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.
I think this thread is in response to this post. http://sportstwo.com/threads/229642-Mohamed-Mohamud-found-guilty!?p=2946337&viewfull=1#post2946337
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.
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]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P31RzaYp-Kg[/video]
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
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.
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.
Ouch, as a former Military Policeman who served his country in time of war........ I don't know how to respond here.
HCP, you claim to have killed only 18. http://sportstwo.com/threads/222799...D...........?p=2890578&viewfull=1#post2890578 This guy claimed to have killed over 150, plus he said he had punched Jesse Ventura. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...d-at-texas-gun-range-20130203,0,4643231.story
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.
