It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1st: Raise the age to 40; 2nd: Lower Education Requirements; Now: The Army's New Standard!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
I know having a tattoo doesnt make you a gang member or racist, but a lot more people with tattoos on the face/hand/neck are people i wouldnt trust with a gun around my family. Can you see what im trying to say here?


No, I can't. What you are doing is making generalizations about people without valid facts or evidence to support your claims. You seem to be doing a rather good job of this throughout this entire thread.

You first insinuate that the US armed forces are accepting gang members and white supremacists, in an effort to bolster supposedly lagging enlistment quotas. In the same post you equate all members of the armed forces with bloodlusting mercenaries.

You then go on to refer to Americans as "redneck yanks". I don't mind being called a "yank", but I'm pretty certain you don't have a clue of the true meaning of redneck, and the fact that those people who refer to themselves as "rednecks" actually do it with pride, mostly. BTW, nice of you to add in the gratuitous, albeit hollow, keyboard-cowboy threat of violence.....it has been my personal experience that this is the specialty of the snot-nosed 14 year old with little or no self-esteem.

You posts are rife with opinion and completely lacking in facts, or what is even commonly accepted by the masses. I believe the best and most accurate characterization of your posts would be.......drivel.

If you want to make an assertion regarding the worthiness or unworthiness of tattooed individuals in the US armed forces, try providing some empirical data or real-life experiences you can share with us. Otherwise, if all you can resort to is spouting off generalizations that attack and degrade a very large number of people.....don't wonder why you receive a healthy dose of "feedback".



[edit FOR GRAMMER on 27-3-2006 by Pyros]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Pyros]




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
I cant be bothered arguing with a little rich kid from the suburbs type like you because to be honest if you was here with me trying to pull this crap i would take out your teeth for you.


Don't be so hard on this guy FlyersFan, he may not be concerned with spelling, but apparently he's a dentist and even though you two disagree, he/she has offered to perform extractions on you. That's the true spirit of burying the hatchet if I've ever seen it.


As for the gang member comments made earlier, seems to me if they are joining the army, perhaps they wish to straighten out their lives a bit. Since they likely already have firearm experience, along with a tendency towards violence, they would probably make good soldiers as long as they can learn to channel their aggression correctly....



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Originally posted by HiddenReality
I know having a tattoo doesnt make you a gang member or racist, but a lot more people with tattoos on the face/hand/neck are people i wouldnt trust with a gun around my family. Can you see what im trying to say here?


No, I can't. What you are doing is making generalizations about people without valid facts or evidence to support your claims. You seem to be doing a rather good job of this throughout this entire thread.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Pyros]


So you are telling me you see as many people in office jobs etc sporting tattoos on there .s/necks/hands then you do criminals? Ok now whos talking bs?

Im not making any generalization at all its just a simple fact more people with tattoos in those places are criminals. Why do you think police profile for this reason? Or am i lying again here? Why do you think a lot of gangs today have started ordering there gang members not to have highly visable tattoos a all?

I think ive explained it simple enough for even a child to understand, so if you still feel like its a factless claim use google to prove yourself wrong.

Whoever said put gangsters in the army to reform them... Would you want armed criminals representing your country, i know i would want respectable people, people who didnt commit massacres in mosques, execute injured cuffed insurgents you know that kind of thing.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by HiddenReality]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
i wonder if that tatoo rule applied (before it was altered) applied to the "evil" darft


if so, i surely would have gotten a tatoo






posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
So you are telling me you see as many people in office jobs etc sporting tattoos on there .s/necks/hands then you do criminals? Ok now whos talking bs?


I'm in an office job right now, and I have my share of tats.



Im not making any generalization at all its just a simple fact more people with tattoos in those places are criminals. Why do you think police profile for this reason? Or am i lying again here?


They don't profile me. And I have a clean record.




Why do you think a lot of gangs today have started ordering there gang members not to have highly visable tattoos a all?


Using that logic then, the army should ONLY recruit those with visible tats, because that will mean they're not gang members?




Whoever said put gangsters in the army to reform them...


If you're referring to me, I never said put them there, I said if they want to go themselves, that may mean that they wish to change their lives. I would never advocate forcing anybody to do anything...



Would you want armed criminals representing your country, i know i would want respectable people, people who didnt commit massacres in mosques, execute injured cuffed insurgents you know that kind of thing.


Representing my country? It's not the olympics, it's WAR. Personally I don't want anybody to have to kill anybody else, but would it really matter to you if you're shot by a former crip or an investment banker? And as for mosque massacres or executing prisoners without trial, I tend to take those reports with a grain of salt as they are most likely propaganda, not saying all of the reports, but a good share are. Besides, attrocities are commited in wars, and always have been. It has to do with the mindset that is developed IN the war, not before. Sometimes people just snap when exposed to that much death, be it a Hell's Angel, or a dog groomer. That's why war sucks, people die.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Standards have always been lowered in times of war. It's never been any different. I've heard veterans from every war from WWI to the present say the same thing. When the going is easy and the military can pick and choose that's what they do. When things get rough, then things loosen up a bit. The old saying from WWII was that if you could hear thunder and see lightning, you were fit for duty.

Curme, hates the military and uses any reason to trash our efforts in the war on terror. He's not spending a lot of time worrying about military readiness in his diatribe. At the beginning of this war there was a story about a former Marine who wanted to re-enlist and was denied because while he was out he got one tattoo too many. I'm pretty sure that story is on this board. I'd be interesting to see what the usual suspects had to say about that then.

[edit on 2006/3/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666
I know I will probably make some enemies for saying this, but the military is mainly for people who enjoy the limited authority they think it gives them, it is also for people who aren't intelligent enough to make it through life without being ordered around...

I'm not saying that there are no intelligent people in the forces, this is clearly not the case, but if someone ever yelled at me "boy, get down and give me 20!" I would tell them exactly where to go......

Besides, what is a soldier except a terrorist who gets paid....

A good friend of mine was a criminal psychologist with the Australian police as well as several military cases for over 20 years, his job entailed not only studying the criminal mind, but also the people who worked for these organisations, his opinion on both is that they are full of emotional cripples who enjoy excersizing power over other, weaker people, this is a Psychopathic tendancy.

So yeah, unless you want to be a psychotic braindead moron who gets told not only what to do, but how to think, GO YOUR OWN WAY, and GET A REAL JOB.


Partner, youve got drill instructors all wrong. You know why they yell and scream and order others around? Its to make the men they are training come together as a group out of resentment for their instructors. It brings the group together, they will form better bonds under this stress because they have to. My uncle was a drill instructor in the US Army and hes no emotional cripple. Hes a good man who enjoyed his 23 year career in the Army. He then went on to be a high school history teacher for another 15 years. All I'm saying is is that you have it all wrong about drill instructors. There is method to the madness so to speak.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
I typed fast and got a few words wrong.

Actually, you are getting just about every word wrong.

YOU asked what my point was. I told you. YOU called hundreds
of thousands of people who are better educated than you 'idiots'.
My point was, and still is, that you are the uneducated one.
Not them. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper with
each pathetic post. Keep it up. You're doing great!


Not everyone is as obsessed with
making themselves look intelligent

We aren't 'obsessed' with making ourselves look intelligent.
We just happen to be more intelligent than you. It's just
rather obvious. No need to make an effort to be that.


as you redneck yanks are.

You have NO idea what redneck means, do you?


Im sorry mommy didnt pay for me to go thru grammar school

So you didn't get through grammar school? Then that does explain
your poor english skills. Considering that most of those in the
American military have at least a high school education, and many
more have at least some college, then they definately ARE better
educated than you. Yet another reason for you not to be calling
them idiots.


wipe my ass 10 times a day for me while i was there.

I was potty trained at 2 1/2 years old. I didn't need my mother
to wipe anything while I was in school. So you needed your mother
to wipe you 10 times a day in school?? You weren't potty trained
AND you had bowel problems?? Difficult childhood huh?


least learn to understand a question before you apply your twisted dumb logit to it.

It's called LOGIC. I understood your question just fine. You said that
people with tatoos shouldn't be allowed to have guns and you asked
if I agreed. Your EXACT words - its painfully obvious that a substantial
percentage of people with tattoos on their .s hands necks etc are
not the best people to give automatic guns to wouldnt you agree?

What could your reason be for the bias against
tatooed people being allowed to carry arms in the military? The ONLY
reason someone shouldn't be allowed is that they lack the intelligence
or ability to shoot when the need arises. Tatoos do not inhibit a
person's intelligence at all. There is no connection. People who are in
the military have background checks and are not jailed criminals.
They pass drug tests upon entering and random drug tests during
their time in service. If they are convicted of a criminal act while in
the service, they 'do time' and/or are discharged and so they are not
using 'automatic guns'. (weapons ... the military doesn't use the
word 'guns'. Just FYI)


I cant be bothered arguing with a little rich kid

I'm not rich and I'm not a kid. Actually, I'm rather old.


from the suburbs

I'm from the city.


type like you

Ahhhh more generalization.


if you was here

If you WERE here ... not was.


with me trying to pull this crap i would take out your teeth for you.

Threatening to beat up an old woman? How manly of you.
I agree with the previous poster. How old are you? 14??



[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
people in office jobs etc .... just a simple fact more people
with tattoos in those places are criminals.


People in offices aren't criminals because they have tatoos.
People in the military aren't criminals because they have tatoos.
People who teach children aren't criminals because they have tatoos.
People who _______ aren't criminals because they have tatoos.
(fill in the blank).

Provide back up data to support your statement that people with
tatoos in offices are criminals. Also provide support for your insinuation
that people in the military who have tatoos are criminals and can't be
trusted with automatic weapons (guns ... to quote you).

The military does background checks and drug testing on people before they get in the service. The military tests again many times while the
people are in the service. There are also basic intelligence tests that
people have to pass along with basic education requirements.
Psychological testing is done on combat troops before, during, and
after engagement with the enemy.

Gangsters can't pass these things. Therefore it is highly unlikely they
would manage to get in. If you have any data that counters that,
then feel free to post it.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666
I know I will probably make some enemies for saying this, but the military is mainly for people who enjoy the limited authority they think it gives them, it is also for people who aren't intelligent enough to make it through life without being ordered around...


Bite your tongue kid.
It's called being responsible. Responsible for your own life, responsible for your own values, and when it comes right down to it... responsible for would-be tough guys who like to talk a good game about what they'd do if they were told to do pushups, but probably couldn't hack the workout, much less stand their ground against anyone, especially a DI.

The military will give you a start if you've got nowhere else to start- how many presidents have we had who didn't go to college, and where did they come from? You give a lot, and you get a lot. You know anywhere else where a guy can get a $50,000+ education and 4 years of technical schooling right out of highschool, without having a dime to his name starting out?

The military is absolutely necessary for sustaining the lives we all live, and it all falls apart if nobody's got the civic virtue to take their shift on the wall.
God knows you wouldn't.


Besides, what is a soldier except a terrorist who gets paid....

Where should I start? The Rangers who gave their lives trying to stop warlords from starving innocent Somalis? The Guardsmen who helped restore order after the LA riots? The Marines who secured the American college students in Granada? Need I even mention those who died for the advent of democracy in this nation, the freedom of an entire race in this nation, and the salvation of the world from Nazi hegemony?
You're right. Hired terrorists. How dare those bastards murder innocent Nazis.


A good friend of mine was a criminal psychologist with the Australian police as well as several military cases for over 20 years...

Sampling error. Your buddy was a criminal psychologist. You could have sent him to a Seminary or a meeting of the United Nations- he would have been working with the problems and picking them out because that's his job.

I've known a couple of hundred Marines... it's suprisingly like normal society. 5-10% Absolutely outstanding, idealistic, successful people. 10% Genuine SOBs. Everyone else is pretty normal. I've said myself that people who were probably abused children do well in the military, at least in the lower ranks, but they aren't what makes the Marine Corps work, and they certainly don't represent it.


So yeah, unless you want to be a psychotic braindead moron who gets told not only what to do, but how to think, GO YOUR OWN WAY, and GET A REAL JOB.


Keep in mind that these men you despise so well make it possible for you to have a job. Do you think America is wealthy because God has showered wealth and blessings upon us? I've got news for you amigo- America is where it is because from day 1 we've been willing to go to the mat with anyone who would threaten to take what we have, from the George III, to the French Navy, to the Barbary Pirates, etc etc etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Great. Now, they're sending less educated and old soldiers to boot.

The desperate military dudes in Pentagon are getting more and more careless it seems. First it was some promotion that has to do with free mp3s and now changing the standard to take in more people to fight their dirty war.

No wonder the stigma "trigger-happy" American soldiers are getting much more real by the day. If you send in the less educated, will they be able to understand the true objective of the war rather than just taking in what the officers tell him? If you send in people in their 40s as fresh recruits, will they be as agile and hardy as their younger counterparts, wouldn't this bring a serious threat if your soldiers can't perform well?

I'll be waiting for the next "recruitment stunt" that they're going to pull.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
If you haven't been there you can't talk anything. So, my advice is ENLIST, PULL A TOUR, And then YOU CAN SPEAK. Until then ...........



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pfcret
So, my advice is ENLIST, PULL A TOUR, And then YOU CAN SPEAK


I enlisted. I gave five years. Two in Texas (Fort Hood and
Fort Sam Houston) and three in Japan (Camp Zama). This was
in the '80s so there wasn't any large scale operations that we
had to deploy for. We bombed Libya while I was in, and our
post in Japan had a few mild terrorist attacks ... but fortunately
that was all.

And you pfcret?? Is it pfc ret as in Private First Class Retired??



[edit on 3/28/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
If you send in people in their 40s as fresh recruits,


Read the information again. What it says is that they will now
accept people enlisting UP TO age 40. Previously it was up to 35.
There will not be any fresh recruits 'in their 40's'. You might see
some 40 year olds who sign up, but it's highly unlikely. By 40 most
of us were already walking down paths in life other than the military.

When I was in basic training I was in an all female company at
Fort Dix. We had one 17 year old, but the rest were mostly 18-24.
Out of the 500 women we had two 34 year olds. There wasn't
exactly a rush of 35 year olds to get in then. I'm sure there won't be
a rush of 40 year olds to get in now.

The military has changed the age requirements throughout history
as they deemed necessary. This is nothing new and nothing shocking.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
[Read the information again. What it says is that they will now
accept people enlisting UP TO age 40. Previously it was up to 35.
There will not be any fresh recruits 'in their 40's'. You might see
some 40 year olds who sign up, but it's highly unlikely. By 40 most
of us were already walking down paths in life other than the military.


Sorry, what I meant is people in the age of 40 and around that age such as 38, 39. If such people are to enlist into the military, wouldn't that be a danger in itself? I won't be surprised if I see more casualties in conflicts that are to come.

Privatesh Brownsh, reportingsh for dutyish, sirh!

I don't know about you but I think sending in old people are such an error.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
During WWII, the military took men in at older ages, especially when they had specialized skills to contribute to the war effort. These men were not generally placed in combat positions. I have been told that older men usually were in the artillery, but by older I'm sure they meant men in their thirties because artillery is very physically demanding and very hazardous, even under the best of conditions. Older men can serve as clerks, truck drivers, combat engineers, construction personnel, medical staff, cooks, armorers, draftsmen, graphic artists, mechanics, and a plethora of other positions that would free up younger personnel for more risky and otherwise more demanding positions. No doubt that would be what is going on now.

[edit on 2006/3/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
I don't know about you but I think sending in old people are such an error.


Three thoughts on that ...

First - As I said earlier, most people by the time they are 35-40 already
are on a certain path in life and aren't going to drop it all to rush over
to the military to join up. There won't be many people enlisting at
that age. I gave my basic training company as an example. 500
women, and two were 34 years old.

Second - the military already has 'old' people. The ENLISTMENT age
was up to 35. However, the required retirement age isn't until much
later. You already have people in their 40's and 50's in the military.

Third - There is something to be said for the wisdom of those who
have been around longer than the young. Sometimes older folks
are calmer in certain situations. Sometimes older folks can relax
more in the face of danger. Sometimes older folks can see the
wisdom of not being 'trigger happy'. Sometimes. Not always.
But sometimes.

(forgive me for the excessive praise of the older folks .. I'm
'older' and I just couldn't help myself.
)

Yes, the younger are usually in better shape. But don't forget
each job in the military comes with certain physical and mental
requirements. If you can't pick up a certain amount of weight
without throwing out your back, then you can't even get into
basic training let alone a combat unit. Tankers have certain
physical standards. So do the infantry. So do those who
work on computers. Even we female enlisted who worked
admin had certain physical standards we had to meet. If
we didn't ... then we were OUT (or couldn't even get in to
begin with).

If a 40 year old can pass the standards then they will do
just fine. If they can't pass, then they won't even get through
the front door. They'll be weeded out the first week of basic
training.



[edit on 3/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Curme, hates the military and uses any reason to trash our efforts in the war on terror. He's not spending a lot of time worrying about military readiness in his diatribe. At the beginning of this war there was a story about a former Marine who wanted to re-enlist and was denied because while he was out he got one tattoo too many. I'm pretty sure that story is on this board. I'd be interesting to see what the usual suspects had to say about that then.

[edit on 2006/3/27 by GradyPhilpott]



Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
So you are telling me you see as many people in office jobs etc sporting tattoos on there .s/necks/hands then you do criminals? Ok now whos talking bs?


This would be funny if you werent serious.

I am an ex-Army Biker covered in tattoos........and I have worked in management all my life. About half the people in our office had tattoos or even pericings.

I did suspect the 52 year old woman with a butterfly tattooed on her was a viscious gang member..................



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join