Don't train them because that would cost money. Don't equip them because some of you are going to say that they can turn on you. Just drop them all off where the military thinks the bad guys are hiding. Let them get killed or kill others.
Now that's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
think of how much money would we save!!!!
can someone give an estimate? 50 billion? 100 billion is my guess.
2007-05-24 09:08:03 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It sounds good in theory but its not practical. All you would have over there is a bunch of untrained criminals that would be committing war crimes and then the world would hate us even more
suro
2007-05-25 04:20:50 · answer #1 · answered by suro25 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is been achieved formerly. among the extra impressive circumstances have been the Landsknechts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They gave greatswords to convicts and used them to charge ranks of pikes. It became particularly plenty suicide, yet whilst a convict curvived hte conflict he became freed. yet only an extremely narrow minority ever left those fields. on the instant this thought would not be doable. squaddies are actually not only adult adult males who stand shoulder to shoulder and fireplace volley ito one yet another, or rush one yet another over an open field anymore. squaddies are pretty knowledgeable, pretty inspired experts. And all that guidance, wager what, is expensive. It expenses nicely into the six figures to take a civilian and forge a soldier out of her or him. Doing an identical with a convict who's only finding for a trend out, maximum probable much extra. Make no mistake, we've our undesirable apples yet we handle them ourselves as much as we are in a position to. And to be an effective soldier, it is common to desire to prefer to be there as antagonistic to being given the determination of 15 years confusing time or 4 years with the militia. and actually, in case you have been a soldier, might you like some convict armed with an computerized weapon staring at your decrease back? I particular as hell would not. And who might supervise them? Who might make surethey're no longer making plans some thing nasty like a mutiny or desertion/get away? What you're suggesting might appear as if a solid thought on the beginning up, yet this is the deal: this is going to value extra money and extra manpower that protecting those adult adult males in the back of bars.
2016-10-13 08:54:32 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow LC.. .you really came up with a doozy this time. This sounds like a good B-Movie though... throw in Stone Cold Steve Ausin or Steven Segal and you might have a minor hit on your hands.
Seriously though (which you don't always seem to be) I think its just about all been said... letting criminals loose on a civilan population, who would assure us that they would fight, they might turn on us and join the enemy.... all kinds of logical reasons like that.
Somewhere in your argument there might be some merit in offering criminals a chance to fight in order to have clemency from their crimes, but it have to be highly controlled and would cost more money then it's save.
Dan
2007-05-24 09:19:33 · answer #3 · answered by Dan M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is silly to think Criminals will somehow transform into law abiding, order taking, excellent examples of American Soldiers with a high sense of morality and obligation.
Who would command this group of Commandos? Maybe Manson? I hear he is about to get out and he excels at getting people to do stuff.
Lets leave this sort of thing in the fiction of books and movies. Ever see The Dirty Dozen?
2007-05-24 09:17:36 · answer #4 · answered by Mark M 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lord, save us. I pray you're not old enough to vote.
Then those criminals WOULD BE U.S. Soldiers. Then who would we put into wars to save all those US Criminal Soldiers?
Can you imagine Charles Manson being handed a rifle and sent to Vietnam during his younger years? Can you imagine him getting out of basic training without killing everyone in his barracks?
How about Jeffrey Dahlmer----he would have eaten his bunk mates. Talk about the inmates running the institution!!!
Would you want your father or your son being the superior officer having to give orders to sociopaths who have absolutely no conscience and no qualms about killing anyone that may make them angry? Can you imagine even one of those types of criminals making it through basic without having some scenario like that depicted in "Full Metal Jacket?"
Sociopaths, Antisocials, criminally insane individuals being in charge of missiles, mortars, weapons, and bombs just doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
They're already putting criminals into the armed forces as plea bargains. They have a choice----you go to jail or you go to war. There you go. You can kill people and get away with it in a war, or you can go to jail and fight for your life with the guys in the shower. Either way----although you have a right to your opinion-----my opinion is you should enlist into a branch of the armed forces and then write a book on that subject. I'd be interested to see if your position would change.
2007-05-24 09:22:49 · answer #5 · answered by thepeskywabbit 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK . I've had it .
this is by far, the most insipid , idiotic , and barbaric statement i have ever seen.
I don't have the adjectives to describe my disgust.
In case the rock you are under doesn't have a calendar , it's the 21st century.
The Romans lost. I see that any hope for the further evolution of modern society is futile ,
if left in the hands of creatures who think like this.
And just who would you throw to the wolves , eh Genius? and who would decide ...you?
Ever been arrested? not yet ? anyone in your family ...DUI/DWI perhaps ? shoplifting ?
J - walking?
"well we're out of killers today , but we have lots of uninsured motorist...oh , this guy got into a fight with his buddy...let's turn 15 days into a death sentence"
It's now apparent that the intelligent people on this planet are too busy taking up the slack to reproduce in sufficient numbers to counter this crippling wave of stupidity.
the next time you get a thought...let it go.
here's your sign.
to all others :
do not dismiss this one or others like her out of hand. DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THEM.
this is the beginnings of Fascist / Nazi thought....
and she has the GALL to call herself a "Christian".
This is the kind of thing we fought in WW2.
2007-05-24 09:35:38 · answer #6 · answered by misterchickie 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This must be Bush looking for answers... Real nice. It would depend on the severity of the person's crime... If the person is PROVEN guilty, and has a death sentence, then, by all means. Otherwise, it could be a guy that stole a TV and is in jail for a month, then no, don't send them. Also, you're retarded.
2007-05-24 09:18:49 · answer #7 · answered by Alucard Zero 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good idea, but if the people behind bars can't follow the rules in the states what makes one think that they can be led and directed in battle. It would be a massacre. They would all be stoned and stealing from each other. Nothing would get accomplished.
2007-05-24 09:13:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
All "criminals" behind bars are not "criminals" and have to be proven without a reasonable doubt. Now, with that said - which "criminals" go to war? and - you better stay on the right side of the fence for sure if this were to happen. Let's not judge.
2007-05-24 09:12:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Are you saying that our military can be replaced by a bunch of untrained thugs? Nice.
Do you think our military wants to play exterminator to Americans?
And when they join forces with the bad guys?
And even if it wouldn't hurt our efforts, why would we pay all that money to send them over there?
2007-05-24 09:15:09 · answer #10 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋