military (that's why there's some good bonuses for some of those hard to fill career fields like linguists - the DLAB test is considered incredibly difficult, but that's probably because it actually tests a person's ability to learn. Most are more familiar with tests that test what you already know).
So, it is true that the average family income of recruits is below average. It's hard to bring in recruits with some intelligence from upper middle class families when the kid's parents can pay the kid's way through college. Once out of college, it gets pretty tough to compete against what the person could earn in a civilian job.
Low income isn't equivalent to 'garbage' and assuming low income automatically goes hand in hand with criminal behavior is a pretty broad generalization.

I guess the part about the average family income is wrong. As of 2003, the average family income of military recruits is slightly above average.

Middle class filling up military, study says

 

[flotsam]

For what its worth, Ivan, I agree with what you say.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tom Browkaw called the generation that won WWII "The Greatest Generation". It used to be that people had respect for people that made such a sacrifice for their country. Then came Vietnam... I had thought that since then, the respect had come back, but apparently, there is still a lingering distrust of the institution that some don't understand.

This not about or against those who in good faith make a sacrifice for their country, it is about those who lie to or mislead young people in order to convince them to throw away their lives for a quota. As usual, intentionally or not, you either missed the point, or you wish to make this sound like something it's not.

 

[Art]

This not about or against those who in good faith make a sacrifice for their country, it is about those who lie to or mislead young people in order to convince them to throw away their lives for a quota. As usual, intentionally or not, you either missed the point, or you wish to make this sound like something it's not.

It seems some base their patriotism and judge others on the oft quoted "our country right or wrong"

Naval commander Stephen Decatur originated the phrase in a toast given at an April 1816 banquet in Norfolk, Virginia "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

Fifty-five years later, Carl Schurz, German-born U.S. general and U.S. senator, clarified the concept, "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

The difference between these 2 concepts seems to me to epitomise the difference between those who support Bush and those who don't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems some base their patriotism and judge others on the oft quoted "our country right or wrong"

Naval commander Stephen Decatur originated the phrase in a toast given at an April 1816 banquet in Norfolk, Virginia "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

Fifty-five years later, Carl Schurz, German-born U.S. general and U.S. senator, clarified the concept, "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

The difference between these 2 concepts seems to me to epitomise the difference between those who support Bush and those who don't.

The latter is in agreement with the Constitution whereas the former is the reason we need it.

 

[Bystander]

I think so. I see commercial after commercial about how the military will do this or that or the other thing for a person - provide education, skills, travel, teach you to look a man in the eye and shake hands firmly, (snip).

Have 18 year olds reached the age of consent? By Federal law they are allowed to make "informed" decisions in the voting booth (I've no clue why they can't drink --- MADD?) Are the lies in election years any different from those of recruiting ads? Keep in mind that people are being asked to commit their entire lives to higher taxes rather than 3,4, or 6 years. These kids are responsible for identifying "hard sells" whether they're capable or not --- that's a public education failure. The "morality" of handing a kid a high school diploma without teaching him/her/it to read, write, or do "'rithmetic" is far more questionable.

Okay let's take one thing at a time.
True or false: Boot camp is designed to reduce a person to the lowest level and then build them back up with the desired mindset.

False: the goal is to adjust a trainee's perspective of himself in relation to the rest of the world to something more realistic than the "I am the center of the universe, and my every wish is the world's command to gratify immediately" position "kids" have had since Christ was a corporal; the "desired mindset" is that of recognizing that it's necessary to work as a group to achieve common goals from time to time.

True or false: This is precisely how cults brainwash their members. In fact, this is one clue used to identifiy cults.

False: You live in Oregon, home of the moonies, or have they gone elsewhere? You are about the right age to have had the opportunity to watch them on campus --- just like sharks, pick out the sick and dying, the kids on the verge of flunking out, no where to go, no friends, no social lives --- then, tell them that they are special rather than "breaking them down" (breaks down resistance to the special requests to follow), and proceed with the conditioning.

That is my objection. People should understand that the military is for defense [or offense under this administration] and not self improvement.

It's a terrible job that somebody has to do, ​

I set this apart because it's interesting that you can recognize the necessity, and at the same time even start a thread like this.
Do you actually understand the necessity for military service? Or, is this a rhetorical preface to the "Miss America Pageant" throwaway line about "world peace" that follows.

but we would all be better off if no one ever served in any military. It should be sold as nothing more.

You, or someone, lamented the Marine acquaintance who re-upped to go to Iraq. Wanta know why? Same reason draftees re-upped in the Nam --- "No way I'm leaving (pick one: my buddies, my best friend) to handle this while I go home (or stay home in the case of the Marine)."
It's called CHARACTER. If that ain't "self improvement," nothing is.

 

[Skyhunter]

False: You live in Oregon, home of the moonies, or have they gone elsewhere? You are about the right age to have had the opportunity to watch them on campus --- just like sharks, pick out the sick and dying, the kids on the verge of flunking out, no where to go, no friends, no social lives --- then, tell them that they are special rather than "breaking them down" (breaks down resistance to the special requests to follow), and proceed with the conditioning.

Sun Myung Moon, ex-convict, founder of the unification church, and self declared Messiah, is the owner of the Washington Times. He is a rightwing nut. Not exactly the guy you want to use as an analogy of liberal brainwashing.

You seem like such a smart guy guy Bystander, your not by chance suffering from a little conservative brainwashing are you?

[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

 

[Bystander]

Sun Myung Moon, ex-convict, founder of the unification church, and self declared Messiah, is the owner of the Washington Times. He is a rightwing nut. Not exactly the guy you want to use as an analogy of liberal brainwashing.
You seem like such a smart guy guy Bystander, your not by chance suffering from a little conservative brainwashing are you?
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon[/QUOTE]

Ivan said nothing about the politics of cults. I said nothing about the politics of cults. You've drawn a very tortured inference from nothing.

"You seem like such a smart guy guy Bystander..." Or, in light of my observations of Moonies, "You're special." You trying to brainwash me?

 

[BobG]

Sun Myung Moon, ex-convict, founder of the unification church, and self declared Messiah, is the owner of the Washington Times. He is a rightwing nut. Not exactly the guy you want to use as an analogy of liberal brainwashing.
You seem like such a smart guy guy Bystander, your not by chance suffering from a little conservative brainwashing are you?
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon[/QUOTE]
I think I missed the part where he said Moon's techniques were similar to liberal brainwashing.

Bystander is right about the Moonies techniques. The pressure they put on their recruits was more like family pressure. They would slowly build a relationship with a recruit, then invite them to a 'discussion group' in a different city. The persuasion was always gentle and friendly, but the recruit was a captive of circumstance until the assimilation was complete (unless they were clever enough to have brought some bus fare or willing to hitch hike home). I wouldn't have any idea what their success rate was, but there sure seemed to be a lot of them hanging around college campuses.

I loved one of the scenes created at a discussion hosted by the Moonies at Ohio State. The advertised discussion was about Communism vs. Democracy - with the goal seemingly to be to lure students interested in Communism. A rabbi showed up to disrupt the discussion by harrassing the Moonies and telling the students the group was really a religious cult - not a group interested in discussing politics. The twist to the whole scene that the rabbi missed is that you could barely call them a religious cult. The gist of their religion was supposed to be hidden from outsiders, probably because their whole religion was the preservation of a democratic South Korea in the war against a communist North Korea (a right wing nut, just as you said).

Quite a few other religious cults of the time used similar methods (including Charlie Manson's family). Providing a 'family' to those that felt isolated and alone was a much more effective brainwashing technique than '[reducing] a person to the lowest level' through emotional and physical stress.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

False: the goal is to adjust a trainee's perspective of himself in relation to the rest of the world to something more realistic than the "I am the center of the universe, and my every wish is the world's command to gratify immediately" position "kids" have had since Christ was a corporal; the "desired mindset" is that of recognizing that it's necessary to work as a group to achieve common goals from time to time.

The teamwork part you got right but it is apparent you haven't spent 13 weeks getting screamed at by 4 Drill Instructors and numerous other senior Marines for breathing the wrong way, lacing your boots wrong, urinating in a toilet instead of a urinal, eating with your left hand instead of your right, not choking someone until they puke, not coming to the position of attention as you fall off a rope strung from a 50 foot tower into a 10 foot deep stagnate pool of water, the list goes on. As I posted before, the Discovery channel portrays a cute picture of life in Marine Corps Boot Camp, otherwise it would NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SHOWN. Anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of the aforementioned "instruction" can verify the their particular DI's were the most sadistic SOB's ever created yet after the "indoctrination" there is an odd affection for them. Does THAT sound like a cult?

You, or someone, lamented the Marine acquaintance who re-upped to go to Iraq. Wanta know why? Same reason draftees re-upped in the Nam --- "No way I'm leaving (pick one: my buddies, my best friend) to handle this while I go home (or stay home in the case of the Marine)."
It's called CHARACTER. If that ain't "self improvement," nothing is.

This is true for the most part, however, the ones that remain in harms way WANTS the other to get the ***k out of Dodge and hopes he dosen't have to come back...EVER! They'll usually hope to meet at another time and place but not in the Suck*. *A term of endearment Marines use to refer to their particular branch of service.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Have 18 year olds reached the age of consent? By Federal law they are allowed to make "informed" decisions in the voting booth (I've no clue why they can't drink --- MADD?) Are the lies in election years any different from those of recruiting ads? Keep in mind that people are being asked to commit their entire lives to higher taxes rather than 3,4, or 6 years. These kids are responsible for identifying "hard sells" whether they're capable or not --- that's a public education failure. The "morality" of handing a kid a high school diploma without teaching him/her/it to read, write, or do "'rithmetic" is far more questionable.

This has nothing to do with misleading young people into making bad decisions.

False: the goal is to adjust a trainee's perspective of himself in relation to the rest of the world to something more realistic than the "I am the center of the universe, and my every wish is the world's command to gratify immediately" position "kids" have had since Christ was a corporal; the "desired mindset" is that of recognizing that it's necessary to work as a group to achieve common goals from time to time.

False: You live in Oregon, home of the moonies, or have they gone elsewhere? You are about the right age to have had the opportunity to watch them on campus --- just like sharks, pick out the sick and dying, the kids on the verge of flunking out, no where to go, no friends, no social lives --- then, tell them that they are special rather than "breaking them down" (breaks down resistance to the special requests to follow), and proceed with the conditioning

The question was so obvious as to be rhetorical. I stated the purpose of boot camp - survival and success in battle. This happens by making people killing machines that take orders like robots. Instead of the military or the moonies, how about school and a job? I would wager that I learned much more on the job working on CAT scanners and MRI's, and learning about the medical industry - the real world - than I would have in the bowels of a carrier.

I set this apart because it's interesting that you can recognize the necessity, and at the same time even start a thread like this.

Its called objectivity. I never implied that we don't need a military.

Do you actually understand the necessity for military service? Or, is this a rhetorical preface to the "Miss America Pageant" throwaway line about "world peace" that follows.

This is all about recognizing what the military is really designed to do. It is not a place for education or self improvement. When not misused, it is for the defense of the nation. So if people want to join out of patriotism or duty, sadly, we need people who are willing to do this. But my point is this: Don't take the chance of throwing away your life for a song and dance. The military is not just a college with uniforms. And parents know all about the military. There is nothing new about the lure for education. The reason the Army tries so hard to make parents seem ignorant is that parents know what I'm saying is true: The military is a good place to ruin your life.

You, or someone, lamented the Marine acquaintance who re-upped to go to Iraq. Wanta know why? Same reason draftees re-upped in the Nam --- "No way I'm leaving (pick one: my buddies, my best friend) to handle this while I go home (or stay home in the case of the Marine)."
It's called CHARACTER. If that ain't "self improvement," nothing is.

You completely missed the point. He didn't re-up to return to Kuwait for his comrads. In fact he had never been there. He just wanted to see some action. Those were his words. If you call the desire to kill, character, then thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The character that you speak of so fondly is usually found through the experiences of war; say when your best buddy's head explodes in your face.