newGuy12
Master of Arts
The armed forces, especially the Army, is certainly going to be hard pressed to recruit now.
Felons In The Military
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
- Status
As an aside to the topic, my fellow members of MT.
Just as it is only polite to 'sign' your comments when giving a rep 'buff', it is also only proper to do so when giving negative rep.
If someone has so offended you with their words that you simply have to use this facility (and I never have, I'll tell you outright rather than from behind the 'curtain') then have the good grace to identify yourself.
As well as the aspect of simple courtesy, what good does an anonymous 'ding' do? You're registering extreme disapproval with negative rep, something I think those who use it sometimes fail to recognise. If the poster who drew it doesn't know where it came from, how can they possibly respond in anything like a constructive manner?
Disagreeing with someone is not a crime and neither is using negative rep (tho' I have my own views on this). Doing so without identifying yourself does not contribute to the debate.
Just as it is only polite to 'sign' your comments when giving a rep 'buff', it is also only proper to do so when giving negative rep.
If someone has so offended you with their words that you simply have to use this facility (and I never have, I'll tell you outright rather than from behind the 'curtain') then have the good grace to identify yourself.
As well as the aspect of simple courtesy, what good does an anonymous 'ding' do? You're registering extreme disapproval with negative rep, something I think those who use it sometimes fail to recognise. If the poster who drew it doesn't know where it came from, how can they possibly respond in anything like a constructive manner?
Disagreeing with someone is not a crime and neither is using negative rep (tho' I have my own views on this). Doing so without identifying yourself does not contribute to the debate.
grydth
Senior Master
Don't know why you're getting nasty digs...I began my military service in the early 1980's and you could clearly see each of these things. It did take years to fix - and slowly. I had plenty of work as a JAG - and a large number of these guys never should have been in the Army to begin with. I believe they were slang referred to as Category 4s. There were unfit soldiers and mediocre officers because the services simply could not get anyone else.
Of equal concern is the material situation.... we may show hundreds of tanks, APCs and other vehicles in inventory - but how many are ready to roll? How many lack basic maintenance, repairs to battle damage, critical upgrades, needed spare parts? I saw my share of units that looked okay on paper - but neither men nor machines were ready for deployment.
Your hunch that we are in a bad mess is probably optimistic. The 'saving grace' may be that most potential opponents right now don't look much better.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
thats your opinion. Is it based on your extensive military experience? or did you just read that on DailyPOS and regurgitate it?
Please provide a cite for that accusation
You have a cite for any of these supposed transgressions or are you going to , like you did last time, ignore requests that you actually prove what you are saying is true?
And no, Clinton dmaned near destroyed the military. The FACT is that soldiers are re-enlisting at record rates.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339296,00.html
Tellner, just stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339296,00.html
"According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal."
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080123.aspx
"Reenlistments have been higher than before the war on terror began in 2001. The invasion of Iraq resulted in even higher reenlistment rates. "
starting to see a trend here? Or do i need to go on?
"According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal."
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080123.aspx
"Reenlistments have been higher than before the war on terror began in 2001. The invasion of Iraq resulted in even higher reenlistment rates. "
starting to see a trend here? Or do i need to go on?
How does "Stop-Loss" fit in?
grydth
Senior Master
"Stop Loss" may illustrate how both Twin Fist and Tellner are correct. I pretend to speak for neither, by the way.
Armies almost always grow a great deal in size to meet wartime demands. I believe it is quite possible that while more service members across the spectrum may be re-enlisting (Twin Fist) than pre-war, those specialist types facing endless IEDs in Iraq (Infantry NCO) may be leaving in such large numbers as to be irreplacable (tellner) without a drastic step such as this.
My opinion is that "Stop Loss" is a bandaid solution, and one where the bandaid ultimately will produce infection and gangrene.
It seems we have a wag in our midst.
In response to my 'Mentory' comment about the utility of Negative Rep above I got the following 'ding':
"You're wrong, and off-topic. The system is anonymous by design and choice. -Anonymous".
Such mis-use is another evidential point as to why the system should not be annonymous. Such a sentiment would've been better sent via PM - as I said above, that way we get to address the 'problem' rather than just 'stir the pot'.
In response to my 'Mentory' comment about the utility of Negative Rep above I got the following 'ding':
"You're wrong, and off-topic. The system is anonymous by design and choice. -Anonymous".
Such mis-use is another evidential point as to why the system should not be annonymous. Such a sentiment would've been better sent via PM - as I said above, that way we get to address the 'problem' rather than just 'stir the pot'.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 10,826
- Reaction score
- 617
One question we need to ask is this:
How thorough are those background checks that are being conducted on felons who wish to enlist?
Unless someone really screwed up, I would have to doubt that top tier categories of felonies are going to be automatic disqualifiers, and that those who were convicted of sexual offenses, manslaughter, etc., had done so under certain circumstances.
When those circumstances were reviewed, there's a good chance that the facts of the case painted a different picture, rather than painting these recruits with a broad paint brush.
For example, suppose someone had decided to take a leak in a public place, and some child had seen the forbidden areas? Right away, that could be classified as a very serious penalty, yet there may not have been any malicious intent.
If these felons serve in the military honorably, then I have no problems with their being in the armed forces. This is a chance for their redemption.
However, if they choose to commit crimes in the military, then may they face swift, and very serious, military justice. The military courts aren't nearly as forgiving as their civilian counterparts.
How thorough are those background checks that are being conducted on felons who wish to enlist?
Unless someone really screwed up, I would have to doubt that top tier categories of felonies are going to be automatic disqualifiers, and that those who were convicted of sexual offenses, manslaughter, etc., had done so under certain circumstances.
When those circumstances were reviewed, there's a good chance that the facts of the case painted a different picture, rather than painting these recruits with a broad paint brush.
For example, suppose someone had decided to take a leak in a public place, and some child had seen the forbidden areas? Right away, that could be classified as a very serious penalty, yet there may not have been any malicious intent.
If these felons serve in the military honorably, then I have no problems with their being in the armed forces. This is a chance for their redemption.
However, if they choose to commit crimes in the military, then may they face swift, and very serious, military justice. The military courts aren't nearly as forgiving as their civilian counterparts.
To end the tangent, the rep system is the way it is, we're not changing it, and this isn't the place to discuss/complain/lodge concerns.
Admin. Note:
The reputation system is anonymous for a reason. Better to analyze the comment for its worth rather than public mudslinging. Here is a link again to the reputation guidelines.
If you feel the system has been abused according to those guidelines please file a complaint directly with a staff member and we will investigate.
Otherwise, let's please return to the topic.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
The reputation system is anonymous for a reason. Better to analyze the comment for its worth rather than public mudslinging. Here is a link again to the reputation guidelines.
If you feel the system has been abused according to those guidelines please file a complaint directly with a staff member and we will investigate.
Otherwise, let's please return to the topic.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
OP
- Thread Starter
- #32
Well, I'd like to preface my post here, by saying that we all know threads in the study get hot. Opinions are going to differ and thats fact. Lets try to avoid taking personal shots please and stay somewhat civil. 
Ok..that being said...Im not in the military, so I really don't know what screening process, if any, is used when folks want to enlist. Is there any background check? Someone applying for a PD is going to go thru a long process, and of course, we hear about people who become cops, getting arrested for crimes. Go figure.
Could enlisting turn someone around? Its really no different than offering someone treatment for an addiction rather than a long prison sentence. But, the person has to want to improve themselves. Would the military change a sex offender or a rapist? Dont know. But, IMO, I'd be more willing to see someone with a minor offense, serve rather than someone who is convicted of a serious crime.
Ok..that being said...Im not in the military, so I really don't know what screening process, if any, is used when folks want to enlist. Is there any background check? Someone applying for a PD is going to go thru a long process, and of course, we hear about people who become cops, getting arrested for crimes. Go figure.
Could enlisting turn someone around? Its really no different than offering someone treatment for an addiction rather than a long prison sentence. But, the person has to want to improve themselves. Would the military change a sex offender or a rapist? Dont know. But, IMO, I'd be more willing to see someone with a minor offense, serve rather than someone who is convicted of a serious crime.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
stop loss is an extended enlistment, not a re-enlistment. members who are stop lossed should not be counted as re-enlistments. if they are being counted that way, someone is breaking the rules to do so. And the military has always had the option to extend people's enlistment, they just rarely do so. When they do, it is always people in hard to replace positions.
Grenadier,
When i enlisted, they talked to my high school teachers, when my job required that I get a TS clearance, they talked to my middle school teachers and friends i grew up with. The background check is extensive. Much more so than civilian ones.
To expand on what TF said, "Stop Loss" is a program whereby the military can keep people in uniform even if their term of duty has expired. Most of the time it is not used or is applied very sparingly to retain critical people. Since the Iraq invasion it has been used almost universally. Finishing one's hitch no longer means leaving the military. It increasingly means being forced to serve indefinitely.
Stop loss, reduced standards and the movement of airmen and sailors to the army and marines are the only way that the military has been able to maintain something like desired troop levels.
Stop loss, reduced standards and the movement of airmen and sailors to the army and marines are the only way that the military has been able to maintain something like desired troop levels.
Oh, do you mean this:
Those bastards, offering career advancement! The nerve!
No Don, and you can stop with the stupid strawmen anytime you want. They don't make you look smart. They don't show me up as the spineless America-hating French-wine-sipping feminazi lib'rul you imagine me to be.
In the approved fashion - your indoctrination has been handled very thoroughly - you've seized on one little thing that you imagine invalidates a huge number of mutually reinforcing points. If you can niggle one little ambiguity, especially if it makes the Enemy - because that is how you think of me - look evil, then everything is good. You can go back to congratulating yourself on the superiority of everything you believe. That's S.O.P. in what passes for the political process these days. That doesn't make it any sort of a close approach to the truth.
What I'm talking about is the "individual augmentee" policy of taking people from the Navy and Air Force whether they volunteer or not and sticking them in the infantry. This isn't the "Blue to Green" program that started a couple years ago. It's a newer policy of filling holes in the Army and Marines with people from other branches of the Service because not enough qualified warm bodies can be found who will willingly volunteer. At least one Navy officer has very publicly resigned a commission because of the deception.
The Army and Marine Corps can not get enough people to serve willingly. To fill the gap they are making all hitches basically lifetime affairs. The Reserves and Guard are being used in ways they haven't since at least WWII. Standards are declining precipitously. The amount we have to bribe them to sign up is truly amazing. But they still won't go. One way to fill the gap is to cannibalize the other Services and destroy their readiness and structure in the process. It can not continue forever. And the damage it is doing to the United States Armed Forces is terrible.
In the approved fashion - your indoctrination has been handled very thoroughly - you've seized on one little thing that you imagine invalidates a huge number of mutually reinforcing points. If you can niggle one little ambiguity, especially if it makes the Enemy - because that is how you think of me - look evil, then everything is good. You can go back to congratulating yourself on the superiority of everything you believe. That's S.O.P. in what passes for the political process these days. That doesn't make it any sort of a close approach to the truth.
What I'm talking about is the "individual augmentee" policy of taking people from the Navy and Air Force whether they volunteer or not and sticking them in the infantry. This isn't the "Blue to Green" program that started a couple years ago. It's a newer policy of filling holes in the Army and Marines with people from other branches of the Service because not enough qualified warm bodies can be found who will willingly volunteer. At least one Navy officer has very publicly resigned a commission because of the deception.
The Army and Marine Corps can not get enough people to serve willingly. To fill the gap they are making all hitches basically lifetime affairs. The Reserves and Guard are being used in ways they haven't since at least WWII. Standards are declining precipitously. The amount we have to bribe them to sign up is truly amazing. But they still won't go. One way to fill the gap is to cannibalize the other Services and destroy their readiness and structure in the process. It can not continue forever. And the damage it is doing to the United States Armed Forces is terrible.
Hey gentlemen, lets keep it civil and on topic and away from anything personal please and thank you.
Lisa
Lisa
Sorry 'bout that. Even if it is all Lisa's fault
I apologize for the tone in that last one. It was wrong to use that form of attack.
I stand by my irritation with the technique and the degree to which it has become a standard in political discourse.
I apologize for the tone in that last one. It was wrong to use that form of attack.
I stand by my irritation with the technique and the degree to which it has become a standard in political discourse.
CoryKS
Senior Master
Duly noted. And FWIW, I would like to express my irritation with the use of terms such as Chimpy, "Swinging" Dick, sockpuppet, indoctrination, et al. that have also become standard in the political discourse here.
If you feel anything that is said goes against the TOS, please report it so we can look into it. Remember, we are unable to see everything all the time.
Thanks.
And thank you gentlemen for your apologies and understanding. Even with it being my fault.
Lisa
- Status
Similar threads
