Use long term criminals for war instead of our good men

1. 58

   Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years ago

   Do you think that The United States should use long term criminals for war, instead of using our good men?  This would clear out our jails, save tax payers money and maybe in some sick way rehabilitate some of the criminals.  It may scare them into good behavior.  Put the criminals on the front lines.  Some would survive and some would not, this is a fact.  Some may become a part of a special force that would benefit the government.  I am not quite sure, but an elderly man said they had already done this a long time ago, does anyone have information about this?  If so, what are your views?  Do you think that it is a good idea?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So your goal is to replace motivated, free men trained in the ways of combat and discipline with a respect for authority as well as the proven intellect to execute their assigned duties with those who demonstrate a consistent inability to follow commands, hold to discipline, learn genuinely complex tasks and fight in an organized and cohesive unit?
      
      You would replace the finest fighting men in the world with those who cannot function in a civil society.  That is such a good idea.
      
      As for having done it in the past - that would be in the movie "The Dirty Dozen."

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's bloody crazy, for the reasons ucv mentioned and others.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think the convicts would simply mutiny if they were serving against their will. I would think that if anyone supportive of something like this gave it 5 minutes' thought and started writing down the plan on how to make it work, they would get about half a paragraph in before seeing its futility. I like the Congress idea better--just like the old Roman republic. Send the senators to lead the armies and let those people wealthy enough to afford their own tanks and aircraft serve in the rank and file.

      replyreport
2. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Why not sending the good congress?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Did you suggest that I send this ti congress? I didn't understand your post.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He already said criminals. Let's not be redundant.
      
      *rim shot*

      replyreport
3. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Why not sending the congress fighting those wars since they give their agreement?

   replyreport
4. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   It's exactly what I meant!

   replyreport
5. 69

   Peter Hogganposted 12 years ago

   I wonder if arming hardened criminals with guns and tanks is a great idea. I don't have a problem with sending in bankers and politicians though.

   replyreport
6. 60

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   So we are to expect people who have forsaken American civil society to be willing to die for it? Something doesn't add up.
   
   One of the benefits of an all-volunteer military is that they want to be there, they aren't being forced to do something.
   
   And anyway, how in hell would you control the movements and activities of, say, 500 ARMED men in an isolated battlefield, with only a handful of senior officers? Mutinies, revolts and riots would break out. These guys would start their own little militias and armed gangs inside the army.
   
   A breakdown of the chain of command doesn't begin to describe the chaos. You would have roving bands terrorizing foreign populations extracting food, money and sex from them, all under the banner of America.
   
   The whole thing has disaster written all over it.

   replyreport
7. 60

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   "Some would survive and some would not, this is a fact."
   
   Correction: most would run away, most of the rest would get killed, and some would start gangs and organized crime rings. That is a fact. LOL!

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No training!   Just dump them in another country and leave them there.
      Instead of capital punishment, let it be foreign punishment.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Uh huh. Sounds reasonable. lol...

         replyreport
      2. 69

         Peter Hogganposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What country did you have in mind, Canada, Norway, Africa? What sort of impact do you think that would have?
         
         What country deserves to have the dregs of American society dumped on them? As well as being a total *uckwit are you xenophobic as well?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There is no need for you to become aggressive in your comments.  We all know that this would never happen.  The initial post was just an inquiry.  It's not personal and you should not be personal either.  If you read further in the other posts you would see that clearly the government has done this before.....have a good day!

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Peter Hogganposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I wasn’t being aggressive, just stating the obvious mate.
               
               Incidentally you never answered my questions.
               
               Which countries would you dump the felons on?
               
               Are you xenophobic?
               (if you are unsure of the meaning of xenophobic just  Google it)

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe just pick an isolated little island where swimming away would freeze them to the bone or the currents would sweep them further out to sea.  What would the Scottish government take for the Isle of Skye - I hear that is pretty rough this time of year.  How about one of the Hebrides pr Orkneys? Ward Hill would be perfect.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Peter Hogganposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     lol, I wonder how those who had been locked away for years would take to men wearing skirts.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        With a sufficient amount of the fine beverages available in Scotland I would suppose the allure would be irresistible.

                        replyreport
8. 60

   janesixposted 12 years ago

   Come on, guys, you know the OP has to be like twelve years old.
   
   I remember asking similar qustions when I was that age....

   replyreport
   1. 60

      secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You'd be surprised...

      replyreport
9. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   No, that would be a foolish idea.
   
   End the wars.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ending wars, is a good idea.   But is very unlikely.  An unrealistic thought in today's society.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ron Paul: "We just marched in, we can just march out."
         
         http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul382.html

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Evan,
            
            why is it that a lot of people have a problem with "simple".
            
            Simple is the solution to many problems, but simple for most people dumbfounds several.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               People usually trust their common sense, but when someone who flashes a shiny Nobel Prize or a bunch of "I murdered people" medals in their face, it's hard to just say "No, you're an idiot"

               replyreport
         2. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Simple answers for simple minds.
            Paul 2012

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Iran hasn't invaded another country in 100+years (without provocation); they aren't building nukes; they thanked us for helping their fisherman...
               
               Our government has spent well over $2 trillion overseas over the past few years; we blow $700 billion each year on our military*;
               
               *(If we balanced the budget, we could pay off our debt in only 40 years if we halved our military spending)
               
               Sometimes simplicity is the answer: "Quit bombing people, balance our budget, and follow the constitution".

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Did the Iranians seize the American Embassy?
                  
                  When Tel Aviv is a smoking nuclear crater will you and the other Paulniacs still say Iran is not building nukes?
                  
                  Helping men in distress at sea is what the United States Navy - it is what all decent navies - does.  There is a common enemy at sea - the sea herself.
                  
                  There is a reasoned argument to be made regarding our protecting those nations prosperous enough to provide for their own defense.
                  
                  There is an equally reasoned argument to be made regarding the necessity of a global naval military presence (see Iranian fisher men versus Pirates)

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Simple minds?
               
               A childs mind is one of  the most brilliant of minds. How so? Theirs havent been infiltrated by so much logic.
               
               Simple aint bad.

               replyreport
10. 59

    Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

    Using prisoners as soldiers during war time has been a practice used since ancient times. We, the US, gave lower level prisoners options to serve in the miltary rather than jail time up til 1982. We also recriuited prisoners  during WW2 in exchange for early release when the war ended. Today, the US military is shrinking dramatically in manpower and getting very picky on who they enlist. This is because we are getting more high tech in the way we wage war. A drone can take out an enemy more efficiently and cheaply compaired to sending in a combat unit.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you for answering.  It makes sense that technology is used.  Do you think that someday these drones will replace humans in combat?

       replyreport
       1. 61

          uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Once Skynet comes on line.

          replyreport
    2. 61

       uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       A drone can also fantasize about how military action should take place and parrot the President.  Drones are tools not men.  The only way to accomplish many missions is to put men in harms way - this will not change.

       replyreport
11. 84

    gmwilliamsposted 12 years ago

    Hmmmmmmm.......let me think about this for one minute.  Long term criminals are usually amoral and not patriotic.   They are only concerned about the bottom line.   They also do not follow orders well........What else?  they also believe that they have nothing to lose which means they will take as many of their compatriots with them as possible without considering the consequences therein.   Also, when the situation escalate, they will either desert or go over to the enemy.......Such a logical premise.  Not!!!

    replyreport
12. 73

    Jeff Berndtposted 12 years ago

    Once upon a time, I understand that judges had the option to sentence a guy to prison, or, if they thought he could be rehabilitated, let him volunteer to join the military instead.
    
    I don't know how well this worked, or even if this is a real thing.
    
    Does anyone know?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I had a friend, unfortunately he killed himself years ago, who would tell the story that he got in a sufficient amount of youthful trouble that he was indeed offered the option - join the Marines or go to jail.  His years in the Marine Corps were his proudest memories.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I know Jeff Berndt
       
       it is real.
       
       I've spoken with maybe one or two and a sergeant that I knew got out kllled his wife and was given the option to go back to Vietnam and he chose his old unit which was where I was.

       replyreport
13. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    I met a few, it was a long ago. They were busted for drugs and sentenced to work as undercover narcs in another part of the country. Now that is insidious.

    replyreport
14. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    "Use long term criminals for war instead of our good men" They already do. It's called politicans,
    pentagon, military industrial complex, international corporations and bankers.,

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Lunar Mining Colonists. Just might cut the crime rate. After that...Mars!

       replyreport
15. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    O moon o moon
    You are so sweet
    How good you are looking
    And how good your light!
    
    Capitalists on the moon with neon advertising.

    replyreport
16. 60

    SpanStarposted 12 years ago

    I remember this being mentioned years ago but I don't know if it was ever tried for here was some of the reasons I heared it wouldn't work.
    
    * Don't expect them to follow orders.
    
    * They can't be trusted so they'll wind up siding with the enemy.
    
    * They would give away military locations.
    
    * They would likely would try and escape every chance they got.
    
    Personally I'm not sure about murder crimminals but I would consider giving other prisoners a chance to get out jail if they prove themselves to be of service to the military.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Inquiringmind2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Your post makes sense.  They would most likely do that! 
       If some prisoners can be reverted into creating a good life, and deviate away from the past behaviors that got them into trouble in the first place, it could benefit the government.

       replyreport
17. 60

    thebigbagblogposted 12 years ago

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been reviewing Iran for years (recently last year) and have been responsible for assuring the Iran has not deviated from its civilian nuclear program in accordance to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
    
    Iran has been accused of enriching Uranium, but NEVER accused of having its by-product PLUTONIUM (which IS used in nukes). Currently, Iran has programs where Uranium is enriched to 3% Uranium 235 (civilian grade) for their Medical Isotope Reactor in Tehran. Iran's Uranium enrichment is simply no where near weapons grade (+90% 235) and they are years behind in being able to do so. Beyond that, there has to be parts machined, they need a delivery vehicle for the nuke, and a WAR HEAD... Iran simply doesn't have any of these items or an ability to produce them.
    
    Iran stopped pursuing a weapons grade nuclear program long ago (2003)...Several US agencies (including the C.I.A) concluded (and stand by their assessment) that Iran is NOT starting up its weapons grade program. The hype about such a program is simply that...hype.
    
    What we were originally worried about is the idea that "practice makes perfect". In other words, if Iran keeps on enriching Uranium (the hardest part of building a weapon), then what's to stop them from perusing a weapons program? Seems like a reasonable argument, but doesn't change the fact that Iran hasn't started such a program has followed the NPT and adhered to IAEA guidelines.
    
    Does this make Ahmadinejad an innocent fuzzy President without an evil bone in his body? NO! But, the fact that he isn't a "teddy bear" doesn't make his nuclear weapons program any less imaginary. If anything, its more likely that IF Iran wanted nukes any time soon, she is going to have to purchase them!

    replyreport
18. 60

    thebigbagblogposted 12 years ago

    I need to follow my own advice and stay on topic!!

    replyreport
19. 0

    Longhunterposted 12 years ago

    Taking men convicted of crimes worthy of long sentences and putting them on the front line of a war is just asking for war crimes to be committed. Not a good idea, IMHO.
    
    If you want to clean out the prisons, lobby for the appeals process to be shortened and for capital punishment sentences to be carried out. You'd clean out the prisons as well as have a deterrent. Again, JMHO.

    replyreport