The article suggests that in some cases, the military is putting weapons into the hands of serious criminals. The editorial, in part, reads: To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
02-25-2007, 09:51 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| US Military rejects 700 for being homosexual, accepts 900 felons The article suggests that in some cases, the military is putting weapons into the hands of serious criminals. The editorial, in part, reads: To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of "moral waivers," which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks. Last year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women -- or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America's four military services. Most of last year's Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 -- double the number in 2003 -- were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems. Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect. But the Pentagon is discharging more than 700 people a year who are determined to be homosexuals -- who in nearly every case have performed their service honorably on behalf of their country and uniformed service. But it goes beyond troops on the front line. The military apparently has little problem putting major weapons systems into the hands of criminals while at the same time discharging Arabic-speaking linguists. The Washington Note I personally think having a convicted felon in a unit is worse than a homosexual who is not flamboyant...ofcourse a heterosexual male who is obnoxiously straight would hurt the unit with females, your thoughts? | ||||
     |
|
02-25-2007, 09:52 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Women shouldn't be on the front lines either, for that reason and others. 
 | ||||
| |
|
02-25-2007, 10:24 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz People shouldn't be on the font lines wherever possible
| ||||
| |
|
02-25-2007, 10:28 PM
| #4 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Kytro That's true.
But sometimes they have to go. | ||||
| |
|
02-25-2007, 10:31 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz For now. Technology is not yet capable of handling all the problems
| ||||
| |
|
02-25-2007, 11:14 PM
| #6 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Why not? some machismo thing? or is there a pragmatic reason for this? I personally know two women in the air force who could probably kick your ass (and mine, definitely) if that meaning was implied to them
 . In my opinion, they share in the same liberties males do, so they should bear the same responsibilities. Same thing with gays, and yes, convicts too. Why not? As long as it isn't compulsory, I have no issue with it. Military training would be a good way of teaching discipline to people who haven't been able to get themselves together.--- the OP is implying there are cultural biases in the armed services. No kidding. They exist everywhere. Are they detrimental? yup. Are they avoidable? somewhat. I truly do not understand why the military fears gays so much. A hardened soldier afraid of a gay man's advances? say what? I also fail to see how a gay's sex drive is any more distracting than a straight man's. Since the armed services teach mental discipline above all else, I don't think this would be a problem, especially during heavy combat scenarios, as flight/fight takes precedence over any other drive. | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:14 AM
| #7 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by R-Type If you cant see the reason, you are blind. Women are weaker then men end of story.
In the mid 90s there was a test to see if the Army can make women strong enough to meet the male standards so they doubled the length of bootcamp. And the end of the 4 months, a very small percentage met the MINIMUM standard for men. Yes there are women that are stronger then the minimum male standard. But how much time and money must you go through to find those few ? And then you still have all the other problems with mixed units. Housing, security, medical neccesities, etc... | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:16 AM
| #8 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 So then why keep gays out?
They aren't physically weaker since they are men. | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:45 AM
| #9 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 so you're telling me you'd rather have an overweight, slovenly, docile male over a well-trained, aggressive female even if she's not as strong as her male counterpart? It's not just about brute strength. Self-discipline and a will to survive are just as important.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:52 AM
| #10 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by R-Type They don't make the military either.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:55 AM
| #11 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz how about in a draft situation? I agree there should be one standard set of requirements, but to discriminate by default stereotypes seems self-defeating to me when the most strident issue is filling the ranks with willing and able personnel.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 01:56 AM
| #12 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by R-Type If he survived bootcamp, yes. Because then he wouldnt be any of those.
Originally Posted by R-Type Women arent ABLE. So their willingness doesnt matter. I am sure there are a number of jobs in the military where women can work equally as men, but it isnt in combat or even combat support.
Take a look at who is getting hit by the IEDs and abushes, its the supply forces. | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:01 AM
| #13 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by R-Type Even in a draft situation, they take the able.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:01 AM
| #14 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| I call BS on that women taking so terribly long to meet MINIMUM male standards I know some fat dudes that are in the reserves and were sent to iraq, came back still chubby, slow and whatever...one guy was REALLY out of shape before and after his deployment Now, look at the women bodybuilders who bench like triple their weight rather than the chubbsy who can't even bench his own weight I'll take the woman, thank you If I were to guess, I'd say the "standards" you refer to are male-designed tests to test muscles males easily develop, but have almost no use in combat to be an effective soldier, you need to be able to run...woman are excellent runners...you generally need to be able to shoot...woman can do that...command tanks, whatever...and many women can be trained to carry heavy backpacks, id bet nothing significantly different than males i can't think of anything most of your keyboard warriors could do militarily that a high school girl on cross country for several years couldn't | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:06 AM
| #15 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim welcome to reality.
Minimum standards for Soldiers 17-21 in bootcamp Men 42 pushups 53 situps (both in 2 minutes) 2 mile run 15:54 Women 19 pushups (their 100% score is 42 pushups) 53 situps (same standard as men) 2mile run 18:54 (their 100% score is 15:36) Lets recap. The perfect score for women on pushups and running is basically the minimum score for men.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:07 AM
| #16 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 your language makes this sound more like a personal opinion than a statement of fact. I am SURE it is possible to 'survive' bootcamp and still be a shitacular soldier. Once enlisted, willingly or unwillingly, is it even possible to 'fail out'? Seems like this would've been an easy-out for those who wanted to evade the last draft.
Originally Posted by Diesel66 ..and if they pass the tests? I ask because it seems like you don't even want to give 'em a chance. ..and what about gays? They're males after all.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:09 AM
| #17 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I think in times of shortage, 'able' takes on a much more fluid meaning than what you're implying.
| ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:11 AM
| #18 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| rtype i wouldnt waste your time until someone lays out what these "tests" women failing are... There was a time I was close to benching double my body weight when I was an undergrad, and I'm mostly sure there's a significant number of combat soldiers who can't do that | ||||
| |
|
02-26-2007, 02:15 AM
| #19 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by R-Type in today's Army ? Yes. They get a lower discharge and can face punishment.
Then you have to still have the massive amounts of bs that comes with intergated units.
| ||||
