Military cant make use of just anybody

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/op_colum...4892833,00.html

[RedScare]

That's pretty amusing.

Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.

Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically ''educated'' to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.

Patriotic and educated young Americans who want to serve in the military are available. We need to stop academia from sabotaging national defense by blocking them from R.O.T.C. and from even hearing what military representatives have to say.

Gee, I wonder what made those young people so un-patriotic? And, what about those young people who attended Texas A&M, joined the Corps of Cadets, and in 1980 were ready to sign up to go to Iran and forcibly take the hostages back? What happened to make them believe the "worst about this country"? It couldn't have been the academics. The professors at A&M in 1980 were as conservative as they get.

No, it must have been something else. Something that an Abilene columnist would not print in an Abilene newspaper. Something right in front of his eyes, if he'd take off his nationalist blinders.

Edited August 5, 2006 by RedScare

[tcole]

No, it must have been something else. Something that an Abilene columnist would not print in an Abilene newspaper. Something right in front of his eyes, if he'd take off his nationalist blinders.

An Abilene columnist did not pen that.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University

But I will agree with you that some of the reasoning is a bit simplistic. A little further investigation into how he arrives at his conclusions couldn't hurt.

[TJones]

Someone brought up a good point I heard the other day. During the Vietnam era, petty theft and smaller crime criminals were given a choice by judges, jail or Military service to learn some discipline. Alot chose the military and after their stint most became productive members of society. How bad would it be to implement that policy today ?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Someone brought up a good point I heard the other day. During the Vietnam era, petty theft and smaller crime criminals were given a choice by judges, jail or Military service to learn some discipline. Alot chose the military and after their stint most became productive members of society. How bad would it be to implement that policy today ?

That all depends on the branch and the job. The military of today is WAY diff. from the Vietnam era. Todays US Military system is very complex and high tech. These petty criminals may be limited in the areas in which they would be most productive in todays military.

[RedScare]

That all depends on the branch and the job. The military of today is WAY diff. from the Vietnam era. Todays US Military system is very complex and high tech. These petty criminals may be limited in the areas in which they would be most productive in todays military.

To meet recruiting goals, the military keeps lowering standards for admission, so I don't think that is that big of a problem. A bigger one is the determination that the choice of jail or military was a form of involuntary servitude. Think about it. Go to jail or join the Army. Not quite a voluntary decision. The fact that it was usually the defense attorney asking for that option for his client did not sway the courts. To do it today requires a great deal of finesse to convince the courts that it is not involuntary.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

To meet recruiting goals, the military keeps lowering standards for admission,

This crap is still going on?

[TJones]

That all depends on the branch and the job. The military of today is WAY diff. from the Vietnam era. Todays US Military system is very complex and high tech. These petty criminals may be limited in the areas in which they would be most productive in todays military.

I am thinking Grunts, that have to go in as fire teams and sweep and zone.

Or Howitzer positioners , not much too that, the damn thing levels itself, of course this also depends on whether the little thug can type in the proper numbers.

Edited August 5, 2006 by TJones

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I am thinking Grunts, that have to go in as fire teams and sweep and zone.

Gotcha. That cant be too high tech I would think it as highly dangerous. That would surely teach discipline.

[TJones]

Gotcha. That cant be too high tech I would think it as highly dangerous. That would surely teach discipline.

It may also act as a deterrent from petty crime.

[RedScare]

This crap is still going on?

It has gotten worse. The age limit is now 42 years old, and they are accepting lower scores and high school dropouts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

[TJones]

It has gotten worse. The age limit is now 42 years old, and they are accepting lower scores and high school dropouts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

People are living longer, and I have seen alot of 42 yr. olds in alot better shape than me and I'm 36. Highschool dropouts have been the norm for the military since it's inception, so I am not that alarmed by that fact. There is an alternative for these folks though. They go to the military and learn a skill, maybe go to the motorpool, and fix cars, or spray paint camo.

My good buddy here at work just got a position with Schlumberger paying 80k to start and $154k in within 3 years, because of his military experience, and he has a degree from "Univ. of Phoenix" for crying out loud. he is trying to get me to go with him, but I like my position here, and not looking for a change.

[RedScare]

People are living longer, and I have seen alot of 42 yr. olds in alot better shape than me and I'm 36. Highschool dropouts have been the norm for the military since it's inception, so I am not that alarmed by that fact. There is an alternative for these folks though. They go to the military and learn a skill, maybe go to the motorpool, and fix cars, or spray paint camo.

Clearly, you did not read the article.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

My good buddy here at work just got a position with Schlumberger paying 80k to start and $154k in within 3 years, because of his military experience, and he has a degree from "Univ. of Phoenix" for crying out loud. he is trying to get me to go with him, but I like my position here, and not looking for a change.

The military can and does open lots of doors for you. Old demented, belligerent, and war mongering dinosaurs like me are specifically singled out by my company because of military service and specifically the area of the military i served in. I know for a fact theres an ongoing recruitment process to find as many "hawks" as possible to hire at my company

I found the article in Reds post interesting until it got to the part where it mentions the RAND Corp. That band of jackasses make me sick!!!

RAND Corp.= Research And Do Nothing Corporation

[TJones]

Clearly, you did not read the article.

"The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin). "

I read it, and statements like this are untrue. Obviously you are gonna have three "lower-scorer" individuals already, and by adding the "higher-intellect" it increases. If you add the same "lower-scorer" intellect, the percentage will stay constant, not go lower.

Edited August 5, 2006 by TJones

[RedScare]

"The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin). "

I read it, and statements like this are untrue. Obviously you are gonna have three "lower-scorer" individuals already, and by adding the "higher-intellect" it increases. If you add the same "lower-scorer" intellect, the percentage will stay constant, not go lower.

If a 3 man crew has a chance of success of 32%, and a more intelligent crew has a 40% chance of success, adding a lower intellect man to the first crew leaves them at a 32% chance of success. That means the dumber crew fails 68% of the time, versus only 60% for the smarter crew. Perhaps the author worded it awkwardly, but it doesn't take a genius to know that stupid people screw things up.

I've taken the AFOQT, and there are few easier tests (maybe the one for the army). The enlisted tests are even simpler. To be forced to take people who score only 20% on these tests means the Army is accepting some morons...and that's never good, no matter how Rumsfeldian you may be.

[TJones]

If a 3 man crew has a chance of success of 32%, and a more intelligent crew has a 40% chance of success, adding a lower intellect man to the first crew leaves them at a 32% chance of success. That means the dumber crew fails 68% of the time, versus only 60% for the smarter crew. Perhaps the author worded it awkwardly, but it doesn't take a genius to know that stupid people screw things up.

I've taken the AFOQT, and there are few easier tests (maybe the one for the army). The enlisted tests are even simpler. To be forced to take people who score only 20% on these tests means the Army is accepting some morons...and that's never good, no matter how Rumsfeldian you may be.

I agree with your whole statement, I took the ASVAB, in high school, I scored in the top 99% of the nation, the NAVY hounded me for months, even after they knew I was going to play college ball. The tests are what seemed to me , not that hard, but like you said, maybe they were dropping the standards at that time also. this is 1988 mind you, military enrollment was down. My SAT was only 1200 out of 1600 but I only took it once, and it was good enough to get into the school of my choice and didn't "bone up" for it, and my ACT was 34 which at the time was on a 38 point scale. I know this is bragging, I apologize, I am not telling this to brag just to show that I test well, and I think the military tests are geared to be "easy", but I hated school.

Edited August 5, 2006 by TJones

[RedScare]

I know what you're saying, TJ. However, I am disappointed that you did not comment on my new term, "Rumsfeldian", which means "to paint a rosier picture than is warranted".

[TJones]

I know what you're saying, TJ. However, I am disappointed that you did not comment on my new term, "Rumsfeldian", which means "to paint a rosier picture than is warranted".

You think I am gonna give you CREDIT for trashin' one of my boys ? ! You are nuttier than a Liberal made fruitcake at Hannukah !

p.s. It was funny though.

Edited August 5, 2006 by TJones

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I agree with your whole statement, I took the ASVAB, in high school, I scored in the top 99% of the nation, the NAVY hounded me for months, even after they knew I was going to play college ball. The tests are what seemed to me , not that hard, but like you said, maybe they were dropping the standards at that time also. this is 1988 mind you, military enrollment was down. My SAT was only 1200 out of 1600 but I only took it once, and it was good enough to get into the school of my choice and didn't "bone up" for it, and my ACT was 34 which at the time was on a 38 point scale. I know this is bragging, I apologize, I am not telling this to brag just to show that I test well, and I think the military tests are geared to be "easy", but I hated school.

Had you gone to the Navy, you would have been a prime candidate for the submarine nuke program. Your height may have been a hinderance though :(

[TJones]

Had you gone to the Navy, you would have been a prime candidate for the submarine nuke program. Your height may have been a hinderance though :(

That is exactly what they wanted me for. Nuclear Subs. How in the world did you know that ? I agree about height, I was only 265lbs. back then, but I would have bumped my head all the time.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

That is exactly what they wanted me for. Nuclear Subs. How in the world did you know that ? I agree about height, I was only 265lbs. back then, but I would have bumped my head all the time.

The height thing was an issue in the past, now i dont know what the hell is going on. When there are recent military people here saying they are not trained to kill people anymore and with the standard lowering thing in full swing, who knows.

Had you gone through the nuke program, and excelled at it, you would possibly look at things through a different set of eyes The test get much more challenging the higher you excell. Im suprised you were not pursued much more vigorously by the recruiters of the silent service, height or no height.

[TJones]

The height thing was an issue in the past, now i dont know what the hell is going on. When there are recent military people here saying they are not trained to kill people anymore and with the standard lowering thing in full swing, who knows.

Had you gone through the nuke program, and excelled at it, you would possibly look at things through a different set of eyes The test get much more challenging the higher you excell. Im suprised you were not pursued much more vigorously by the recruiters of the silent service, height or no height.

I was pretty forthcoming about my NOT wanting to join the military at that time. I was looking forward to Football, Girls, Booze, and Girls. I still have a box somewhere with all my old recruitment letters from Univs. all over the country, and I think the letters from the military are in there as well.

Edited August 7, 2006 by TJones

[DJ V Lawrence]

The height thing was an issue in the past, now i dont know what the hell is going on. When there are recent military people here saying they are not trained to kill people anymore and with the standard lowering thing in full swing, who knows.

I think you may have misunderstood me in a previous post. In the Army (I went to basic training Summer of 2001), everyone was trained as in they were infantry. In other words, trained as if we were in combat and how to attack and defend in certain situations. AIT was where we learned our particular role in the Army, and we would implement that role in active duty.

My point is that the Army is not a 100% killing machine. There are many roles in today's military. We're trained to kill, but that's only when we're in a situation where we have to. The goal is to complete the mission with as few casualties on both sides as possible. I can imagine that ticking off the old school generation, but we now live in a world where our technology is precise enough to attempt to take out combatants in one building and not hit the building beside it with an innocent family living there and trying to have nothing of it. It's not fool-proof yet obviously, but who wants it on their conscience that they killed a kid that wanted peace? At least when they go to war, our soilders know they're doing so while trying to protect as many innocent people as possible.

Also, I have lots of friends in Iraq right now. One of my best friends just got back, but is scheduled to be redeployed to Iraq next year (he's also supposed to finish his military time next year, but he got stop-lossed). He's 6' 5". Pretty tall dude. Yet we got giants like himself on the front line, fighting for their lives and fighting for the name of ours. It's gotta be recognized that when people his height enlist into the service, they already know their height can make them a more vunerable target. They deserve to be commented because they volunteered for the U.S., when many others that are 5'2" could be doing the same job. Not everyone's jumping the gun and volunteering to fight in Iraq. And the Army will do whatever possible to keep their recruitment numbers up, even if it means bringing in taller dudes, not-so-high scoring test takers, what have you. The Army will take whoever they can get.

I was told I had the highest ASVAP score taken that month I took it. Doesn't make me a better soilder than a person with a lower score that died for my country. And it doesn't make me better then guys like Moonman who had tougher training, longer experience, and paved the way for future soilders like myself regardless of what his test scores were.

[TJones]

DJ, you apparently misunderstood what Moonman and I were talking about as far as HEIGHT requirements. The Navy wanted me to be on a SUB. Not too many 6'3" or 6'4" guys on subs. That was the "height" we were talking about. They want shorter guys on subs so they can move quicker and easier through the boat.

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ, you apparently misunderstood what Moonman and I were talking about as far as HEIGHT requirements. The Navy wanted me to be on a SUB. Not too many 6'3" or 6'4" guys on subs. That was the "height" we were talking about. They want shorter guys on subs so they can move quicker and easier through the boat.

My bad

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

DJ, you apparently misunderstood what Moonman and I were talking about as far as HEIGHT requirements. The Navy wanted me to be on a SUB. Not too many 6'3" or 6'4" guys on subs. That was the "height" we were talking about. They want shorter guys on subs so they can move quicker and easier through the boat.

Yes i was speaking about the submarines. Lots of height is not a good thing on a submarine!!!!! As for the Army, i want the biggest and badest there in the greatest numbers possible!!!!

The ideal height at one time for the submarine program was 5'6". I dont know what it is now. If it is still the same, TJ, just forget about it

[TJones]

Yes i was speaking about the submarines. Lots of height is not a good thing on a submarine!!!!! As for the Army, i want the biggest and badest there in the greatest numbers possible!!!!

The ideal height at one time for the submarine program was 5'6". I dont know what it is now. If it is still the same, TJ, just forget about it

HA ! These days I would have to worry about the WIDTH of the door jambs, not the height !

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

HA ! These days I would have to worry about the WIDTH of the door jambs, not the height !

Man, TJ, you are batting a thousand! Tell me something.....did you have high marks in science and mathematics? If so, after college you could have joined the Navy nuke program still and never had to be on a ship. The Clinton years would have been a little tough with all the garbage they had going on, but you would be sitting real pretty right now with Bush at the helm. Those guys are seeing a revival that is most impressive The job oportunities afterwards would be extraordinary as well

[MexAmerican_Moose]

if the military ever needed me i would join...this is of course if there it is an emergency or they run out of troops or something