U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-20-2012, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Wartrace,TN
5,269 posts, read 8,216,301 times
Reputation: 10372

Advertisements

Doesn't the use of Psychiatric drugs prohibit service? I recall reading that the use of ADD drugs would make you unfit for military service. (I think it was mentioned that one of the Columbine shooters had wanted to join but couldn't due to his use of these drugs).

They hand these drugs out like candy in our schools- I wouldn't be surprised if the 75% figure was just from drugged up kids alone.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2012, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,145,602 times
Reputation: 8204
Right now I don't think the military is capable of rapidly expanding. The daays when we could call up 5 million trained bodies are long gone. I don't think that this is being addressed. As long as 1% are willing and capable we can get by at current levels
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Clovis Strong, NM
3,372 posts, read 4,550,293 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace View Post
Doesn't the use of Psychiatric drugs prohibit service? I recall reading that the use of ADD drugs would make you unfit for military service. (I think it was mentioned that one of the Columbine shooters had wanted to join but couldn't due to his use of these drugs).

They hand these drugs out like candy in our schools- I wouldn't be surprised if the 75% figure was just from drugged up kids alone.
I attempted to join the army back in '01, then the coast guard back in '08.
Turned down by both due to past prescriptions/usage of anti-depressants and hospitalization.
You get in shape, attempt to better yourself by serving and then they slam the door in your face.
Now all that physical preparation you put yourself through goes out the window because certain people are scared.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Wartrace,TN
5,269 posts, read 8,216,301 times
Reputation: 10372
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentstrider View Post
I attempted to join the army back in '01, then the coast guard back in '08.
Turned down by both due to past prescriptions/usage of anti-depressants and hospitalization.
You get in shape, attempt to better yourself by serving and then they slam the door in your face.
Now all that physical preparation you put yourself through goes out the window because certain people are scared.
That is something parents don't consider when they let the school shrinks convince them their kids need medication.

I saw an article recently talking about the numbers of kids they are giving these medications to and it was unbelievable. Teachers can't handle the kids anymore so they sedate them. Pitiful world.

This is a failure of or educational system. Back when I was in school they handled kids that wouldn't behave without drugs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,027,829 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Right now I don't think the military is capable of rapidly expanding. The daays when we could call up 5 million trained bodies are long gone. I don't think that this is being addressed. As long as 1% are willing and capable we can get by at current levels
Sure we can, simply by changing the standards.

You know, back in WWII, a majority of young men taken into the service had little education and a huge number of them couldn't even read. Yet, they made magnificent soldiers.

There's no reason to suppose this generation couldn't do it to, if someone would give them the chance and actually call them to service. Most people rise to whatever challenge they're faced with, but it they're never invited to the ball, they'll never learn to dance.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 10:23 PM
 
175 posts, read 261,267 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
There's no reason to suppose this generation couldn't do it to, if someone would give them the chance and actually call them to service. Most people rise to whatever challenge they're faced with, but it they're never invited to the ball, they'll never learn to dance.
I don't think it smacks to elitism as you said in another post to stick to current standards. There is a downsizing going on right now, so why should they lower their standards when they're already letting go of thousands of current Soldiers and they have people coming in able to meet the standards as they are? If they're at least close to the standards they might be able to grab a waiver but otherwise why take a risk letting someone in who can't even meet the basic standards when we're not short on people coming in who can?

I applaud anyone wanting to serve but at the same time if they want to serve that much, maybe they should work to better themselves to meet the standards as they are such as getting into better physical shape or studying for the ASVAB to get a higher score. I feel for people who were misdiagnosed and given disqualifying medical treatment but at the same time, that disqualifier was put there for a reason. I've known of people with depression and other similiar issues that got in by failing to disclose their (past) condition and it ended up putting others in danger when those people got into actual combat and couldn't handle it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,145,602 times
Reputation: 8204
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Sure we can, simply by changing the standards.

You know, back in WWII, a majority of young men taken into the service had little education and a huge number of them couldn't even read. Yet, they made magnificent soldiers.

There's no reason to suppose this generation couldn't do it to, if someone would give them the chance and actually call them to service. Most people rise to whatever challenge they're faced with, but it they're never invited to the ball, they'll never learn to dance.
It's not a matter of bodies, it is the amount of military personnel and equipment that would have to be diverted to training. If we needed to fight a war while expanding to say 2 million men who would train them
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 10:35 PM
 
18,856 posts, read 30,440,508 times
Reputation: 25990
True, maybe the military standards have increased. I talked to a WW II vet, he was drafted, and they 4-f him, so, he decided to enlist. He was blind as a bat with myopia. But he became a prep cook on a Navy Training Base Camp. He loved serving, and felt like those were some of the best years of his life.

When my son was in HS, they wanted to medicate him, why? Because he was bored out of skull, and hated sitting in a desk all day. I switched him to a different type of school, he did great, no meds. He passed the ASVAB, but took it a few times to increase his score. His is Army now, loves it. And he never sits behind a desk.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 03:31 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,027,829 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
It's not a matter of bodies, it is the amount of military personnel and equipment that would have to be diverted to training. If we needed to fight a war while expanding to say 2 million men who would train them
Equipment is one thing, but the Army has trainers or prospective trainers available. Several Reserve units are training battalions comprising the cadre of a training unit. Once upon a time, not that long ago, there were several Reserve training divisions which could fill up with trainees within a short time after being activated.

Naturally, since the war fighting strategy has changed, there aren't as many as there used to be, but the Army can expand more rapidly than you might think. All of those soldiers who have served in the sand box can be trained to be trainers pretty quickly too.

In any case, those in charge don't anticipate ever having to fight another total war so that's not in the plans. The President's new restructuring of DOD is based upon that assumption and is related to cost cutting. Sadly, this isn't the first time we've seen this song and dance. Just as with every post-war period in the past, we're embarking once again down the road which will leave us unprepared for the next conflict and, when it comes as it always does, we'll have to improvise a rapid expansion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 03:36 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,027,829 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky_double_d View Post
I don't think it smacks to elitism as you said in another post to stick to current standards. There is a downsizing going on right now, so why should they lower their standards when they're already letting go of thousands of current Soldiers and they have people coming in able to meet the standards as they are? If they're at least close to the standards they might be able to grab a waiver but otherwise why take a risk letting someone in who can't even meet the basic standards when we're not short on people coming in who can?

I applaud anyone wanting to serve but at the same time if they want to serve that much, maybe they should work to better themselves to meet the standards as they are such as getting into better physical shape or studying for the ASVAB to get a higher score. I feel for people who were misdiagnosed and given disqualifying medical treatment but at the same time, that disqualifier was put there for a reason. I've known of people with depression and other similiar issues that got in by failing to disclose their (past) condition and it ended up putting others in danger when those people got into actual combat and couldn't handle it.
During a period of downsizing, that's true. But, those general's were talking about what happens if circumstances dictate an expansion. Their concern is that we wouldn't have enough qualified people to fill the ranks and that's true too IF the same standards were kept during that expansion. That doesn't have to be the case and historically hasn't been.

I can't imagine that they don't know this, so the question becomes one of why they're saying this and why now. It looks to me like another tactic of the health-nut's attack on the so-called "obesity crisis," one more excuse for government to dictate choices to the American people. See, this is how public opinion is manipulated: Create a sense of alarm over something, then offer a solution which requires more government intrusion. In this case, the solution is obviously to change the standards, but who talks about that?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top