What part of that rather childish statement constitutes "serious discussion"? Anyway, I don't see a problem. If any institution is good at breaking people down to nothing and building them back up again as respectable murderous psychopaths it's the army. Let's face it, a great deal of those drug abusers will be people who've smoked weed and got caught by the local PD officers who're feeling power trippy that day. So long as the army are reshaping and bringing dicipline and obedience to these criminals, then it's probably one of the best things to do with them.
I agree with specofdust completely. Violent offenders should not be allowed to enlist, but there are plenty of drug users who have been rehabilitated or ahve grown up. There are many MANY drug users out there, and most of them grow out of it as they mature and grow up. Many people do drugs because they lack focus and direction. Others do it because they have nothing better going for them, or having nothing good for them might be a consequence. Enabling some of these individuals to enlist after appropriate screenings is probably more beneficial for them than it is to the army. Remember, not every soldier goes on to serve in Iraq or other hot spots.
I thinks its a brilliant idea. Instead of clogging the prisons, have them enlisted to free space for pettier criminals, and at the same time have them disciplined by the army. Round up all the people on life sentences and death row and say: "You wanna be badass? Go be one in Iraq. You're good at killing people, so do it for us!" It gets toughies out of prison (which they probably want), it gets them disciplined (which they need), it gets them doing paid work (which they probably want), it helps keep the army boosted (which America most certainly needs), And if they die, no biggie eh? In fact, I can't think of a single reason why America souldn't be drafting prisoners instead of drafting good folk and relying on reserves. The drug use thing? Look at what happened it panama It's unavoidable.
I dont come to your work at douch bags our us and pick a few people out of the crowd and assume the rest of you are felons and assholes like you.
the American military is a volenteer only force. A draft would certainly kill any existing moral. Would you want someone who doesnt want to be there assembleing bombs that get put on jets and fly over your house?
Yes, the American military is an all-volunteer force. BUT, this country and many of its citizens would benefit from mandatory service. Even if it's not a role as an active soldier, it would do plenty of good. I've seen several of my peers go into a branch of the armed forces and come out of it different people. The military brainwashes you - mostly for the better, and nobody would dare slack off while assembling bombs. That's what supervisors are for. When I was an undergrad (this was somewhat recently), many of my peers were not fit for college, let alone the title of "adult". Mandatory service of any kind would have taught them some responsibility and a level of respect for others. A level of respect for others... allforcarrie, that may be something that you have yet to learn. I disagree with a lot of posts in this subcategory of the forum. However, I have not yet stooped so low as to personally attack others with childish name calling or phrases. Do you really expect others to respect your opinions or even you as a person if this is how you speak to people when you disagree with their words? Also, your spelling and grammar is atrocious - english isn't your primary language, is it? See - I disagree with your posts plenty, and conveyed my point to you without using such colorful language. Yup. Have a nice day now.
While he is going about it in entirely the wrong way, i think allforcarrie is taking offence to the insinuation that somehow people in the army aren't good enough for cpemma's daughter, which could be attributed to a fathers "nobody is good enough for /my/ daughter" perspective or a "everyone in the army is a moron" steriotype. It could also just mean he wouldn't want his daughter marrying a ex homocidal maniac, which im sure we can all understand
I think, though I may be wrong, that cpemma was reffering to those in the armed forces that were convicted fellons.
Let's think about this for a minute before shooting off our mouths. This is a policing assignment, trying to restore some order to parts of the world seriously messed up. A job needing intelligence and empathy. You can afford ignorance or a record of assaulting people when you're in a real war with an enemy army in front of you wearing a different uniform. In Iraq 99% of the "other side" are civilians trying to get by. You need to be quick thinking to pick out the other 1% and calm under stress. If you're stopped on the road by a cop, do you want him to be an normal intelligent officer with no hang-ups or someone from the bottom end of life's pecking order who sees a chance to make someone else take it? The new relaxed rules are not designed to rehabilitate felons, they're from desperation at the fact that not enough ordinary Americans are prepared to enlist and serve their country. Let someone else do it. We're right behind you. allforcarrie, I gave you several hours to moderate your comments; you've persisted in personal abuse. Against any other member I'd ban you, I don't see why I should take it.
I believe that people can change, and I further believe the army can give them something they are most likely lacking. Structure, Discipline, Organization. CPemma, there are different levels in the army, not everyone is a commander or general. If you have a criminal record I believe you are banned from being anything over the lowest couple ranks. I.E. you don't get to make any real decisions, and are always (supposed to be) watched over. It would be nice (in my mind) to see at least a year of mandatory training for people convicted of anything after they are released. Of coarse I would like to see rapists, and murders have a mandatory full-life sentence without a chance for parole. (But that's another discussion.) I think this would help keep America's prisons emptier, greatly lower our crime rates, and save us a ton of money. As for ALLOFCARRIE, come on man we know you are pissed. Some of what cpemma said MAY have been a bit below the belt, maybe even outright wrong, but you can't attack people like that. Cool down for a little bit, and think before you post. Posting a hateful comment will most likely make people disapprove of you in general and isn't helping anything. And surely you can understand where he is coming from. The world is not happy with our soldier's right now. I personally have many friends in the US Army, and I have respect for our fighting people. (Some of the leaders is another issue.) Post-Script: No disrespect to cpemma - You're an intelligent person, I look forward to reading your posts everyday regardless of if I agree with them or not. No disrespect to allofcarrie - You have strong feelings for our soldiers. That's good.
The British cry "Bring back National Service!" as a cure for hooliganism. How do you think decent soldiers feel as the quality gets more and more diluted? And does the policy not clash with "Winning hearts and minds"? OK, that's become a bigger joke with every Iraqui death, but other nations do not like the gross hypocrisy of your government. We look beyond words, we've no loyalty to the US to blind us to its deeds. Lions led by donkeys? And look at the money to be made signing up. "this can mean enlistment bonuses as high as $40,000 for those documented but poor Americans looking to put themselves directly in harm's way for three years as an Army infantryman or explosive ordnance disposal specialist-- markedly more than 2005 per-capita yearly income for African Americans ($16,874), Hispanics ($14,483), and even non-Hispanic Whites ($28,946)". You can't buy loyalty, so what are the Army getting?
It sounds like there is room for improvement, (as always) I do agree that until someone has proven they are qualified to lead, that they shouldn't be able to lead. Which would be nice to see something like a 5 year waiting period since any type of conviction. But as I said before, the people fighting for our country (who have no choice where they are led, or what they do for the most part) deserve the respect of the people they are fighting for. It still comes down to the leaders. I agree that there shouldn't be immoral people leading anyone in any army, and steps should be done to prevent this. But I also believe that people should be given a chance to change.
During the first Gulf war, when I as was everyone younger, I often said that our government should go to the worst prisoners that we had and offer them a proposition; we'll send you to Iraq, go in, find Saddam Hussein, kill him, and if you get out you're free. Remember the WWII war movie, I can't remember it's name, prisoners were sent to Germany on a special mission. Devenfore, I agree with you, that many of these people could benefit from the structure, discipline, and organization that has probably been lacking in their lives. I also agree that no way should they be put in a leadership role until they have had training and time to prove themselves. Many times people surprise you and become wonderful people that anyone would be proud to have as a son or daughter; all they needed was someone to show them the way and take an interest in them, and I'm sure the drill sargents will show them plenty of that. And cpemma, I can understand where you are coming from, I'm a parent and have raised four daughters. No matter what you try to teach them, you sometimes aren't prepared for what they bring home and say this is my boyfriend. But I have also seen what the service can do for a troubled young man or woman. I also know that the UK has troops over there but I also know that there are a heck of alot of countries who boo hoo about terrorism and have had incidences of terrorism in their countries but ask them to help and they back off. But that's another post thread. Allforcarrie, are you Carrie or are you her BF, devenfore and the others are right if you want people to take you seriously you need to keep your cool and not use foul language when responding to people. Sounds as if you could benefit from some structure, discipline and organization, and maybe spelling class. I did notice that you had no difficulty spelling your first post, pity.
A lot of people need that, there are probably plenty of people who would have been more screwed up if they hadnt been in the military.
As Stuey has said, no way would any explosive device be allowed to assembled half assed, and I doubt any fellons would be assembling a bomb that goes on an aircraft anyway. They would be infantrymen only, trusted with only a gun. Unfortunately, the can often come back screwed up in a different way. The army has left many men waking up in the middle of the night screaming for their guns/helmets etc for fear of death. Unfortunately, since the government do a really half assed job of taking care of veterens, they just pump them full of meds and hope it goes away. But if we start using nasty felons.. who's gonna care what happens to them? Head down to San Quentin and Guantanamo, and pick out all the huge beefy guys and force them into armed services with the "promise of release" upon return and evaluation EDIT: so many drunken f**k ups.
That's actually more accurate than you realize. I just read a very interesting article about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and how the current administration has taken great strides in reducing the number of PTSD diagnoses. If you tell the army psychologist that you feel like you might hurt someone, you're told to go have a beer and sleep it off. Then things like this happen. In short, word has trickled down from the administration that too many of our brave boys are coming home mentally broken, and it's painting a bad picture of the war. That, and it costs too much money to provide an estimated 30% of veterans the psychological help they need. I shudder to think how some of the harder felons would take to operating a large gun on the top of a jeep, being told to mow down anything that moves, innocent people included. -monkey
