Rape & the U.S. Millitary

@JTT,

JTT - Listen, I'm with you on the military having much to be ashamed of, but you seem to take it to a whole other level.

Must we really choose between a paranoid and hysterical military industrial complex and a naive and over-idealistic pacifist nation? Why strive for either extreme? Is there not some sensible middle point?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

The sensible middle point, TKO, is that point where justice is served. Can you point to anyone serving time for this "much to be ashamed of"? Even the main perpetrator of the MyLai massacre was pardoned, by Nixon. What kind of example does that set? The precedent set after WWII was "you do the crimes you do the time". The problem is, those rules don't apply to the USA, even to their WWII war crimes.

The US doesn't have a paranoid and hysterical military industrial complex, it has way too many of its citizenry trained to do that for it. Gob's idiotic, "The US military's job is to defend the country". When was the last time it was required to do that? Out of all the incursions into others' countries, what percentage have been justifiable?

I only take it to this level. Take those who have committed war crimes and put them on trial. Not in the USA, of course, that would be a farce of monumental proportions.

Don't you find it at all odd that the outrage occasioned by this issue shouldn't extend to the much worse outrages that took place in Nicaragua, the much worse outrages that have taken place in Iraq? Those people [Iraqis] did absolutely nothing, nothing and the blame for their plight lies squarely with the former US administration.

Quote:

If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...
Noam Chomsky

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

For the peoples of the world even a half-assed US pacifist nation would be a blessed relief.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

The sensible middle point, TKO, is that point where justice is served.

Hyperbole.

Speak soberly here. You've confounded the subject. What I don't understand is how you can so universally hold contempt for the military. Justice being served has nothing to do with either being a ultra military state or a ultra pacifist state. You've completely ignored my question.

What do you gain by coming in here and hijacking a thread to air your grievances? This is a thread about a problem that the military is facing, and you come in stomping your feet shouting "Of course! Because they're all assholes!" That is hardly objective nor a helpful contribution.

I agree that the U.S. Military is not beyond contempt and that those who commit heinous acts should not be treated with white gloves and given a pass. I agree these people deserve a day in court to face the fire. I agree with you on all of those things. Now, what the hell does any of that have to do with figuring out how to help curb the rape issue here? The rapist should face a trial even if the others you listed don't and vice versa. Neither is reliant on the other.

GOB1 says that the military's job is to defend the country. If you think it's anything else, please tell us what it is. He's right about the statement, but you've just got too much fight in your fingers to think about what it is you actually disagree with him about.

Since you find GOB1's reason for the military to be idiotic, why don't you tell us what the purpose is, and other's can decide the intelligence of your answer.

Sorry JTT, I like your posts, but damn dude, you really need to check yourself on this. The military is not all good, but it is not all bad either. Your universal condemnation is as idiotic as the conservative's can-do-nothing-wrong blind defense of the military.

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

I agree that the U.S. Military is not beyond contempt and that those who commit heinous acts should not be treated with white gloves and given a pass. I agree these people deserve a day in court to face the fire. I agree with you on all of those things. Now, what the hell does any of that have to do with figuring out how to help curb the rape issue here? The rapist should face a trial even if the others you listed don't and vice versa. Neither is reliant on the other.

But one is reliant upon the other. If there's an atmosphere of looking the other way when one atrocity is committed - that surely will impact how people react when another atrocity is committed.

That's why I always thought, 'Don't ask, don't tell' set such a bad tone. It's just an official reinforcer of this sort of attitude.

I'm not anti-military- not at all. But I don't come from a military family. The only person I know who served in the military whose character I could attest to through and through is my father and he'd take a bullet to the head before he'd watch or stand by as any woman (colleague or civilian) was raped and I can't imagine him being complicit in letting that person go uncharged and unpunished. So maybe that's why I'm having trouble wrapping my head around these statistics. I've always viewed soldiers as basically good heroic people who would sacrifice their lives for my freedoms.

So when I read any of these atrocities that occur in war - and really especially the rape or murder of civilians-my first thought is that these are twisted people who are using their situation in the military as a cover for their twistedness. But then I find myself asking why the military would provide such a cover - which maybe it does, if it's true that such criminal activity is covered up or condoned, even implicitely by silence.

1 Reply

@aidan,

That's not one being reliant on the other. If we are doing a bad job at X, it doesn't mean that we have to do better at X first before we can address problem Y. Both problems should be addressed, but can be addressed independently. Neither relies on the other to fixed first.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

It's the same problem Diest - in my mind. It's an attitude that creates different manifestations of criminal behavior. The manifestations are different - the attitude or problem that allows them to continue - is the same.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

It's the same problem Diest - in my mind. It's an attitude that creates different manifestations of criminal behavior. The manifestations are different - the attitude or problem that allows them to continue - is the same.

Almost.

In one case (the rapes) the rapist needs criminal punishment, and in the other case (violent war crimes) the actor that faces the court may be the person who fires the bullet (like a soldier) and/or and administration official that acts negligently or intentionally gives bad orders.

There is a second order to the war crimes issue. Perhaps a second order to the rape issue, but that would be about how the military screens individuals who are enlisting. There is no way to know if actions ultimately prevent crimes though.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are confusing reservations concerning your unwillingness to question the obviously defective statistics and comparisons at the start of this thread, and your own rather odd insistence that any disagreement with your occasionally hystrerical reactions necessarily constitutes approval of rape, with misogyny. There is lots of space in betweeen these illogical poles.

Your naked assertion that I appeal to those absurd extremes is false and it does nothing to remove the FACT that you deliberately suggested rape was the product of "horny young men" as if it was to be expected and not worthy of discussion. You have yet to correct that inflammatory nonsense or answer any specific question related to it, and I can only assume (at least until you do answer) this is because your follow-up answers would be no less misogynistic. In my world; there's nothing odd about pointedly speaking out against the kind of ugly, blatant misogyny, people such as BillRM, Shorteyes, and now you are forwarding. I've offered you many opportunities to distinguish yourself from those assholes, wanting to give you every benefit of the doubt... but you are apparently comfortable with the position you've taken. So much the pity.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your naked assertion that I appeal to those absurd extremes is false and it does nothing to remove the FACT that you deliberately suggested rape was the product of "horny young men" as if it was to be expected and not worthy of discussion.

GOB1 has been on a boat for 150 days.
GOB1 was once young.
GOB1 has been horny before.
In all likelihood, he's been all of the above at once.

Of course it makes sense that these women got raped. Had they been there when he was in service, he'd have probably done the same. Good thing he didn't have the temptation. These modern guys aren't as lucky, they don't stand a chance against their hormones.

They are the real victims here.
K
O

0 Replies

I suspect the sarcasm here will be wasted.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your naked assertion that I appeal to those absurd extremes is false

No it is both accurate and obvious.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

and it does nothing to remove the FACT that you deliberately suggested rape was the product of "horny young men" as if it was to be expected and not worthy of discussion.

You are attempting to put your words in my mouth. I noted the statistical association of crime, including rape, with the demographics of the population involved, and the mindlessly flawed statistics used in this instance to support the proposition that 'there is something seriously wrong with the military'. Comparing conviction statistics for the general population with after the fact claims of female veterans, applying for government benefits, and claiming, as a basis for the benefits, sexual assaults ranging from harrassment to rape is hardly a necessary or rational basis for the claims you are simply assuming are valid. Moreover the appropriate comparable conviction data from both civil and military courts is readily available - one can only wonder at the intentions of one who would so obviously base these assertions on such flawed data when the right comparative data, sorted by age groups is so readily available.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You have yet to correct that inflammatory nonsense or answer any specific question related to it, and I can only assume (at least until you do answer) this is because your follow-up answers would be no less misogynistic. In my world; there's nothing odd about pointedly speaking out against the kind of ugly, blatant misogyny, people such as BillRM, Shorteyes, and now you are forwarding. I've offered you many opportunities to distinguish yourself from those assholes, wanting to give you every benefit of the doubt... but you are apparently comfortable with the position you've taken. So much the pity.

Your childish hysteria and foot stomping does not create any sense of obligation in me to respond to these rather silly demands. Whether or not I am a misyogynst is something you simply don't know. Moreover, since you are so obviously incapable of reasoned consideration of the matter, I'm not very interested in your opinion either way.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Disappointing to see you try to lie your way out of this George. Rolling Eyes

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your naked assertion that I appeal to those absurd extremes is false

No it is both accurate and obvious.
OCCOM BILL wrote:

and it does nothing to remove the FACT that you deliberately suggested rape was the product of "horny young men" as if it was to be expected and not worthy of discussion.
You are attempting to put your words in my mouth.

Am I? Or am I just shoving the words that already came out of your mouth back in your face for further explanation?

Pretending otherwise won't change the FACT that georgeob1 wrote:

They don't do much to restrain horny young men in close proximity to sometimes willing temptation either.

It's way too early to revise history here, George. Attacking me is a sorry substitute for an explanation of this rapist's apology. There is nothing false, absurd or extreme about objecting to such obviously asinine excuse making. You've now bypassed multiple opportunities to set the record straight if this wasn't how you really felt. Apparently, it is, and you're uncomfortable with owning it. Tough luck.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Hyperbole.

I think you might want to check the meaning of the word, TKO, because,

The sensible middle point, TKO, is that point where justice is served.

is exactly the point you've been making throughout the thread, justice must be served in these cases of rape.

Quote:

Speak soberly here. You've confounded the subject. What I don't understand is how you can so universally hold contempt for the military. Justice being served has nothing to do with either being a ultra military state or a ultra pacifist state. You've completely ignored my question.

I beg your pardon. There's been no waffling on my part, TKO. I addressed your question head on. I pointed up that, with what the US military [and its civilian heads] has gotten away with, and given the misogynistic nature of the military, it may well be that sexual assaults, including rape, are at an epidemic level.

Did the two lengthy articles I posted on this very issue not contribute to the "subject"? Did no one find it a wee bit strange that, what was it, 85% of those with rape or sexual assault convictions are given honorable discharges.

"To make matters worse, according to Department of Defense statistics, 84-85 percent of soldiers convicted of rape or sexual assault leave the military with honourable discharges. Not only are they not penalised, they are honoured."

Quote:

What do you gain by coming in here and hijacking a thread to air your grievances? This is a thread about a problem that the military is facing, and you come in stomping your feet shouting "Of course! Because they're all assholes!" That is hardly objective nor a helpful contribution.

Your next paragraph points to the fact that your paragraph above, is, hyperbole. If not assholes, your word, then pretty low on the scale of morality. I've asked,

1) How many military leaders have you ever heard stand up and demand that US war criminals are held to account?

2) How many do you think have actively suppressed such evidence and how many have actively avoided addressing such evidence?

Let me pose one more;

3) Why would anyone be given an honorable discharge when they had been convicted of rape or sexual assault?

Quote:

I agree that the U.S. Military is not beyond contempt [major understatement] and that those who commit heinous acts should not be treated with white gloves and given a pass. I agree these people deserve a day in court to face the fire. I agree with you on all of those things. Now, what the hell does any of that have to do with figuring out how to help curb the rape issue here? The rapist should face a trial even if the others you listed don't and vice versa. Neither is reliant on the other.

The propensity shown to engage in numerous illegal invasions, actively participate in and encourage war crimes illustrates a strong predisposition to the very behavior being discussed in this thread.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

GOB1 says that the military's job is to defend the country. If you think it's anything else, please tell us what it is. He's right about the statement, but you've just got too much fight in your fingers to think about what it is you actually disagree with him about.

Since you find GOB1's reason for the military to be idiotic, why don't you tell us what the purpose is, and other's can decide the intelligence of your answer.

The statement obviously is an accurate description of the military's role for every country. The fact of the matter is that that's not how it's been used by the USA in the vast majority of cases.

Gob's idiocy is Gob's normal idiocy. He always provides cover for those who have committed, who commit war crimes/mass murder/torture/rape/... .
I don't know why you even asked. You've seen it, in spades, on this thread.

I've asked,

When was the last time that the US military was used to defend the United States?

Flooded with responses, I was not.

I believe I asked, or at least mentioned,

How many countries are lined up to launch an invasion of the homeland?

Same degree of response. Hell, even through the whole Cold War, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that any country would have tried to invade the USA.

But that has never stopped the boogeymen from being paraded before the childish fascinations that are much too big a part of all too many adult Americans.

Quote:

Sorry JTT, I like your posts, but damn dude, you really need to check yourself on this. The military is not all good, but it is not all bad either. Your universal condemnation is as idiotic as the conservative's can-do-nothing-wrong blind defense of the military.

I too, enjoy your posts, TKO.

As I mentioned once to Aidan. I don't have a major itch nagging at me to go running around singing the praises of the USA. There are far too many doing that already and it gets to be gaggingly sick. It actually wouldn't be near as bad if it weren't so terribly hypocritical.

I have to note that even with all the research skills that a young academic like you possesses, you have a paucity of threads and postings on the "not all good" aspects of the US military/government, though there's no paucity of those aspects to be discussed.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Here for the record is the statement which you have taken out of context and which so exorcises you. It was written in response to an assertion that military folks who have taken an oath to defend the constitution should behave better than others in similar situations (never mind that others are decidedly not in similar situations to those faced by military folks).

Quote:

Perhaps you would then illuminate us with your foolproof program for preserving elephants , or eliminating crime, even among populations that should know, and behave, better.

Oaths to defend the Constitution are generally ineffective in persuading powerful Senators not to add self-serving earmarks to legislation or take financial payoffs from important constituents. They don't do much to restrain horny young men in close proximity to sometimes willing temptation either. Neither behavior is admirable, but both are common. Despite this the general incidence of crime in the military is a good deal lower than that in comparative populations elsewhere.

You appear to have started your childish and silly riff at about this point. Your self-serving hyper indignation is unjustified by the facts and certainly deserves no more attention by me.

Piss off.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Disappointing to see you try to lie your way out of this, Bill.

Am I? Or am I just shoving the words that already came out of your mouth back in your face for further explanation?

It's way too early to revise history here, Bill. Attacking me is a sorry substitute for an explanation of you as an apologist for war criminals. There is nothing false, absurd or extreme about objecting to such obviously asinine excuse making. You've now bypassed multiple opportunities to set the record straight if this wasn't how you really felt. Apparently, it is, and you're uncomfortable with owning it. Tough luck.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I noted the statistical association of crime, including rape, with the demographics of the population involved, and the mindlessly flawed statistics used in this instance to support the proposition that 'there is something seriously wrong with the military'. Comparing conviction statistics for the general population with after the fact claims of female veterans, applying for government benefits, and claiming, as a basis for the benefits, sexual assaults ranging from harrassment to rape is hardly a necessary or rational basis for the claims you are simply assuming are valid. Moreover the appropriate comparable conviction data from both civil and military courts is readily available - one can only wonder at the intentions of one who would so obviously base these assertions on such flawed data when the right comparative data, sorted by age groups is so readily available.

But being the lazy, attention diverting apologist that you are, George, you see no need to locate this readily available data. Am I operating on the mistaken assumption that you might actually hold a position at some university, wherein, one would surmise, you teach?

What was your thesis, Effectively employing bafflegab? You failed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Here for the record is the statement which you have taken out of context and which so exorcises you. It was written in response to an assertion that military folks who have taken an oath to defend the constitution should behave better than others in similar situations (never mind that others are decidedly not in similar situations to those faced by military folks).

Quote:
Perhaps you would then illuminate us with your foolproof program for preserving elephants , or eliminating crime, even among populations that should know, and behave, better.

Oaths to defend the Constitution are generally ineffective in persuading powerful Senators not to add self-serving earmarks to legislation or take financial payoffs from important constituents. They don't do much to restrain horny young men in close proximity to sometimes willing temptation either. Neither behavior is admirable, but both are common. Despite this the general incidence of crime in the military is a good deal lower than that in comparative populations elsewhere.

You appear to have started your childish and silly riff at about this point. Your self-serving hyper indignation is unjustified by the facts and certainly deserves no more attention by me.

Piss off.

No. Face the music George. You've been circumventing the issue here since your first post. What you've quoted above is actually a perfect example of you doing so, complete with the naked, point-evading assertion/conclusion that "Neither behavior is admirable, but both are common. Despite this the general incidence of crime in the military is a good deal lower than that in comparative populations elsewhere." Rape is considerably more heinous than "less than admirable", George, but your every post white washes over or completely evades the fact that it is a serious issue in the Military today. Why George? Why do you impugn innocent "horny young men" with the deeds of their rapist colleagues? The peripheral nonsense above provides no insight whatsoever as to why you’d brush over repugnant criminal behavior so consistently.

You mention that information on the subject is "easily accessible", while demonstrating you've ignored it, if indeed you accessed it at all. Here:[quote="Army Times"]Last year, Harman said the Pentagon had shown “an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks.” Harman said that according to the Pentagon’s own statistics, only 8 percent of those investigated for sexual assault in 2007 were referred to court-martial and that in nearly half of the cases, the chain of command took no action.[/quote]

Tell me George, does 8 percent being referred to Court Marshal sound sufficient to you? Is “Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman” still a Court Marshal offense? Does sexual assault not meet this criteria? Why have you utterly refused to address the actual problem, rather than attempt to downplay it repeatedly, and introduce disgusting rapist-apologies like “in close proximity to sometimes willing temptation”? Or how about this gem, “Rape is a word commonly used today as a label for a very wide range of actions ranging from the despicable and brutal to mere stupidity and lack of good manners.” How about dismissing concerns over rape statistics as “political correctitude”? Do you not recognize such rapist’s excuse making as inherently wrong? What the **** George?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

...

...

...

What the **** George?

Bill, it must be starting to dawn on you, just how incredibly hypocritical you are.

1 Reply

@JTT,

As Deist pointed out; you might actually be taken seriously on occasion if you could focus on a topic, instead of using all as a springboard for wingnut nonsense. (Daily troll feeding, check.)

4 Replies

Rape & the U.S. Millitary

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know