It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Make it a requirement to have offspring/s to enter the armed forces

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Why preserve it!? How dishonourable that is to your past. You should preserve it for the fact that they made so many sacrifices throughout the thousands of years going way back to the evolutionary chain. It is those sacrifices that allow you to be here. Would you be comfortable to throw away what you were and are just like that?

I wouldn't.


Are you a Larper or something? Too many ren-fairs? Sorry "faires."

The lives they lived were their own and mine is my own. I dont owe anything to the House of Martok or any such nonsense.

If you want to make preservation of your "bloodline" a personal priority that's great. If you expect society to share that concern so completely that the policies and procedures of military service would change to accommodate such a concern you have a long road to hoe ahead of you.




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nyiah

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by collietta
reply to post by Jepic
 


The military will let people in who have families.
While you are in, you can have as many children as you want.

There is a limit when a recruit has a large family already. It has to do with supporting the family with a low rank.

A recruiter can explain this way better than I can. .



What I'm saying is only let people in who have have at least one child. And don't let in people who have no children.


No, you can't do that. That's pretty much BS. You're deliberately excluding the child-free people who do not want children whatsoever at any point in their lives ever. And also deliberately excluding people on the fence about ever having kids or not, and deliberately excluding people who don't want kids until their 30's or later. Had my younger brother had it his way, he'd be AF right now. From what I understand, his BP flunked him out of passing the entry physical despite a rigorous fitness regime & BP meds (he couldn't get it under control enough) He's 25 & without kids. I'd be more pissed if they'd told him no because he didn't have kids.


That's the requirements that I think should be in place.

Now I do feel bad for what happened to your brother but this is what I think. It's what I think because I believe that a Society that lets young adults who have not had a chance to have a woman and kids into the army is a Society that has failed its people.

A life is worth so much more than to waste it in a millisecond due to an enemy bullet. A bullet shouldn't stop what has existed for millions of years.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Lets get somthing straight, for starters, its an all volunteer sign-up, nobody makes you go, thats all on you which is due to the success of an all volunteer service.
Secondly, as an only child you can still join through excemption, you just can't deploy.
So again its peoples choice if they wanna join, nobody holds a gun to your head, sure there are drafts, but we had'nt had one in years.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
-This is not a very good idea...At all.

There are still people who make careers in the Military, you know? That is their aspirations? They join ROTC in High School and prepare for a career. My Sons best friend is one of these people who always wanted a M ilitary career and began preparing in High School.

So... People like this should have to knock some chick up to join? Just what we need, more unwanted Children.

And whose CHOICE is it to (possibly) sever their "Bloodline"? Its the person swearing not- Not YOU. And if it doesnt matter to them, why should it to you?


I'm saying those people should live a litte first. I'm saying those people should first enjoy and take the chance to enjoy the whole point of life I think. Which is to make a family that loves and is loved.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Jepic

Why preserve it!? How dishonourable that is to your past. You should preserve it for the fact that they made so many sacrifices throughout the thousands of years going way back to the evolutionary chain. It is those sacrifices that allow you to be here. Would you be comfortable to throw away what you were and are just like that?

I wouldn't.


Are you a Larper or something? Too many ren-fairs? Sorry "faires."

The lives they lived were their own and mine is my own. I dont owe anything to the House of Martok or any such nonsense.

If you want to make preservation of your "bloodline" a personal priority that's great. If you expect society to share that concern so completely that the policies and procedures of military service would change to accommodate such a concern you have a long road to hoe ahead of you.


Technically it's not your own. You did not create yourself. All our ancestors who fought so that we could be here typing away on our Computers. It's they who you owe your existence to. Don't say otherwise. It would be a complete disrespect and very foolish.

You don't throw all that away just because you can do whatever you want to do. It's no place for the ego.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by collietta

Originally posted by Jepic

Enlistment requirements is indeed what I mean. Basically only people who have offsprings should be allowed to join the military. That's what I'm getting at.


Most who have families are not 17 and 18 year olds. This age group is the easiest to mold into a good servicemember. Additionally, those with families may not be interested in the risk involved with the military. The government would also have to pay much more money for dependents if they recruited only family members.
From a government standpoint, it's smarter to recruit people out of highschool and haven't started a life yet.


To me that's not justice. Sending people to die in general is not justice but it's more just to send people with children than to send people with no children.

17-18 year olds have no place in the battlefield. The battlefield should be for mature 28 year plus adults.
Make for a much stronger fighting force to I think.

I'm sure there should be plenty of families with children that are willing to sign up to join a righteous cause if the time came.

Thats not your call, no offense. But I can understand where you are coming from.
Guess what? There is combat arms an support arms, when these 18-19 yrs join, volunteer, they choose their there military paths. I have met 19-20 who have deployed an where outstanding soldiers, I have their back an tjey would have mine. Trust me in saying it makes no different from a 19 yrs to a 28 yrs old soldier, we are all soldiers, trained to fight, trained to lead. Don't ever confuse the fact that a young age is any different, they are just as lethel....and they WANT TO BE THERE.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Are you picking & choosing what to argue about, or are you just that dense that you missed the poster who suggested asking a recruiter, saying they have family size limits for recruits? If that comment is indeed the case, your point is invalidated because it's already happening. Secondly, did you miss my post about 10 kids between 2 families I personally know? Military service hasn't hampered their ability to procreate in the slightest bit. Third, you got a lot of gall to dictate someone's career choice by having it hang on their reproductive choice, which I may remind you, is also their choice, and not yours.

I have a very strong suspicion that you're trolling at this point. No one is this obtuse & authoritarian towards total strangers unless they're mental.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nyiah
reply to post by Jepic
 


Are you picking & choosing what to argue about, or are you just that dense that you missed the poster who suggested asking a recruiter, saying they have family size limits for recruits? If that comment is indeed the case, your point is invalidated because it's already happening. Secondly, did you miss my post about 10 kids between 2 families I personally know? Military service hasn't hampered their ability to procreate in the slightest bit. Third, you got a lot of gall to dictate someone's career choice by having it hang on their reproductive choice, which I may remind you, is also their choice, and not yours.

I have a very strong suspicion that you're trolling at this point. No one is this obtuse & authoritarian towards total strangers unless they're mental.


Let's refrain from personal insults. You obviously didn't understand my point since you go on about "family size limits". So this conversation between us is finished and clear. Go ahead reply back to this all you want because I won't write to you again unless you apologize for your personal insults towards my character.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arnie123

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by collietta

Originally posted by Jepic

Enlistment requirements is indeed what I mean. Basically only people who have offsprings should be allowed to join the military. That's what I'm getting at.


Most who have families are not 17 and 18 year olds. This age group is the easiest to mold into a good servicemember. Additionally, those with families may not be interested in the risk involved with the military. The government would also have to pay much more money for dependents if they recruited only family members.
From a government standpoint, it's smarter to recruit people out of highschool and haven't started a life yet.


To me that's not justice. Sending people to die in general is not justice but it's more just to send people with children than to send people with no children.

17-18 year olds have no place in the battlefield. The battlefield should be for mature 28 year plus adults.
Make for a much stronger fighting force to I think.

I'm sure there should be plenty of families with children that are willing to sign up to join a righteous cause if the time came.

Thats not your call, no offense. But I can understand where you are coming from.
Guess what? There is combat arms an support arms, when these 18-19 yrs join, volunteer, they choose their there military paths. I have met 19-20 who have deployed an where outstanding soldiers, I have their back an tjey would have mine. Trust me in saying it makes no different from a 19 yrs to a 28 yrs old soldier, we are all soldiers, trained to fight, trained to lead. Don't ever confuse the fact that a young age is any different, they are just as lethel....and they WANT TO BE THERE.


It's not my call of course. I'm not the ruler of any country. Only wish I was.
I stand by my point in knowing that the battlefield is no place for teenagers and young adults.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
17 year old: I want to enlist.

Recruiter: Go and have a sprog first to preserve your bloodline, and come back to me.

Not the best recruitment statergy is it?


edit on 7-5-2013 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)


Raise the Minimum Age to 27 plus.

And only if you have a kid or kids of course.


If you raised the minimum age to 27 plus, you wouldn't have a very big military and if they could only get recruited if they had kids you would have even less of a military.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by skitzspiricy

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
17 year old: I want to enlist.

Recruiter: Go and have a sprog first to preserve your bloodline, and come back to me.

Not the best recruitment statergy is it?


edit on 7-5-2013 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)


Raise the Minimum Age to 27 plus.

And only if you have a kid or kids of course.


If you raised the minimum age to 27 plus, you wouldn't have a very big military and if they could only get recruited if they had kids you would have even less of a military.



The time for big militaries is no more I say. Now it's about joint specialised combat forces made up of 4 platoons.

You don't need tens of thousand of troops to get the job done. Thanks to Technology.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

But what do you think? Is my proposal a good idea?
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: grammar


I could not disagree more with you.

There are some jobs where a single person is the best man/women for the job. No distractions from back home when there is a serious job to be done.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well we do have something to protect the bloodlines in the military already.

Simply research Sole Survivor Policy or DoD Directive 1315.15 and it will explain the rules of it.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by Jepic

But what do you think? Is my proposal a good idea?
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: grammar


I could not disagree more with you.

There are some jobs where a single person is the best man/women for the job. No distractions from back home when there is a serious job to be done.


The army is no place for people who get distracted.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
-This is not a very good idea...At all.

There are still people who make careers in the Military, you know? That is their aspirations? They join ROTC in High School and prepare for a career. My Sons best friend is one of these people who always wanted a M ilitary career and began preparing in High School.

So... People like this should have to knock some chick up to join? Just what we need, more unwanted Children.

And whose CHOICE is it to (possibly) sever their "Bloodline"? Its the person swearing not- Not YOU. And if it doesnt matter to them, why should it to you?


I'm saying those people should live a litte first. I'm saying those people should first enjoy and take the chance to enjoy the whole point of life I think. Which is to make a family that loves and is loved.

On a personal note I would agree with you- But its not OUR choice to make.

Plenty of jobs far more dangerous than the Military that an 18 year old can have.

While you are correct on a personal level these choices are to be made by the individual. Who decides what "living a little" means? The individual who volunteers.

-That said, I am more against "hard sell" recruiting, recruiters lying (mine did...) and having a platform at the High Schools.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well we do have something to protect the bloodlines in the military already.

Simply research Sole Survivor Policy or DoD Directive 1315.15 and it will explain the rules of it.


Those are good directives. I can support those. But I'm referring more to the changes that I would make to the general entry requirements.
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


I never thought about it that way before, it is interesting.
And you're right, if I get smoked, that's it for my family. The buck stops here.

But then what would people like me do outside of the military?
I would most likely be dead or in prison by now, or dead in prison.

I think it should stay as it is. It's an understood voluntary risk, and shouldn't be arbitrarily taken away from us. Whatever will be, will be.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well we do have something to protect the bloodlines in the military already.

Simply research Sole Survivor Policy or DoD Directive 1315.15 and it will explain the rules of it.


Those are good directives. I can support those. But I'm referring more to the changes that I would make to the general entry requirements.
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


Well it is a volunteer military so I don't see a way around it.

To deny anyone entry on your basis would be an infringement of the freedoms they are signing up to protect.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Jepic
 


I never thought about it that way before, it is interesting.
And you're right, if I get smoked, that's it for my family. The buck stops here.

But then what would people like me do outside of the military?
I would most likely be dead or in prison by now, or dead in prison.

I think it should stay as it is. It's an understood voluntary risk, and shouldn't be arbitrarily taken away from us. Whatever will be, will be.


Glad to see that you agree with me if even somewhat.

For stuff that you could do prior to entering the force on your 27th birthday is basically what I said to a previous poster, make a family. Unless you have a type of reproductive impairment then you should be allowed to enter the military as soon as you wish.

Star for you btw.
Sometimes I forget...
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well we do have something to protect the bloodlines in the military already.

Simply research Sole Survivor Policy or DoD Directive 1315.15 and it will explain the rules of it.


Those are good directives. I can support those. But I'm referring more to the changes that I would make to the general entry requirements.
edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


Well it is a volunteer military so I don't see a way around it.

To deny anyone entry on your basis would be an infringement of the freedoms they are signing up to protect.


A volunteer military is just fine. I believe that's the way to go.

As for your second point you are right that it is an infringement of the freedoms but I believe it's a good infringement for the simple fact that is put in place to protect, conserve and preserve the diversity of the country.

You set forth some credible points so I'll give you a star too.

edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join