Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reserve Officers Training Corps"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? [[User:Stephen.wang|wang]] 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | *Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? [[User:Stephen.wang|wang]] 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
:*I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. [[User:Reaganaut|Reaganaut]] 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | :*I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. [[User:Reaganaut|Reaganaut]] 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've added a more descriptive definition of ROTC (so as to not confuse participation in ROTC, which results in an officer's commission, with enlistment). | ||
Revision as of 22:20, 29 April 2007
- Why was this removed " Credit for courses is not a requirement for the establishment of a program" ? Is that not true? wang 01:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't remove it, but maybe because that's not a "pro-ROTC argument". It's more of a "it wouldn't be too much trouble to bring back ROTC" argument. Reaganaut 03:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I've added a more descriptive definition of ROTC (so as to not confuse participation in ROTC, which results in an officer's commission, with enlistment).
