Soldiers behaving badly

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
...sadly, the apologists call this "collateral damage" and just shrug it off :sigh:
 
After reading about American soldiers and the type of people who usually decide to be them, it's hard for me to even respect them.
 
now on a serious note, I think anyone who takes pride, joy or laughter out of killing, blowing up or abusing animals (or people) should me jailed, or at least punished severely.

the sad thing is, this kind of behavior isn't super rare and should never be tolerated.
 
It's inevitable in war. What pleasing personality should our professional killers have? The people who should be punished are those who, when the debate was hot as to whether to go to war, put up pro-war signs on their lawns, posted on sports message boards pictures ridiculing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who demonstrated against the war, etc.

In my city, bridges over freeways were full every day with people holding signs, the freeway was closed once when demonstrators flooded onto it, and the evil newspaper covered this as little as possible, so that everyone has now forgotten those great events. Telling soldiers to be maniacs is decided at the time you go to war. War is not honorable, like a video game or movie. The maniacs will return, be made the ruling class, and lead us into more wars when they're old.
 
jlprk said:
It's inevitable in war. What pleasing personality should our professional killers have? The people who should be punished are those who, when the debate was hot as to whether to go to war, put up pro-war signs on their lawns, posted on sports message boards pictures ridiculing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who demonstrated against the war, etc.

In my city, bridges over freeways were full every day with people holding signs, the freeway was closed once when demonstrators flooded onto it, and the evil newspaper covered this as little as possible, so that everyone has now forgotten those great events. Telling soldiers to be maniacs is decided at the time you go to war. War is not honorable, like a video game or movie. The maniacs will return, be made the ruling class, and lead us into more wars when they're old.
Click to expand...

I've never agreed with you more.
 
jlprk said:
It's inevitable in war. What pleasing personality should our professional killers have? The people who should be punished are those who, when the debate was hot as to whether to go to war, put up pro-war signs on their lawns, posted on sports message boards pictures ridiculing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who demonstrated against the war, etc.

In my city, bridges over freeways were full every day with people holding signs, the freeway was closed once when demonstrators flooded onto it, and the evil newspaper covered this as little as possible, so that everyone has now forgotten those great events. Telling soldiers to be maniacs is decided at the time you go to war. War is not honorable, like a video game or movie. The maniacs will return, be made the ruling class, and lead us into more wars when they're old.
Click to expand...

Wisdom here folks.
 
Much of this could be curtailed by strong leadership that takes enforces rules of engagment, and how prisoners are treated, but our leadership actually encouraged the torture at Abu Ghraib and doesn't give a shit how American soldiers act (they just don't want it to go public).

But the conditions of war do mess with people's minds. Here is a well done documentary on Abu Ghraib, as told by the guards who were there (and a few of the innmates).

[video=youtube;P31RzaYp-Kg]
 
war is for profit

soldiers are the equivalent of guys in the mailroom at a corporation, doing as they are told for the most part, but sometimes stealing shit and acting a fool
 
VanillaGorilla said:
After reading about American soldiers and the type of people who usually decide to be them, it's hard for me to even respect them.
Click to expand...

Yet they would kick your ass in a second, and die for you if they had to do so.
 
Sinobas said:
Much of this could be curtailed by strong leadership that takes enforces rules of engagment, and how prisoners are treated, but our leadership actually encouraged the torture at Abu Ghraib and doesn't give a shit how American soldiers act (they just don't want it to go public).
Click to expand...

We did (and do) have strong leadership on the issue of torture. Rumsfeld's documents approving each type of torture have been made public. He signed off on each type, and also disapproved a few. It just isn't true that rogue prison guards did this on their own.
 
PapaG said:
Yet they would kick your ass in a second, and die for you if they had to do so.
Click to expand...

Many, many people would die for someone if they had to do so. I would, wouldn't you? Not really that difficult. And yes, a lot of people in the army could kick my ass. A lot of people in the world could kick my ass as well, just as they could kick yours. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

Soldiers (and police officers) generally have fairly low IQs. It's not a secret, soldiers are stupid (many exceptions), they have been throughout history.
 
Speaking of low IQs, I always enjoy PapaG's solid contributions. Look at the 2 posts 3-4 posts above this one.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Soldiers (and police officers) generally have fairly low IQs. It's not a secret, soldiers are stupid.
Click to expand...

Ouch, as a former Military Policeman who served his country in time of war........ I don't know how to respond here.
 
HCP said:
Ouch, as a former Military Policeman who served his country in time of war........ I don't know how to respond here.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be offensive, but I call things the way I see them, and that's what I see. Throughout history, there haven't been empires, republics, and countries that send their smartest people to the front line. People who rise in the ranks are likely the smarter ones, just as in every other job. I don't really want to have a discussion on this, I just wanted to try to clarify my opinion. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, I assure you, it is not my intention, I'm just speaking honestly.
 
If you're running a country, do you send your smartest or your dumbest to die in war?

You create exemptions for your Harvard and Yale types. You have your most expendible, aggressive young men specialize in actual combat.

This shouldn't surprise anyone.
 
jlprk said:
We did (and do) have strong leadership on the issue of torture. Rumsfeld's documents approving each type of torture have been made public. He signed off on each type, and also disapproved a few. It just isn't true that rogue prison guards did this on their own.
Click to expand...

Back when we were kids, torture was bamboo shoots under fingernails or gonads connected to the jeep battery. What has become of the world when making a prisoner listen to Nine Inch Nails at loud volume, or to be forced to wear underwear on your head is torture?
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I don't mean to be offensive, but I call things the way I see them, and that's what I see. Throughout history, there haven't been empires, republics, and countries that send their smartest people to the front line. People who rise in the ranks are likely the smarter ones, just as in every other job. I don't really want to have a discussion on this, I just wanted to try to clarify my opinion. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, I assure you, it is not my intention, I'm just speaking honestly.
Click to expand...

I wasn't offended. Just a bit surprised by your blanket statement.
 
HCP said:
I wasn't offended. Just a bit surprised by your blanket statement.
Click to expand...

The last blanket statement I remember is when King Speed exclaimed he had had sex with an NBA player.

Er, I meant under the blanket statement.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I don't mean to be offensive, but I call things the way I see them, and that's what I see. Throughout history, there haven't been empires, republics, and countries that send their smartest people to the front line. People who rise in the ranks are likely the smarter ones, just as in every other job. I don't really want to have a discussion on this, I just wanted to try to clarify my opinion. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, I assure you, it is not my intention, I'm just speaking honestly.
Click to expand...

Quite a few of our presidents were military. Eisenhower was the military governor of Germany and MacArthur was the military governor of Japan. These guys were among the smartest people our country has had. They, and most of the US military commanders were at the front lines. The US military colleges are very old and quite exclusive. All of the officers are college graduates. The really smart guys who don't go to college advance as non-commissioned officers.

Dozens of Generals died in WW II on the front line.

Where was George Washington crossing the Delaware if not on the front lines?

Just sayin'
 
Denny Crane said:
Quite a few of our presidents were military. Eisenhower was the military governor of Germany and MacArthur was the military governor of Japan. These guys were among the smartest people our country has had. They, and most of the US military commanders were at the front lines. The US military colleges are very old and quite exclusive. All of the officers are college graduates. The really smart guys who don't go to college advance as non-commissioned officers.

Dozens of Generals died in WW II on the front line.

Where was George Washington crossing the Delaware if not on the front lines?

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

the fact that they've lowered the standards says a lot.
 
julius said:
the fact that they've lowered the standards says a lot.
Click to expand...

How have they lowered standards? General Wesley Clark ran for president in 2004.

EDIT: General Colin Powell was Secy. of State
 
Denny Crane said:
How have they lowered standards? General Wesley Clark ran for president in 2004.
Click to expand...

You're telling me that the military hasn't lowered the standards for what they accept in recruits, by pointing out a guy who enlisted in 1962?
 
julius said:
You're telling me that the military hasn't lowered the standards for what they accept in recruits, by pointing out a guy who enlisted in 1962?
Click to expand...

You'll have to provide some example of these lowered standards. If anything, they need a higher standard of recruit - people with police training and especially technically savvy enough to pilot drones.
 
I just didn't have a mommy and daddy that were going to put me through college. At that time I felt it was my only option to succeed in life. Wasn't ever a real gung-ho army guy, just needed some guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PapaG
A Shout Out to the Peeps!
Replies
13
Views
952
Buzz Killington
B
SlyPokerDog
Bugging Hitler's Soldiers
Replies
5
Views
426
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
OT 4 Black soldiers harassed by IHOP patron, accused of being BLM and ANTIFA
Replies
20
Views
1K
Lanny
Lanny
Hang Eleven
Stick Soldiers
Replies
0
Views
301
Hang Eleven
Hang Eleven
3RA1N1AC
why our foreign policy is fucked
Replies
9
Views
506
jlprk
jlprk

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top