Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Military Standards

QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
edited April 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
So some people feel that the military would be better served if it worked closer to a democracy or were as open and free as any other private organization. Others feel that the lack of freedom and current standards help the military serve it's actual purpose: Being an effective military.
An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court.

This is just utter bullshit as demonstrated by Halliburton and Blackwater.

Quid on
«1345678

Posts

  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Discipline in a standing army has kind of been an essential component since the Roman era so ahhh...???

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.

    An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.

    I'll reiterate this as well. A military is not a democracy for a reason. People can just as easily protest the wrong things and end up costing lives because of it.

    Quid on
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Isn't that a big thing, the few willing to give up their rights voluntarily so that others may enjoy them?

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court.

    This is just utter bullshit as demonstrated by Halliburton and Blackwater.

    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    Furthermore, both of those makes one wonder just how much fucked up shit still goes on that the public never hears about.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court.

    This is just utter bullshit as demonstrated by Halliburton and Blackwater.

    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    Furthermore, both of those makes one wonder just how much fucked up shit still goes on that the public never hears about.

    I...what?

    How does that work?

    Pretty sure there are other factors in hiding the fucked up stuff that private corporations did/do in middle eastern countries

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    Quid on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    I...guess if we didn't discharge gay people, we wouldn't have had to hire Blackwater? I dunno, that's the only connection I can think of.

    KalTorak on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    I am using DADT as a substitute for the mindset where what happens in the military stays there.

    But Blackwater doesn't really count anyway, since they were a private company and it is a lot easier to go after companies than the actual military.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • TheAceofSpadesTheAceofSpades Registered User
    edited March 2010
    So you are implying a direct democracy where say the troops in Afghanistan could vote to determine what regions to apply the most pressure or an indirect democracy where the troops simply get to select who their leaders are?

    TheAceofSpades on
  • Jason ToddJason Todd Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    I am using DADT as a substitute for the mindset where what happens in the military stays there.

    But Blackwater doesn't really count anyway, since they were a private company and it is a lot easier to go after companies than the actual military.

    That is not the common definition of DADT. In fact, that is no one's definition of DADT but your own. If you're going to attempt effective communication, use precise language.

    Jason Todd on
    filefile.jpg
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    So you are implying a direct democracy where say the troops in Afghanistan could vote to determine what regions to apply the most pressure or an indirect democracy where the troops simply get to select who their leaders are?

    No.

    Strategic decisions during wartime are of course done by commanders.

    I am talking about more basic things, like decent wage, good housing, etc. Nothing wrong with letting people protest for those things.

    The whole "military is not a democracy lol" thing is something Quid made up. I said said they should have SOME freedom.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Are you saying that right now they don't have ANY freedom?

    KalTorak on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Jason Todd wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    I am using DADT as a substitute for the mindset where what happens in the military stays there.

    But Blackwater doesn't really count anyway, since they were a private company and it is a lot easier to go after companies than the actual military.

    That is not the common definition of DADT. In fact, that is no one's definition of DADT but your own. If you're going to attempt effective communication, use precise language.

    Okay.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I am using DADT as a substitute for the mindset where what happens in the military stays there.
    Wasn't the question asked. Please don't change the subject.
    But Blackwater doesn't really count anyway, since they were a private company and it is a lot easier to go after companies than the actual military.

    Then why hasn't it happened? Members of the military are punished all the time for shooting/assaulting people they aren't supposed to. It's hardly perfect, but it's also not like when you're in the military you're given a blank check to do whatever you want.

    As opposed to, you know, Blackwater.

    Quid on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Are you saying that right now they don't have ANY freedom?

    Lol, strawman after strawman.

    You guys are awesome.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    So you are implying a direct democracy where say the troops in Afghanistan could vote to determine what regions to apply the most pressure or an indirect democracy where the troops simply get to select who their leaders are?

    No.

    Strategic decisions during wartime are of course done by commanders.

    I am talking about more basic things, like decent wage, good housing, etc. Nothing wrong with letting people protest for those things.

    The whole "military is not a democracy lol" thing is something Quid made up. I said said they should have SOME freedom.

    If you don't like their wage, housing, etc. Why join the military in the first place? Note this comes from someone actively trying to lose weight so he can join the military.

    DeShadowC on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The whole "military is not a democracy lol" thing is something Quid made up. I said said they should have SOME freedom.

    Freedom =/= Democracy!

    Quid on
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    To people questioning military member personal freedoms, have they served or just assume? For the most part, service members have lots of freedoms, nearly as much as civilians. Soldiers of coarse have restricted freedoms in basic training and definatly is hostile countries. When Stateside, there is a limit on how far you can travel from the base when not on leave in case of need for rapid responce due to attack or emergency.

    But seriously, if you don't want to lose your civilian rights, why join the military? It's a volunteer army.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited March 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Are you saying that right now they don't have ANY freedom?

    Lol, strawman after strawman.

    You guys are awesome.
    No.

    Strategic decisions during wartime are of course done by commanders.

    I am talking about more basic things, like decent wage, good housing, etc. Nothing wrong with letting people protest for those things.

    The whole "military is not a democracy lol" thing is something Quid made up. I said said they should have SOME freedom.

    First of all, he's not making a strawman. A strawman is where you misrepresent an opponents position and then knock it down.

    This is the third time you used a phrase incorrectly. Stop it.

    Second, he was asking for clarification, since the bolded part, particularly the "SOME," implies that you think soldiers have no freedom.

    rational vash on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    So some people feel that the military would be better served if it worked closer to a democracy or were as open and free as any other private organization. Others feel that the lack of freedom and current standards help the military serve it's actual purpose: Being an effective military.
    An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court.

    This is just utter bullshit as demonstrated by Halliburton and Blackwater.

    I'd rather have military trials stay where they are now than have them moved to civilian court, anyways. It's bad enough already with how many cops get acquitted regardless of facts/evidence, such as the acquittals of the Rodney King cops, simply based on a popular belief that cops are inherently "good guys" whose victims "probably deserved it anyways." Civilian trials involving military personnel would track along the same path. Maybe even worse as victims in many cases wouldn't be Americans.

    BubbaT on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    If you don't like their wage, housing, etc. Why join the military in the first place? Note this comes from someone actively trying to lose weight so he can join the military.

    There are many reasons, some good, some absolutely stupid.

    Love for your country? That's fine. Very commendable, I applaud it.

    Some join for the benefits of post-military careers. That's okay too.

    But the military also tries to paint itself in a super-positive light. Ever seen those army commercials where the guy is climbing a mountain bare-handed and when he reaches the top the spirits of his ancestors salute him? So badass dude, right? So that may trick a lot of people into joining.

    It's also a haven for killers and rapists, but that doesn't mean everyone in the army is a killer or a rapist.
    Quid wrote: »
    Members of the military are punished all the time for shooting/assaulting people they aren't supposed to. It's hardly perfect, but it's also not like when you're in the military you're given a blank check to do whatever you want.

    Uh, they might as well be.

    I am going to quote what I said in the other thread.

    I want you to respond to every single one of these statements, using actual sources, since they directly refute what you just said.
    Still, the case I linked is not an isolated incident. Studies have been done to show that incidents of rape are far more common in a) the military and b) in fraternities (colleges) than they are in the real world. If you are ignorant with it that's your problem. If you're denying it then that's not surprising at all.


    Here is a pretty good article discussing some of those studies:

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

    ONE THIRD of women in the US military have been raped at some point in their military career.

    One. Third.

    That's a huge number.
    same shit happens outside of the armed forces

    Bullfuckingshit.

    A Time Magazine article says this number is TWICE as big as its counterpart in the civilian population.

    Furthermore, 90% of female military members are sexually harassed.

    90% of rape cases in the US military are not reported.

    etc.

    But this one is particularly eye-opening.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8511010.stm

    Choice quote:
    In 2006 she was in Afghanistan.

    "You're supposed to carry your weapon at all times in a combat zone," she said.

    "But I put my weapon down and walked away to smoke a cigarette and that was when I was attacked."

    She was then dragged behind some power generators and raped.

    "If I had kept my weapon maybe I would have been able to prevent it," she says.

    "But if I had used it I would probably have ended up in jail."

    She went to the authorities but they told her that if she filed a claim, she would be charged with dereliction of duty for leaving her weapon unattended in a combat zone - an offence for which you can be court-martialled.

    So she kept quiet and the man who attacked her went unpunished.

    "It would be my word over his and they are not going to take my word over his," she said.

    When she returned from Afghanistan, she did not talk to anyone about what happened. She says she felt it was all her fault.

    So yeah. We have a culture that says that if you get raped after leaving your weapon unattended, not only is it your fault, but you can also be court-martialled for it.

    That's pretty fucked up. If this is not an extreme culture of fraternalism and violence, I don't know what is.

    Now, this is only for rape. Let's check how the military commonly treats accidental killings or "collateral damage" (well, called "accidents" but for all we know it could just be cold-blooded murder).

    http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

    Hmm, interesting. Choice quotes:
    When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."2

    Hmm. Anywhere else in the world, when you murder 93 people, you will either be executed outright, or (if it's a terrible accident or something) you will get hundreds of years of prison sentence.

    If done by the US military? Nah. It's collateral damage dude. The vice president can't even deal with that particular village.
    This dossier makes six major points. First, the U.S. bombing upon Afghanistan has been a low bombing intensity, high civilian casualty campaign [in both absolute terms and relative to other U.S. air campaigns]. Secondly, this has happened notwithstanding the far greater accuracy of the weapons because of U.S. military planners decisions to employ powerful weapons in populated regions and to bomb what are dubious military targets. Thirdly, the U.S. mainstream corporate media has been derelict in its non-reporting of civilian casualties when ample evidence existed from foreign places that the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan was creating such casualties in large numbers. Fourthly, the decision by U.S. military planners to execute such a bombing campaign reveals and reflects the differential values they place upon Afghan and American lives. Fifth, this report counters the dangerous notion that the United States can henceforth wage a war and only kill enemy combatants. Sixth, the U.S. bombing campaign has targeted numerous civilian facilities and the heavy use of cluster bombs, will have a lasting legacy born by one of the poorest, most desperate peoples of our world.

    Now, the thing I would like to draw your attention to is that these events happened and went unpunished because of what I stated in the previous thread: a culture of fraternalism and extreme violence. What kinds of individuals does such a culture attract and/or breed?

    Is it surprising that when your top commanders are viewing civilian mass murder as acceptable, your foot soldiers are viewing other crimes of equal or lesser magnitude, such as rape, as also acceptable? Maybe this is why these things are frighteningly common?

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The blackwater and haliburton problem was actually a lack of proper oversight on their operations. It's not like the military comes in and tells Blackwater or Haliburton which missions to take. They actually get hired by some private firm or group to provide security, so a lot of times, that military could not know where Blackwater is and or operating.

    Military standards wise:
    One thing for sure, I thought it used to be if your boss(or bosses boss to the Nth degree) spoke up/out about something everyone under them was supposed to remain quiet. I know they do this with UCMJ cases (where if an officer makes a comment on a case, anyone serving under that officer cannot serve on the board or any part of the case). With all this talk about DADT and the Chief's responses, I'd ask that all the generals shut the hell up.

    Anyone of retired military status should remove their military affiliation from any comments they make. They're no longer in the military, and regardless of their stance, no one needs to know they where in the military. It makes it clear that it is a personal belief and not one representing the military in any time or fashion.

    Those two things, that should curtail all these stupid comments of retired military personnel coming out and making stupid offhand comments.


    Also, military personnel are not told they can't protest (at least you can't protest while in uniform), but it's highly discouraged. You're free to speak your mind, as long as you maintain military standards and discipline. That means that a group of NCO's aren't going to go to the Secretary and demand to be paid more or improve their housing. What is encouraged is that you do it properly, through the proper channels. Doing it the other way is only insubordination and lack of proper customs and courtesies. That is what will get you up shit creek.

    Any service member of sound mind knows this and make all their requests that way. All the other people you see/hear about are idiots and bad apples.

    Evigilant on
    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Members of the military are punished all the time for shooting/assaulting people they aren't supposed to. It's hardly perfect, but it's also not like when you're in the military you're given a blank check to do whatever you want.

    Uh, they might as well be.

    I am going to quote what I said in the other thread.

    I want you to respond to every single one of these statements, using actual sources, since they directly refute what you just said.

    No, we're sticking to one subject at a time. Prove your claim that the military are held less accountable for killing people than private companies.

    Show me a single person from Blackwater that's been sentenced for the crimes committed in the ME. There are plenty of service members who've been sent to jail for misconduct. Surely Blackwater must have plenty.

    Quid on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Members of the military are punished all the time for shooting/assaulting people they aren't supposed to. It's hardly perfect, but it's also not like when you're in the military you're given a blank check to do whatever you want.

    Uh, they might as well be.

    I am going to quote what I said in the other thread.

    I want you to respond to every single one of these statements, using actual sources, since they directly refute what you just said.

    No, we're sticking to one subject at a time. Prove your claim that the military are held less accountable for killing people than private companies.

    Show me a single person from Blackwater that's been sentenced for the crimes committed in the ME. There are plenty of service members who've been sent to jail for misconduct. Surely Blackwater must have plenty.

    Before Eric Prince's hearing in 2007, we did not have any laws that stated that soldiers of private companies operating outside US borders are subject to US law. Therefore, they could not be prosecuted, since they had de facto immunity at the time they committed their crimes.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Before Eric Prince's hearing in 2007, we did not have any laws that stated that soldiers of private companies operating outside US borders are subject to US law. Therefore, they could not be prosecuted, since they had de facto immunity at the time they committed their crimes.

    Fantastic! Now that we've disproved that particular claim, since, well, not having laws governing something is pretty much the opposite of accountability, let's move on to something else.

    Quid on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Before Eric Prince's hearing in 2007, we did not have any laws that stated that soldiers of private companies operating outside US borders are subject to US law. Therefore, they could not be prosecuted, since they had de facto immunity at the time they committed their crimes.

    Fantastic! Now that we've disproved that particular claim, since, well, not having laws governing something is pretty much the opposite of accountability, let's move on to something else.

    We didn't disprove much of anything. There may not have been accountability, but look at results.

    As a result of their crimes in Iraq, we didn't renew our contract with them. In essence, Blackwater was banned from operating there.

    Why did we not ban the US military from operating in Iraq/Afghanistan, similarly?

    edit: if you really want to move on to something else, go ahead and address what I stated in the previous page with regards to rapes and civilian mass-murders.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    We didn't disprove much of anything. There may not have been accountability, but look at results.

    As a result of their crimes in Iraq, we didn't renew our contract with them. In essence, Blackwater was banned from operating there.
    So the lesson learned is if you commit a bunch of war crimes you will never be punished and instead be asked to please leave and only work for the state department. instead.
    Why did we not ban the US military from operating in Iraq/Afghanistan, similarly?
    Probably because while the accountability is far from perfect, it actually exists. People actually are punished for their wrong doing in the military. That it's not perfect doesn't mean they're not held accountable.

    Which, you know, you still haven't proved exists for private companies on anywhere near the same degree if at all.

    Quid on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm not really following how accountability in the military is related to whether or not the military should be a democracy....

    Dunadan019 on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    I'm not really following how accountability in the military is related to whether or not the military should be a democracy....

    Presumably so they could be held as accountable as contractors.

    I mean clearly that's the best way to go.

    Quid on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    How many years did it take for Halliburton and Blackwater bullshit to become known, and how long did it take for the authorities to go after them?

    Answer: too many years, thanks to dont ask dont tell.

    O_o

    The Hell does DADT have to do with the fact that Blackwater has killed I don't know how many innocent people with zero punishment?

    I am using DADT as a substitute for the mindset where what happens in the military stays there.

    Except it doesn't

    You're a silly goose of the highest order

    Also again I like how everything stupid that the people in charge of us do is somehow our faults
    So you are implying a direct democracy where say the troops in Afghanistan could vote to determine what regions to apply the most pressure or an indirect democracy where the troops simply get to select who their leaders are?

    No.

    Strategic decisions during wartime are of course done by commanders.

    I am talking about more basic things, like decent wage, good housing, etc. Nothing wrong with letting people protest for those things.

    The whole "military is not a democracy lol" thing is something Quid made up. I said said they should have SOME freedom.

    It's called IG, you fool

    Rent on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    So the lesson learned is if you commit a bunch of war crimes you will never be punished and instead be asked to please leave and only work for the state department instead.

    I'm sure that could be the lesson learned if you were a 3 year old with autism.

    And your level of rhetoric is very amusing considering the US military has committed many, many more crimes, most of which were orders of magnitude more serious.

    Response? "It's collateral damage."

    See, we at least made the effort to go after Blackwater, and when we couldn't, we just cut our dealings with them. The US military on the other hand just gets free pass whenever it comes to major war crimes.
    Probably because while the accountability is far from perfect, it actually exists. People actually are punished for their wrong doing in the military. That it's not perfect doesn't mean they're not held accountable.

    I don't think you have your facts straight. We passed the bill that made private personnel operating in foreign countries accountable in 2007. We banned Blackwater from Iraq in 2008. This means that the reason we banned them was NOT because accountability did not exist for them (since it did, at the time we banned them), but because they had committed far too many war crimes.

    You admit that military accountability is far from perfect, which I guess is better than nothing. But let me ask: what good is accountability if it will not let you prosecute and punish people who are ordering bombs be dropped on civilian centers with full knowledge that civilians live there and will most likely die?

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • SpawnbrokerSpawnbroker Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    On the rape subject.

    This problem is not confined to the US military either. This abuse is rampant among private defense contractors overseas as well, as recently highlighted by the recent press about Jamie Leigh Jones. Ms. Jones was in Iraq in 2005 when seven Halliburton/KBR employees drugged and brutally gang-raped her. Her injuries were so extensive that she had lacerations to her vagina and anus, her breast implants were ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn. The response of KBR was to lock her in a shipping container with only a bed, and to deny her food, water, and medical treatment. The rape kit that was taken after she regained consciousness was mysteriously lost.

    Now tell me, is it the US military that you’re upset at, or is it professions that are largely male dominated, market to males, and recruit people from unfavorable and low economic backgrounds that you have a problem with? Because the military has it’s issues, but it does its best to deal with them.


    Also, your statistics are misleading. 15% of the military is made up of females. Just to give us some numbers as an example, let’s say there are 100 people in the military. Since women are 15% of the service, that gives us 15 women. Since 30% of females reported being raped, that means 5 females reported being raped in the military as far as this little experiment is concerned. 1 in 20 people.

    Last I checked, the military was made up of about 1 million people, and the population of the United States is somewhere around 300 million, so the military population is about 1/300th of the civilian population in our country. 100 * 300 = 30,000 people in the US population overall. Let’s just assume for simplicity that only 50% of the US population is female, even though I’m fairly certain it’s a couple percentage points higher than that. This gives us 15,000 females and according to your statistics, 1 in 6 of them will be raped. That gives us 2,500 people raped out of 30,000. 1 in 12 people.

    This is why saying such a thing as “there is TWICE as much rape in the Army as the general population!” is disingenuous at best. Our country as a whole has a problem with rape. Seriously, it’s a big issue. Don’t pretend it only happens in the military, or that the military is inherently worse than the general population about it. For every horror story you bring up about lack of reporting and blaming the victim happening in the military, I can point to just as many instances of that happening in civilian life.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim that the military DOESN’T have a problem with rape. Of course it does. But it’s working to fix those problems, which is better than a lot of civilian institutions are doing. Look at Haliburton!

    Spawnbroker on
    Battle.net: Spawnbroker#1471
    Steam: Spawnbroker
    Final Fantasy XIV: Spawn Broken
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    See, we at least made the effort to go after Blackwater, and when we couldn't, we just cut our dealings with them. The US military on the other hand just gets free pass whenever it comes to major war crimes.
    So then they weren't held accountable. And meanwhile, plenty of service members are imprisoned for crimes committed during war. That it doesn't happen every time doesn't make it untrue. Meanwhile, Blackwater wasn't. And no, being told they can't operate in Iraq isn't being held accountable.
    I don't think you have your facts straight. We passed the bill that made private personnel operating in foreign countries accountable in 2007. We banned Blackwater from Iraq in 2008. This means that the reason we banned them was NOT because accountability did not exist for them (since it did, at the time we banned them), but because they had committed far too many war crimes.
    Right, so, if you're in the military and commit a crime you stand a good chance of going to Jail. If you're in Blackwater and commit a war crime you stand a good chance of... being sent back to America to work for the state department.

    Just so we're clear, you want the military held to the standard of the latter then?

    Quid on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So the lesson learned is if you commit a bunch of war crimes you will never be punished and instead be asked to please leave and only work for the state department instead.

    I'm sure that could be the lesson learned if you were a 3 year old with autism.

    And your level of rhetoric is very amusing considering the US military has committed many, many more crimes, most of which were orders of magnitude more serious.

    Response? "It's collateral damage."

    See, we at least made the effort to go after Blackwater, and when we couldn't, we just cut our dealings with them. The US military on the other hand just gets free pass whenever it comes to major war crimes.
    Probably because while the accountability is far from perfect, it actually exists. People actually are punished for their wrong doing in the military. That it's not perfect doesn't mean they're not held accountable.

    I don't think you have your facts straight. We passed the bill that made private personnel operating in foreign countries accountable in 2007. We banned Blackwater from Iraq in 2008. This means that the reason we banned them was NOT because accountability did not exist for them (since it did, at the time we banned them), but because they had committed far too many war crimes.

    You admit that military accountability is far from perfect, which I guess is better than nothing. But let me ask: what good is accountability if it will not let you prosecute and punish people who are ordering bombs be dropped on civilian centers with full knowledge that civilians live there and will most likely die?


    You seem to lack a basic understand of what makes an action just or unjust in wartime.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Now tell me, is it the US military that you’re upset at, or is it professions that are largely male dominated, market to males, and recruit people from unfavorable and low economic backgrounds that you have a problem with?

    It's the latter, however I am talking about the military in this case since someone came up with an oxymoron called "military standards".
    Because the military has it’s issues, but it does its best to deal with them.

    I disagree with the bolded statement.
    Also, your statistics are misleading. 15% of the military is made up of females. Just to give us some numbers as an example, let’s say there are 100 people in the military. Since women are 15% of the service, that gives us 15 women. Since 30% of females reported being raped, that means 5 females reported being raped in the military as far as this little experiment is concerned. 1 in 20 people.

    Last I checked, the military was made up of about 1 million people, and the population of the United States is somewhere around 300 million, so the military population is about 1/300th of the civilian population in our country. 100 * 300 = 30,000 people in the overall US population overall. Let’s just assume for simplicity that only 50% of the US population is female, even though I’m fairly certain it’s a couple percentage points higher than that. This gives us 15,000 females and according to your statistics, 1 in 6 of them will be raped. That gives us 2,500 people raped out of 30,000. 1 in 12 people.

    Yes, fewer rapes (in number) happen in the military because the military has fewer women. Go figure.

    Now extrapolate that. What would be those numbers if the military's female-male ratio was the same as that of the general population?

    1/20 divided by 15 multiplied by 50. Oh look, 16%. 3.2 people out of 20. Compared to the general population, which is only 1/12 = 1.6 people out of 20.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    So then they weren't held accountable.

    Uh, because in the USA it is unconstitutional to pass retroactive laws. The federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

    So we do not have the ability to charge people for crimes they committed before the action became a crime, in the legal sense of the word.

    I think this pretty much invalidates the rest of your post, RE:
    Just so we're clear, you want the military held to the standard of the latter then?

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yes, you've made it clear, you want the military held to the same standards as private corporations like Blackwater. Which is to say given a job with the state department instead of actually going to jail.

    I mean, that was their punishment they received in 2008 that you were trumpeting as them being held accountable.

    Quid on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Now tell me, is it the US military that you’re upset at, or is it professions that are largely male dominated, market to males, and recruit people from unfavorable and low economic backgrounds that you have a problem with?

    It's the latter, however I am talking about the military in this case since someone came up with an oxymoron called "military standards".
    Because the military has it’s issues, but it does its best to deal with them.

    I disagree with the bolded statement.
    Also, your statistics are misleading. 15% of the military is made up of females. Just to give us some numbers as an example, let’s say there are 100 people in the military. Since women are 15% of the service, that gives us 15 women. Since 30% of females reported being raped, that means 5 females reported being raped in the military as far as this little experiment is concerned. 1 in 20 people.

    Last I checked, the military was made up of about 1 million people, and the population of the United States is somewhere around 300 million, so the military population is about 1/300th of the civilian population in our country. 100 * 300 = 30,000 people in the overall US population overall. Let’s just assume for simplicity that only 50% of the US population is female, even though I’m fairly certain it’s a couple percentage points higher than that. This gives us 15,000 females and according to your statistics, 1 in 6 of them will be raped. That gives us 2,500 people raped out of 30,000. 1 in 12 people.

    Yes, fewer rapes (in number) happen in the military because the military has fewer women. Go figure.

    Now extrapolate that. What would be those numbers if the military's female-male ratio was the same as that of the general population?

    1/20 divided by 15 multiplied by 50. Oh look, 16%. 3.2 people out of 20. Compared to the general population, which is only 1/12 = 1.6 people out of 20.

    Here I was thinking it was the rapists who caused rapes, but obviously its the presence of women that causes it. Must be those short skirts they are wearing all the time. What if instead we made the military like 85% women, at that point we could just kick all the men out for dereliction as they'd be spending their days doing nothing but raping.

    Also is the US rape rate 15%? Since the USM rate of 30% was double the US average? 16% ~=15%?

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • SpawnbrokerSpawnbroker Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Now tell me, is it the US military that you’re upset at, or is it professions that are largely male dominated, market to males, and recruit people from unfavorable and low economic backgrounds that you have a problem with?

    It's the latter, however I am talking about the military in this case since someone came up with an oxymoron called "military standards".

    So why are we talking strictly about the US military? Why are you bringing us statistics that only apply to the US military? What about other countries? Russia? China? Brazil? Why do you care so much about our military that you seem to be so vehemently against it, if you have a problem with hegemonic masculinity as a cultural system?
    Because the military has it’s issues, but it does its best to deal with them.

    I disagree with the bolded statement.

    So I went to college before I joined the military (weird, right?) and I was put through the exact same lectures, talks, and programs that I'm currently going through in the military for rape and sexual assault prevention. Are you saying that our rape education system as a whole is screwed up? If so, how is that solely the military's responsibility?
    Also, your statistics are misleading. 15% of the military is made up of females. Just to give us some numbers as an example, let’s say there are 100 people in the military. Since women are 15% of the service, that gives us 15 women. Since 30% of females reported being raped, that means 5 females reported being raped in the military as far as this little experiment is concerned. 1 in 20 people.

    Last I checked, the military was made up of about 1 million people, and the population of the United States is somewhere around 300 million, so the military population is about 1/300th of the civilian population in our country. 100 * 300 = 30,000 people in the overall US population overall. Let’s just assume for simplicity that only 50% of the US population is female, even though I’m fairly certain it’s a couple percentage points higher than that. This gives us 15,000 females and according to your statistics, 1 in 6 of them will be raped. That gives us 2,500 people raped out of 30,000. 1 in 12 people.

    Yes, fewer rapes (in number) happen in the military because the military has fewer women. Go figure.

    Now extrapolate that. What would be those numbers if the military's female-male ratio was the same as that of the general population?

    1/20 divided by 15 multiplied by 50. Oh look, 16%. 3.2 people out of 20. Compared to the general population, which is only 1/12 = 1.6 people out of 20.

    You just reiterated your earlier statistics. We already knew this, what's your point?

    In response to your question, if there were the same female-male ratio in the general population as the military, then we wouldn't have the problems that we do with rape, or marginalization of women in general. The more your demographic is represented, the less marginalized and abused you tend to be in society. Hegemonically masculine subcultures tend to marginalize women until more of them show up in that subculture. Look at how women were treated in the workplace until more and more of them started showing up.

    Spawnbroker on
    Battle.net: Spawnbroker#1471
    Steam: Spawnbroker
    Final Fantasy XIV: Spawn Broken
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Here I was thinking it was the rapists who caused rapes, but obviously its the presence of women that causes it.

    It takes a man and a woman for an incidence of male-to-female rape to happen, so I don't think it's controversial to say that the fewer women there are, the fewer the number of male-to-female rape incidents. If the military was all men, would you point to it and show it off as the ideal society because it has no rape? Clearly not.

    Also, speaking of rape, I'm surprised no one has ever talked about other types of rape, such as male-to-male rape (which isn't only committed by gays, by the way), female-to-male rape, and female-to-female rape, all of which are also incredibly common in civilian society. The problem is that these are reported even less often, due to the stigmatization of male rape victims.

    I am willing to bet quite a bit of money that the military is teeming with these as well, if the amazingly high rate of male-to-female rape is any indication.

    Perpetual on
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.