2007-04-10 07:34:14 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
It is not a dumb question. Prisoners are not insane they are dangerous.
2007-04-10 08:44:09 · update #1
might be interesting, the brits shipped convicts to australia and that place turned out ok, maybe the inmates in the us could help iraq too, Not fighting but colonizing.
2007-04-10 07:37:23 · answer #1 · answered by hodgetts21 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They would never integrate into the military system of discipline. This was done by the Russians in WWII. The penal companies were sent to the front with units behind them with orders to shoot them if they ran, so the only option was to move forward and fight. In Iraq there are no clearly defined war fronts it's mostly urban guerrilla warfare
2007-04-10 07:47:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How's this for an idea:
Send convicts, who have committed crimes and are sent to jail for punishment, into battle with no training, no loyalty, and no purpose. Let's give them automatic weapons and expect them to make important desicions and protect the lives of the soldiers they are fighting alongside, whom they don't even know that well in the first place.
Soldiers aren't comparable to prisoners, as your dumb question suggests. Believe it or not, it's a priveledge to be accepted into the military to serve your country in any capacity.
2007-04-10 07:47:15 · answer #3 · answered by raztaman420 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would you want to fight along side a man condemned for life? Would you not only trust him with your life, but also trust that he will make decisions with America's best interests in mind? He may have no will live nor any stake in winning the war, such as our soldiers. It may sound like a good solution, but we have no draft now. So the men and women fighting for our freedom have choosen to be there. I'm POSITIVE they would not want to fight alongside any one deserving of less respect than a good citizen of the US.
2007-04-10 07:39:59 · answer #4 · answered by Drew 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
IMMORAL! Some would rather takje the life sentence or die. Or they could desert in Iraq, and that would screw it up, and it would be unfair to the Iraqis, having untrained prisoners fighting for them. We should end the war now
2007-04-10 07:37:38 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Fuzzywatums 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For some reason they don't want people who've shown they will kill to kill for them. Maybe they feel that they can't be trusted to kill the right people. Although I have heard that the government is considering allowing convicted felons to enter into the army if they've been "rehabilitated." Sounds like Bush needs more cannon fodder.
2007-04-10 07:39:22 · answer #6 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They cannot be trusted.
They'd probably set a new record for war crimes.
EDIT:
I sympathize with the idea of wanting them in harm's way...
One of those prisoners brutally murdered my grandmother!
What a disgrace it'd be if that bastard got to wear our uniform.
2007-04-10 07:38:02 · answer #7 · answered by Bonnie Lynn 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would you really want to give a prisoner, that has obviously done something immoral and violent, a large gun or a tank?
2007-04-10 07:37:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because they can't be trusted. they won't fight for a country that has imprisoned them. Also they will join in with the enemy for personal gain. Are those the people that you want fighting for you?
2007-04-10 07:38:27 · answer #9 · answered by beautyzhername 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
what makes you think they would fight for the country that put them in prison? they would most likely flee & fight against their own.
2007-04-10 07:38:43 · answer #10 · answered by tire chick 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋