Sixxkiller Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Maybe the little white lies may have better recruiting tools than what this guy did... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_us/us_recruiter_sex_charges;_ylt=AqbOYUpmi9ToD1f9Zl__nbdH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTM4YnVpMzM5BGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDYwMy9hcF9vbl9yZV91cy91c19yZWNydWl0ZXJfc2V4X2NoYXJnZXMEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDbWFyaW5lcmVjcnVp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Not good. If the recruits are lucky they should be able to point out she did not look or act like a 14 year old. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 What a waste. I am sadden for the Corps and I hope the Sergeant enjoys his new 'posting'. The two recruits are morons, but if they were that easily led astray then what kind of Marines would they have made? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Agreed. As someone who is somewhat interested in joining the Corps, I'm glad these guys aren't watching my back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The two recruits are morons, but if they were that easily led astray then what kind of Marines would they have made? good ones probably - they'll believe what they're told, they'll be told to do what they're told by their superiors and not to listen to anyone else..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 And best of all, not think too deeply about the moral repercussions of their work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I thought 14-yo girls were a fundamental part of the US military experience? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 JonS, was that supposed to be funny or a slam on the US military? I didn't find it funny and to paint the entire US military with that broad of a brush is a stretch don't you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Probably not. But the coincidence is ... interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 OOooh JonS. Walking over corpses again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I think that is crass and uncalled for...but to each his own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Sixxkiller, Horrific, but sure to make a great "N.C.I.S." episode and maybe even appear on "The Real N.C.I.S." Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracGunny Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Unfortunately, there is scum like this SSgt in the Corps. If not, there would be no need for brigs on the bases, and no Leavenworth. Nothing less than a Dishonorable Discharge for this maggot... Semper Fi / YAT YAS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Tut tut TracGunny, perhaps there is more blame to go around than just for the individual Marine? I for one think it more than possible - no, make that an ironclad fact - that sergeant's chain of command gave him instructions like: "Your mission is to sign up 'x' number of recruits, and you're a Marine so do what it takes to complete the mission." The bottom line here is that recruiters are trying to entice kids into the ranks during a pair of generally unpopular wars, and what's worse, as a general thing, the wars are more unpopular with the 18 - 30 US citizen age group than the general population. Perhaps almost as bad for the US miltary recruiter, the traditional demographic for recruiting into the combat arms - the poor and uneducated youth - is as a general thing apolitical, uninterested in the outside world, and very much lacking in much of any sense of duty towards country. The results I think are inevitable. The services already have lowered standards, and the fact that 35- and 40-year-olds are now being inducted regularly speaks for itself. If a country is reduced to putting 40-year-old men into the ranks to fight a war, it has a recruitment problem - see Germany 1945. Without getting into a discussion on whether or not the present US wars make sense, I think what you are doing is underestimating the pressure on recruiters. They have to come up with warm bodies, under those circumstance. The system is very closely policed and so largely prevents them from the historical way recruiters get kids into the ranks, i.e., by lying to them. So what's a recruiter to do? And yet here we have a typical recruiter, usually a sergeant with 5 - 10 years in, and whether or not he keeps his career and stays a Marine depends on whether or not he can get US kids to sign up to be in a war, and even the stupidest potential recruit knows the combat risk is alot higher for Marines. Sure, there are a few young men that just want to go kill people, but you can't build a military the size of the US' just on them. You need either wholesale support by the population, or some real incentives to get the not-so-interested kids willing to sign up. It's true that with the economy in the tank recruitment probably is a probably just a bit easier these days, but at the same time the pressure is up on the recruiter even more: If he fails to recruit in sufficient numbers, he does not make mission, and if he does that too often it's on his record and he's out of the Corps - and therefore an unemployed civilian with no real skills except Marine ones, during a severe economic recession. That's alot of pressure. Given that, should we really be surprised or upset that a Marine recruiter apparently had the imagination and creativity to use male teenager hormone overload as tool to fill out his beloved Corps? Are we really expected to believe, that that is the only recruiting "trick" employed these days, and that this sergeant is a single analomy and the rest of the Marine recruiters and recruits are patriotic citizens filling out the ranks of the US' finest fighting force, without breaking any rules or moral fuzziness? I say, you drum this guy out of the Corps, you are sticking your head in the sand, you are pretending a huge recruiting shortfall simply doesn't exist, and you are for practical purposes punishing an individual (who as a matter of fact quite likely served the Corps faithfully for most of his adult life) for being put into an impossible situation by the very Corps that supposedly takes care of its own. Now, if you were talking about nailing that Marine's chain-of-command , well then you would be on the right track to making the Corps a better force. But you and I both know, that ain't gonna happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 ...should we really be surprised or upset that a Marine recruiter apparently had the imagination and creativity to use male teenager hormone overload as tool to fill out his beloved Corps? If that's the case, it probably would have been wiser to engage the services of an of-age prostitute. He might still be breaking some laws depending on the jurisdiction (corrupting the morals of minors, etc.), but he'd be much less likely to get noticed and busted. At least the boys would not be in trouble with the law. Otherwise, I find the rest of your post thoughtful and to the point...as usual. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 What happened to getting them drunk? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 What happened to getting them drunk? Isn't that more a British naval tradition? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I thought of Shanghaiing, but that is a method of conscripting as opposed to a recruiting tactic. should we really be surprised or upset that a Marine recruiter apparently had the imagination and creativity to use male teenager hormone overload as tool to fill out his beloved Corps? Are we really expected to believe, that that is the only recruiting "trick" employed these days, and that this sergeant is a single analomy and the rest of the Marine recruiters and recruits are patriotic citizens filling out the ranks of the US' finest fighting force, without breaking any rules or moral fuzziness? Even now, the US remains one of the few Western countries in which prostitution is illegal. (In most of the countries of Europe, prostitution is either legal and regulated or legal but not regulated.) The illegality of prostitution in the US disregards, obviously, how common prostitution is in the US, not least among those who with astute political correctness legislate against it. And then there's the fact that a 14-year-old girl evidently had no problem with getting boinked by three guys she didn't know (except, sort of, for the one she supposedly met online). The two recruits are morons, but if they were that easily led astray then what kind of Marines would they have made? Agreed. As someone who is somewhat interested in joining the Corps, I'm glad these guys aren't watching my back. The irony of these matters (that of the Marines and of the soldier alluded to by JonS) is that the kinds of guys suited to being armed to the teeth and unleashed on the bad guys are not infrequently also the kinds of guys one wouldn't want to have LOS to one's 14-year-old daughter. But yes, if I were a Marine, I suppose my view would be something along the lines of: "Lousy &@#-%@$& jailbait-mongers heaping dishonor on the Corps...!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 The irony of these matters (that of the Marines and of the soldier alluded to by JonS) is that the kinds of guys suited to being armed to the teeth and unleashed on the bad guys are not infrequently also the kinds of guys one wouldn't want to have LOS to one's 14-year-old daughter. Sadly true. I don't like them for knowingly doing what they did, but the main problem I have with this is not necessarily the fact that they're that type, but the fact that having sex with a 14-year-old girl appears to be their main motivation for joining the Corps. If that's why they're joining, they'd make pretty bad Marines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Like many problems pertaining to the military, I think the ultimate cause lies in poor quality supervision of the offending link. But seldom, if ever, are supervisors above the rank of O-3 ever pursued for these things, no matter how poor may have been the supervision they provided. On the other hand, some things are career-stoppers and the persons guilty of providing poor supervision may be punished in more subtle ways that the public seldom hears about. It's just not good for PR when the military "takes care of its own" and no one knows about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted June 7, 2009 Author Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think it has many causes. Lets face it, 18-24 year old men/women nowadays have better options even in a depressed ecomomy. So the ones that are left to join the ranks are closer to prison types than professional soldiers. Thats why its your best bet to go into a special operations field than stay with the straight leggers, they tend to weed MOST of these guys out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Thats why its your best bet to go into a special operations field than stay with the straight leggers, they tend to weed MOST of these guys out. But that's why the infantry has often been sub-par, as it often was in the US Army in WW II. The better recruits were being diverted into the AAF or other specialty and technical services, leaving those of reduced intelligence and motivation. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 A mate of mine many years ago graduated 6th in his class from Sandhurst & promptly requested the Pioneers as his assignement - he was the highest Sandhurst Graduate they had ever had (they were not a popualr corps in hte British Army) - he figured it was an easy way to shine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I think it has many causes. Lets face it, 18-24 year old men/women nowadays have better options even in a depressed ecomomy. So the ones that are left to join the ranks are closer to prison types than professional soldiers. Thats why its your best bet to go into a special operations field than stay with the straight leggers, they tend to weed MOST of these guys out. I think that's a really nasty slur to make, and using a really broad brush. At last count, about 4,300 of these "prison types" have earned their professional credentials the really hard way, doing the nation's bidding. I won't say they were all Audie Murphy material, but I'd expect there are a lot of grieving families who would have a really strong objection to your description of their sons and daughters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I think that's a really nasty slur to make, and using a really broad brush. At last count, about 4,300 of these "prison types" have earned their professional credentials the really hard way, doing the nation's bidding. I won't say they were all Audie Murphy material, but I'd expect there are a lot of grieving families who would have a really strong objection to your description of their sons and daughters. +1 As I sit here and read this thread I can't help but feel disgusted. Some of you need to take a serious look at yourselves, the generalizations you are making are clearly below your level of intellect. There have also been a lot of baseless assumptions, I do not see anything in that article that mentions the Marine's MOS or the MOS of the potential recruits. I also think it is ridiculous, like Planet of the Apes ridiculous, to think that the Marine's chain of command had knowledge of what he was doing, or put so much pressure on him that he would compromise his integrity and his morals to the degree that he did. I fail to see how his chain of commands involvement is an "iron-clad fact". Lastly, keep in mind that the military is a microcosm of society, so we are going to have the same issues the civilian side has, our are just more high profile. That doesn't make it right by any means, but it is an "iron-clad fact". But then again, apparently I am just a "sub-par straight legger", I will now return to my normal day to day criminal activities YMMV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.