CNN Shamelessly Pimps for the Military

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/27/pf/millionaire/rp_wentzelmillionaire/index.htm?cnn=yes

Millionaire in the making
A long list of benefits helps make a military career worthwhile.

"The armed services used to provide inductees with little more than 'three hots and a cot.'

When soldiers enlisted after the Pearl Harbor attack, for example, the U.S. Army paid buck privates $21 a month. Today's military man receives much more.

When Michael Wentzel graduated from high school, his parents, both of whom were hearing impaired and on disability, could provide little financial help toward college. And the self-proclaimed "mediocre student" received no scholarship offers....

...Now 10 years later, he's an officer with a nursing degree, an income of $55,000, savings of about $20,000, and a townhouse in a gated San Antonio community – all courtesy of hard work and the U.S. military. "

I guess "See the world" and "An Army of One" just doesn't cut it anymore.

,

No? Didn't think so.

As someone who is still unfortunately in the Army Reserves, it absolutely SICKENS me when we talk about recruiting efforts. The things that these kids are told would be ruled as illegal false advertising in any other medium.

They talk about seeing the world and getting great "training". Somehow they always fail to mention that you could end up dead or maimed for the rest of your life.

Somehow they always fail to mention that you could end up dead or maimed for the rest of your life.

Seems to me that common sense would let a person know this is a possibility when joining the MILITARY!

Obviously you haven't seen these guys in action, because they are nearly RUTHLESS.

An 18 or 19 year old kid is invincible, in their eyes. When you were 18 or 19, can you honestly say that you considered the long-term ramifications of most things you did?

I can't. If you can, you're either representative of only about 1% of the population, or a liar.

Anyone who thinks that death or injury are not a possiblity when being in the military is a moron.

They tell them that they can be trained for non-combat duties, so they won't see any action. What they don't say is that even non-combat troops see action.

IOW, they lie. What do you expect from people who try to trick our kids with a lie like "Join the military, and become a millionaire"

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

prospective volunteers...

The military can offer some peopld good opportunities. What's wrong with that?

right now you have to live long enough to collect those benefits.
Of course if you're only mentally ill when you come back because of the things you witnessed then they will call you a liar and throw you out and society gets to watch you.

Thats the part that isn't addressed when the local recruiters vist a HS.

If you leave with a sound body and mind (which is likely to be the case), you can have some good skills to further yourself in life as well.

As far as what can happen in during combat, you have to realize that's a chance you take when joining the military...and that's not a difficult concept.

And well-equipped to deal with what life might have in store for you. But we don't dedicate $400 billion a year to making sure that kids are fed, housed, clothed and educated to make college a possibility. In fact, this corrupt administration has been doing its level best from day one to make the military, with all its attendant risks appear to be the only best choice for millions of young people on the cusp of adulthood.

College and the military are just two of many.

As someone who is currently still in the Army Reserves, I will tell you that a vast majority of the kids who sign up do it because they come from backgrounds that they simply cannot afford college.

College is an option of anyone from the middle class on up. For more and more of the children of the working poor, it is NOT an option -- without signing up for military service.

It's called a "poverty draft" -- and is the reason that almost ALL of the people in the military come from poor or working class backgrounds. Rich kids don't join because they don't have to.

The military has so far offered 350 people a wonderful opportunity to fill a hole six feet deep. And over 2,000 other persons the chance to spend a considerable amount of time in a hospital bed. And countless thousands more with nagging injuries (physical and mental) and exposures that will stalk them the rest of their days.

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. It's just that the recruiters (and apparently CNN) seem to develop some Private Lynch-style amnesia when it comes to some of the other long-term benefits of joining the military.

Why don't we present a full, well-rounded picture of all the possibilities to our young men and women when we're asking them to sign on the dotted line?

We should present that well-rounded picture here as well...which includes pointing out some of the positives that exist relative to the military as well...which is what the article was doing.

Based on the number of DUers who have either served or are currently serving, I think that the benefits of the military have been brought to our attention. But we also will talk about the negative side, which is the very real possibility (especially under the Bush regime) that you can be sent halfway around the world to die or be maimed simply for the further enrichment and expansion of power of a lucky few.

The issue here is the fact that CNN, a supposedly "objective" news outlet, is simply echoing the kind of incomplete picture used by military recruiters WITHOUT showing the other side of the story. One that you have obviously failed to see.

Or succeeded in ignoring?

I guess I'm just apt to give people the benefit of the doubt that they come here with open minds. I should know better.

That's why I mentioned the article itself.

And I haven't failed to see anything...I, like anyone with a functioning brain, don't need a newspaper to tell me that being in the military can get your ass shot off. This was one article. CNN has done other articles that make the point that soldiers can get hurt and killed. Basically, my point is you can't use one article as a base for an assumption that there is no objectivity invovled, especially if the article isn't saying anything that is false. No one article anywhere ever tells the whole story.

As far as military recruiters go, of course they're going to hype up what is good about the military...that is of course what recruiters do. But again, unless you are a complete idiot, you know what the risks are. If I were to go see a recruiter about joining the military, I wouldn't need him/her to tell me I might die...I ALREADY KNOW THAT. What would I want to know? I'd want to know what the military could do FOR me.

I am not a particularly big fan of language that discounts the immorality of lying about issues of life and death importance.

IOW, to describe a "lie" as "hype" is misleading. While you don't hesitate to call someone who is being intentionally misled "a complete idiot" (while ignoring the question of how one would "know what the risks are" if they're being fed lies by a govt employee) you seem particularly reluctant to call a liar a "liar"

If I were to go see a recruiter about joining the military, I wouldn't need him/her to tell me I might die...I ALREADY KNOW THAT.

Would you know that soldiers in non-combat positions are sometimes in combat situations even AFTER the recruiter tells you the opposite?

What would I want to know? I'd want to know what the military could do FOR me.

Is "lying" (a word you seem reluctant to use) one of things the military could do FOR you?

You only seem to think so because you disagree with what I am saying.

To describe a lie as hype is indeed misleading...if it is actually a lie. Where was the lie in this situation?

Also I am not ignoring any question of how anyone would know the associated risks with joining the military. I've known since I was 5 years old that I could be killed or maimed in the military. Someone who tells me that I could also gain some benefits for taking that risk is not lying to me. You keep saying I'm reluctant to use the term liar. Well, I normally am reluctant to use it if I don't think a lie is involved.

Would you know that soldiers in non-combat positions are sometimes in combat situations even AFTER the recruiter tells you the opposite?

I would assume that that could happen but I am not really a trusting sort. I'm also not aware of that happening (not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just not aware of specifics). If a recruiter is actually promising someone they won't be in a combat situation and they wind up there anyhow, that is lying and would of course be completely wrong. Again though, I would never join up without an expectation that I could wind up in dangerous situations at some point.

It says absolutely nothing about the lot of most military volunteers, or what happens to folks who go into the service now, instead of one person who joined up 10 years ago, during the Clinton years of peace and prosperity. The article is at pains to make this story look typical, when the reality is quite different.

There are some who would go so far as to call it a lie. And considering the possible outcomes, a damnable lie at that. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos had some choice words for folks in positions of authority who did that.

ONE person. As I said in another post, how can it possibly tell ANY whole story while using one person? If the story were about one soldier with both his legs gone, there would be many people using it as an example of how horrible everything about the military is...which would be just as wrong. That is my whole point. One individual story should not be the basis of a claim for pimping for the military...for exactly the reason you said.

What could be more Amerikan than preventing the rabble from walking your streets.

Sadly, that Amerika is where we now live, and it's only half transformed yet.

That's life in modern 'Murika.

...in full bloom.

- Some call it 'patriotism'...others call it infotainment.

last Saturday offering a $20,000 cash enlistment bonus. I kid you not.

With an electorate whipped by fear fed illusions of military=security or foreign policy credentials by BOTH SIDES.

With military investment increasingly being the engine of the corporate economy and a loss of jobs due to loss of our manufacturing base to inflate corporate coffers, enlisting in the military is the logical option for those who don't qualify for tax cuts and have seen their employment and educational opportunities evaporate. So, under the banner of nationalism and patriotism, the least advantaged among us are the new foot soldiers for the military-industrial complex, on a mission to protect those old American interests.