Another US troops scandal: U.S. troops pose with body parts

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Mortai Gravesend:
They signed up for it. If they can't handle it they're still guilty for what they do.

Except most signed up before the war, and they were told any deployment would only be 6 months. Double even triple rotations (12 to 18 months) working 15 to 20 hour days 7 days a week no downtime. There is not one person on the planet who could take that. If they could, psych screening would rule them unfit for duty.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
They signed up for it. If they can't handle it they're still guilty for what they do.

Except most signed up before the war, and they were told any deployment would only be 6 months. Double even triple rotations (12 to 18 months) working 15 to 20 hour days 7 days a week no downtime. There is not one person on the planet who could take that. If they could, psych screening would rule them unfit for duty.

Should have been more careful before signing up then.

Nikolaz72:
By this point so many soldiers have lost it to stress, stupidity, and insanity. I think theres a problem that needs addressing beyond the 'boys in uniform gotta be boys in uniform' excuse If anything this shit gives the terrorists support from their people. Shouldnt they at least get punished for aiding their foes?

Oh yes, certainly. But it's going to happen to an extent whatever you do, same as nothing stops civilian crimes. I don't mean to excuse what they do, merely that would shouldn't be too surprised when it happens.

There are certainly things that should be done, though.

reonhato:
there are a million more but those 2 i think sums it up pretty good. the 2nd one comes from the rats of tobruk, one of my favourites. after capturing tobruk in 2 days capturing 27000 italians for the loss of just 49 lives the aussies had to then hold it. they faced rommel and his undefeated army... oh and they were outnumbered 2 to 1. the aussies were the first to defeat rommel in battle and they kept holding strong. the name "rats of tobruk" actually comes from nazi propaganda, they did not understand aussie culture at the time and did not know insulting them and trying to demoralize them would just make things worse for them. when the aussies were eventually relieved tobruk fell to the germans just 3 months later

Er, not quite, there were other soldiers at Tobruk, they were outnumbered by a combined force of Rommels undefeated army and various less impressive Italian troops, and IIRC, some Australian troops were present when it fell. It's still certainly impressive, and Tobruk Day would make more sense than ANZAC Day.

I'd agree about the cultural differences, yeah.

ravenshrike:
So...they're civilian criminals then? 'cos the Geneva Convention covers those too. Quite extensively in fact.

They don't fall under the category of spies. Non-uniformed combatants I believe it's called. Which means, among other things, that they can be shot out of hand and their corpses are not afforded any special protections.[/quote]Uhm, no. Spies do not carry weapons and do not fight, and that entire part has long been irrelevant. Those that pick up a weapon are combatants, and no country outside the US recognizes the weird excuse for torture of the 'non-privileged combatant', meaning they're entitled to every form of treatment of regular soldiers, prisoners of war and what not.

And I'll point out to you that messing with remains is a war crime regardless of whose they were.

thaluikhain:

Nikolaz72:
By this point so many soldiers have lost it to stress, stupidity, and insanity. I think theres a problem that needs addressing beyond the 'boys in uniform gotta be boys in uniform' excuse If anything this shit gives the terrorists support from their people. Shouldnt they at least get punished for aiding their foes?

Oh yes, certainly. But it's going to happen to an extent whatever you do, same as nothing stops civilian crimes. I don't mean to excuse what they do, merely that would shouldn't be too surprised when it happens.

There are certainly things that should be done, though.

reonhato:
there are a million more but those 2 i think sums it up pretty good. the 2nd one comes from the rats of tobruk, one of my favourites. after capturing tobruk in 2 days capturing 27000 italians for the loss of just 49 lives the aussies had to then hold it. they faced rommel and his undefeated army... oh and they were outnumbered 2 to 1. the aussies were the first to defeat rommel in battle and they kept holding strong. the name "rats of tobruk" actually comes from nazi propaganda, they did not understand aussie culture at the time and did not know insulting them and trying to demoralize them would just make things worse for them. when the aussies were eventually relieved tobruk fell to the germans just 3 months later

Er, not quite, there were other soldiers at Tobruk, they were outnumbered by a combined force of Rommels undefeated army and various less impressive Italian troops, and IIRC, some Australian troops were present when it fell. It's still certainly impressive, and Tobruk Day would make more sense than ANZAC Day.

I'd agree about the cultural differences, yeah.

ANZAC day is about them all though, celebrating something like tobruk is not really aussie. unlike a lot of nations most of the well know battles, battles that get remembered and taught in school are from when we had heavy casualties. gallipoli is a perfect example of it and easily the most famous aussie battle even though we got slaughtered. places like to remember fights they won, the only one of the top of my head that i can think of that was a terrible result for america is pearl harbour and even then they seem to focus on a lot more about how that awoke the sleeping giant and they went on to kick japans ass rather then the loss itself.

basically we remember those who sacrificed and lost their lives in the service of their country, we dont celebrate our soldiers slaughtering foreigners, or our own countrymen ( looks at american views on the civil war)

Blablahb:
Uhm, no. Spies do not carry weapons and do not fight, and that entire part has long been irrelevant. Those that pick up a weapon are combatants, and no country outside the US recognizes the weird excuse for torture of the 'non-privileged combatant', meaning they're entitled to every form of treatment of regular soldiers, prisoners of war and what not.

And I'll point out to you that messing with remains is a war crime regardless of whose they were.

Not exactly, as I understand it, they don't have to get the same treatment as PoWs, but things like torture (or desecration of bodies) is flat out illegal for anyone. They can be put on trial in ways PoWs can't.

Mind you, desecration of bodies historically has been an awkward issue, due to different cultural views. IIRC, the Zulus would have up dead British soldiers, because they believed that it allowed the soul to get out easier or something, and that it'd be wrong to not do that.

reonhato:
ANZAC day is about them all though, celebrating something like tobruk is not really aussie. unlike a lot of nations most of the well know battles, battles that get remembered and taught in school are from when we had heavy casualties. gallipoli is a perfect example of it and easily the most famous aussie battle even though we got slaughtered. places like to remember fights they won, the only one of the top of my head that i can think of that was a terrible result for america is pearl harbour and even then they seem to focus on a lot more about how that awoke the sleeping giant and they went on to kick japans ass rather then the loss itself.

basically we remember those who sacrificed and lost their lives in the service of their country, we dont celebrate our soldiers slaughtering foreigners, or our own countrymen ( looks at american views on the civil war)

In theory, yeah, they mindless bogans make it about the way "they" won WW2 by defeating the evil nazi-turks, and that nothing else happened in that war.

Personally I'd choose Tobruk day over ANZAC day more because it was a lot more morally correct to defend against the Nazi and fascist regimes in Africa than invading Turkey. Still, as long as it gets the proper emphasis, I don't really mind.

The more this happens the more I can see it both ways. *shocked silence* ... Shut up I can explain.

You're a soldier. You get dropped into a place with no toilets, no toilet paper, no running water, no jobs besides growing poppy for drug dealers. It's a shitty desert rock. It's hot all the time. You're tired. Pissed. The locals are a giant pain in the ass about everything. Primitive cunts. The "loyal" ones are constantly pulling out pistols and shooting people on American bases. Every road might be the last fucking one you see because some little shits plant bombs all over. After all this you're expected to go be nice. Bring them supplies, food, water, medical aid for things they probably did to each other. They call you a monster when a bomb misses the right target while they're victims? Yeah victims don't kill innocent people on purpose. The militants you're fighting are more annoying than the average locals because they take being an asshole to a new level targeting women and children. Dismembered people are something you can get used to if you see it enough. Not that it's ever normal, but it is accepted as a reality. There isn't anything truly separating a run over squirrel on the road from a piece of a suicide bomber (who, to reiterate, was a douchebag anyways). Honestly, did anyone bitch as much when it was Muslim extremists sawing off heads on camera and dragging dead Americans through the street? Nope.

On the other hand from a purely tactical and practical point of view this is demonstrating a total lack of discipline. The higher up leadership is covering their asses by not punishing these people, as they always have. Sweep it up until the media goes back to talking about Rihanna getting smacked up by some fucktard flavor of the minute pop singer. Clearly you don't want MORE pissed off people in Afghanistan. You should be building bonds with local leaders and demonstrating goodwill. This is kind of hard to do when your own people blunder into burning Korans and there seems to be no end to shitheads mutilating bodies because daddy never hugged them enough. It doesn't help to fight their religious crazies with our own crazies, because those people are going to ruin everything for decent people on both sides.

also don't ever underestimate how savage the average person can become. we're ape men and don't you forget it.

Mortai Gravesend:
Should have been more careful before signing up then.

Public and private school systems can teach you many things, but the one thing they haven't mastered yet is teaching you how to predict the future.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
Should have been more careful before signing up then.

Public and private school systems can teach you many things, but the one thing they haven't mastered yet is teaching you how to predict the future.

I'm pretty sure they teach you history. And I don't think that the idea that signing over your life to the military leaves you with a great lack of control is too hard to guess at.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
Should have been more careful before signing up then.

Public and private school systems can teach you many things, but the one thing they haven't mastered yet is teaching you how to predict the future.

Erm...surely even when there's not much in the way of wars going on, it's quite obvious that this might change dramatically in a year or two?

008Zulu:
Public and private school systems can teach you many things, but the one thing they haven't mastered yet is teaching you how to predict the future.

Nobody can stop them from cancelling their contract. Besides, whatever language was in there, I'm pretty sure there was a mention of exposure to danger. Mine was like "PS: you could die, you cool with that?" and then a huge paragraph about rearranging the circumstances surrounding injury, disease and disability, for which the armed forces run their own version instead of the services governing disease and disability for civilian jobs.

Point remains: "I didn't sign up for this" is a pretty lame defense for committing war crimes. The Dutch armed forces were also stretched to their limit and beyond during Iraq and Afghanistan, and we didn't end up with marauding units running amok committing war crimes. What is it we're (or the aussies, slowaks and many others for that matter) are doing right that the US is doing wrong?

I think it's the training. US soldiers are trained for combat, and little more. My training involved stuff like 'don't stare at women, it can be seen as offensive' and some more stuff about how Afghans think, react, where their loyalties lie (since the concepts of loyalty to tribe or village are alien to most westerners).
We have debriefs with a part specially to signal causes for trauma. For instance you gauge their moods, ask who made confirmed kills, who didn't, whether ot not they saw those people fall, that sort of thing. Heck, I was summoned to some meeting with a psychologist afterwards back in the Netherlands to see if I had any problems. I've had only a single contact, yes, made a confirmed and supposed kill there and that hits you later on, but I'd say what I saw is peanuts compared to frontline units, medical staff or other long time soldiers. Yet, they already wanted to check up on me. Imagine what support the frontliners get. (which isn't to say it's perfect. Medical staff don't for instance, while they get traumatised just the same)

The results are clear. The rate of PTSd (both partial and fully) among Dutch veterans is 5%. What I looked up from US sources , reports say 12-20%, and estimates of the partial cases that go under the radar go as high as 35%.

Ironically it looks as if the US is doing a rather bad job at supporting it's troops, but then in an entirely different way from what the extremist nationalists mean when they cry that.

For instance a little sensitivity training towards Afghans or Iraqis would also lessen the impression of them being 'the big unknown that can kill you at any time', significantly reducing stress people experience.

thaluikhain:
Erm...surely even when there's not much in the way of wars going on, it's quite obvious that this might change dramatically in a year or two?

As I said; You can't predict the future.

Forcing a level of expectation and commitment from people who clearly are not able to deliver will results in crimes such as these. If they (the people in charge) had kept to the standard rotations, we wouldn't be seeing stuff like this.

Mortai Gravesend:
I'm pretty sure they teach you history. And I don't think that the idea that signing over your life to the military leaves you with a great lack of control is too hard to guess at.

You can't learn history in reverse.

Of course there is a great lack of control. They drill it in to you to follow orders, do as you're told, go here do this a certain way. There is no free thought. This sort of mental conditioning leads to a reduced or total obliteration of the self, your sense of who you are. Would you know what you are capable if you didn't know who you are?

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
I'm pretty sure they teach you history. And I don't think that the idea that signing over your life to the military leaves you with a great lack of control is too hard to guess at.

You can't learn history in reverse.

Of course there is a great lack of control. They drill it in to you to follow orders, do as you're told, go here do this a certain way. There is no free thought. This sort of mental conditioning leads to a reduced or total obliteration of the self, your sense of who you are. Would you know what you are capable if you didn't know who you are?

I didn't realize this was the first time ever that the government's screwed over people in the name of war.

That's the thing, I refuse to give up said control. I know that there is that kind of mental conditioning and I utterly refuse to go through it. If someone decides to, then that's on them. If someone gets extremely drunk I'm liable to blame their actions on them anyway since they chose to get drunk. I might blame them even more since they knew it would result in a lack of control.

Blablahb:
Nobody can stop them from cancelling their contract. Besides, whatever language was in there, I'm pretty sure there was a mention of exposure to danger. Mine was like "PS: you could die, you cool with that?" and then a huge paragraph about rearranging the circumstances surrounding injury, disease and disability, for which the armed forces run their own version instead of the services governing disease and disability for civilian jobs.

-psychological analysis-

They can't stop you from resigning, no. But they can draw it out as long as possible to keep you there for as long as they can. "Sorry, you didn't fill the forms out right, you have to resubmit then wait another six weeks." or "Admin lost your paperwork, you'll have to resubmit and wait another six weeks." They could drag it out for months.

Had to solidify the few paragraphs of yours there, they all fell under psychological analysis. This I happen to agree with. American troops don't get the same level of support that other nations do. Its like 6 weeks of learning to shoot a gun then dropping you in the ass end of no where. Better psych support, or you know, actual psych support would result in less crimes.

Mortai Gravesend:

I didn't realize this was the first time ever that the government's screwed over people in the name of war.

That's the thing, I refuse to give up said control. I know that there is that kind of mental conditioning and I utterly refuse to go through it. If someone decides to, then that's on them. If someone gets extremely drunk I'm liable to blame their actions on them anyway since they chose to get drunk. I might blame them even more since they knew it would result in a lack of control.

Like I said, if psychological screening were more stringent, you'd get less potentially mentally unstables joining up. But they went ahead and relaxed the requirements because they needed bodies in the field. So, is it the troopers who should be prosecuted or the people who rubber stamped their medical forms?

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:

I didn't realize this was the first time ever that the government's screwed over people in the name of war.

That's the thing, I refuse to give up said control. I know that there is that kind of mental conditioning and I utterly refuse to go through it. If someone decides to, then that's on them. If someone gets extremely drunk I'm liable to blame their actions on them anyway since they chose to get drunk. I might blame them even more since they knew it would result in a lack of control.

Like I said, if psychological screening were more stringent, you'd get less potentially mentally unstables joining up. But they went ahead and relaxed the requirements because they needed bodies in the field. So, is it the troopers who should be prosecuted or the people who rubber stamped their medical forms?

The troops are responsible for signing up and doing what they did, they should be prosecuted for it. They're in a shitty situation that they signed up for. And the talk about their medical forms is pure conjecture. You don't know that it would have helped anything. If the standards are too lax they should be fixed, some people should get in trouble. The troops who do despicable things should not get off for that though.

Mortai Gravesend:
The troops are responsible for signing up and doing what they did, they should be prosecuted for it. They're in a shitty situation that they signed up for. And the talk about their medical forms is pure conjecture. You don't know that it would have helped anything. If the standards are too lax they should be fixed, some people should get in trouble. The troops who do despicable things should not get off for that though.

Name one person who knew he was signing up for a 5 year stint, knowing beforehand what they were going in to.

The standards are lax because they need numbers over there, the people in charge don't care about any conditions that might predispose them towards these levels of violence. The same kind of things happened in the Korean and Vietnam wars. It is not the troops fault, it is those who decided the level requirements should be set so low.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
The troops are responsible for signing up and doing what they did, they should be prosecuted for it. They're in a shitty situation that they signed up for. And the talk about their medical forms is pure conjecture. You don't know that it would have helped anything. If the standards are too lax they should be fixed, some people should get in trouble. The troops who do despicable things should not get off for that though.

Name one person who knew he was signing up for a 5 year stint, knowing beforehand what they were going in to.

First admit I'm right while we're making arbitrary demands. No? Then you can stop trying to play a childish game. They knew they were signing away control.

The standards are lax because they need numbers over there, the people in charge don't care about any conditions that might predispose them towards these levels of violence. The same kind of things happened in the Korean and Vietnam wars. It is not the troops fault, it is those who decided the level requirements should be set so low.

No, actually it is the troops fault. They're not machines. If they are then let's dismantle them. No? Then they're humans responsible for their actions.

008Zulu:
Name one person who knew he was signing up for a 5 year stint, knowing beforehand what they were going in to.

They knew they could be though. Joining the military means you stand a good chance of getting sent somewhere nasty if war breaks out, every man or woman to sign up knows that. They don't always know exactly when or where, but they know for sure it might.

008Zulu:
The standards are lax because they need numbers over there, the people in charge don't care about any conditions that might predispose them towards these levels of violence. The same kind of things happened in the Korean and Vietnam wars. It is not the troops fault, it is those who decided the level requirements should be set so low.

There is a lot of truth in that, however, the people on the ground still decided to act in the way they did. They made their choices. They should not have been put into a position to make those choices, but it was them that made them.

I'm going to admit that I laughed at the second picture. Looks like the old cartoons where someone fell a long way and were buried up to their waist in the ground.

The US needs to figure out which direction to go. We train these men and women for hardcore combat, breaking them in and making them cold against violence which needs to be done for combat. Then we send them on these long term peace keeping bullshit missions.

A smaller army, more trained to do black ops and wetworks missions would be useful in todays age.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
They signed up for it. If they can't handle it they're still guilty for what they do.

Except most signed up before the war, and they were told any deployment would only be 6 months. Double even triple rotations (12 to 18 months) working 15 to 20 hour days 7 days a week no downtime. There is not one person on the planet who could take that. If they could, psych screening would rule them unfit for duty.

They must have been told it's a possibility of that happening, right? Land of the free, home of the brave would not presume to not warn its budding defenders of such a possibility, right?

...right?

You can spin the "it's tough" card as much as you want, nobody has free lease to commit crimes or act like an animal just because "his life is tough". A prisoner's life is tough but we don't pull that card when he stabs a cellmate.

See, I've always maintained that a uniform should not warrant respect by default, and this is why. Respect the person, not the uniform - and I can't respect these dudes.

008Zulu:

Mortai Gravesend:
They signed up for it. If they can't handle it they're still guilty for what they do.

Except most signed up before the war, and they were told any deployment would only be 6 months. Double even triple rotations (12 to 18 months) working 15 to 20 hour days 7 days a week no downtime. There is not one person on the planet who could take that. If they could, psych screening would rule them unfit for duty.

Thats inaccurate, the wars been going on for ten years, unless the majority of these guys are sergeants and mid-grade officers(which they certainly aren't) the war was going on when they signed up.

Mortai Gravesend:

008Zulu:
I know I've said it before, but its worth mentioning again;

The human psyche can only take so much before it snaps. The war has been going for 10 years, a lot of the soldiers have been there for at least half that time. Its all well and good to quote the Geneva conventions, but these guys are sick and tired of being there. When you break, its easy to do the things you never thought in a million years would ever be capable of doing.

They aren't machines, stop thinking of them as such.

They signed up for it. If they can't handle it they're still guilty for what they do.

They signed up for a bad but necessary line of employment. We do need a standing army of some sort, even though ours is way too big and overpriced and the government misuses it.

Just because someone signs up to do a tough job doesn't mean they ought to give all their rights away. In World War I, soldiers on all sides were shoved in trenches for months on end without any means of mental health care or even enough food, and forced to charge into each others' machinegun fire and die by the hundreds of thousands to gain a few hundred feet in ground. Eventually, lots of them deserted; those caught were executed. Yeah, they signed up for that and they knew the consequences for desertion, but is it fair that they were executed for deserting when the military 1. used propaganda to convince them to join and 2. treated them like shit when they were in the army?

When a soldier signs up for duty, yeah, he signs up for some tough shit. But it's also the government's job to make sure he isn't put into a situation that he can't handle, is given regular leave to see his loved ones, given psychiatric care if needed, etc. If everyone took your advice and decided to not be a soldier if they couldn't handle the worst being a soldier had to offer, then we wouldn't have a military, and we'd get stomped on by our enemies.

edit: Why so tough on these soldiers anyway? Yeah, posing with body parts is pretty disrespectful (and disgusting), but it's not hurting anyone. These guys should just get discharged and sent to a mental hospital.

dyre:
When a soldier signs up for duty, yeah, he signs up for some tough shit. But it's also the government's job to make sure he isn't put into a situation that he can't handle, is given regular leave to see his loved ones, given psychiatric care if needed, etc.

While that's true, unless I am very much mistaken, this conduct breaks rules laid down for US soldiers, and they also have in their martial codes that govern soldiers' and officers conduct that one is to always refuse orders which violate the laws of war.

Different armed forces, but my rulebook was very specific about refusing not even seeming optional, and rank being of no consequence. Suppose I ordered my bodyguards to kill civilians, according to that they'd be compelled to refuse and report me. Heck, in theory, if the supreme commander of the armed forces walked in and ordered a private second class to do that he'd have to refuse. I'm not sure who you'd report him to in that unlikely case, but points remains the pressure is pretty relative; No American soldier is forced into that sort of thing.

dyre:

Just because someone signs up to do a tough job doesn't mean they ought to give all their rights away.

Who's talking about their rights? This has nothing to do with rights; acting like that is not a right.

dyre:
If everyone took your advice and decided to not be a soldier if they couldn't handle the worst being a soldier had to offer, then we wouldn't have a military, and we'd get stomped on by our enemies.

Well, the solution to that one is easy. Stop making enemies.

Vegosiux:

dyre:

Just because someone signs up to do a tough job doesn't mean they ought to give all their rights away.

Who's talking about their rights? This has nothing to do with rights; acting like that is not a right.

dyre:
If everyone took your advice and decided to not be a soldier if they couldn't handle the worst being a soldier had to offer, then we wouldn't have a military, and we'd get stomped on by our enemies.

Well, the solution to that one is easy. Stop making enemies.

Well, "rights" isn't the word I'm looking for, but I'm having trouble finding the exact word I want. For now, I mean "rights" to reasonable leave and psychiatric care and other things to make sure people don't crack.

Really? You think not having a standing military whatsoever is a good idea? You think people won't make enemies with us if we have zero armed forces?

Blablahb:

dyre:
When a soldier signs up for duty, yeah, he signs up for some tough shit. But it's also the government's job to make sure he isn't put into a situation that he can't handle, is given regular leave to see his loved ones, given psychiatric care if needed, etc.

While that's true, unless I am very much mistaken, this conduct breaks rules laid down for US soldiers, and they also have in their martial codes that govern soldiers' and officers conduct that one is to always refuse orders which violate the laws of war.

Different armed forces, but my rulebook was very specific about refusing not even seeming optional, and rank being of no consequence. Suppose I ordered my bodyguards to kill civilians, according to that they'd be compelled to refuse and report me. Heck, in theory, if the supreme commander of the armed forces walked in and ordered a private second class to do that he'd have to refuse. I'm not sure who you'd report him to in that unlikely case, but points remains the pressure is pretty relative; No American soldier is forced into that sort of thing.

Yeah, nowadays I think you're right that they have to follow certain conduct over direct orders.

Though, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, lol

dyre:
Really? You think not having a standing military whatsoever is a good idea? You think people won't make enemies with us if we have zero armed forces?

Tell me, how many times has the US been invaded during its entire history?

How about during the last one hundred years?

There's a trend to be seen, here; you fuck stuff up yourselves. Stop doing it!

Elcarsh:

dyre:
Really? You think not having a standing military whatsoever is a good idea? You think people won't make enemies with us if we have zero armed forces?

Tell me, how many times has the US been invaded during its entire history?

How about during the last one hundred years?

There's a trend to be seen, here; you fuck stuff up yourselves. Stop doing it!

Well, the British invaded us fairly successfully in 1812. But mostly we've been instigating conflicts elsewhere, which is the problem associated with having a large armed forces and an overly nationalist population.

The thing is, for all our history, we've had a standing military. Believe me, I'm not a patriot. I'm not one of those people who claims that gun rights are important so we can fend off foreign armies with them, and I'd be glad to see massive cuts in defense spending. But it really is standard practice among every nation to have a standing military. Even disregarding the defense from foreign invasion thing, soldiers are useful for keeping order in times of crisis, like after a natural disaster.

In a world where almost every nation has a military, it's just not practical to abolish your own.

dyre:

In a world where almost every nation has a military, it's just not practical to abolish your own.

Nobody is actually advocating that. But you know, if your country didn't keep pissing people off, you could have done with less of a standing military and still have no problems.

Vegosiux:

dyre:

In a world where almost every nation has a military, it's just not practical to abolish your own.

Nobody is actually advocating that. But you know, if your country didn't keep pissing people off, you could have done with less of a standing military and still have no problems.

Err, yes, I didn't disagree with that. I think even you would be surprised with how much bad our country has done thanks to having the wealth and military strength to interfere in places we have no business interfering in. Iraq and Vietnam are just two on a rather long list.

But the point is, it still is necessary for us to have a military, so just having everyone not join the military is impractical.

dyre:

Well, the British invaded us fairly successfully in 1812.

Wikipedia:

The War of 1812 was a military conflict fought between the forces of the United States of America and those of the British Empire. The Americans declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by Britain's ongoing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honour after humiliations on the high seas and possible American desire to annex Canada.

[...]

On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent a message to the Congress recounting American grievances against Great Britain, though not specifically calling for a declaration of war. After Madison's message, the House of Representatives deliberated for four days behind closed doors before voting (79 to 49) the first declaration of war, and the Senate agreed by 19 to 13. The conflict began formally on June 18, 1812, when Madison signed the measure into law. This was the first time that the United States had declared war on another nation, and the Congressional vote would prove to be the closest vote to declare war in American history. None of the 39 Federalists in Congress voted in favour of the war; critics of war subsequently referred to it as "Mr. Madison's War."

I don't think you get to claim 'invasion' if you're the ones who declared war.

Amnestic:

dyre:

Well, the British invaded us fairly successfully in 1812.

Wikipedia:

The War of 1812 was a military conflict fought between the forces of the United States of America and those of the British Empire. The Americans declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by Britain's ongoing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honour after humiliations on the high seas and possible American desire to annex Canada.

[...]

On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent a message to the Congress recounting American grievances against Great Britain, though not specifically calling for a declaration of war. After Madison's message, the House of Representatives deliberated for four days behind closed doors before voting (79 to 49) the first declaration of war, and the Senate agreed by 19 to 13. The conflict began formally on June 18, 1812, when Madison signed the measure into law. This was the first time that the United States had declared war on another nation, and the Congressional vote would prove to be the closest vote to declare war in American history. None of the 39 Federalists in Congress voted in favour of the war; critics of war subsequently referred to it as "Mr. Madison's War."

I don't think you get to claim 'invasion' if you're the ones who declared war.

Sure you can. We were planning the invasion of Japan in WWII. No one called it the "defensive action against Japan" or any shit like that. It would have been an invasion.

I'd also like to add that the 1812 War was one of the few we've fought that imo was mostly justified. If another nation is kidnapping and forcing our citizens to serve on their ships, that's perfectly good cause for war.

Oh look, more US troops being foul sacks of shit. Three guesses for how much they will actually get punished.

If you guessed 'bugger all', chances are you are right.
That is the main reason the US military - and this also goes for the US diplomatically - is that you do plenty of bad shit, but you never actually get punished for it. Think of the Mai LAi massacre.
In addition, you then act holier-than-thou.
All countries do bad things to protect their interest, mine included. But saying America is a land of justice or the world police is utter bollocks, and no one can sanction you for it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked