When Should I enlist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't let anyone stop you

I'm a six-year veteran of the US Navy, and there is no one whose patriotic service and general citizenship I respect more than the Marine Corps. If you're sure trying to become a Marine is what you want to do, and you have enough facts to do it with your eyes wide open, don't let anyone talk you out of it. It's possible you could end up regretting joining up, but you would certainly regret giving up your heart's desire.

The question of college is more complex. I'd suggest you treat this as two completely separate questions: Do I want a college degree? and, Do I want to be a commissioned officer? Having a degree won't stop you from being enlisted if you don't want to be an officer. Enlisting won't usually stop you from getting a degree after your hitch, or possibly even during. There are a lot of options. Talk to both enlisted and officer recruiters, if you're not sure which way to go, and find out what all the possibilities are.

A lot of guys I know--Navy, Marine, and other--didn't figure out what they wanted to do until they got their ASVAB scores. Some didn't know until they finished basic training/bootcamp.

Also talk to as many veteran and active-duty Marines as you can find, especially any friends or relatives you trust to give you the straight dope. They can tell you things, and share experiences with you, that no recruiter ever will.

N.B. It's a sad fact, but enough recruiters behave dishonorably that you musn't rely on any verbal promises. If it isn't written on your enlistment documents, it didn't happen.

PS Col. Jeff Cooper was a Marine.
 
Sans Authoritas, I agree that the chance of a foreign invasion of the US is remote, but did you ever stop to consider that it's because of the armed forces. It's not 1941 anymore where an armed civilian populace can defeat an enemy.
If we have no armed forces, the enemy(and there WILL be one eventually without our armed forces, go back to your goverments always after resources, power and money)

They could take HI, then AK and so on. Are our minutemen going to rush to CA to defend a fellow state or does the union just dissolve? How could we get a cohesive force? Tanks/ Airplanes? generals?

I'd like to point out what should be obvious-the goverments that take over countries aren't nice people. The wouldn't have to occupy us they could just annilhate us. piecemeal and it would be bloody but without modern technology it would happen.

Now, If we start getting some planes and maintaning them get some pilots course they gotta spend some time practicing a lot more than infantry now how will they live will we pay them? can't they'll become proffessional soilders then.

Your theory might work if we were greenland, but our resources are too great. Can you give me one society in the last 2000 yrs not to have a military force and survive for any period of time? how bout one our size?

I'm not saying our forces haven't/aren't being misused (thats politics) But it's common sense that the armed forces are serving your country wether you'll admit it or not -Joe
 
Have you given any thought to what you would major in once in college? If you plan a career in the military or in national security, you might consider something that would teach you languages that would make you more invaluable to whatever your branch of the service you choose. Example
 
That is just silly qwert65. The constitution provides for a professional navy to secure our national waters. The current Navy has more planes than the Air Force last I heard so there goes the potential sea and air invasions. Any attempted land invasion would be SUICIDE for the invader, and that is just with what arms are currently in the hands of armed citizens today. There are more of us than any army, we know the terrain and we're better marksmen. The only reason our country is currently being invaded by waves of illegal immigrants is because the government points its employees, law enforcement officers and the military to be precise, at any American who would deter the invasion. If we were actually operating under constitutional principles the citizen militias would have heavy weapons and armor in community arsenals and there is a provision for raising a professional army in times of war.
 
qwert65, armor and jets, whatever you may: any grunt will tell you that you cannot occupy a country without boots on the ground. The Soviets couldn't defeat the Afghanis, and imagine how quickly the U.S. would be driven out of Iraq if even 20% of the population were indignant enough to take up arms? As it is, perhaps 5% are active. Probably closer to 1%. They don't have amazing organization or massive funding, while to date, the U.S. government has printed 3 trillion inflationary dollars to fund this escapade in a country the size of Texas. I'm not worried about China or Russia being able to pull off anything without nuking entire regions, which would put a damper on everyone's parade. And that is, of course, a rainy parade despite a 3,000,000 person standing military, the idea of which the Founding Fathers abhorred, and precisely what we have now.

And, as R127 said, you don't need a large standing army, either here or stationed all over the globe, in order to have decent weapons.

-Sans Authoritas
 
Last edited:
As long as we're talking about real results I would point to Finland, the only nation in history to ever repel a fullscale invasion by the Red Army and they did it with militia armed with rifles, knives, molotovs and horses against a mechanized army vastly superior in size with full armor, air and artillery support. The losses were staggeringly disporportionate. Free men defending their homes have a tremendous real world advantage against hired soldiers.

The Swiss don't even get messed with. When they used to engage in warfare they were very very good at it. When they stopped messing with people and worried about their own affairs they didn't make many enemies and what enemies they had mostly understood they would not last very long in Swiss territory. Now the Swiss are following in the footsteps of the American rifleman and squandering all that away as fast as possible for a little extra convenience. It's a shame.
 
Gentlemen, may I suggest...?

That the disputes over side issues are disrespectful to the young man who originally asked for advice? Perhaps they are better discussed elsewhere.
 
Are you sure? If I said I wanted to buy a Glock 26 to shoot prarie dogs at 500 yards would it be disrespectful to me to suggest a more suitable firearm?

A teenager who is not wise in the ways of the world said he wants to work for the government for unrealistic reasons and asked when he should do it. Speaking only for myself I advised he should time it so he can do his training in the springtime and escape the brutal heat or cold of summer and winter respectively. Because I was once a teenager and not wise in the ways of the world I also cautioned him to do a reality check against his romanticism.

You yourself said,

N.B. It's a sad fact, but enough recruiters behave dishonorably that you musn't rely on any verbal promises. If it isn't written on your enlistment documents, it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

..... and that right there should set off some screaming alarms.

The cult of romanticism surrounding being a government employee is not only based on false pretenses but is also extremely detrimental to liberty and lawful society. This isn't the same thing as saying such government employees are themselves rotten to the core, Nazis or whatever other hyperbole. It's simply a case of not supporting the bad desires of bad people with your sweat, blood and good intentions.
 
Jaholder,

I cordially invite you to abandon your ad-hominem attacks and logically contend any or all of the points I have made.

-Sans Authoritas
 
R127- reread your history Finland used proffessional trops augumented by milita, the swiss have an army augumented by militia. Russia had horrible leadership and moved terribly also any one with have a brain will admit that if you have finland vs russia without aid they would fall.


Say china sails up to the california coast and establishes a beachhead easy enough to do they have enough people and can always bring more over(remember we don't have a navy)

Now think native american or the warsaw ghetto we would eventually fall not do to tactics or bad marksmanship but to technology .

Look at Vietnam how well did the NVA and vietcong work against us? No picture china who dosen't care about how many men they're gonna lose say they go japanses ala 1936 and just kill all civilans it would be bloddy they'd take losses but they would win. How would we move heavy equipment without air supieriority? or have safe factories? Remember the afgahns only won cause we GAVE them weapons and training. how many helicopters did they shoot down before we started arming them?

You didn't even answer my question finland and switzerland both have standing armies, AF, etc.
 
Sans

I'm not he, but I respectfully ask that you respect the original post and either contribute to it, or create another thread.

Thank you
 
I just came home from Army Basic and AIT last week, take my advice and wait until after college now is not a good time to enlist in any branch of service if they find anything wrong with you physically or mentally they may just discharge you and depending on the discharge it could really screw up your life
 
It's 2008 if america decided we wanted Iraq to be a gas station you don't think they could do it?

We could just act like sadaam and start gasing

Taking over and occuping are two seperate entities. Thats why the ancients just removed their enemies.

Even our founding fathers realized a need for a navy
 
R127 said:
As long as we're talking about real results I would point to Finland, the only nation in history to ever repel a fullscale invasion by the Red Army and they did it with militia armed with rifles, knives, molotovs and horses against a mechanized army vastly superior in size with full armor, air and artillery support. The losses were staggeringly disporportionate. Free men defending their homes have a tremendous real world advantage against hired soldiers.

The Swiss don't even get messed with. When they used to engage in warfare they were very very good at it. When they stopped messing with people and worried about their own affairs they didn't make many enemies and what enemies they had mostly understood they would not last very long in Swiss territory. Now the Swiss are following in the footsteps of the American rifleman and squandering all that away as fast as possible for a little extra convenience. It's a shame.
Click to expand...

Finland did not repel the invasion of the reds during the winter war; they merely prolonged it because Stalin had massacred his entire officer corps to the point where the red army really did not know how to do anything. As awesome as Finland's performance was, it was more due to the stumbling of the red army in a 'foreign' land (which had been either Russian or Swedish for a very long time) and the combined actions of Finns defending their homes. Still highly meritable in ALL respects, however.

The Swiss didn't get messed with because they complied with taking and hiding Nazi gold behind their 'neutral' banks; it might also have something to do with the fact that invading and conquering the Swiss would serve no real purpose.

Regardless, I agree with you and Sans Authoritas; joining the military does not instantly make one patriotic, nor is 'fighting for one's country' (nationalism) the best thing for you. It is a matter of what you stand must check off in your ledger of what you are serving for. To me, in Iraq it would be for the politicians who will not let you do your job effectively (just like in Vietnam) or for some other department in the government cracking down on our constitutional rights. Serving this ends is neither 'patriotic' if you do not share the same values but it is 'fighting for your country', just like the nationalists of yesteryear.

I am in the same age bracket as you pigspitter and am contemplating the same thing. The difference is that I have a good friend of mine whose college (ROTC at VT) is being payed for by the Army and must choose where to enlist at: Active, Reserve, or National Guard. I told him that if he joins the NG, I will join the same unit so in the case of us getting shipped out, at least we would both try to make it back home to our loved ones. On a lighter note, I find it would be better that as an option in the NG to protect our own sovereign borders and help our own fellow countrymen where they need it most, not fight some distant politician's war. It seems funny to me that we have national guard members overseas fighting with their hands tied behind their back.

Either way, you need to seriously analyze and think about what values you think you will be furthering if you decide to join a branch for the hell of it. If you ask me if you were to enlist tomorrow you would be joining for all of the wrong reasons, such as the 'image' of patriotism our bloated and broke government is putting out. Being a patriot is not always about serving in the military and it seems like you have delved off into the romantic deep end. The loyalists in 1776 were being 'patriotic' and 'serving their country', just as what you wish to do. What is more important is what the fighting is being done for.
 
i have a few friends that joined the marines and air force. they don't talk about the war much. my friend went to college and spent a couple summers in officer candidate school. i almost joined too. he is a really nice guy. he was not on the front line but did not recommission.

the air force guy is a friend's brother. he went to iraq twice. when they called him to go back again, he refused to go back. is there something he needs to tell me about this war? is he considered awol. if he is dishonorably discharged. then he can not even purchase a handgun.
 
I served in the Marine Corps for 8 years. If you have your heart set on being a Marine do not let anyone dissuade you - it is a path you will never regret taking. A Marine Corps Commissioned Officer is a Marine, a rifleman and a leader of men. An enlisted man is a Marine, a rifleman and a leader of men.

After they have fulfilled these duties they are assigned to be secretaries, grunts, cannon cocker's or cooks - all the same.

I went enlisted with an "open contract" just for the adventure and knowing that the Marines would put me where they needed me. They Did. If I could do it again I would and I might try college first just for the hint of an opportunity to fly.

Semper Fi, Good Luck



www.Marines.com
http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/freenewsletter.asp
 
I encourage you, as before, to join the US Marines. You would be a welcome addition.
You other gentlemen MUST cease fire on each other in this young man's thread. This is beneath you.
He feels the call to serve. He asks WHEN to enlist, not IF he should enlist. Your comments about his decision are not appropriate here.
His wish is to serve his country, to include but not limited to yourselves. Keep this on point, or his thread will be locked, and he'll not get the input he desires.
Steve (Serving in Iraq, with pride)
 
I suggest college first. Any time you spend there will be quickly made up by faster promotions, enlisted or officer. Should you come to the conclusion that your short time was good, but a career is not for you, then there will be something to fall back on. Good luck.

Sgt. Jdude
 
As someone mentioned, if you're interested in a military school, academy or corps of cadets don't forget Texas A & M University! The Corps there is always heavily recruiting.
 
Go ROTC!

Are you really committed to the school that does not have NROTC?

I put in a request to the Army when I was senior in HS and got a 4-years tuition and fees scholarship out of it.

If you have decent academics/activities, it would not hurt to see what the Navy might give you.

Pluses to going the ROTC route (w/ scholarship) include:

- Schooling paid for (minus room and board)
- Degree in hand
- Getting to have a real life in college while being the same age as your peer students
- Far better pay while on active duty
- Higher rank/respect while on active duty (not trying to knock the junior enlisted folks, but sometimes their life really sucks :())
- Enormous sense of pride and responsibility for your soldiers :)

Best of luck to you!

Hunter
 
Last edited:
No question...if you have the ability to get a degree...DO IT.

Just because you become a Marine, doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good job once you get out. People want EDUCATION and that DEGREE for the better jobs.

I was in the Air Force, 4 years enlisted. Even though I worked with computers, I still can't find anything remotely similar jobwise to what I did in the service. Frankly I wouldn't want to anyway, it was boring.
 
Well, patriotism is all fine and dandy, but I think decisions about joining up should hinge on whether or not one desires a warrior's lifestyle--this is a particularly important consideration for a potential Marine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
gun friendly colleges?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Dr_B
D
T
  • Locked
I want to enlist...can anyone offer advice?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
The Nip
T
C
  • Locked
U.S. Soldiers Re-Enlist in Strong Numbers
Replies
11
Views
632
RED-DOG 40
R
C
  • Locked
thoughts on joining the ARMY
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
5K
RKBABob
R
H
  • Locked
A Warrior Passes
Replies
9
Views
875
Reloadron
Reloadron
Back
Top