Soldiers Face Death Penalty

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow. Thinking about this more, it seems to me that scum like these soldiers did more damage to the war effort in Iraq than the bumbling, stumbling administration.

Thanks a lot guys. So much for the heat of battle excuse. These idiots actually planned the murder and rape of a 14-year old and even changed their clothes ahead of time to hide their identities. Admittedly they are only allegations, but even if not proven, no doubt word on the street for Iraqi citizens has been out there for awhile now and no court case is going to change that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15320226/

[Poli]

1000 atta boys are erased with one oh ****.

It's a shame.

[Glengoyne]

These guys should fry. All of them. The premeditated rape of a girl that lived near their check point and then the murder of her and her family. A Home Invasion courtesy of the US Army.

Not that the Army did this, or sanctioned it, but it still happened. What kind of sick fuck does this kind of thing? How does every single sick fuck in a squad go along with this?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Not that the Army did this, or sanctioned it, but it still happened. What kind of sick fuck does this kind of thing? How does every single sick fuck in a squad go along with this?

Your enemies in a war become dehumanized, so these types of things will start to happen on the fringes. The people responsible, if guilty, should be given the maximum penalty. Knowing that it will happen does not excuse it, but it is also something that should be taken into consideration when starting a war of choice and a reason why wars should be the final option.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I can see one sick bastard doing something like this, but how do you get a group together of guys that would think this was a good idea? You would think 1/10 would say Um... WTF?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your enemies in a war become dehumanized, so these types of things will start to happen on the fringes. The people responsible, if guilty, should be given the maximum penalty. Knowing that it will happen does not excuse it, but it is also something that should be taken into consideration when starting a war of choice and a reason why wars should be the final option.

I didn't know that 14-year old girls (to whom you were supposed to save from a dictator and bring democracy) were to be considered enemies. While I may agree with the general statement in some circumstances, not this one. I have no doubt these are the kind of guys that would also follow some girl home from 7-11 in Kansas and drag her into the bushes.

[SackAttack]

Here's food for thought. You have a military that's been in a constant state of combat in an unpopular war for the last several years, to the point that the government has had to use 'stop loss' and other tactics to retain people so that numbers on the ground don't become perilously low.

On the other hand, the Army reported a week or two ago that they had exceeded their recruitment totals for the year.

Now, my question is, what sort of people do you think are most likely to be joining the military at this stage in the game?

Maybe more importantly, 'sick fucks' frequently join the military or the police force because they're more predisposed to a combative state of mind than your average citizen...but what proportion do you think they make up of new recruits relative to, say, five years ago?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Here's food for thought. You have a military that's been in a constant state of combat in an unpopular war for the last several years, to the point that the government has had to use 'stop loss' and other tactics to retain people so that numbers on the ground don't become perilously low.

On the other hand, the Army reported a week or two ago that they had exceeded their recruitment totals for the year.

Now, my question is, what sort of people do you think are most likely to be joining the military at this stage in the game?

Maybe more importantly, 'sick fucks' frequently join the military or the police force because they're more predisposed to a combative state of mind than your average citizen...but what proportion do you think they make up of new recruits relative to, say, five years ago?

wow.

[SackAttack]

I'm not saying it's right or does anything to condone their actions, wade.

I'm simply wondering if what we might be seeing is a rise in the proportion of 'sick fucks' in the military because the decent sort aren't wanting to step in the quicksand, as it were. It's not that there's more bad apples, it's that they're a larger percentage of the incoming recruits than they used to be, if that makes any sense.

Maybe the media is just reporting these stories more and the frequency with which this stuff happens over there hasn't changed a bit since we set foot in Iraq, but I do have to wonder.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm not saying it's right or does anything to condone their actions, wade.

I'm simply wondering if what we might be seeing is a rise in the proportion of 'sick fucks' in the military because the decent sort aren't wanting to step in the quicksand, as it were. It's not that there's more bad apples, it's that they're a larger percentage of the incoming recruits than they used to be, if that makes any sense.

Maybe the media is just reporting these stories more and the frequency with which this stuff happens over there hasn't changed a bit since we set foot in Iraq, but I do have to wonder.

Personally, I think your comments are an insult to anyone in the military.

[JonInMiddleGA]

SA - I think I see a reasonable point to ponder in what (I think) you're trying to say but boy did it come out awkwardly.

Especially considering there's a fine young man who is very close to my family who is in the midst of basic training right now.

I really don't think you meant something as perjorative as it initially came out, otherwise I'd probably be at the forefront of reading you the riot act.

That aside, I really don't think it's likely that there's been any statiscally significant change in the percentage of incoming recruits that would be, let's say, psychologically unfit for service. There's always been some who will slip through, seems likely to me that there always will be.

[Warhammer]

This sort of thing happens in every war. Go back a few centuries, and it was a part of war that was even relegated. The contribution system from the 1600s-1700s was an effort to plunder the countryside without actually plundering it. If the area did not comply it was plundered. One of the recognized forms of extortion? Rape. Murder and mutilation were others forms of extortion.

I am not condoning this action, but it absolutely boggles my mind that people are shocked that stuff like this happens. This happens in every war. War is hell. The people responsible need to be tried, and if guilty a public show of the punishment is required, not only for the rest of the service to see, but also those who were affected by the crime. The fact that the press feels the need to wave this stuff around drives me up the wall because it does weaken our position, and the longer this stuff is on the front page, the more harm it does. Now, if this stuff is being covered up, and no punishments are forth coming against the perpetrators, that is another story.

I am just beginning to believe that as a country we do not have the stomach to win wars or do what it takes to win wars anymore.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This sort of thing happens in every war, and in every society whether they are at war or not at war.

fixed

It's a serious mistake to think that being in the military or being in a war zone is a cause of behavior like this. Every time something like this is ALLEGED it becomes a big story. If it were routine, or typical of war zones, it would not get the press attention it does. Soldiers doing their job is unremarkable; stories like this are sensational.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I am just beginning to believe that as a country we do not have the stomach to win wars or do what it takes to win wars anymore.

I think the moment we stop being shocked that stuff like this happens is the moment that we cede any type of moral high ground.

These soldiers are representatives our OUR country. You should be outraged and angry. We aren't a conquering force in Iraq. For better or worse, we are there now to help rebuild the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I am just beginning to believe that as a country we do not have the stomach to win wars or do what it takes to win wars anymore.

Gee, ya think?

Sorry for the sarcasm Warhammer, but that's something we've lacked for quite a while now, in the neighborhood of 40 years.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Gee, ya think?

Sorry for the sarcasm Warhammer, but that's something we've lacked for quite a while now, in the neighborhood of 40 years.

Mayhap that's largely because there really hasn't been a war worth fighting for quite a while now, in the neighborhood of 40 years.

[Eaglesfan27]

One of the topics of a conference I recently attended was the psychology of war. One of the presenters was one of the top psychiatrists that works for the Department of Defense. At least from what he was saying, they put recruits through some through psychological testing to weed out unfit recruits. The testing is much more comprehensive for officers at the various academies. However, off the record, he admitted that they have loosened all of the requirements including the psychological requirements for the "rank and file" to an extent for a variety of reasons over the last few years.

So, I don't find it unconceivable that a higher perecentage of "bad apples" have slipped into the military in recent years than in the past. That shouldn't taint the vast number of good soldiers we have serving this country.


Also, the main thrust of the talk was all about how the military purposefully dehumanizes "the enemy." I think another thread talked about the regular use of the term "Norks" to refer to North Koreans. This has been a tactic for many years. It is a basic tennant of training. It is much easier to kill someone if you don't think of them as human. The presenter talked about one case of a Vietnam vet that he had treated who had killed multiple enemy soldiers. Apparently, this soldier got seperated from his squad and ended up killing an enemy soldier. He felt nothing. Then, he searched the soldier and found a picture of this guy's family. He suddenly couldn't think of him as a non-human and he developed a terrible case of PTSD where he just kept thinking over and over again about how many orphans/single moms he created. The psychological cost to soldiers who fight in a major conflict/war would be tremendous if the military didn't use this tactic of dehumanizing the enemy.

Unfortunately, I don't find it unconceivable that such tactics in confluence with the relaxing of psychological standards for recruits can rarely lead to these types of atrocities. Of course, I hope that these soldiers are innocent. Also, I have tremendous respect for the men and women who serve this country and despite the conditioning of their training, I think the vast majority of soldiers would never commit this type of atrocity.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

SA - I think I see a reasonable point to ponder in what (I think) you're trying to say but boy did it come out awkwardly.

Especially considering there's a fine young man who is very close to my family who is in the midst of basic training right now.

I really don't think you meant something as perjorative as it initially came out, otherwise I'd probably be at the forefront of reading you the riot act.

That aside, I really don't think it's likely that there's been any statiscally significant change in the percentage of incoming recruits that would be, let's say, psychologically unfit for service. There's always been some who will slip through, seems likely to me that there always will be.

I totally agree with your whole post. And SA is probably right, but it is not the place to post something like this. However don't we do this all of the time?

Most teachers are dedicated and care about what is in the kids best interests, but a few bad seeds and we talk about how bad public education is and how horrible the teachers are.

Most clergy are great honorable men, but a few scandels and all of a sudden all priests are gay.

Most politicians (especially at the local level) really want to make a difference, but we are all over them in a heartbeat.

etc, etc.


Bad people do bad things. Hold them responsible, but don't take down the whole military with them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Mayhap that's largely because there really hasn't been a war worth fighting for quite a while now, in the neighborhood of 40 years.

Thank you for helping prove the point.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thank you for helping prove the point.

Your world is a strange, strange place. . .

More on topic, you don't hear anyone complaining about the war in Afghanistan do you? (Other than the complaints that the administration has pretty much forgotten it about and let it turn to shit.) But you don't get complaints that I would categorize as "not having the stomach for this" type of complaints. I would say this country certainly had the stomach for the war in Afghanistan. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[Desnudo]

I'm still absorbing "mayhap"

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think the moment we stop being shocked that stuff like this happens is the moment that we cede any type of moral high ground.

These soldiers are representatives our OUR country. You should be outraged and angry. We aren't a conquering force in Iraq. For better or worse, we are there now to help rebuild the country.

Am I outraged, yes. Am I shocked, no. My passion is military history. In my studies and reading I've learned that rape, murder, and extortion is a part of any warzone. This behavior MUST NOT be tolerated, but it should not be shocking to us when it occurs.

Many people in this country think wars should be bloodless and that nothing bad ever happens. But, every war will have its atrocities and massacres. The important thing is to do everything we can to prevent these from occurring and punishing those responsible with the maximum penalty.

I think the press does far more damage when they start waving these issues around and refuse to let them die down. Again, as I stated before, if there is a cover up, or justice is not being served, that is a different story, I am all for the press getting involved then. But, every incident is not a story. I do have confidence that our military will punish these men for what they have done, because the damage to our forces morale if they don't is too severe.

[Klinglerware]

SA could have worded it better, but I don't think he was criticizing the soldiers serving. It was well reported a year or so ago that in order to help mitigate a significant shortfall in enlistment, the military was forced to relax restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts and allowed more recruits with very low ASVAB scores. Is it possible that the relaxation of standards can result in a few more professionals serving that are more prone to lapses and errors in judgement? It seems plausible to me.

Nobody is attacking the moral fiber of those serving in the military. But I do think that the implications of the policy changes certainly can and should be discussed and debated.

[King of New York]

I know it's not something that we're supposed to talk about or acknoweldge, but SA makes an important point (and, yes, I have family members and friends who are in the military too, some of them are in Iraq, and they are completely honorable and upright, like most of those who serve in the armed forces. They would not disagree with SackAttack, and my guess is that they are comfortable enough with who they are to avoid taking any offense from his post.)

If you have an all-volunteer army, who is going to join? You have the ones who are motivated by a sense of patriotism, and you have the ones who see it as an opportunity for career advancement. They are fine, and happily for us, they are in the majority--at least during peacetime they are. But a few of them are psychos-in-waiting who want to join the military because they want to kill people (one guy actually told me that--he was serious, and he was accepted into the army.) And a fair number of them are drifters without any sense of direction in their lives, and therefore easy prey for the dominating psychos who slip through the psychological screening process.

Military service is more attractive to psychos than, say, beauty school or becoming a driver's ed. teacher, just as the celibate priesthood is more attractive than, say, construction jobs, to people who are sexually conflicted and struggling to control pedophilic urges. In the former case, the attraction is that the job gives them a better chance to act on their urges; in the later case, the attraction is that the job (so they hope) will help them to control or eliminate the urges. But the end result is the same: disproportionate representation. To acknowledge that is not so say that most, or even many, soldiers are psychos or that most priests are pedophiles. But to chastise SA for stating an unpleasant truth--well, that's just conservative political correctness, and I don't like political correctness of any ideological variety.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Your world is a strange, strange place. . .

More on topic, you don't hear anyone complaining about the war in Afghanistan do you? (Other than the complaints that the administration has pretty much forgotten it about and let it turn to shit.) But you don't get complaints that I would categorize as "not having the stomach for this" type of complaints. I would say this country certainly had the stomach for the war in Afghanistan. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

It really depends on your point of view. As a society, we have come to look at war as a terrible thing. Do some research on Rome, and they looked at war as an opportunity to prove one's worth.

Wars have been fought for any number of different things, but we have come to view war as a method of last resort. However, if your enemy realizes this, and believes that you aren't going to use force, you are stuck. You rattle your sabers, but your enemy doesn't respect you.

That is part of the reason why the Eastern European states remained satellites of the USSR for so many years. If the people tried anything, they were put down ruthlessly. It wasn't until the government lacked the fortitude to put down their people that the Soviet Bloc fell.

Many of the methods for avoiding wars were developed centuries ago. The peace of the First Peloponesian War divided the Greek world into spheres of influence and allowed for mediators between Sparta and Athens. But, Athens eventually decided that it was against her best interests to allow Corcyra's (sp?) fleet from falling into Corinthian hands (it might have been Argo's, but I think the dispute was between Corinth and Corcyra). The result was a war that was waged for 20 some odd years that resulted in the defeat of Athens.

Sanctions were developed, and they can be effective tools, but they can also backfire. It was an embargo on US Oil to Japan that helped to shape Japan's decision to attack us at Pearl Harbor. In Iraq, the sanctions never brought Sadam to heel. He openly flaunted many of the agreements that the sanctions were put in place to guarantee. What do you do in that case?

War must be viewed as a weapon in the arsenal of the state. But, when we go to war, we must have a clear vision of what we must do to win the war, as well as win the peace.

Our involvement in World War I might have helped the allies win the war, but we also ensured that it would be a war with victors. The result was a peace that virtually ensured that WWII would be fought.

Prior to WWII, France and Britain could have started a war over the German occupation of the Rhineland. If they had, it would have cost lives, but it would have cost far fewer lives than World War II cost.

My point is that based upon our modern view of war, each of these wars would not have been fought, and in some cases (Rhineland instance) they weren't. But, based upon the nation's point of view, they needed to be fought. In the case of the Rhineland, had Britain and France decided to go to war and risk the casualties, WWII would have been avoided.

[RendeR]

There is indeed a tendancy for personalities like those men's to join the military and the poliec/security forces of the world, its called Control and power.

Their positions give them power over things they normally could not control, it feeds the mentality and gives them a feeling of being right in their attitudes because they are trained to act accordingly.

Its not an insult to military people overall because in general military people know it and see it.

Look at the incidence of spousal abuse, alcoholism and probably a few other typical societal problems, when you compare the national average to the instances of these things in the military you'll see the military has a very large increase.

I think these men should fry, actually they ought to convict them and dump them each individually in the streets of the town where their crime happened and let the civilians deal with them. Its still a better fate than they truly deserve for what they did.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by panerd

I totally agree with your whole post. And SA is probably right, but it is not the place to post something like this. However don't we do this all of the time?

Most teachers are dedicated and care about what is in the kids best interests, but a few bad seeds and we talk about how bad public education is and how horrible the teachers are.

Most clergy are great honorable men, but a few scandels and all of a sudden all priests are gay.

Most politicians (especially at the local level) really want to make a difference, but we are all over them in a heartbeat.

etc, etc.


Bad people do bad things. Hold them responsible, but don't take down the whole military with them.

What I was trying to say, you said better.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry for the sarcasm Warhammer, but that's something we've lacked for quite a while now, in the neighborhood of 40 years.

We've been responsible for the deaths of 300,000 to 800,000 people in Iraq. What amount is sufficient for the people of this country to stomach in order to achieve our goal of...well I'm not sure what our goal is? Should the rest of us have the stomach for killing millions of people? Having the 'stomach' to call for genocide is not courage, but cowardice.

Jon, your great condradiction is that you'd send someone to the chair for downloading a song, and not even bat an eye at the killing of millions of people.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I didn't know that 14-year old girls (to whom you were supposed to save from a dictator and bring democracy) were to be considered enemies. While I may agree with the general statement in some circumstances, not this one. I have no doubt these are the kind of guys that would also follow some girl home from 7-11 in Kansas and drag her into the bushes.

Like EaglesFan said, dehumanizing is a goal of the military, and it's tough to distinguish between 'Iraqi's' and 'Iraqi males over the age of 18'. Again, I'm not excusing the behavior, just saying how it could have come about.

Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
Door Gunner: 'Cuz I'm so fuckin' good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo too! Them's all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

We've been responsible for the deaths of 300,000 to 800,000 people in Iraq. What amount is sufficient for the people of this country to stomach in order to achieve our goal of...well I'm not sure what our goal is? Should the rest of us have the stomach for killing millions of people? Having the 'stomach' to call for genocide is not courage, but cowardice.

The number of deaths in that statistic is up for debate. Also, how do you determine deaths that we are responsible for? Are the deaths due to suicide bombers, bombs, and mortars our fault? Also, no one has called for genocide or the killing of innocents.

I'm just puzzled what the point you are trying to get across.

[SackAttack]

To those people backing me up, thank you.

I absolutely am not trying to cast aspersions on those who serve. I don't want to tar all those who serve with the same ugly brush.

Maybe if I put it this way it'll make more sense.

For the 'sick fucks,' the people for whom millitary service is attractive because of violent psychological tendencies, their attraction to the military is not going to significantly change. Their enlistment rate stays static.

For the honorable men and women who serve, either adult or just leaving high school, maybe enlistment rates are down. Could be any number of reasons. Kids don't want to die and think that's a realistic possibility now where maybe they didn't five years ago. Adults view the war as an illegal war and on moral grounds don't want to get involved. Adults don't want to get separated indefinitely from their families. Could be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons, but for whatever their reason is, enlistment rates are down.

Now, in order to meet enlistment targets, as others have pointed out, standards have been somewhat relaxed in recent years. So maybe more of Column A has found its way into the military.

Doesn't mean they're anything close to a minority...but proportionate to years past, are there more of them serving? I know war is dehumanizing, but I find it far easier to believe that the slate of atrocities, be they rape, murder, or torture, are the result of a 'vocal minority.' That is, a relatively small group of people whose actions are outspoken either because of the horrific nature of said actions or because the media is seeking such stories.

I find it harder to accept the premise that the situation over there is so bad that honorable men and women could be corrupted into doing these things. My grandfather served in the invasion of Italy during the Second World War, and was decorated for his service, and so I have always had the utmost respect for those who lay their lives on the line.

It's why I prefer to believe that these things are being done by essentially bad apples who are finding more opportunities than they've had in the past, rather than by good men and women gone bad.

No insult is intended, and my sincere apologies to any who have taken offense, but I hope the meaning behind what I said last night is more clear now.