Army and Marines Lower Standards and Embrace More Criminals

[TheNoNamedOne]

They are looking for a few good men, and it seems a few criminals accepted and scattered within their ranks and brotherhood fits the bill as well.

Q: What do you do when an unpopular war not supported on the homefront with families not feeding their sons and daughters zaps your volunteer force?

Answer: Lower standards across the board and accept the idea of putting weapons into criminals' hands as you welcome them into your ranks and brotherhood.

IN some cases this is nothing new and has been done before, however, since 2003 there seems to be a surge in accepting criminals.

The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003. ...

According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of new military recruits needed some type of waiver in 2006, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006. Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/14/national/main2474041.shtml)

With their lowered standards, I sometimes chuckle when watching a major, colonel, or general on AFN and they say, "These are the smartest and best young men our military has ever seen blah blah blaw perpetual soundbite ad nausium..." I think I saw and heard the exact same speech about "young men" 20 years ago.

But how can today's Armed Forces be the best and smartest when the ranks are being topped off with criminals and drug users? Surely, someone can spin it to a positive.

But, I still question the wisdom of putting a weapon into the hands of a person who has demonstrated the inability to play by social rules, when in the military the discipline of rules could even bring upon more stress and a back lash from them. Persons who have demonstrated anti-social behaviour may not be the best for an institution and lives that depend on teamwork -- not to mention Iraqi civilians who may find themselves at the opposite end of their rifles.

[DoctorP]

With their lowered standards, I sometimes chuckle when watching a major, colonel, or general on AFN and they say, "These are the smartest and best young men our military has ever seen blah blah blaw perpetual soundbite ad nausium..." I think I saw and heard the exact same speech about "young men" 20 years ago.

And you will hear it again 20 years from now!



But how can today's Armed Forces be the best and smartest when the ranks are being topped off with criminals and drug users? Surely, someone can spin it to a positive.

But, I still question the wisdom of putting a weapon into the hands of a person who has demonstrated the inability to play by social rules, when in the military the discipline of rules could even bring upon more stress and a back lash from them. Persons who have demonstrated anti-social behaviour may not be the best for an institution and lives that depend on teamwork -- not to mention Iraqi civilians who may find themselves at the opposite end of their rifles.

I disagree...people with a criminal record are just what is needed in times of war. Shifty people who can get the job done. People who grew up in gangs and know how to shoot. Makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand why you would question such a thing.

But, on a serious note. All they have done is go back to their 1980's standards. In the 90's they stiffened and stopped allowing the occasional recreational drug user, or the kid who had a rough time growing up and made mistakes with the law. Now they are just relaxing back into the old standards. Give these kids another chance and they may surprise you once they belong to something good for a change.

[dk]

Give these kids another chance and they may surprise you once they belong to something good for a change.
I tend to agree with this tactic.

[Honduh]

Its all about the quanity, not the quality these days.

I can't wait to tell a guy who is smart, a clean record, no drugs, and a high school graduate that he cant enter the MC because he has a sleeve tattoo.

[DoctorP]

Its all about the quanity, not the quality these days.

I can't wait to tell a guy who is smart, a clean record, no drugs, and a high school graduate that he cant enter the MC because he has a sleeve tattoo.

Don't worry...if he's smart he won't be in your office...he'll be with the Air Force! :D

[newvalor]

so what if the military has lowered it's standards. more often than enough those with criminal records are the ones accomplishing the mission. on top that thier misdemeanor was a one time offense of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. not every criminal is a lifetime criminal just waiting for an excuse to commit another crime. most have turned thier lives around and to even better themselves have wanted to join the military in hopes of getting away even further from thier past lifestyle.

I've got an arrest of my record, what for? assault, why? well when a guy hits a girl and you take a stand for that girl and knock the guy out, then yeah it's worth the record. but I'm still in the military and being the best I can at what I do. not another criminal like you claim I could be.

[Tempestuous]

Don't worry...if he's smart he won't be in your office...he'll be with the Air Force! :D



:D:D
I will refrain from a nasty comment and just say I agree with DocP

[TheNoNamedOne]

so what if the military has lowered it's standards.

Well, at one time the military thought it best to have higher standards? Why do you think they put value on that?

A lower standard of person in general could lead to lower quality decision making when lives are at risk.

more often than enough those with criminal records are the ones accomplishing the mission.

Whoa! Bold statement.

So, those without criminal records are accomplishing the missions assigned to them less often than those who do have criminal records?

[newvalor]

using myself as a statement to that fact and also those that I have known to have some type of criminal record prior to the military. I work in a job where saving lives is everything. If you can't accept the fact that yeah some people in the military have prior history, then oh well deal with it. they let you in, you must've stuck out alot going thru basic questioning the reality of everything you were told to do.

And nice try at being the all mighty mod on here and trying to make people look stupid, it just shows why nobody wants to belong on a forum thats ran more by the mod than the members.

what I don't get is if you are american then why are you against americans?

[TheNoNamedOne]

using myself as a statement to that fact and also those that I have known to have some type of criminal record prior to the military. I work in a job where saving lives is everything.

Ok, it is noted. Your belief is based on a limited one of just those who you have come in contact with. a well versus an ocean.

If you can't accept the fact that yeah some people in the military have prior history, then oh well deal with it.

"Deal with it"? Not in the military so I don't have to deal with it. Your imparative is meaningless in this context. What YOU do have to deal with is that people are criticizing it or examining it. It seems to have you bothered and that means you should find a way to deal with it that doesn't even elicit a reply from you if it bothers you. If not, then I welcome your continued discussion on it in a way that keeps the topic going.

And nice try at being the all mighty mod on here and trying to make people look stupid, it just shows why nobody wants to belong on a forum thats ran more by the mod than the members.

I am not all mighty. If you have access to my thoughts, then you will be able to know if I am trying to make people look stupid. Perhaps you could enlighten us on how you know I am trying to make people look stupid.

Other than that, forum membership is growing. Many, including yourself, have participated in the threads I have started and replied to my posts. They keep coming back to continue the discussion with me and my topics. What does that tell you?

But, if you do have a specific gripe with me about breaking a rule or abusing moderating power or position, then take it down to the forum feedback discussion area and dk, DrP, and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you thoroughly.

what I don't get is if you are american then why are you against americans?

I am not against Americans. Assuming so on your part is why you are not getting it.

[newvalor]

So not being in the military doesn't give you the right to make statements that you have no complete information on from both sides. you claim from just what you have posted with no relevant information to prove me wrong about criminals accomplishing the mission more than your average person.

yes I am appauled by your critizing statements about something you know nothing about.

You live in a foreign country and you care more about the foreigners than you do americans even though you are one yourself. that confuses me, so if war was to break out here would you run home or run to the closest military base or american consulate??

you start more threads than anybody and most times are in despite of military of americans in general not being liked here or wanted here. you then continue to be one sided and being a mod you force a majority of the group to either not speak up or end up siding with you instead. Moderators are to moderate not intimidate.

[dk]

Hmm, I haven't seen anyone intimidated by TP yet. If anything, his views are pretty much the opposite of DoctorP and myself, who are the other two guys in charge of these boards. He's allowed to have his views just as much as you are yours.

And what's to moderate?

[TheNoNamedOne]

So not being in the military doesn't give you the right to make statements that you have no complete information on from both sides. you claim from just what you have posted with no relevant information to prove me wrong about criminals accomplishing the mission more than your average person.

It is widely accepted that someone does not need to prove a negative. You have asserted a positive, and I am skeptical of that asserition. He who asserts a positive has the burden of proof.

yes I am appauled by your critizing statements about something you know nothing about.

What specifically?

You live in a foreign country and you care more about the foreigners than you do americans even though you are one yourself.

Here WE are the foreignors. But I get your point.

I know you are new to the forums and have not been a member of the old ones, but if you had been here longer and seen the old forums, you would also know that I have been quite critical of Okinawans as well. I play no favorites based on nationalities when it comes to valuing human lives. I caste my vote and opinion on what justice, reason, and compassion requires.

While simple, it is not as simple as just saying "I care more about Americans than Okinawans" which is what your reasoning from your protest of me infers.

...that confuses me, so if war was to break out here would you run home or run to the closest military base or american consulate??

I am not sure. I would take the safest option that would allow my whole family to stay together. I wouldn't abandon any of them for my own safety.

IN any event, as a U.S. citizen my criticism of U.S. policy does not relinquish the U.S. government from treating me equally with other U.S. citizens. It is that respect for dissent that makes America great. Gratitude does not buy silence when negatives, wrongs, or injustice exists. Every citizen has the right, if not duty, to point those things out -- no matter how embarrassing or shameful they are.