<p>Here’s some reality news for you folks out there. The link below is a news video on gangs in the military. It is a growing problem for the military and law enforcement. By the way, don’t shoot the messenger. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.militaryspot.com/videos/video72.htm[/url]”>http://www.militaryspot.com/videos/video72.htm</a></p>
<p>Definitely a concern that I’ve had for a while. Not good.</p>
<p>Unfortunately due to the need for soldiers for Iraq the military is taking just about anybody with a pulse. Lots of unsavory characters are getting in including those accused of murder in Iraq.</p>
<p>Which opens up a whole new question:</p>
<p>What foes it say about our society when a piddling little conflict so stretches us that we are unable to keep our forces manned with quality people? Not enough folks who think it’s worth volunteering.</p>
<p>Can you imagine if this were a REAL war? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Look around, folks. You’re seeing the decline of the once-mighty empire known as the United States, and we’re doing it to ourselves. :(</p>
<p>Thats why we need some kind of mandatory service in time of war–I’ve always felt that if the war on terror (or any war at all) is to be taken seriously by all, all must share the burden. When we all share the burden, we all suddenly stop standing by the sidelines and either become part of the effort and/or the solution.</p>
<p>I’ll bet for every gang member who goes through the military experience for the sole purpose of acquiring tactics to bring back to the street there are a hundred who find the military brotherhood to be a more satisfying family than the gang. Still, low recruiting standards are worrisome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No thanks.</p>
<p>I have served, and while we may have hated it at times, we all knew we were there voluntarily. I would not want to have anyone by my side in combat who hadn’t volunteered for duty. We learned that lesson in Vietnam.</p>
<p>Besides, when the United States can no longer produce people who are willing to fight for its freedom without being forced to, then we as a nation have lost our right to exist as a free people.</p>
<p>I have been properly corrected by ChessDad in that I should have used the word “nation” rather than “empire”. We have never been and most likely will never be anything resembling an empire, no matter what one end of the political spectrum may think.</p>
<p>Brain fart on my part to have used the wrong word. :o</p>
<p>“I would not want to have anyone by my side in combat who hadn’t volunteered for duty.”</p>
<p>There might be some Civil War, Korean War, and WW2 vets who would disagree with you. All three of those wars were fought with a HUGE number of men who were conscripted into service:</p>
<p>Some numbers—</p>
<p>WWI: (Sept. 1917-Nov. 1918) 2,810,296 draftees
WWII: (Nov. 1940-Oct. 1946) 10,110,104 draftees
Korea: (June 1950-June 1953) 1,529,539 draftees
Vietnam: (Aug 1964- Feb 1973) 1,857,304 draftees</p>
<p>I was unable to find a number for the civil war, but I remember my US History–Lincoln called for a conscription which resulted in rioting in several northern cities. There were thousands conscripted in the north to fight to preserve the Union. It would be nice if everyone was a volunteer, but unless we are only going to wage war on a small scale, its just not practical when it comes time to take and occupy territory.</p>
<p>I would submit that none of these wars could have been successfully prosecuted without a draft.</p>
<p>Look at WW2—probably the one war most supported by the general population since the Civil War, yet we still needed to draft over 10 million men to fight it. I think if you did some research, you would find a significant number of highly decorated veterans from all of these wars were drafted into the service.</p>
<p>It was a different time. Back then half the general population did not hate the nation they lived in, or the leadership more than the enemy.</p>
<p>You know damned well that a draft today would turn into a political football.</p>
<p>No thanks. We have enough useful idiots mucking up the war effort. No sense letting them on the inside to muck it up some more. I’d rather have gangland volunteers than conscripted hippies any day.</p>
<p>Now, if you want to argue that military service of some kind (directly under arms or at least in support) should be required for citizenship and the right to vote a la Starship Troopers (the BOOK), then I’m all ears.</p>
<p>Back then (WW1 and WW2) the majority of the population was isolationist and in fact elected BOTH sitting presidents at the time on the promise that they keep America out of the European war. Evidently things back then were VERY much like today in terms of whether an all volunteer force can sustain this nation at war. It couldn’t do it in WW1, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam. It wouldn’t have been able to do it in Desert Storm had Bush1 decided not to stop the attack on Saddam and instead gone in to over-throw the regime and occupy Iraq. We can see now the result of trying to occupy and control territory with an all volunteer force. There weren’t enough volunteers to stop Hitler and the Japanese Empire, there weren’t enough volunteers to stop the Kaiser, the N Koreans, the N Vietnamese, and there weren’t enough volunteers to preserve the Union in 1861. It’s a reality that isn’t easily overcome, even with our technology—unless we are just going to nuke "em all, boots on the ground are whats needed.</p>
<p>I agree, the draft would be a political football, but then the whole war on terror has gone that route already.</p>
<p>Until the situation deteriorates to the point that unless we have every man on the line we will lose the war, then the draft isn’t going to work.</p>
<p>Also, isolationism is hardly what we have today. Back then, they were content to simply stay here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. and let the world burn. Nowadays, it’s OUR cities which have burned, and yet the “opposition” still doesn’t get behind the war effort, and does everything they can to oppose it.</p>
<p>Sorry, but past conflicts do not translate to the present, and the one that comes the closest, Vietnam, is hardly a model for how we should do things.</p>
<p>As for “nuking them all”, we may come down to that, seeing as this nation no longer seems to accept the idea that we are going to lose men in combat when we fight wars. We have liberated a nation and occupied it in the face of stern terrorist resistance for over 3 years with fewer casualties than we suffered in one day during WWII, and you’d thinl we had lost 20 million.</p>
<p>The face of war is changing, but mostly because we don’t seem to have the stomach for it anymore. No collateral damage, no American troops hurt or killed, museums protected, mosques protected, protection of civilians at the expense of our own forces, etc.</p>
<p>I fear the day we have to face China, and we will someday.</p>
<p>I will say this, however: It sure would be fun to let some Marine and Army DI’s loose on some of the vermin you see marching in today’s “peace” rallies. VERY fun indeed, especially if they bring back all the DI’s could do back in the 50’s and 60’s.</p>
<p>Can you see my evil grin? :D</p>
<p>“I’ll bet for every gang member who goes through the military experience for the sole purpose of acquiring tactics to bring back to the street there are a hundred who find the military brotherhood to be a more satisfying family than the gang. Still, low recruiting standards are worrisome.”</p>
<p>You have no clue of gang life and you are in denial if you believe that the military can change a gang member’s loyalty. I grew up in Los Angeles county area and raised in a gang infested neighborhood. Gang members are criminals plain and simple. The military can’t change that because they already have a brotherhood with the “homies” in the barrio.</p>
<p>“I fear the day we have to face China, and we will someday.”</p>
<p>I agree that day is coming but we might have to fight Islamic terrorists first who are already in the USA waiting to destroy us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, no doubt.</p>
<p>Fortunately, however, that war (militarily, at least) is waged mostly with commando units and other elite formations that still have some standards. This would have been over long ago if only we weren’t worrying more about what people think of us than how many bad guys we kill.</p>
<p>In many ways, the moonbat islamists are more dangerous than the Chinese.</p>
<p>Both Spidermom and Avelardo make good points. I’ve also heard the sensationalistic news (fox snooze, which raises another set of questions about the validity of the report: statistics, dates, other ‘legitimate’ news sources reporting similar information–Geraldo doesn’t meet that standard–DOD reports on gangsters in the military: haven’t read any. Also, most gangsters have lengthy arrest records. How can they pass recruitment backround checks? Folks, consider the source. Fox, please. It’s akin to getting foreign policy updates from Entertainment Tonight.)</p>
<p>Like Avelardo, I live in Southern California and some of the gangsters in the fox report are just too close for comfort: Orange County, L.A. County, Long Beach, California’s Central Valley. I used to teach in ‘murder central’ and our principal was always concerned that gangsters in the neighborhood would start shooting at our students and staff during practice fire drills on our athletic field (lovely thought). At least one faculty meeting each year focused on neighborhood crime stats with input from a police detective on gang detail. Tatoo tears and prison tats enlivened parent conferences. </p>
<p>Most would agree that gangsters are pathetic, worthless, cowardly bullies. But, look at it this way. For the few gangsters who actually enlist, make it through basic training, and complete a tour of duty, their homies will either be six feet under or serving lengthy prison sentences by the time they get back to their ‘turf.’ Gang members have a short shelf live.</p>
<p>I really don’t believe gangsters in the U.S. military is a widespread problem.</p>
<p>Avelardo, I think Spidermom (former naval officer from the enlisted ranks, teacher, and her son will be at USNA next year) has a pretty realistic grasp of the situation. Maybe she’s even had the pleasure of working with gang members.</p>
<p>Avelardo, sorry to hear you don’t believe people can change. I’m sure your law enforcement experience has hardened your perspective. You are probably right. I am a teacher who spent 15 years teaching in California in an area where the Nortenos/Surenos conflict was bitter. I’ve lost students to gang violence (death) and to jail. To say I have no clue is inaccurate. My perspective is just different from yours.</p>
<p>Usna09mom, it’s heartbreaking to teach these kids, isn’t it? I’ve had the same experience with the fire drill situation. Once, we had a murder on campus (at night) and returned the next morning to crime scene tape and faint but noticeable blood on the sidewalk and the side of the building. The brother of one of my students was killed.</p>
<p>BTW Avelardo, did your son do any summer wrestling? I hear that the Fresno State summer camp is awesome. I’m going to miss those sweaty, sweltering winter days at wrestling tourneys this year (not!).</p>
<p>
As opposed to CNN and the New York Times, which is akin to getting your news from Pravda or Al-Jazeera. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Spidermom, you are absolutely right that people can change, and you and I both know from experience that the military is very effective at changing people, and that the overwhelming majority of the time that change is very much for the BETTER.</p>
<p>It’s still disturbing, however, to hear stories of gang members in uniform, just like it’s disturbing to hear of white supremacists being there. Conflicting loyalties and other twisted philosophies is not a good thing in the Service.</p>
<p>I’m not entirely sure I buy the melarky that gang members are joining up so as to learn tactics they can use on the streets. That’s silly on so many levels, one can write a book on the subject. Do I think the problem is “widespread”? Nope, but that doesn’t stop me from worrying about it at least a bit.</p>
<p>Makes me wonder, though, if this has ALWAYS been a problem. Gangs aren’t exactly a new thing, you know?</p>
<p>Here’s another interesting news article.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gangs01.html[/url]”>http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gangs01.html</a></p>
<p>The gang culture has changed a lot in the last 20 years. For example, 20 years ago Latino gangs would listen to oldies music now they listen to gansta rap with lyrics that promote violence. Gangs are a lot more violent, sophisticated and use quality made handguns not cheaply made “Saturday Night Specials”. Can they change? Yes, but that will take God to make that change. I am just passing some info and time will tell if this going to be a major problem. I hope I am wrong!</p>