I do not regret it at all, I needed it!

I have veterans within the family, but no, I don't regret not doing it

ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: If you joined when you already had a degree, would your MOS be in a field your degree was in?
For instance, I already have my Electrical Engineering degree. Would I get a job in the military for my degree or not necessarily?

If you are actually considering it, I'd try to become an officer if i were you. You already have your degree which would qualify you.

original_sin wrote: What other occupation has a greater chance to be killed while at work?

Pass.

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/09/most_dangerous_jobs_bureau_of_labor_statistics_2006_2007.html

In a way I do... it really opens up doors for some amazing opportunities. Also, I think the structure and discipline involved would have helped me combat some of my lazy tendencies.

ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: If you joined when you already had a degree, would your MOS be in a field your degree was in?
For instance, I already have my Electrical Engineering degree. Would I get a job in the military for my degree or not necessarily?

yes and no. it might have some sway, but in the end it always comes down the needs of the army. so dont get your sights set on one thing completely, have a back up MOS you wouldnt mind etc.

ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: I heard if you left your job to join to military, they'd have to hold your position for you while you were enlisted. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm that?

active duty, no. if you are in the reserves or guard and get deployed they are supposed to hold your job until you get back, however they are a lot of loop holes, they will just find another reason to let you go. although i think that most employers would be respect what you are doing and wouldnt do that.

mexappeal12 wrote: In a way I do... it really opens up doors for some amazing opportunities. Also, I think the structure and discipline involved would have helped me combat some of my lazy tendencies.

haha oh i can still be lazy. i just know when i can and cant be lazy. makes you smart about it haha.

I do, actually.

If I hadn't had a steady girlfriend, I probably would have. But I wouldn't have been able to stand being away from her for a lengthy time.

Age - 50. No regrets whatsoever at not having served. Things have changed since my day - and definitely for the better.

The first years of the all-volunteer military were not pretty - if any of you know career military people who were serving during the time it was phased in, ask them about it and watch the look of horror on their face. Vietnam and the recently-ended draft (I was 16 at that time) had created bitter attitudes toward military service with people my age, and the Army and Navy had severe problems attracting quality recruits (good people were there, but they also took in a LOT of problem cases). At the time, a four-year stint in some branches was looked upon with suspicion by many employers as an indiciation of a potential problem employee. Today, thankfully, a record of military service is considered a major plus - and my experience with young veterans only reinforces that belief.

Before some of you jump on us aging hippie types (the treatment of veterans by some was beyond deplorable), think about what would occur if a miltiary draft were started in the US tomorrow. The reaction today would make the Bolshevik Revolution look like Woodstock.

everyone should do two years--it can be real interersting

noreply66 wrote: everyone should do two years--it can be real interersting

Totally disagree. As many have stated the military life is not for everyone. Not only that, but 2 years in the military doesn't really help anyone. With the technological demands of most career fields in all of the services, two years is about the time you would start to get a quality troop. Until then, most of the time is spent in training. It is not uncommon for initial training phases to last 6 months to a year. The second year would be the second phase of training or on-the-job-training. Not to mention, it is hard enough to train individuals that are motivated, let alone training 19-20 year old's that don't want to be there. The all-volunteer force has served our country pretty well from the end of Vietnam through the cold war and up to now. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Good point Salto. I've always disagreed on the 2 years thing.

I know of one job in the Air Force that had a training course of 2 years in Technical School. (PMEL - Precision measurement equipment laboratory). They had to do a six year sign up in that career field.

I really thought about joining one of the branches my senior year of high school. 9/11 happened at the beginning of it. Part of me still thinks I should have but I was still unsure if I could handle it. I still think about it from time to time. I would never do it now that I have a child.

My training will be close to 2 years. That's why I have a 6 year contract. I should be done with the first part of my training April 7th 2010 which puts me over a year here in Great Lakes. Then I'll go to C school which should be about 6 months long. The Navy has about 5 jobs in the Tech field that require a 6 year contract due to the training length.

What would the Navy do for you if you're already an EE?

Not sure I'm not an Officer so they may consider you as the Navy loves technical degrees. Enlisted you'd have to take the ASVAB see what you score and see what jobs you qualify for.

Glad I served 9 years. It literally changed my life and helped me mature...not to mention the GI Bill helped finance my bachelors degree and gave me an opportunity to purchase my first home with minimal money down.

I wouldn't change a thing.

ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: What would the Navy do for you if you're already an EE?

With an engineering degree the Navy is probably going to try and push you towards a job in the nuclear field. Anybody with a degree even remotely relating to one of the jobs in the Nuclear Field (and one of our rates are electricians) they will try and steer our way. Its not a bad life either. Officers in the Navy have a decent lifestyle.

salto wrote:

noreply66 wrote: everyone should do two years--it can be real interersting

Totally disagree. As many have stated the military life is not for everyone. Not only that, but 2 years in the military doesn't really help anyone. With the technological demands of most career fields in all of the services, two years is about the time you would start to get a quality troop. Until then, most of the time is spent in training. It is not uncommon for initial training phases to last 6 months to a year. The second year would be the second phase of training or on-the-job-training. Not to mention, it is hard enough to train individuals that are motivated, let alone training 19-20 year old's that don't want to be there. The all-volunteer force has served our country pretty well from the end of Vietnam through the cold war and up to now. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Isnt broken in Israel. and the majority of training for basic and jobs specific training takes less than a year. i would say very few jobs take specialty training that last longer. i am pretty sure in the army, unless you are going to be a helicopter pilot, that is the only training that takes longer.

noreply66 wrote: everyone should do two years--it can be real interersting

I disagree. Some people's attitudes are bad enough after volunteering for service. I can only imagine how unmotivated people who were forced to serve would be. The most frustrating part of my job is trying to get people who just don't care to do their job. I would imagine that people forced into service would be some of the most difficult people to motivate.

Glory Days wrote:

salto wrote:

noreply66 wrote: everyone should do two years--it can be real interersting

Totally disagree. As many have stated the military life is not for everyone. Not only that, but 2 years in the military doesn't really help anyone. With the technological demands of most career fields in all of the services, two years is about the time you would start to get a quality troop. Until then, most of the time is spent in training. It is not uncommon for initial training phases to last 6 months to a year. The second year would be the second phase of training or on-the-job-training. Not to mention, it is hard enough to train individuals that are motivated, let alone training 19-20 year old's that don't want to be there. The all-volunteer force has served our country pretty well from the end of Vietnam through the cold war and up to now. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Isnt broken in Israel. and the majority of training for basic and jobs specific training takes less than a year. i would say very few jobs take specialty training that last longer. i am pretty sure in the army, unless you are going to be a helicopter pilot, that is the only training that takes longer.

So you would compare the teens who have lived in a war zone their entire lives to American teens? Great analysis. I never said that most training lasts more than a year. I said most careers training phases last 6months to a year. I wasn't referring to only basic training/initial technical training . So before you formulate a basis for your belief maybe you should have some facts. Before offering a counter point you might want to reread the point you are trying to counter. As an example, an AF medic will go to basic training and follow that up with technical school. That will take approximately 6 months. The student medic is then sent to one of several bases that support Phase II technical training. That will last approximately 3 more months. So they are then sent to their base after 9 months. Once there they will begin OJT. Depending on the type of unit, that training will last as much as 6 more months. So now they are at the 15 month mark and have made it to their first skill level that affords them "some" autonomy in their daily work related duties. So you get a trained troop for roughly 7 months. Before you question my math, each individual will accrue 60 days of leave over their two year enlistment. So you would have the DoD invest millions of dollars into an individual that they will be able to utilize for little more than half a year. As I said, I don't think that would be a good idea.

yeah, but someone who is drafted wouldnt be in for a career, and wouldnt be given jobs where they need career training. they would be sent to combat units or work in supply, not small specialized units that need a lot of training. they wouldnt take someone who was drafted and make them a full up medic or a pilot.

Sorry, but I don't think you have a real grasp on the U.S. military of today. What is a "full-up" medic? All medic's in the Air Force are trained to a certain level. That is they all require the initial training that brings them to a little more than a year of training. It takes that long to attain the skill and knowledge level adequate for routine medical/corpsman proficiency. That comes nowhere near the additional training required of the Critical Care medic, and doesn't even scrape the surface of the training required for Army and Navy Combat Medic's. Just so you know, the military does not skimp on training just to rush troops into action. They may have condensed some of that training into a smaller time frame in the past, but we have the best trained force in the world for a reason. Training is never minimized or shortened in substance to fill a tasking requirement.

In years past some positions may have been menial, requiring less training. As I stated earlier, that is not the case in today's military. The weapons system are much more technically demanding than those in the past. One reason the U.S. has suffered so relatively few casualties in the two on-going campaigns is the technical advantage of our weapons system and just as importantly the proficiency, knowledge and skill of our forces. There's more to it than just handing out rifles and pointing them in the right direction.

never hadn any desire or even thought about....nothing to regret for me

I wouldn't want people forced to join. There are already too many miserable people in the Navy and people making up stuff just to get out.

My biggest regret in my life is that I'm bi-polar and the navy discharged me because of it.

salto wrote: Sorry, but I don't think you have a real grasp on the U.S. military of today. What is a "full-up" medic? All medic's in the Air Force are trained to a certain level. That is they all require the initial training that brings them to a little more than a year of training. It takes that long to attain the skill and knowledge level adequate for routine medical/corpsman proficiency. That comes nowhere near the additional training required of the Critical Care medic, and doesn't even scrape the surface of the training required for Army and Navy Combat Medic's. Just so you know, the military does not skimp on training just to rush troops into action. They may have condensed some of that training into a smaller time frame in the past, but we have the best trained force in the world for a reason. Training is never minimized or shortened in substance to fill a tasking requirement.

In years past some positions may have been menial, requiring less training. As I stated earlier, that is not the case in today's military. The weapons system are much more technically demanding than those in the past. One reason the U.S. has suffered so relatively few casualties in the two on-going campaigns is the technical advantage of our weapons system and just as importantly the proficiency, knowledge and skill of our forces. There's more to it than just handing out rifles and pointing them in the right direction.

trust me, i have a grasp on the military of today.