On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:59:32 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:42:09 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:33:44 GMT, Don White wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:
Don White wrote:

NOYB wrote:

Why would you join the military if there was no chance to see
combat? Isn't it a soldier's role to kill the enemy?

If you want to join a branch of the armed forces where you're least
likely to see combat, join the Coast Guard.

Maybe these young potential recruits need an agent representing them
when dealing with the US Military....something like a player agent in
professional sports.....or better yet a union.


A soldiers' union; I'll bring it up at the AFL-CIO meeting in two weeks
in Chicago. I get to go for a day or maybe two, and hope to return
unbloodied.



It would be a real service for someone to make those recruiters put
their promises on paper and have the 'contract' duly notarized.
It might stop some of the outrageous lies and deception.
(wonder how many 'recruits' they would sign up then)
Their promises are put on paper. It's called an Enlistment Contract.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

Read it carefully.

Another crock of crap from our military apologist.

Let's see...who was President in August 1998?

Oh my goodness! We owe this gem of a contract to Mr. Clinton!


We're talking about recruiters who tell their prey lies, and
officers in the field who tell their troops lies.

Tell that to Don. He's the one who brought up the enlistment contract. Or, did
you miss that?

*You* are talking about the 'lies'. I have no expertise in that.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD