I’ve seen this elsewhere on the net so and thought it was pertinent.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gangs01.html
Being an officer in the Army, its fantastic to know that I might be leading these worthless scum in a warzone.
Dustin
That shit was going on in Somalia in '92. The gang-military thing has been around for a while. Just don’t tolerate it with your troops.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
That shit was going on in Somalia in '92. The gang-military thing has been around for a while. Just don’t tolerate it with your troops. [/quote]
I don’t understand how someone is so offended or surprised. Some young men used to be given the option of going into the army or serving time for crimes committed. Now it is a shock that some may be in gangs? There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BH6 wrote:
That shit was going on in Somalia in '92. The gang-military thing has been around for a while. Just don’t tolerate it with your troops.
I don’t understand how someone is so offended or surprised. Some young men used to be given the option of going into the army or serving time for crimes committed. Now it is a shock that some may be in gangs? There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs. [/quote]
You can rationalize if you want, but I think it shows a lack of discipline within the military.
It disgusts me quite frankly. I’ve been in TRADOC for over a year know and I’ll I hear about is how I’m supposed to be disciplined.
Being in the military Professor X, don’t you find it the least bit insulting?
Dustin
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand how someone is so offended or surprised. Some young men used to be given the option of going into the army or serving time for crimes committed. Now it is a shock that some may be in gangs? There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs. [/quote]
This was one of your dumber posts.
How could you not be offended to know that these scumbags are in the military, representing our country to the world, and being trained and armed with tax payer money? To compare it to the past when we had a draft and petty criminals were given the Army/jail option is retarded.
I don’t get the point of your last sentence at all. These aren’t people who “used to be in gangs.” These are soldiers who ARE in gangs. Do “lawyers and other professionals” get machine guns and hand-grenades? Do they take the same oath to defend the Constitution? Do they tag the court rooms when the judge isn’t looking and flash signs to the jury box?
There was no surprise in 93, no surprise now. Somalia just happened to be the first time I saw gang tags in a foreign country. It isn’t new in the military, although the press seems to pick it up every year or so and articles about gangs in the military make thier rounds through the Associated Press.
As officers though, it is our responsibility to make sure our troops aren’t putting gang loyalties ahead of thier loyalty to the soldiers, marines, or airmen around them.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
There was no surprise in 93, no surprise now. Somalia just happened to be the first time I saw gang tags in a foreign country. It isn’t new in the military, although the press seems to pick it up every year or so and articles about gangs in the military make thier rounds through the Associated Press.
As officers though, it is our responsibility to make sure our troops aren’t putting gang loyalties ahead of thier loyalty to the soldiers, marines, or airmen around them.
[/quote]
Exactly, and Doogie, your response was pure stupidity. The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW, especially in the ARMY. The standards for entrance are higher for every other faction of the military. There are people who can get into the ARMY with criminal backgrounds. That won’t be happening in the Air Force or even the Navy to my knowledge.
If they wanted to put a stop to it, they could do so easily by RAISING the requirements for entrance. They don’t because they need soldiers.
It is up to commanding officers to guide these men into becoming the kinds of soldiers who won’t do shit like this. However, to act as if you didn’t know it happened only shows you are about 20-30 years late on info.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Being in the military Professor X, don’t you find it the least bit insulting?
[/quote]
What is insulting is the Army reducing its requirements for entrance to allow it in the first place. Do you even need a high school diploma to get into the Army? Don’t you think that may just have something to do with it?
Therefore, who is really to blame here, the kids who come in from whatever background they were raised in, or the Army for looking past it and allowing them in?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is insulting is the Army reducing its requirements for entrance to allow it in the first place. Do you even need a high school diploma to get into the Army? Don’t you think that may just have something to do with it?
Therefore, who is really to blame here, the kids who come in from whatever background they were raised in, or the Army for looking past it and allowing them in?[/quote]
I agree and that is major problem I have with the Army. If I’d known this before signing up, I might still be a civillian.
All this considered, it still doesn’t excuse the behavior. These individuals can act like antisocial criminals in the crappy neighborhoods they came from, but at some point, they have to held accountable.
Dustin
[quote]Dustin wrote:
All this considered, it still doesn’t excuse the behavior. These individuals can act like antisocial criminals in the crappy neighborhoods they came from, but at some point, they have to held accountable.
Dustin[/quote]
And that should be up to their commander. If you are going to allow people into the military from questionable backgrounds, you can’t act like you aren’t supposed to deal with the problems that arise from it. Being in gangs is a way of life and a way to survive for many of those kids. It isn’t something they just fell into as opposed to going to the country club for a round of golf one Saturday night. That means, if anything, the people in command of these kids (or adults) should be trained on how to deal with it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Being in the military Professor X, don’t you find it the least bit insulting?
What is insulting is the Army reducing its requirements for entrance to allow it in the first place. Do you even need a high school diploma to get into the Army? Don’t you think that may just have something to do with it?
Therefore, who is really to blame here, the kids who come in from whatever background they were raised in, or the Army for looking past it and allowing them in?[/quote]
Very true. You’d have to be an ass to not choose the Army over jail time.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Very true. You’d have to be an ass to not choose the Army over jail time.
[/quote]
It hasn’t gotten to this point yet.
If you have a criminal record there is quite a bit of red tape to go through before the Army will allow you to join.
Don’t excuse the actions of these gang members.
Perhaps it’s something they can’t comprehend, but they are representing the USA.
Dustin
[quote]Dustin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Very true. You’d have to be an ass to not choose the Army over jail time.
It hasn’t gotten to this point yet.
If you have a criminal record there is quite a bit of red tape to go through before the Army will allow you to join.
Don’t excuse the actions of these gang members.
Perhaps it’s something they can’t comprehend, but they are representing the USA.
Dustin
[/quote]
The fact still stands that many are allowed to join. It may not be an absolute open door policy, but many people in the Army would never make it into other services or even past the first talk with a recruiter.
I agree, they are representing the USA. This is all the more reason why the military should be prepared to train these guys or offer better life skills. If you accept a kid with a no high school diploma with a criminal background, there needs to be some kind of guidance that goes beyond the discipline of bootcamp.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Being in the military Professor X, don’t you find it the least bit insulting?
What is insulting is the Army reducing its requirements for entrance to allow it in the first place. Do you even need a high school diploma to get into the Army? Don’t you think that may just have something to do with it?
Therefore, who is really to blame here, the kids who come in from whatever background they were raised in, or the Army for looking past it and allowing them in?[/quote]
Wow – I agree with Prof. X!! Good point – the lowering of the requirements (and I defer to your knowledge of this Prof.) could very well be the main cause of this. The Army, obviously, needs soldiers and I agree it has to be up to the commanding officers to handle these situations. Of course, if someone gets out of hand, I do believe the Army has legal remedies at its disposal to discipline unruly soldiers.
Actually, I wonder if there are any statistics on the number of gang members and street thugs that get straightened out because of their service in the military. It would seem to me more positive then negative.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Exactly, and Doogie, your response was pure stupidity. The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW, especially in the ARMY.
[/quote]
The point of saying, “I don’t understand how someone is so offended” and “There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs” is to indicate that it is not new for gang members to be in the Army?
If you aren’t offended by gang members in the Army, tagging foreign countries, you’re a douche.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Exactly, and Doogie, your response was pure stupidity. The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW, especially in the ARMY.
The point of saying, “I don’t understand how someone is so offended” and “There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs” is to indicate that it is not new for gang members to be in the Army?
If you aren’t offended by gang members in the Army, tagging foreign countries, you’re a douche.[/quote]
I am not that offended by some gang members tagging foreign countries. I am more offended that this wasn’t anticipated. You want to blame the gangs. I want to blame the people who allowed them in and didn’t form plans with how to either teach them or guide them. Things like this don’t surprise me because I already knew the faults with the system. I am amazed this isn’t common knowledge and am laughing at the fact that you jumped in to discuss how upset you are when it is clear you didn’t know either.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Exactly, and Doogie, your response was pure stupidity. The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW, especially in the ARMY.
The point of saying, “I don’t understand how someone is so offended” and “There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs” is to indicate that it is not new for gang members to be in the Army?
If you aren’t offended by gang members in the Army, tagging foreign countries, you’re a douche.
I am not that offended by some gang members tagging foreign countries. I am more offended that this wasn’t anticipated. You want to blame the gangs. I want to blame the people who allowed them in and didn’t form plans with how to either teach them or guide them. Things like this don’t surprise me because I already knew the faults with the system. I am amazed this isn’t common knowledge and am laughing at the fact that you jumped in to discuss how upset you are when it is clear you didn’t know either.[/quote]
I’ve known there were current gang members since I went to a Wu-Tang concert in Baltimore in 95. That’s when I first saw people from base in all their idiotic gangster glory. Before that, I knew there were some FORMER gang members around, but not active gang members.
Of course I blame the scumbag gang members. THEY ARE THE GANG MEMBERS. If they joined the Army because that’s the easiest way for an inner city kid to better himself, then the punk needs to leave his gang bullshit behind. If he joined the Army for the opportunity to tag Iraq and wear baggy pants when off duty in the desert, he’s still to blame.
If you want to be honest about how the standards have changed, it has nothing to do with criminal records or gang-affiliaion. Those scumbags are still banned. You can’t go down to your recruiter with your red bandana and two strikes and sign up.
The big difference is that the inner city retards that can’t even spell the shit they are spray painting on other people’s property are now being let in. The decline in standards is in intelligence, not criminal history. This includes retards who score in the 16% to 30% range on the U.S. Armed Forces’ mental-aptitude exam. Those retards are the same morons who join gangs.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Exactly, and Doogie, your response was pure stupidity. The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW, especially in the ARMY.
The point of saying, “I don’t understand how someone is so offended” and “There are lawyers and other professionals who used to be in street gangs” is to indicate that it is not new for gang members to be in the Army?
If you aren’t offended by gang members in the Army, tagging foreign countries, you’re a douche.
I am not that offended by some gang members tagging foreign countries. I am more offended that this wasn’t anticipated. You want to blame the gangs. I want to blame the people who allowed them in and didn’t form plans with how to either teach them or guide them. Things like this don’t surprise me because I already knew the faults with the system. I am amazed this isn’t common knowledge and am laughing at the fact that you jumped in to discuss how upset you are when it is clear you didn’t know either.
I’ve known there were current gang members since I went to a Wu-Tang concert in Baltimore in 95. That’s when I first saw people from base in all their idiotic gangster glory. Before that, I knew there were some FORMER gang members around, but not active gang members.
Of course I blame the scumbag gang members. THEY ARE THE GANG MEMBERS. If they joined the Army because that’s the easiest way for an inner city kid to better himself, then the punk needs to leave his gang bullshit behind. If he joined the Army for the opportunity to tag Iraq and wear baggy pants when off duty in the desert, he’s still to blame.
If you want to be honest about how the standards have changed, it has nothing to do with criminal records or gang-affiliaion. Those scumbags are still banned. You can’t go down to your recruiter with your red bandana and two strikes and sign up.
The big difference is that the inner city retards that can’t even spell the shit they are spray painting on other people’s property are now being let in. The decline in standards is in intelligence, not criminal history. This includes retards who score in the 16% to 30% range on the U.S. Armed Forces’ mental-aptitude exam. Those retards are the same morons who join gangs. [/quote]
You and me clearly have different perspectives as far as the gang problem. I see it as something that needs to be stopped, but I don’t take the extreme right stance you seem to be holding where you blame every kid for being in a gang. I understand the situations that lead some kids to gangs. I also think anyone actually living the lifestyle as an adult (beyond wearing a bandana) needs to be put down.
I feel that many of these kids join the military for some type of guidance, no matter how small that may be. I feel it is a disservice to approach it as blatantly as you might and I feel they need some kind of life skills taught to them in the military.
I also really don’t lose sleep over some gang signs on an Iraqi wall. None of those people have a clue what those symbols mean unless we tell them and many of those guys are still doing something positive.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I also think anyone actually living the lifestyle as an adult (beyond wearing a bandana) needs to be put down.
[/quote]
We do agree on something.
ProX and I disagree on some stuff, but the culpability of the Army for letting them in is outrageous. They scrape the bottom of the barrel for these kids, and overlook way to many bad apples.
They need to up the pay of all soldiers to entice the ones with life skills learned at home and an education.
Some may say that will cost too much, but if Big Army starts being smart about their money and stops forking it over by the dumptruck load to contractors for lackluster results and to the MIC, it is doable.
My last 6 years has been in infantry and armor units and I do not have any personal knowledge of a gang-related incident in the soldiers of either of these units. I do see plenty of what I consider “gang graffiti” in the portojohns, but I never saw it in homestation.