Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Most Americans not Fit to Join (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,90736,00.html)

WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato - or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

An interesting article, Silver Fox. Thanks for posting the link. I can definitely see the obesity and lack of physical fitness issues that were discussed.

They may be rejecting 75% of those that apply, but that's not 75% of American youth. There's a huge gap there. It could be that more of the loser class are trying to get in the Army.

I see kids walking home from high school all the time and not that many look overweight, much less obese. There are a hell of a lot of decent kids out there who have no incentive to go in the military since there is no draft.

They may be rejecting 75% of those that apply, but that's not 75% of American youth. There's a huge gap there. It could be that more of the loser class are trying to get in the Army.

I see kids walking home from high school all the time and not that many look overweight, much less obese. There are a hell of a lot of decent kids out there who have no incentive to go in the military since there is no draft.

Bingo. Was going to post the same thing.

They may be rejecting 75% of those that apply, but that's not 75% of American youth. There's a huge gap there. It could be that more of the loser class are trying to get in the Army.

I see kids walking home from high school all the time and not that many look overweight, much less obese. There are a hell of a lot of decent kids out there who have no incentive to go in the military since there is no draft.

I'm not disputing your word and totally agree, there are a lot of decent kids out there and I would estimate that 75-80 percent would fall into this category. Also, many of these kids, not only those the military are looking at but those in college and the workplace have underlying health problems other than being fat. A lot of contributing factors are taken into consideration here which include the overall populace of our young people today and not only those enlisting in the military.
When looking at the big picture... during the past 20-25 or more years the life style and eating habits of young and old alike have become increasingly more unhealthy. Kids are watching too much TV, getting less sleep, they're skipping meals and when they do eat it's usually a diet consisting of burgers, fries and other fat laden food. About the only green veggie they get is a salad and the piece of lettuce in the burger which has no food value.
I'm still optimistic about our young folks, even after a visit to the local mall. :biggrin5:

Personally, I believe it should be mandatory that every kid in the country should serve one year in the military when he reaches 18 or after he finishes college.

I was thinking about joiing the military

IAlso, many of these kids, not only those the military are looking at but those in college and the workplace have underlying health problems other than being fat. A lot of contributing factors are taken into consideration here which include the overall populace of our young people today and not only those enlisting in the military.


What you say is true, but young people can handle that kind of food and stuff. That really doesn't catch up to you until you're older. When I was 18, I could have lived on nearly anything as long as there was enough of it.

When I enlisted, there were a lot of guys, especially from the cities that weren't in very good physical shape. I was a farm kid so I didn't have much trouble, but in 1964 a good percentage were puking the first time we did any real running. A few washed out, but most of them ended up in pretty good physical shape by the end of basic. And if you remember, just about everyone smoked back then. I bet less than 10% of my platoon didn't.

One factor that was different was there was very little drug use. I don't recall that they even bothered to give us a drug test when I enlisted. But also, a lot of guys were joining that probably wouldn't have had it not been for the draft. Even in the Army, if you enlisted and did well on tests, you were guaranteed a technical school and you could avoid the infantry. If you were drafted, the Army wasn't going to spend a dime more than they had to in training you and that meant front line grunt unless you were Al Gore Jr. Just about every RA in my platoon was headed for school after basic. Every draftee was looking forward only to AIT.

I was talking to a recruiter and he said that I can and should be good to go for the MOS I was looking for. I think this will be good experiance for me with applying for a job.

I was talking to a recruiter and he said that I can and should be good to go for the MOS I was looking for. I think this will be good experiance for me with applying for a job.

Tell your D.I. about your teacher.... Maybe he'll like you a lot too.....

Tell your D.I. about your teacher.... Maybe he'll like you a lot too.....

Make sure to bring a picture for the hog board.

We just discussed this topic in a article about a dwindling pool of qualified apps for Police work and if it is acceptable to waive up to Class A offenses.


Personally if its simply a matter of being overweight then the military/police need to just get over it and train them hard. Some people are moderately overweight and can shave it off pretty quick when pressed. Tis one of the reasons why I'm about 15 pounds down in a month.

I really have mixed feeling on this, part of me sees the need for a "fit" fighting force, however, I also think some of the standards are unreasonable when applied with a zero tolerance.

The first one is the weight issue, when I was 18 I weighed 198 lbs. Too much for all but the Marine Corps (which I just looked up and its 215 (which by the way is in the “Obesity” range per the CDC). Like ChevySSP said, push/train them hard. I went through a fire academy at 19 and they made us PT, and they didn’t care that some of us were overweight, they expected the same. They got the same and now I’m 140 lbs (just shy of the middle “Normal weight” range per the CDC).

Underlying health issues should not a hard and fast rule to get in. The one the gets (and got) me personally is the asthma rule. I have asthma, yet I’ve not needed an inhaler for years (last time was around 13 years old). I’ve been through a fire academy, I’m red-carded (wildland firefighter), and was accepted to a law enforcement academy. As I type this, I just finished a 2 ½ mile run, without a hitch. All this with mild asthma, yet I got rejected by all 5 branches. The Air Force tried the hardest to get me in, and asked for a waiver but it was turned down. When I did my pulmonary function test for the Air Force, they told me that my asthma was so mild, had I said nothing, they would have had a hard time telling between asthma and just a poor effort on the test.

There’s also the part of me that wonders why I should have to register for the Selective Service system, I tried voluntarily to get in and was shown the door. So what’s the point of registering if I’m not fit to join? (and before anyone asks, I still did register).

It's not the job of the military to get you into shape. They need to have something mallible enough to shape into a fighting force... morbidly obese just doesn't cut it.

These standards are not about the exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking, they are good gauges of what parameters are required for training one to be an effective fighting force.

Personally if its simply a matter of being overweight then the military/police need to just get over it and train them hard.

The problem is that if you are overweight at 18, the odds are that you will be obese by 40. People tend to gain weight with age as their metabolism slows down. It's pretty rare to find someone who was overweight at 21 and in shape and fit at 35. Bad eating habits rarely get better with age although there are exceptions to everything.

The military must have put the weight standards in place since I was in. I had some real lardasses in basic back then. One guy didn't make it, he was booted out near the end when he never lost weight. A couple of guys did shed a lot of weight. I don't know what happened to them after we transferred out though. Afterwards, we had to maintain a level of fitness, whether they did or not, I don't know.

My dept doesn't have any continuing program for physical fitness so we have some grossly obese people that were pushing the upper limit when they came on. The exception to all that, of course was the body builders. Most of these guys stayed heavy, but still had a low body fat.

I agree morbidly obese, does not cut it, however overweight can cut it. The Marine Corps limit for 5’ 10’’ is 215, which is a BMI of 30.8. The obese BMI range starts at 30, so the Marines must feel that can make it happen for not just over weight but obese people.

It is partly about the exceptions to the rule because we have young people who want to serve and should be given the chance. If they want to serve bad enough than they can cut the weight before getting in. However there are things that can’t change (asthma) that many people can function fine with but can’t serve because of it.

My personal feeling, they (the military) has very little room worry about enlistments being down when they turn people away for petty reasons (and I know many of the reasons are legit and I agree with most of them (just not all)).

Desire to serve does not cut it. You are doing no good when you are a liability. I will argue that the heavier you get, the more of an effort it takes to do ANY physical activity. Throw on some gear and activities that demand any endurance what-so-ever, make you a liability.

As you mention asthma being one of those things taht you cannot change, I would take it that you agree that obesity CAN change. Here's a simple solution that you continue to overlook: For shose so interested in service, lose some damned weight and then try again.

Just like in LE (which I have personally seen too much), we have enough liabilities working along side of us, why make it any worse in LE and the military.

My personal feeling, they (the military) has very little room worry about enlistments being down when they turn people away for petty reasons (and I know many of the reasons are legit and I agree with most of them (just not all)).

Trust me, the more they need people, the lower they make the standards. A friend of mine was turned down by the Army in 1963 because he had a MIP alcohol conviction. Turn the dial ahead a couple of years and LBJ's escalation of the war and they are taking people with minor felonies. I suspect that may be why the Marines lowered the bar on fat people. They need enlistees too badly right now. I bet once Afghanistan and Iraq are over, they tighten up again.

But if you're overweight at 18, it's more likely that you have terrible eating habits. Just because 7-11 sells 64 oz soft drinks doesn't mean people have to walk around drinking one and they don't need to "super size" the **** they eat at McDonald's either. I have no sympathy for people in that situation.

The problem the military faces with things like asthma is judging the severity of it. Too often, you can't allow too much personal judgement to go into things like that because of the risk. I don't know much about asthma, especially whether or not it gets worse or better, but I do know that you can't have someone in a combat situation having to reach for an emergency inhaler. It's no doubt easier for the military to just draw a line in the sand and say no than to let some doctor take 45 seconds to make a judgement and be wrong.

Physical fitness / excessive weight: as has already been said, there is a simple solution: control your diet and exercise until you pass the requirement. If you really want to get the job, show some discipline up front.

Asthma: even minor asthma can be a major liability in the wrong situation. I was with a fellow police officer who had minor asthma. He was disqualified from military service, but qualified to be a police officer. When another officer used the OC spray on a particularly difficult suspect, the officer with minor asthma got some of the spray. We were able to book the suspect after a paramedic saw him, but the officer had to go to the emergency room because he was having trouble breathing. It wasn't a major issue in the US with a good hospital nearby. However, in a remote area of Iraq or Afghanistan, it could have been a huge problem.

Here's a simple solution that you continue to overlook: For shose so interested in service, lose some damned weight and then try again.

I don't keep overlooking it, as I said in my last post:

If they want to serve bad enough than they can cut the weight before getting in

I was just pointing out that one branch, for now, feels they can fix it.
I also don't feel bad for people who super-size their meal and have a 64+ oz soda from the gas station.

Like I said I see the reason(s) for the rule(s), it doesn't make all of them right to be zero tolerance though. And I know a desire to serve does not cut it. Heck I had one recruiter flat out tell me to lie about my asthma, “they’ll never know” (his words not mine). Truly, I’d bet he was right, but I wasn’t going to lie and risk them finding my medical records from when I was 12 and 13 years old.

Granted I know I kind of derailed this on to me and asthma (along with fat people).
But to try and get it back on track:
It’s hard to think that only 1 in 4 people are truly capable of being in the military. They need people to do things other than fight, why not allow some to enlist on waviers with limits on the MOS and deployment they can take.

But to try and get it back on track:
It’s hard to think that only 1 in 4 people are truly capable of being in the military. They need people to do things other than fight, why not allow some to enlist on waviers with limits on the MOS and deployment they can take.

Like I said in the beginning, I bet it's only one in four that apply. I think it says more about the people who want to join right now. It's a lot easier to get people to enlist in peace time than during a war.

I could agree with the second part only if they get paid less than the regular people. Why should they get the same pay and benefits as the person who is eligible to be in combat and deployed anywhere? If someone is put on limited duty because of an on the job injury, that's one thing, but starting out that way is something entirely different.

I could agree with the second part only if they get paid less than the regular people. Why should they get the same pay and benefits as the person who is eligible to be in combat and deployed anywhere? If someone is put on limited duty because of an on the job injury, that's one thing, but starting out that way is something entirely different.

I'd be good with that. If they had limited duties elsewhere they likely would be making less too than those doing the full job anyway. My desire is just to see a way for those who wish to serve their country have a way to do it.

My desire is just to see a way for those who wish to serve their country have a way to do it.

You'll be pleased as punch with the President's new civil service program then.

I have been in the Military for 9 years and I am concerned with the weight problems of the newer guys, and their attitude's. I am currently serving in Iraq 3rd tour. I don't want to be the guy (but I will if I have to!) that has to carry the fat kid that got shot to the medivac site when he was to lazy to take his a** to the gym and get in shape. It puts me and every other soldier, sailor, Marine, and Airman at risk. Then you put these kids on a remedial workout regiment and they want to file IG complaints saying that you are picking on them and hazing them. NO kid I am saving your life and maybe someone else's too. These big Bonuses just attracted a lot of wrong people into the Military. And it's only getting worse.

I'm not going to dedicate time to check into the story for validity, but I doubt that 75% of our youth are unfit for military duty. Maybe 75% of those trying to volunteer; but not 75% of our youth.

I thought I saw a short blip in the article where some professor with military expertise said he suspects the high percentage is based on excusing done by recruiters?

I'd assert that 50% of Americans are unfit for being Americans.

That may be a conservative estimate, though.

I'd assert that 50% of Americans are unfit for being Americans.

That may be a conservative estimate, though.


9/11 should have been a wake-up call as should the active shooter. It does not seem to have sunk in, though.

However (and maybe I am overly optimistic), I think if something occurred such as what hit our Greatest Generation; we will step up the plate as those honorable men and women did.

However (and maybe I am overly optimistic), I think if something occurred such as what hit our Greatest Generation; we will step up the plate as those honorable men and women did.

Like terrorists hijacking 4 civilian airliners, flying 2 of them into office building felling them, the third into our military's headquartes, and the fourth into the ground, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American civilians?

Something like that, perhaps?

Colonel B.P. McCoy, USMC. "The Passion of Command:The Moral Imperative of Leadership":

"America does not possess a warrior culture. Let us disabuse ourselves of the notion of the mythical American Warror. To do otherwise is intellectual folly and reflects more wishful thinking and illusion than reality. Any notion of some innate warrior culture or an inherent fighting ability of Americans is an idea born in a hothouse that will wilt once exposed to the brutality of real battle... The fact is that compared to most of the rest of the world, Americans are raised in a society of affluence and relative comfort, insulated from war's grim realities of deprivation and killing. Unlike warriors outside the Western world, we are not familiar with brutality"

The Colonel writes an excellent book on how we must prepare our young 'warriors' for battle. He outlines how we can do this, and how critical it is for Leaders to ensure that this training is provided.

Recommended reading.

We just discussed this topic in a article about a dwindling pool of qualified apps for Police work and if it is acceptable to waive up to Class A offenses.

The answer to that is "No".

Like terrorists hijacking 4 civilian airliners, flying 2 of them into office building felling them, the third into our military's headquartes, and the fourth into the ground, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American civilians?

Something like that, perhaps?

Yep. I had a cushy job with DOC at the time, but thought we were going to war. I was too old for the military, but wanted to make a difference on the streets so put my papers in with the SO and here I am.

We are at "war" with terrorists without a state, but I was actually referring to WW II, Allies against the Axis in a declared state of war.

Getting back to the 75%...I know you went to college and enjoyed a youthful style foreign to me but, and I am sure you would have joined in a declared war…as part of Allied Forces I would have been honored to fight shoulder to shoulder with you. This was my point and you would have been a hell of a warrior.

While we don’t have the same physically hard working class of youth we did during WW II, I still can’t succumb to defeatism against our youth if it went big, again. I think American youth would surprise us in a favorable manner.

Thank you for the compliment.

I wasn't at all disagreeing with you, as you know me by now. Just trying to emphasize your point about a wake up.

Let's not speak with anything but absolute clarity. What happened on September 11th, 2001 was exactly what I described. It was committed by a group of murderous fanatics who have bent a religion to justify their hatred and brutality. We don't need to empathize with them, we dont need to understand them, we dont need to talk to them. We need to kill them.

Funny thing is, I dont think I would find myself surprised by the courage and voracity of our youth. It is a function of our youth to couple idealism with resolve into a unique form of courage that is distictly American. I'm very proud of the things our young people can do.

But as we grow, that idealism is hammered by discouraging experiences until we become jaded and sarcastic. It's the attitude of the 'adults' that makes me tear my hair out. I thought we learned from the "War at Home" during Vietnam, and vowed never to let our brave young fighters suffer from our posturing and BS. Now here we are, doing it again in the name of some notion of 'global understanding'.

Like I have said: If you do not clear your home of rats, you will soon find your home overrun with them, your cupboards bear of food, your children sick and bitten, and your domicile rotting from within. No - you find the rats where they live, sleep, eat, and breed, and you make those the same places that they die. You protect your home, your life, your families lives by killing the rats.

Like I have said: If you do not clear your home of rats, you will soon find your home overrun with them, your cupboards bear of food, your children sick and bitten, and your domicile rotting from within. No - you find the rats where they live, sleep, eat, and breed, and you make those the same places that they die. You protect your home, your life, your families lives by killing the rats.

Hoorah. The brave will march through the Gates of Troy into the Face of Chaos. Who, with Warrior Spirit, will join us?

Let's roll... (http://armoredsquirrel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/PunkMohawk.jpg)

It's not the young people nor the adults I worry about, it's the self serving drones in government that will either lie or are just incompetent.

LBJ flat lied to the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There was no real attack on an American warship, they made it up.

The CIA was grossly incompetent in gathering intel about Saddam's weapons. Today, they don't know jack **** about what Al Qaeda is doing. How long has bin Laden been on the loose? They did apparently have info on that asswipe at Ft Hood, but didn't share it with the Army.

I just read a book, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner. Everything in that book is from either declassified files or statements by NAMED prior officials. And it will scare the **** out of you at the incompetence and internal bull**** that goes on. Again, no editorialization by the author, no unnamed sources and no political agenda. I gave it to a friend of mine, a retired CIA operative. He told me afterwards that as much as he wanted to hate the book, he had to agree with just about all its content.

An airliner is out of radio contact for 90 minutes, flies past it's destination and no one gets off their lazy asses to do anything about it? If that had been terrorist, they could have flown the damn thing no telling where and crashed it and nobody was awake enough to stop them.

When push comes to shove, Americans have always stepped up to the plate, but who can blame them for not trusting what the asswipes in Washington tells them? And who can we trust there to do the right thing when there's trouble?

When push comes to shove, Americans have always stepped up to the plate, but who can blame them for not trusting what the asswipes in Washington tells them?

Not one iota of disagreement with that, Jim.



And who can we trust there to do the right thing when there's trouble?

I don't know, Jim.

Unless I am totally off base; not since H. Truman? (And maybe not even him, but I am basing this on him standing up to Douglas MacArthur regarding nuking China.) Even Reagan disappointed me regarding Beirut (WTF with not allowing Marines there to have hot weapons?)

As stated, I could be totally off-base on my interpertation of history and would love to hear better intel.

people I kinew, who ate at our home, we killed in that attack in Beruit. That response was pretty freakn weak. Shelling an empty hillside? WTF.

people I kinew, who ate at our home, we killed in that attack in Beruit. That response was pretty freakn weak. Shelling an empty hillside? WTF.

What about Khe Sahn? We had several hundred thousand marines and soldiers in country at that time and mobilization up the ***. That happened after I was gone, but I always wondered who all were protecting their turf and not sending in every available resource there to make fertilizer out of the the gooks surrounding them. (Yeah, I'm not PC, some things die hard) Back then as I watched the news, I couldn't believe they were letting that happen.

I was no general, but I believe in all my heart that if the generals and colonels had acted, we could have massacred those asswipes and we would have lost damn few Marines. But there will little Napoleons and empires up the *** over there. Every ******* career officer there was just trying to bide his time, make no obvious mistakes and accumulate as many unearned medals and citations as possible. Granted, they were hampered by politicians over here, but they had no problem sacrificing our people so they could salvage their own careers....

I was no general, but I believe in all my heart that if the generals and colonels had acted, we could have massacred those asswipes and we would have lost damn few Marines. But there will little Napoleons and empires up the *** over there. Every ******* career officer there was just trying to bide his time, make no obvious mistakes and accumulate as many unearned medals and citations as possible. Granted, they were hampered by politicians over here, but they had no problem sacrificing our people so they could salvage their own careers....

Sounds like a lot of command officers walking around in law enforcement agencies at this very moment. :nono:

Sounds like a lot of command officers walking around in law enforcement agencies at this very moment. :nono:

It's the same mentality, John. Those in command at my dept couldn't have cared less what happened to the troops. Their careers and little empires were all that was important. Which is why somewhere in a dumpster in a roadside rest area of your great state went all my study materials for the Lt's test. I was studying on vacation when I realized I would never survive in that atmosphere.

I shouldn't say this out loud, but in my heart of hearts, I've always wondered if those asswipes let those Marines at Khe Sahn die in an attempt to bolster support for the war? I do think they believed it would piss off Americans and they would rally. As you recall, it just bolstered the anti war effort.

America does not possess a warrior culture. Let us disabuse ourselves of the notion of the mythical American Warror. To do otherwise is intellectual folly and reflects more wishful thinking and illusion than reality. Any notion of some innate warrior culture or an inherent fighting ability of Americans is an idea born in a hothouse that will wilt once exposed to the brutality of real battle..

Right...

This guy apparently knows nothing about our Ranger Battalions, or our SEAL teams, or CAG, or what it takes to earn a slot on an SF team, or even his own marine corp scout sniper / force recon brethren.

We have THOUSANDS of fine warriors in our ranks. These men are HARD physically and mentally, AND they are provided with the most resources of ANY military on the planet to build skill with their arms. My organization could do things at night that NO foreign military could do, FIFTEEN YEARS ago. I know this because I have seen how our enemy AND our allies operate today.

We have GENERATIONS of men in our ranks that have followed in our fathers foot steps. There IS a PROUD warrior culture in our country.

I WILL agree that many in our nation, AND our limp wristed senior civilian and military leadership do NOT condone our warrior culture and REFUSE to accept its existance.

As it is in law enforcement, people are happy when the bad guy is removed from the equation, but pissed off and disgusted because somebody had to shoot him in the face to do it...

My organization could do things at night that NO foreign military could do, FIFTEEN YEARS ago. I know this because I have seen how our enemy AND our allies operate today.



Young men, from about 16 to 25 have an genetic predisposition to fight. It's part of our primitive makeup and where you were born or live has squat to do with it, although our culture does what it can to control it. What you're talking about is training. But even then, I can take most 18 year olds and train them to disregard their own safety and kill. Doing that to a 35 year old with no prior training would be a lot tougher, if not impossible.

I know because I've not only read about it, I lived it too. When I look back at what I did when I was 21 and in combat, it makes me shudder. I'm not saying I wouldn't fight when I was 35, but I would have thought some things through more and probably taken fewer risks. At 35, I was no less brave, I'd just grown out of the warrior age.

Every culture has a warrior class, it's just the amount and type of training etc. that separates them and makes one better than the other. And granted, within each class there are people who are more willing than others. I was okay with infantry, I had no desire to jump from an airplane (although I would have if told to). Fortunately, there are always people who look forward to that.

I think it was General Ridgeway, commander of the 82nd Airborne during WWII that said, "I don't like jumping out of planes, but I like hanging out with guys that do".:db:

Right...

This guy apparently knows nothing about our Ranger Battalions, or our SEAL teams, or CAG, or what it takes to earn a slot on an SF team, or even his own marine corp scout sniper / force recon brethren.

We have THOUSANDS of fine warriors in our ranks. These men are HARD physically and mentally, AND they are provided with the most resources of ANY military on the planet to build skill with their arms. My organization could do things at night that NO foreign military could do, FIFTEEN YEARS ago. I know this because I have seen how our enemy AND our allies operate today.

We have GENERATIONS of men in our ranks that have followed in our fathers foot steps. There IS a PROUD warrior culture in our country.

I WILL agree that many in our nation, AND our limp wristed senior civilian and military leadership do NOT condone our warrior culture and REFUSE to accept its existance.

As it is in law enforcement, people are happy when the bad guy is removed from the equation, but pissed off and disgusted because somebody had to shoot him in the face to do it...

I agree with the Colonel. He's not talking about those that are serving - he's talking about America in general, and he is correct. Any look at the news, or all this wweak-willed 'activist groups, or the people who turn out by the hundreds to proteast our actions overseas, or the people who are generally lazy, have their heads buried in the sand, and basically have "Victim" written accross their foreheads. Look at the civilian American public.

America does not possess a warrior culture. We do not grow up fighting, we do not teach our youth that brutality is real and they must be mentally and physically prepared to fight it and destroy it. We dont do that. American culture is one of conveinence and relative luxury. Americans are more concerned with car stereo's and 22" rims then preparing to fight. Places like Somalia have a warrior culture.

The Colonel's point is his book is that it is the commander's utmost responsibility to train and prepare his young "lion cubs" into warriors. His book describes how he has tried to do this, combining principles and practices from history combined with modern military equipment and dogma. Since America does not have a cultural prediliction towards developing warriors out of each person, the commander must ensure this is properly done so that when our young people do go fight people who have been fighting since they were children, they can be victorious.

I agree, we have military branches full of true and dedicated warriors, and I am thankful for it. But to say that America has as part of its overall cultural identity a warrior spirit is not true.

I agree with the Colonel. He's not talking about those that are serving - he's talking about America in general, and he is correct. Any look at the news, or all this wweak-willed 'activist groups, or the people who turn out by the hundreds to proteast our actions overseas, or the people who are generally lazy, have their heads buried in the sand, and basically have "Victim" written accross their foreheads. Look at the civilian American public.

America does not possess a warrior culture. We do not grow up fighting, we do not teach our youth that brutality is real and they must be mentally and physically prepared to fight it and destroy it. We dont do that. American culture is one of conveinence and relative luxury. Americans are more concerned with car stereo's and 22" rims then preparing to fight. Places like Somalia have a warrior culture.



When did it have a warrior culture if you're going to compare it with Somalia? It didn't during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc., etc., etc. You're confusing thugs with warriors. We have their types in every big city, you have more than your share in yours. But those assh0les in Somalia aren't warriors, they're primitive Bloods, Crips, MS-13's, etc. I've served with and worked with warriors. People attacking unarmed merchant ships are gangsters, not warriors.

What Colonel are you referring to? Grossman? He's done some good research, but he talks big for someone who's never been in a gun fight, much less combat. I'm not nearly as impressed by him as some.

But he does contradict what you just said about young Americans and violence. Video games and movies have anesthetized people to violence. When we had our first drive by shooting where a kid was killed, the whole community was appalled. Ten years later, it was no big deal. We'd gotten used to them. Oh, young people here are familiar with blood and violence, much more than 50 years ago.

There are a tiny percentage of activist people as there were during Vietnam. You don't see mass demonstrations today. There's no comparison. There is very few activists against either Iraq or Afghanistan.

We have always depended on citizen soldiers who rose up when needed. They have in every major war we've engaged in and a lot of crap politicians have created. The problem is, our leaders have lost all credibility on when and who are threatening us.

We got through Korea, but history shows the people of this country was getting tired of it and didn't see the N. Koreans as a threat to us. The N. Vietnamese were never a threat to us or our way of life. Kennedy got us into it and LBJ fabricated a reason for us to escalate and lose 55,000 of my generation for nothing. Absolutely not a friggin' thing.

The anti war people over here didn't help, but I can tell you from being there that we couldn't win that war w/o killing damn near every Vietnamese in the country. The government we were propping up was corrupt and as oppressive as the communist in the North, actually maybe not as much. No, we fought that war over LBJ's pride. He once said he wouldn't be the only US President to lose a war, that's why he escalated.

But whenever this country has been really threatened, people step up. They always have and always will. People are people and human nature is human nature. Young people who are physically out of shape can be put there. And you can train most 17 year olds to kill regardless of their environment. Just as I posted, it's genetic.

I'm as sick of the victim, socialist mentality of society as you are and I'm fully aware of it as you. But the country rallied right after 9-11 and were ready to respond. It's just our leaders don't know their asses from holes in the ground and people get tired of it and start to question them. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all were idiots when we attacked Iraq w/o good intelligence, proper equipment for the troops, etc. Patriotism doesn't make up for their dumbass mistakes.

That article finally showed up in today's paper here.

I also wonder if they've raised the bar on height and weight?

I know they weren't that picky during the draft. A guy I befriended in basic was about 6-1 and at least 220 lbs of mostly lard when we arrived. He was old (about 23) and a draftee. He struggled like hell the first several weeks in PT, but he finally shed the lbs. and picked up some muscle. There were several like him. Only one guy, who must have been close to 300 lbs didn't make it. Even then I wondered how he got in. I don't know if he was a draftee or not, I never had a conversation with him. But they gave him about a month, but he was showing no progress and one day he was just gone.

Even the Marines took people back then that were chubby. My best friend in high school was 5-8 and about 180 lbs of pudge. In fact, I laughed out loud when he told me he was going in the Marines. He was a good guy and all, but I wondered if he could cut it physically. I came home from my first semester of college when he got his first leave. He was not the same person by any stretch. He retired from the Marines 20+ years later. Looking back on it and reading this article, I sort of doubt he would have been taken today.

The weight standards are fairly strict. Even when I was in, back in the early '90s, it did nto take much to require getting taped for a body fat check.

I know, being 6' tall and 205lbs, I would require getting taped for body fat. With a thin waist and s thicker neck, I would be ok. :) They use some pretty archaic numbers for the intitial measurement, but the taping will bring most anyone in decent shape in under the wire.

The weight standards are fairly strict. Even when I was in, back in the early '90s, it did nto take much to require getting taped for a body fat check.



I suspect it changed with the all volunteer military in the 70's. Perhaps they thought if it was volunteer, they could up the standards, I don't know. But I do know that I saw some real lardasses in basic when I was in that from what the article says, wouldn't be accepted today. But if they were drafting people, maybe they didn't want to let people get out of the draft just because they were fat, I dunno. If they did, I would imagine a number of people would have purposefully chubbed up about the time they hit draft age. But for whatever reason, they make soldiers out of the vast majority of them.

That being said, they weren't terribly lax about letting people slide back either though. If you got back out of shape, they could make your life miserable. I don't recall see any more fat soldiers walking around than you do today.

I also think that the only branch of the service that still maintains a truly hardass physical basic training is the USMC. My daughter went through Navy basic and it sure didn't sound anything like what my Army nor what some of my old Navy friends went through. My daughter wasn't overweight, but she sure wasn't in great physical shape either. The fact she didn't complain about the PT in itself made me wonder...... Later she went into the Seabees who do have a lot of PT and combat training and she definitely told me about that!

I guess the bottom line is that I don't think that in my 64 years, I've seen that much change in the population of young people. (With the exception of the availability of drugs) It seems to be that we like being scared and the media is right there to do it. The swine flu thing is a class example of overhype. I think a lot of this is just media fodder.

What Colonel are you referring to?

Lt.Col. Brian McCoy.

Not to turn this into a semantical discussion, I would reiterate the statement I made. Regarding places like Somalia, call it what you will - warrior, thug, criminal. The point is, at young ages those people are fighting and shooting, and will rally to do so at the drop of a hat - or the burning of a tire. They grow up in poverty and witnessing brutality. By comparison, Americans live a life of safety; luxury, and expectation. This is a byproduct of our realtive wealth and security as a nation, and is not necessarily a bad thing. Col. McCoy is making the the statement that BECAUSE we are not culturally exposed to brutality - because as a culture we do not value fighting, it is first necessary to recognize this fact, so that rather than fooling ourselves that our young people are inehrently capable of fighting, we can focus on the necessary rigors of training.

Lt.Col. Brian McCoy.

Regarding places like Somalia, call it what you will - warrior, thug, criminal. The point is, at young ages those people are fighting and shooting, and will rally to do so at the drop of a hat - or the burning of a tire.

We have ghettos full of people like that. Not to mention white supremacists, outlaw biker gangs, etc. We probably have a higher percentage of people like that than at any time in our history. And none would make in it a specialized military unit, they don't have the discipline to withstand the rigors. There is a difference between a thug and warrior. A thug takes on the weak and the defenseless, a warrior stands and fights against odds. It's not semantics, it's definition.

I served in combat and with and led a variety of different people from diverse backgrounds. Usually the types you regard as warriors were the last ones I counted on in a fire fight. Most are chicken **** when push comes to shove. How much guts does it take to do a drive by shooting? Or take on an unarmed merchant ship. These people are only "warriors" when they have an overwhelming advantage, like going up against unarmed people. They're the same the world over.

And yeah, we need to train them no matter where they came from. There's a hell of a lot more to being a soldier than being violent.

Just read American history. People have always stepped up to the plate when America was truly under threat. And it wasn't the types you just mentioned that served heroically either. Look at the Congressional Medal of Honor winners and note their backgrounds. The vast majority were average, middle class people with no "warrior" experience.

Semanitical in the sense; yes you are correct, warrior and thug are different. My contention is that some people (such as in Somalia) live in cultures where violence and hardship are the norm. We do not. You are right about people crumbling under real pressure or under fire. That is my whole point. People who grow up in other cultures are exposed to these hardships and, while it often results in thugish and cruel behavior, they will fight. Our culture of lagresse breeds people who have never had to face such cruelty. In the face of barbarity they can be overwhelmed and freeze or run. This is not a slur against Americans - anyone who knows me knows I would not offer a slur against Americans. But it is a recognition that such culture demands we adequately prepare our fighters for rigors and stresses they have not encountered before.

I see your point to a degree. I do think that training will compensate for most things IF it starts at an early age, 19 being about the oldest.

I see the effect you're talking about more in police work than the military. I grew up in W. Texas in the 50's and early 60's. Every year of public school, I got into at least one fist fight, the last being three weeks before high school graduation. A lot of my peers when I started as a cop more or less had a lot of the same experiences. Consequently, we were never afraid to get our hands dirty when it came to taking some asswipe down.

The last ten years or so I worked, I saw a different breed of cat coming on. That is, people were trained to use something off their belt to handle every violent or even potentially violent situation and to not use their hands. I think some of it is because there's no minimum size for cops now, but also because we are now hiring the sons and daughters of professional people where cops used to come exclusively from blue collar families. Most had never been in a hands on fight in their lives.

And a lot is what you say is true, if a kid gets in a fight at school today, they call the cops. :rolleyes5: My second grade year, I got in 7 fights, today I would have been expelled. Then they called my Mother and told her to handle it, they were getting sick of my ****. She did, BTW......:crying:

And a lot is what you say is true, if a kid gets in a fight at school today, they call the cops. :rolleyes5:

Exactly, and it's getting old. That's just another reason why people are calling the cops to address EVERYTHING nowadays. People are expecting arrests and restraining orders against kids. I'm not even talking about high school kids either. If parents would be parents and school officials would actually administrate, that would fix much of the problem.

But I've digressed...my bad.

Exactly, and it's getting old. That's just another reason why people are calling the cops to address EVERYTHING nowadays. People are expecting arrests and restraining orders against kids. I'm not even talking about high school kids either. If parents would be parents and school officials would actually administrate, that would fix much of the problem.

But I've digressed...my bad.

It's true and it is on the original topic of our society and how it views violence. Those same parents have no qualms about letting their kids play Grand Theft Auto or other violent video games or let them watch blood and gore movies, but heaven forbid some other kid punch them on the shoulder.

It's true and it is on the original topic of our society and how it views violence. Those same parents have no qualms about letting their kids play Grand Theft Auto or other violent video games or let them watch blood and gore movies, but heaven forbid some other kid punch them on the shoulder.

Yep, that's why I did not allow my daughter to play video games :nono:. I also would not allow one of those movie projector things to be bought for the vehicles. I believe all that crap is nothing but a pacifier for the kids so parent's don't have to deal with them. When we travel we talk and play some of the dumbest games. But we are communicating and still getting to know each other. I make several contacts on the Interstate and see kids in the back seat watching TV or playing a computer game. They never look up to see what is going on (they are so involved into the game or show). I need to slow down. I get fired up when it comes to elderly and kids! Be Safe.

I see your point to a degree. I do think that training will compensate for most things IF it starts at an early age, 19 being about the oldest.....

I apologize if I've already said this, but the point I'm trying to make is amplified by the situation you find in employment. Most American kids will not get a job in a kitchen, or working at fast food, or min wage maual labor, or a factory, or a warehouse. Their is this clear sense of entitlement that these jobs are 'beneath' them.

It's that attitude I'm speaking of, and it is also reflected in LE and the military. Look at al the noob coppers who ***** about working midnights, weekends, and holidays. They take a job that is a 24/7 gig, then they ***** about the hours. I remember seeing an interview with a woman in the Army who was in Iraq, and she was bitching about being there. She said "I joined the Army to pay for college, not to go to war." :eek6::confused5:

Yes, our nation has rallied behind a cause - but the bombing at Pearl gave us the mental strength to fight a war on two fronts for four years. September 11th rallied the country for about a year, and by the second year people were already bitching about wait lines in the airport.

I suppose I have done a poor job in conveying Col McCoy's ideas here. Basically, the premise is that, sense our young people are not habitually exposed to real violence (not movies and video games) beginning at young ages like youth in other countries are, we are at a disadvantage when we have to fight them. If we rely on a notion that combat will bring out an inherent fighting ability in our people, we are setting them - and us - up for failure. Therefore, our leaders must make training our warriors to the highest standards their otmost and primary responsibility.

I suspect that a similar mindset applied to parenting, teaching, and politics would be beneficial to the nation as a whole.

Yep, that's why I did not allow my daughter to play video games :nono:. I also would not allow one of those movie projector things to be bought for the vehicles. I believe all that crap is nothing but a pacifier for the kids so parent's don't have to deal with them. When we travel we talk and play some of the dumbest games. But we are communicating and still getting to know each other.

Rep sent. Good job! I raised my daughters mostly as a single parent and believed the same as you. Video games weren't there, but I limited TV time and encouraged reading instead. I also spent the time at the dinner table (and we ALWAYS ate at the table) talking about different subjects. I can recall even having discussions about US history when they were in high school. But we always had conversations about something when we ate, in the car, etc. I sincerely believe that contributed to the lack of major problems I had with them as teenagers.

I still talk to them on the phone at least a couple of times a week even though they all live at least an hour away.

I think I talk to my dad about every other day regarding work. It's an interesting dynamic now, because we're at the point where he asks my opinion about as much as I ask his. That makes me feel like a success. :thumbsup:

I think I talk to my dad about every other day regarding work. It's an interesting dynamic now, because we're at the point where he asks my opinion about as much as I ask his. That makes me feel like a success. :thumbsup:

Enjoy it. I still miss talking to my Dad. Even with me living in Oregon and him in Texas, I called him every Sunday, never fail.

He's been dead for 11 years now and things still come up that I wish I could call him and tell him about.