Dipsh-t of the Year

best compromise.

Read quite carefully. This is what I read:
"No sympathy form me, sorry. I'm sick and tired of people taking hand-outs and not wanting to put-out for what they're given. Why was he I the military? To get an education, and a free one for all intents and purposes. Free to him -- not free to me. So, what's he do when it's his turn to "pay up?" Throws in the towel.

Pitiful."

I am misunderstanding that?

Ah, crap. I must have said something wrong if I get the from Lerk... I know how he hates that thing...

Sure, someone who is depressed and looking for direction in life could be influenced by military advertisements, but your not mentioning the main objective of the recruitment/basic training process : to find qualified individuals that can be trained to become an asset to the military. Targeting people who obviously don�t belong in the military would be counterproductive to maintaining an effective military. Recruitment standards, in the US, have never been higher than they are right now. When I joined the USMC ten years ago, I had to get a waiver because I had a lewd conduct charge on my record (BTW, that charge was expunged shortly after the incident). Surly, someone with a history of depression would be �weeded out� as soon as there is knowledge of it.

Believe me, even if military advertisements are targeting �weak� people, all false impressions are quickly resolved the moment you arrive on base.

Oh yeah... Here's something else I'll add...

USMC stands for "You Signed the Mother%*#&ing Contract"

I hope they let him go with a dishonerable discharge. I wouldn't want him fighting for my country. He should also get some of his freedoms revoked.

Feh. To me it is the quintessential paradox. Teenagers ARE stupid by nature. DOn't get offended. We were ALL stupid teens at one point. Some folks get out of it, some don't. I can't expect a teeneager to drive with responsibility, let alone make good major life decisions. The military needs young bodies. Kids right out of HS are not overflowing with life experience or brains.

It is like casting for Lear: you need an 80 year old in a 35 year old body.

Not to mention- I don't know how many of you guys talked to a recruiter when you were in HS. Some of those guys are more manipulative than car salesmen. Hell, I almost joined.

so....unless he's willing to kill, he should not be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else?

um....ok. Let's give him a job at an abortion clinic with your blessing. (/joke)

the fact is, many people have radical changes of heart. The army has in place procedures for such things.

Not great procedures, but procedures.

I'm really confused though why pacifism is not understood by a religious man?

I think the earlier suggested compromise was a good one: make him serve in some capacity that does not require him to kill anyone. Contracturally he complies, and ethically he retains his ideals.

What is the price of freedom Lerk? Sure I was being sarcastic with the revoking of freedoms type of thing. But come on, you actually believe he didn't know the marines killed people?

Like others have said before, sounds like he was looking for a free ride, and when he was actually expected to fullfill his end of the deal, he wantd out of it.

Yes, a dishonerable discharge is in order. And yes, it will follow him around the rest of his life.

If homosexuals get a honorable discharge if they make their sexuality public while in military service, other human traits such as pacificm should earn the same. Or a deskjob if applicable. Only fair.

You are in a country where higher education is not free or cheap. I know from a lot of those people I worked with that there is a fair amount of your country that simply does not have the money to pay for an aducation on it's own pockets.

Oh bullcrap.

They can do what I and many others did - get a part time job and work summers. And I did that while getting a physics degree - not exactly an easy major. I have absolutely no sympathy when someone plays the money card. None whatsoever. College is about sacrifice. So you don't have a nice car, don't get to go out clubbing everynight and have to take simple dates. You work hard and I think it made me a better person to work for college. Those who didn't typically didn't take college as seriously. Further I think I learned skills by having to manage time and money that I'd not have learned otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, had I gone in the military I'd have learned a lot too. And I don't fault in the least those who do that. (I almost went ROTC myself) However I have no sympathy for those who claim that it is due to hardship.

Bullcrap.

As a gay veteran I'd have to say I find that to be a pretty ignorant comparison to make. First of all, getting fired from your job because your government discriminates against you is not a benefit. Secondly, being a pacifist is not like being gay. It is not a "human trait." It is an opinion.

On the other hand, being stupid probably is a human trait, and this person was apprently stupid. But that isn't an excuse in this situation. If he had figured out he was a pacifist there were other ways of handling his moral conflict other than going AWOL. Instead, he decided to violate his oath to obey lawful orders. I hope he receives the appropriate level of punishment.

No, I don't think we can say the two are the same. BTW that is very Politically correct for the Army. That had to have been changed recently.

No getting discharged because you wont fight for your country even though you signed up to do so, should very well be a dishonerable discharge. If he was so pacifist, he should have not joined in the first place.

If this kid, Funk, had simply showed up to base and applied for his discharge, I'd at least have an ounce of respect for him.

He 'insists' that his decision had nothing to do w/ Iraq, but then makes it known that he has attended 'EVERY' major anti-war rally in San Francisco while being escorted to the base by a pack of anti-war protestors.

He's so spineless that he can't even make a stand for what he truly believes. This kid needs to grab his sack and be a man.

I expect some sort of lawsuit on his behalf to follow shortly- claiming the military falsely advertises and takes advantage of depressed citizens.

I think there are at least 3 or more distinct issues here.

1. whether recruitment advt. is accurate (I say generally not, but I also think it doesn't bear on this case)
2. Whether a reservist can conscientiously object. (as I and Simey point out, there are procedures that allow for that somewhat)
3. Whether someone not willing to kill another human being is worthy of full citizenship.
4. Whether being pro-this present action is the same as being patriotic, or more accurately, whether its right to condone every military decisions made by the US govt, even if it goes against one's conscience.
5. whether the kid was a naive teenager or a manipulative panhandler afraid of responsiblity.
6. Whether this camouflage outfit makes my butt look too big.

Nope. There's only one issue here:

1) Whether or not Stephen Funk will ever be able to stand up for himself and his convictions, and make personal decisions without his mommy and a pack of protestors by his side.

Advertising is advertising. I work in that industry. Bad stuff doesn't exactly sell.

The new Army campaign is pretty honest. It even invites people to download footage of people in boot camp.

The Maring Corps ad showing the guy scaling the rock mountian is metaphorical, not literal. As is the "slay the dragon" ad. The most famous Marine ad, the one where they forge the sword is also metaphorical - forging a Marine.

The Air Force ads "go into the blue" or whatever are kind of cheesy. Worst of the breed, I think.

I haven't seen many Navy ads lately - maybe because I'm in a landlocked state?



Seems silly to sign up for the military if you are against war of any kind. Wouldn't the conscientious objector rules be more for things like religious reasons for certain wars? Such as Muslims not wanting to fight in this one...




Well, citizenship shouldn't be "revoked" because he doesn't want to kill. However, he does have to face military charges, if they apply.



The Government is ALWAYS right, Lerk!



Either way, he needs to face the responsibility of his actions.



It's camo - you shouldn't be able to be seen.

I see. You also seem to have some intimate kowledge whch allows you to cast judgement.
Good for you. With every word you post, you help define and reinforce my judgements of you.
Gawd. I sure wish I had all the answers like you.
You must be a teenager.

Or they can join the army. It's a job in your country, one that has perks such as paying for education, and sometimes you also get to see other countries etc. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong that I can see, in doing that instead of working part time, taking loans etc. You make it sound as if it's some kind of crime or as if you're bitter because there are many who do it. Your "playing the money card" sounds like some kind of treason or something. If that's the case, why don't you do something about it, such as joining the Army?

We've already covered that (no pun intended) elsewhere.

For the last time, No. The camouflage isn't making your ass look fat. Your fat ass is making your ass look fat.