Author |
Message |
Cochise
| Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 01:57 pm: |
|
If you watch the shows on Discovery, or military channels they tell you that they have to be teachers instead of cussers. They have to be nice in a way. They can still yell at you, they just can't degrade you...sad. |
Nobody
| Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 02:15 pm: |
|
I'm a recent veteran. I don't want to debate whether the military recruits the "dregs of society." That phrase is so subjective and charged with emotion that we'd never get anywhere trying to discuss it. I take issue with calling the military a "reformatory," for a few reasons. Despite the popular, politically-charged griping out there, the U.S. military is one of the most professional, highly respected militaries in the world. It isn't perfect by a long shot, but it does a remarkable job of upholding high ethical standards when compared to most other militaries. Calling the U.S. military a "reformatory" suggests that it's taking sub-standard people and bringing them to some minimum standard. In fact, the U.S. military routinely takes recruits (of whatever standard) and brings them to a higher standard than the average citizen. I've seen it done time and time again. The military doesn't work so hard to make these transformations because it's a "reformatory." It does it because it has to in order to keep its world standing from dropping any more than it already has. Compare the U.S. military to the typical UN peacekeeping force, which is often found to be completely corrupt and in some cases even raping, etc. The widely-publicized scandals in Iraq are commonplace in many other militaries. The U.S. military can't afford many of these scandals on top of the difficulties it's already having due to the current fad of hating the U.S. |
Eboos
| Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 07:44 pm: |
|
Thank you Nobody. |
Jimidan
| Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 08:29 am: |
|
Cochise sez: "If you watch the shows on Discovery, or military channels they tell you that they have to be teachers instead of cussers. They have to be nice in a way. They can still yell at you, they just can't degrade you...sad." I am not sure how "sad" it is, but Cochise is correct according to my informed sources. They can't even yell at recruits anymore. My grandson has a tougher time with his coaches at junior high football practice! I am not joking... jimidan |
Jimidan
| Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 08:48 am: |
|
So, let's take the emotion and political charge out of it and just look at the terms on face value. dregs: 2. The basest or least desirable portion. reformatory: 1. A penal institution for the discipline, reformation, and training of young or first offenders. Also called reform school. Nobody sez: "Calling the U.S. military a "reformatory" suggests that it's taking sub-standard people and bringing them to some minimum standard. In fact, the U.S. military routinely takes recruits (of whatever standard) and brings them to a higher standard than the average citizen. I've seen it done time and time again." That is exactly what these recruiters and drill sargents are saying is happening now...reformation. They are getting guys with records these days. These military professionals do not hate the US and have made their career in the Army. My son-in-law loves the Army in reality. After his Gulf War experience, he tried it on the outside and soon rejoined. I don't know what it was like when you were in the service but they are telling me that because of the current conditions it has changed for the worse. I called my son-in-law this morning after I read Nobody's piece. He said to ask if you were a drill sargent. He said that if you weren't that you wouldn't know. This is all I have to say about that...I have a feeling that my comments are being misinterpreted as some kind of political statement. I have tried to represent the facts as they have been told to me by people on the ground observing actual conditions. You can believe it or don't. jimidan (Message edited by jimidan on October 09, 2006) |
Blake
| Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
I have no problem arguing the point against a recruiter anytime, anywhere. |
Eboos
| Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 02:10 pm: |
|
I was in the Corps from 1994-2004. I began recruiting duty Oct 30th 2001 and continued until I got out. |
Rasmonis
| Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Reading these past few post I believe substantiates my reasoning behind mandatory service... A few comments on recruits: (based solely on personal experience - years ago) Aside for the ones that join for patriotic reasons (it would surprise you to know how many join for this very reason - more than you'd think but just not enough), others join because it is their best option at the time or because it is a family tradition. And yet others join due to psychological problems. Regardless you get two basic types: Summer The best batch of recruits usually come in during the summer - just out of school and ready to go - at least that is the way it appears. Along with these you get a bunch of duds that have a strong desire to join, but cannot due to a slew of issues ranging from poor entrance exam scores/no G.E.D., being over-weight, criminal history, to family emergencies etc. Some make it to basic but end up having to wait for a next class due to injury, weight training or re-testing - bolos. They await the next training cycle. Winter The leftovers from the summer end up in BT in the winter and are generally known as the "bottom of the barrel" recruits. They don't all suck, but they are not exactly the easiest group to instruct. Regardless, they all have to complete the same tests at the same standard. Some pass, some fail and return back to their respective blocks. "The military is not for everyone." Depending on the state of our economy, and acceptance into 4 years institutions, recruitment numbers fluctuate. Most will agree it is more fun to party at a college/university on your way towards earning a living than it is busting your butt all day long playing soldier - with the possibility of getting blown up by an IED or whacked out camel jockey looming over your head and with crappy pay on top of that. It's still great though. Hard, but something about enduring it all is very satisfying. Earlier I stated: "The military is not for everyone." It isn't, it's hard dangerous work, even during training / non-combat there are casualties. But I argue that every job is dangerous, even going to school is dangerous lately. Mandatory civil service does not mean everyone serves in the military - only those qualified to do so go. Those not fit for military service, would serve in another department within the corps. Jobs for everyone, even those the illegal immigrants are taking. No jobs for illegal immigrant = no illegal immigrants. The amount of information taught to our troops and the time they have to absorb and learn the material is incredible. The training IMO is the best in the world, and those who serve in specialized units are the best of the best no doubt about it. Make military occupations as glamorous as those in the civilian sector with comparable salaries and you should see an increase in enlistment. Likewise, give credit to the training they receive. I would hire a 4 year enlistee with PLDC under their belt or an NCO over any undergrad for a management position. That needs to be addressed somewhere. more ranting sorry... |
Jimidan
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
Blake sez: "I have no problem arguing the point against a recruiter anytime, anywhere." ...and the factual basis for for your argument will be? jd |
Jimidan
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
Eboos sez: "I was in the Corps from 1994-2004. I began recruiting duty Oct 30th 2001 and continued until I got out." 1) The time period in question has been since you got out, and precipitated by the Iraq war primarily. 2) Do you equate Marine recruits to Army recruits? jd semper fi |
Eboos
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
Answer to question #2: Absolutely not! No offense to any army guys. |
Jayvee
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 02:28 pm: |
|
When I was in the Army ('73-'75) we'd sometimes talk draftee vs. joinee. From joinees, it was amazing how many told similar stories: "Well the judge said either enlist, or else (jail)..." So in those days, to some extent, it was used as a "reformatory" in the best sense of the word. The experience was intended by thoese judges to take somebody who was maybe on the edge, and help them turn around their life. IF they could take advantage of it. Some didn't, some I knew went AWOL, or to military jail after all. |
Blake
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 02:54 pm: |
|
The factual basis? The acceptance criteria for enlistment. No felons, druggies or dropouts allowed (>90% of recruits have GED or diploma; this year the number is 96%). Not sure what you consider the "dregs of society", but felons, druggies, and dropouts would describe my general view of the "dregs of society. Also, the actual overall performance of our military enlisted personnel in the field. Nothing short of outstanding. What is your factual basis? (Message edited by blake on October 11, 2006) |
Eboos
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 03:15 pm: |
|
In the Marine Corps, 90-95 percent have to be tier 1. Tier 1 is a traditional high school graduate, a graduate of a home school program, or a recipient of a GED with 15 additional college credits. Tier 2 is someone with a GED without the college credits. Tier 3 is someone who completed up to the 10th grade. From what I remember, there is only about a 2-5 percent allowance for a tier 3, but in reality, there is zero. Tier 2 individuals have a hard enough time. They all have to be "alphas". What that means is, they have to score 50 (out of a possible 99) or better on the AFQT portion of the ASVAB. The AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test) is made up of the Word Knowledge, Arithmic Reasoning, Math Knowledge, and Paragraph Comprehension portions of the ASVAB. You also have to score 90 (out of a possible 135) or better in the General Technical (GT). I do not remember what test catagories make up the GT. Believe it or not, it is hard enough for an applicant with a diploma to meet the minimum test standards. We make it even harder for those without. Further more, those without a diploma are held to a much higher moral and physical standard then the rest. They have to prove themselves. |
Eboos
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 03:23 pm: |
|
"Not sure what you consider the "dregs of society", but felons, druggies, and dropouts would describe my general view of the "dregs of society." Actually, some of these circumstances are waiverable. This of course would require an act of god, because the commanding general of eastern recruiting region is not going to budge. |
Nobody
| Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 03:50 pm: |
|
Jimidan, I don't doubt one bit that your son-in-law has a tough job teaching new recruits, but I hope that he sees his job as more than a reform school teacher. If you son-in-law thinks today's recruits are especially dumb, he could be right, or it could just reflect the ways that our culture has been changing nation-wide. For example, there is so much wealth available today that many kids, even "poor" kids, are able to get by without having to do the kinds of tedious work that lead to discipline. Trying to teach discipline (mental, moral, physical, etc.) to kids that have never needed it can't be easy... There are probably other examples of how our culture has changed to be less compatible with military service. |
Brucelee
| Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 09:40 am: |
|
In general, teens today seem to me, incredibly stupid and uneducated. Save of course, those incredible computer game and telephone text messaging skills they all seem to have. So, if the military gets a representative sample, I could see how a DI could think the quality of the recruits has declined. It probably has, along with everything else? |
Jimidan
| Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Blake sez: "The factual basis? The acceptance criteria for enlistment. No felons, druggies or dropouts allowed (>90% of recruits have GED or diploma; this year the number is 96%). Not sure what you consider the "dregs of society", but felons, druggies, and dropouts would describe my general view of the "dregs of society. Also, the actual overall performance of our military enlisted personnel in the field. Nothing short of outstanding. What is your factual basis?" You are not arguing the point WITH me, but through me to the recruiters and drill sargents of the U.S Army, stationed in Ft. Knox, KY. I have no other sources. I was just there yesterday and talked with some of them again. THEIR factual basis is personal experience and not just something they read somewhere. FACT: They are taking people with records these days and certainly have been taking high school dropouts for a while. Waiving restrictions has become much more commonplace lately. Personally, I wish it weren't so! jimidan Just the messenger... |
Eboos
| Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
I have to say this: As a recruiter, I was shocked to see how many kids are dropping out of school. Quitting has become far too accepted. |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:05 am: |
|
I'm just presenting the facts, not opinion. The fact is that 96% of recruits this year are high school graduates or have earned a GED. The fact is that the military does not accept convicted felons or drug abusers. The "dregs of society" are in prison already serving long sentences, or they are drug addicts or they are convicted felons. The dregs of society have no place in our military, and they do not find employment there in any kind of significant number. You are free to think otherwise, but the facts are the facts. It is unfortunate that anyone would see fit to so miserably characterize our military recruits especially on a public forum. Again, shame on you. I think you owe them an apology. |
Jimidan
| Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 10:42 am: |
|
I want to apologize to all U.S. Army military recruits for passing along the assessments of some of your recruiters and drill sargents. I know that this miserably characterization of Army recruits (as reported directly to me by the actual recruiters and drill sargents currently serving in that capacity) on a public forum may have offended those of you who do not have a record that has been waived, or those who have a high school diploma or GED, and I apologize for that. I have been assured by a couple of your drill sargents that they are trying hard (like working 20 hour days) to see that your actual overall performance in the field is nothing short of outstanding. You should thank your drill sargents daily for performing their thankless tasks (since their kids are growing up without them and their wives are sleeping with other men). Please try not to let them down. I have been told by one of your recruiters that they will continue the policy that has allowed the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems to more than double since 2001. They will also continue to push for moral waivers for recruits with misdemeanors, substance abuse, felonies and gang tattoos because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up in this time of war. The Messenger OK, now just shoot me! |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Please report how many new recruits fit your dim characterization versus those that do not. Surely your recruiter and drill sergeant sources have provided you with that hard factual information to support your statements here. You claim the percentage has doubled. That sure sounds alarming. Is it really? What is that actual percentage? Doubling from 20% to 40% would be significant. Doubling from 5% to 10% would not be so significant. Doubling from 2% to 4% would be insignificant. What are the actual facts? Wow. Now our recruits are responsible for the dysfunctional marriages of their drill sergeants? Amazing. Some choose to emphasize the positive while others prefer to focus on the negative. The best way to demoralize folks is to continually focus on the negative. The best way to motivate folks is to emphasize the positive. What kind of person would you rather be? (Message edited by blake on October 13, 2006) |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
As for your shoot the messenger comment, no one asked you to deliver the message and if you see fit to do so it is entirely reasonable to expect some hard factual information to support the miserable hateful rhetoric. BTW, I had a police record when I was young. Based upon your reasoning, I guess I am one of your "dregs of society." Your apology is insincere. Our recruits are not anything close to the "dregs of society" and you owe them a sincere apology for asserting that they are, especially the ones here on BadWeB. |
Eboos
| Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Drill instructors are not made aware of a recruits prior criminal record, history of drug use, ASVAB scores, or educational experience. They don't have a need to know. This information may be present in their service record books as part of their enlistment package (only in the form of waivers and waiver supporting documents, no other use for this information is required), and that would be kept either by the Battalion, Company or Series commander. Every recruit will act dumb in the eyes of the drill instructor due to the fact that the recruit is in an alien environment, and the drill instructor has been doing it for years. If the recruiter is having moral issue with the quality of the recruits, then they better start doing their job properly. That means no coaching recruits into hiding disqualifying conditions, preparing them physically and mentally for recruit training, seeking out those with the highest physical, mental and moral standards. Some of the other services finally caught on to something that made Marine Corps recruiting so successful. Stop trying to sell it as a way to go to college. Instead, sell the life experience and the charactor building that you will gain through the service. Just about anyone can either go to college for free or find an affordable way to do it, so that angle will only get those that are too lazy to find alternatives. |
Jimidan
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 12:32 am: |
|
Blake sez: "As for your shoot the messenger comment, no one asked you to deliver the message and if you see fit to do so it is entirely reasonable to expect some hard factual information to support the miserable hateful rhetoric. BTW, I had a police record when I was young. Based upon your reasoning, I guess I am one of your "dregs of society." Your apology is insincere. Our recruits are not anything close to the "dregs of society" and you owe them a sincere apology for asserting that they are, especially the ones here on BadWeB. Blake, it appears that you have tried to mischaracterize (either intentionally or not) my initial comment that was in response to Eboos post about our military cannot become the reformatory for society. Let me refresh it here since you seem to have forgotten the content. "Our military has become a reformatory for the dregs of society. My son-in-law is an Army drill sargent at Ft. Knox, and his best friend is a recruiter. You should be in the same room when these guys are talking 'bout the status of recruits that make up the body of our military today. "Bottom of the barrel" is an often heard description..."really, really, "dumb" can be heard too. According to these guys who are in the know..."We are in serious trouble." The Army has significantly lowered its standards and it is still way behind on recruiting goals. Now I know there are good folks who are joining too, but they aren't making much of an impression on the folks trying to train them." As far as you countering my "hateful rhetoric" with the "facts", what is your source for these "facts"? I have been very open with my sources, but you haven't told us where you read yours. I was just at FT. Knox again today to watch my grandson play football and I told these guys what you were calling the facts. One asked if you also believed in Santa. BTW, I am not asserting anything even though you keep trying to steer it that way...why is that? You say I should be ashamed...of what? I didn't make this stuff up and have recapitulated it here. There is no shame in that whether you find it in disagreement with your preconceived notions or not. I stated right up front that I had no direct evidence other than actual testimony. Although, I have recently researched this topic a bit after this thread became more argumentative. There is a lot of evidence in the media that recruiters have instructed kids on how to beat the drug tests, how to obtain fake high school diplomas, and preyed upon our youth in the poorest of neighborhoods, etc. But that is just something I read, not what these career professionals have told me. I personally wish it were not true, but I would also like for Santa to bring me a new XBRR. This really is my last post on this as it has become what I had feared it might...and I told myself I wasn't going to get into any more of these threads as they really serve no purpose other than to rile up the party faithful. If what these Army professionals say is true (which I have no doubt that it is...why would they lie?), there is absolutely nothing anyone on here can do about it, so why get so worked up about it. Now about that XBRR, Santa... jd |
Blake
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 12:57 am: |
|
I've listed my factual information. You've listed nothing more than salacious gossip and hearsay. I pulled it from news reports on the internet. You are free to do some actual objective research on your own in order to question or refute that information. I guess it comes down to the fact that you are perfectly okay characterizing America's military recruits as "the dregs of society" where I cannot disagree more strongly with such a disgusting miserable view. |
Brucelee
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 02:01 pm: |
|
These "dregs" did OK in overthrowing the Taliban and the Iraq "elite rev. guard!" |
|