ATTENTION US service men and women

[Snorri1234]

I'll cut him some slack cause he just got back. Also, you're attacking one of the corner stones of his identity. He probably feels compelled to respond.

I know the feeling, it sucks. Trolling service members doesn't make you the winner.

Oh no! If I had known that you wouldn't like what I was doing I certainly would've stopped!

It's not like you're an uninteresting troll who always talks about shit he doesn't even understand. On the contrary, you are a fine specimen of the American Alpha Male.

[GabonX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU_fcxZ_ ... PL&index=2

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves. In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know.

This is not really true, on 2 levels. Most people won't just randomly kill others, true. However, most people will kill those who are a threat. The difference between us and the military is that they are in a situation where so many more people truly are a threat, it is easy to make mistakes. But that has to do with their situation, not "brainwashing" per se. You see this same type of reaction often in war zones, by all involved.

(not saying brainwashing doesn't happen, but your example does not work).

[mpjh]

Let's see a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad gunned down as collateral damage -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to us. But, now her son is.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's see a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad gunned down as collateral damage -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to us. But, now her son is.

That is actually a different subject. That gets down to how much "collateral' damage is acceptable in a war, not brainwashing of solidiers. I think most agree that all collateral damage is bad, but eliminating completely is usually not possible in a war. It is one of the problems with war, but then, there it is. I don't assert that war is wonderful, just that you cannot blame the individual soldiers that way. Each case has to be taken individually. Since each case is so unique, and the individual soldier responses more or less unique, its just not brainwashing.

Just to throw it out, while the death of even 1 innocent is wrong, if that firefight prevented a bombing of a public hotel or even that very marketplace, then the question is not whether her death was good or bad, the question is whether it was better that that one lady is killed or the hundreds that might have been. If that is not the case, then it needs to be investigated and procedures changed.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves. In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know.

This is not really true, on 2 levels. Most people won't just randomly kill others, true. However, most people will kill those who are a threat. The difference between us and the military is that they are in a situation where so many more people truly are a threat, it is easy to make mistakes. But that has to do with their situation, not "brainwashing" per se. You see this same type of reaction often in war zones, by all involved.

No, that isn't true. Even killing someone who poses a threat is very hard. That's why a professional army is so much better at fighting than a bunch of untrained draftees. It's not about them being better shots, it's about them being in a far better mindset that allows them to kill people without hesistating.

That's why you don't send new recruits to the war earlier. You have to train them to obey orders without doubt and to get rid of emotional objections to shooting someone. Killing is not easy.

[thegreekdog]

Let's see a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad gunned down as collateral damage -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to us. But, now her son is.

Let's say a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad is blown up in a suicide bombing -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to terrorists. Is her son a threat to terrorists now? Or, instead, is the need for the suicide bombing blamed instead on the evil zionist capitalist warmongers?

[mpjh]

Let's see a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad gunned down as collateral damage -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to us. But, now her son is.

That is actually a different subject. That gets down to how much "collateral' damage is acceptable in a war, not brainwashing of solidiers. I think most agree that all collateral damage is bad, but eliminating completely is usually not possible in a war. It is one of the problems with war, but then, there it is. I don't assert that war is wonderful, just that you cannot blame the individual soldiers that way. Each case has to be taken individually. Since each case is so unique, and the individual soldier responses more or less unique, its just not brainwashing.

Just to throw it out, while the death of even 1 innocent is wrong, if that firefight prevented a bombing of a public hotel or even that very marketplace, then the question is not whether her death was good or bad, the question is whether it was better that that one lady is killed or the hundreds that might have been. If that is not the case, then it needs to be investigated and procedures changed.

Accepting this collateral damage is the goal of the brainwashing.

[PLAYER57832]

Accepting this collateral damage is the goal of the brainwashing.

Then it is society, not just soldiers that are brainwashed. (possible) I am not sure that "accepting" is the right word, though. Take a police officer in a hostage situation. There is always a balance. The goal is to get everyone, criminal and innocent out alive. If not that, then definitely the innocents. However, sometimes it just doesn't work that way.

Take the plane that fell in PA on 9-11. Was it suicide that they rushed the cockpit? No. They knew, based on reports, what was going to happen if the plane continued. So they did what they could to minimize the damage, to see that as few other people were killed as possible. Now, we know that part. However, suppose that plane had landed on someone's house. That would have been "collateral damage". Would it have been acceptable? Would those people have been less the heroes? I think not.

I also think its awfully easy to sit here in relative comfort, safe and judge soldiers who know they might be killed at any moment -- sometimes even within their "safe" areas as well as whenever they are out on patrol.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves. In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know.

This is not really true, on 2 levels. Most people won't just randomly kill others, true. However, most people will kill those who are a threat. The difference between us and the military is that they are in a situation where so many more people truly are a threat, it is easy to make mistakes. But that has to do with their situation, not "brainwashing" per se. You see this same type of reaction often in war zones, by all involved.

No, that isn't true. Even killing someone who poses a threat is very hard. That's why a professional army is so much better at fighting than a bunch of untrained draftees. It's not about them being better shots, it's about them being in a far better mindset that allows them to kill people without hesistating.

That's why you don't send new recruits to the war earlier. You have to train them to obey orders without doubt and to get rid of emotional objections to shooting someone. Killing is not easy.

I never said killing was easy. I consider myself pretty peaceful. Yet, I assure you I would not hesitate to kill someone if I needed to protect my kids (or any other kids, for that matter). If I had I the means, I would not hesitate.

As for the other, though, this gets into the whole morality of war issue. It is not about the US specifically, it is about whether war itself is moral.

[mpjh]

Certainly, it is about whether war against civilians is justifiable.

[Woodruff]

I did mention my 23 years spent in the U.S. military...which apparently, you seem to believe means I have been brainwashed.

Ah yes, but my point is that that "brainwashing" is confined to military-related stuff. So if we never talked about your job as a soldier I fail to see how I could've seen you as brainwashed.

We've never discussed anything military-related? Really? I find that pretty unlikely, given the amount of such discussions I've been involved with on this site.

I personally think that killing an actual terrorist is a very good thing.

I do too unless it can be prevented. Which is important because...

Better them than an innocent civilian, as far as I'm concerned. I would honestly and truly hope that most logical, thinking and feeling human beings would agree that killing a terrorist is a good thing. I don't see how that relates to anyone being brainwashed...more like people enjoying seeing justice being done.

The thing is that I don't see how killing another human being makes us better than them. Yes I do think a terrorist should be shot if he is a threat, but I don't think he should be killed if he is detained.

I absolutely don't believe a terrorist should be killed if he's already been detained. While I do believe in the death penalty in some very narrow circumstances, I don't believe we have the right to do that with either a Prisoner of War (obvious) or an enemy combatant (or whatever the term is that covers the terrorists we've captured). I'm perfectly happy with keeping them in prison for, quite frankly, forever, however. I do NOT believe they should ever be released IF they have been proven guilty within a reasonable doubt of active terroristic activities or planning.

As to your first point, regarding "better than them", I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If our response to their terroristic actions is that we "take the fight to them" (such as in Afghanistan), this in no way puts us at their level. We are not killing innocents intentionally just to make a point or to cause fear. A far, far different thing.

But even ignoring that. What I brought was how the USA military talks about it's troops, and how that is holy shit fucking crazy. You can't ignore that they are adding a whole lot of extra "patriotism, love for your country, duty as citizen" rhetoric to their recruiting-shit.

I don't see that as brainwashing, I see that as advertising. Remember, they're trying to lure recruits into the military...you don't convince good people to join an organization by telling them that they're going to live in a hell-hole for six months of the year with nothing good to eat and get paid very little money. The military wants good people, so they've got to "sell" what they can, and that's "patriotism, love for your country, duty as a citizen". Give them a reason to be willing to accept the crap that goes with it. It's as simple as that. Do they over-sell it? Certainly...just like freaking McDonald's over-sells how great the Big Mac is.

That's just it though. The armies in Europe don't advertise in the same way. The US don't say : "join the military for a great job and help those people who are worse off in war-torn regions", they say "OK WE ARE THE BEST NATION EVER AND HELL YEAH LET'S TEACH THOSE GODDAMN TERRORISTS WHO IS BOSS!!!"
Theirs is a mission of making war, ours is a mission of making peace.

Uh...I've NEVER seen a single US military advertisement that said anything remotely like what you've said here. I'm afraid I've gotta call bullshit on that one. Can you give me an example, perhaps?

This may come as a surprise to you, but just because someone is in the military doesn't mean they lose all ability to think for themselves. And while I embarrassingly heard Bush's statements, I never once heard that from any military person.

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves.

That's what brainwashing is...losing the ability to think for themselves. So are you admitting now that your statement was false?

In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know. While that's perfectly acceptable, it also means that "thinking for themselves" is not really a criteria you can judge brainwashing on.

I find it fascinating that you believe that members of the U.S. military at large "are taught how to kill without problem". If that is the case, why do we have such a tremendous problem with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with our military veteran population? If you believe most members of the U.S. military kill without any problem, then I'm afraid your understanding of things is skewed quite badly.

Incorrect, and not even close...the U.S. military has NEVER in my experience been taught to "hate the enemy".

They just convinced themselves?

Certain INDIVIDUALS in the U.S. military have TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES to hate the enemy.

No, while of course their own input isn't to be neglected they were very much told by others to hate the enemy. These are not the actions of a few bad apples, these are the actions of people who have been indoctrinated and then set loose. The mere fact that the administration tried to paint it as ok or covered it up speaks volumes.

Incorrect. I've been there, Snorri. What you're stating simply is not true. I don't know what else to say about it other than you're quite frankly wrong. As to the Administration, that speaks volumes ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION, not about the military.

Other than the rare instances when an illegal order is given (for instance, to torture someone)

See. this is why I didn't want this conversation to happen. Torture was totally ok with the administration. Waterboarding is torture and to say it isn't is just fucked up.

You're right, it was...and I agree with you completely that it's just fucked up. It's inexcusable. And yet, I...someone who has apparently been severely brainwashed by the U.S. military for 23 years...I actually agree with you about that. How can that possibly be?

Perhaps you're one of those who haven't been influenced that much? Brainwashing does not give a 100% return. In fact, it gives a lousy return over a set limit. But how much is subject to debate. I mean, 80% of the people would torture a puppy to death if a guy in a labcoat told them it's okay. That's not even subtle. It doesn't give time for people to think about what they're doing, but it does prove that people will do the craziest shit when under any kind of authority. It's abhorrent and fucked up but also true.

Clearly, you've convinced yourself and unwilling or unable to look at the situation from a rational perspective. That's really unfortunate but trust me...this is YOUR problem, not a problem with the U.S. military. Unfortunately, you appear to be ok with that.

And PLEASE don't blame the military for things that Bush did. That's all on his dumb ass.

Who says I'm blaming the mlitary? That is, who says I'm blaming the soldiers who did the stuff? I know it's the military as an institution and the government as an institution. But that's just it, nobody said no to the president. Objecting isn't encouraged.

Again, you're wrong. We are trained to object. In fact, HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE WORLD HAS FOUND OUT ABOUT MOST OF THESE OFFENSES? Do you really think the military is stupid enough to just let reporters wander around while torture is happening? In almost every case, it has been MILITARY WHISTLE-BLOWERS who have blown these cases out. You really need to educate yourself on the subject, because you look like someone who only has an axe to grind instead of someone who actually is interested in learning the truth.

You are completely wrong. Firefighters train in this way (or perhaps you believe people prefer to run into burning buildings?). Policemen train in this way (or perhaps you believe people prefer to chase a suspect through a deserted building?). Emergency room workers train in this way (or perhaps you believe people prefer to stick their hand into a bubbling chest in a desperate attempt to stop bleeding or re-start a heart?). Ambulance personnel train in this way (see previous example). You couldn't be further from the truth in this regard.

What? Did I ever say this shit didn't happen elsewhere? I fucking know how this stuff works. I had qualms about cutting up a dead dude before we used a fucking saw to slice trough his ribcage. But it's still brainwashing. People tell you to do it and you just get over whatever flimsy moral objections you have.

This is the first time I've ever considered you to be unwilling to learn the truth. It's unfortunate for you, really.

However, saving people and killing people are different things. It's far easier to get someone to run into a burning building than to have him shoot a guy. It requires more conditioning. A fresh new recruit has more qualms about killing than someone who has seen a buch of action. It is not something people do without some form of indoctrination.

If that were true, PTSD would not be the massive problem that it is.

So you ADMIT that they're not that way BECAUSE of the military, then...they're not that way because of any brainwashing, they were already sociopaths. And I tend to think you're wrong about them being kicked out of the Dutch military, as well, though I admittedly don't have any personal knowledge to draw that conclusion...perhaps you have some examples of it you can show me?

I do not admit any of it. They are being kept in the military despite being prone to a certain mindset. Not every new recruit has what Jeeves would call "the psychology of the indvidual" but the US military does not try to get those out, it instead gets them more in. The particular things that make them do stuff are actually being encouraged. Because of the military they grow and do things that are wrong. The military isn't the cause, it's the spark that set it off.

Your view of the military is quite frankly uneducated, and very disappointing.

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves. In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know.

This is not really true, on 2 levels. Most people won't just randomly kill others, true. However, most people will kill those who are a threat. The difference between us and the military is that they are in a situation where so many more people truly are a threat, it is easy to make mistakes. But that has to do with their situation, not "brainwashing" per se. You see this same type of reaction often in war zones, by all involved.

No, that isn't true. Even killing someone who poses a threat is very hard. That's why a professional army is so much better at fighting than a bunch of untrained draftees. It's not about them being better shots, it's about them being in a far better mindset that allows them to kill people without hesistating.

Actually, the untrained draftees are far more likely to take undisciplined actions like mass killings and torture. The professional military DOES weed out that sort of thing, despite what you want to believe.

[Woodruff]

In all seriousness Snorri, nobody wants to read your boring line by line responses.

I'm interested in his responses.

[Woodruff]

Let's see a woman shopping for flat bread in a market in Baghdad gunned down as collateral damage -- let's see, she was definitely a threat to us. But, now her son is.

Do you believe the woman shopping for flat bread in the market in Baghdad was "gunned down" intentionally and with the approval of the military? If you don't, then your statement has no point. If you do, then you're not very intelligent.

Certainly, it is about whether war against civilians is justifiable.

You'll have to speak with the terrorists about that - our military doesn't wage war against civilians.

[mpjh]

Sorry woody, we kill far more civilians than do the "terrorists" with our "collateral" damage, infrastructure damage, and sanctions on food and medicine. That is why there are so many "terrorists" who want to get us. It is simly pay-back.

[Woodruff]

Sorry woody, we kill far more civilians than do the "terrorists" with our "collateral" damage, infrastructure damage, and sanctions on food and medicine. That is why there are so many "terrorists" who want to get us. It is simly pay-back.

There weren't many terrorists before we invaded Afghanistan? As to that, our invasion of Iraq has caused FAR, FAR more terrorists than any collateral damage that's been caused.

I would also point out that in LARGE part, the reason there is more collateral damage in action against terrorists than there are in what we typically think of as war is because terrorists USE THE POPULATION IN GENERAL AS A SHIELD. If we were to ensure we didn't do collateral damage, we would effectively be giving them free rein to do whatever they would like to do. It is their strategy to hide within the population (and the population allows them to do so, both out of fear and out of loyalty...not necessarily both with the same individuals, of course) for precisely this reason.

[mpjh]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

[muy_thaiguy]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

The hell? So, terrorists just dress up like every other civilian on their off days, never mind the blowing markets and people up on those days as well. The terrorists do not wear military uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians, but hide amongst them and use civilians as shields. And unless I'm mistaken, taking potshots in crowded areas by US troops is not taken lightly one bit. DDS or woodruff would probably like to clarify on that.

[Woodruff]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

Your ignorance is overmatched only by your willingness to display it. TeamCC must be completely embarrassed to have you represent them. You should be embarrassed at your own statements, but I fear you're entirely too stupid for that sort of introspection.

[Woodruff]

And unless I'm mistaken, taking potshots in crowded areas by US troops is not taken lightly one bit. DDS or woodruff would probably like to clarify on that.

Such activity goes directly against military regulations.

[mpjh]

Sorry, I am a vet. Been there, saw it, it happens, so get over it.

[Woodruff]

Sorry, I am a vet. Been there, saw it, it happens, so get over it.

Frankly, you're either lying or trolling (to intimate that it's a common occurrence). I'm not sure which, but either is pretty sad.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[PLAYER57832]

Certainly, it is about whether war against civilians is justifiable.

No, not really.

War is never against civilians, but civilians always take big hits. It is sort of ironic that as our conscience has expanded, our view of the value of people in general expands, so,too has our ability to wreak more damage beyond the strict battlefield.

I am thinking, in part of the history behind the Red Cross. I cannot remember the specifics, but there was a battle (in France?) where casualties were very high. More than that, though, many of the soldiers lived beyond the battle, but wound up dying because no one was there to help them. No one previously had thought it important, etc. The idea was that no matter the side, the wounded should have been tended, that it benefits no one to have these men die simply because others are too busy to help.

I mention that because it gets to how little soldiers, in general were valued. That extended to many fronts. Civilians were often considered little more than "possessions" of the Nobels, who's "business" it was to wage war. I realize that is and extremely one-sided negative view, but that is what we are discussing here. There were nobels who saw themselves as true protectors, but the idea of anything like true equality or "equal value" was definitely not widely accepted back then.

Now, we DO value the individual, but both we and the terrorists have phenomenal abilities to kill more than just soldiers. The whole idea of a battle "front" is basically gone. Some of the remote control missions are actually run from Arizona. It brings up entirely new issues. In that regard, the US has effectively moved the battle ground here to our home. The terrorists or even opposing nations can legitimately, then argue that attacks here are part of the battle.

[PLAYER57832]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

Your ignorance is overmatched only by your willingness to display it. TeamCC must be completely embarrassed to have you represent them. You should be embarrassed at your own statements, but I fear you're entirely too stupid for that sort of introspection.

Sorry Woodruff, but I was educated by a generation of Vietnahm vets and even went to college with the often homeless, often borderline psychotic remnants who were finally after 20 years able to piece their lives together. The truth is that the US is very far from pure. The truth is that the lines between who is a civilian and who is not is extremely blurred.

Furthermore, as I wrote above, the US has taken the first step to blurr the lines even further. When the US allowed soldiers in Arizona to run remote control planes in Afghanistan, Arizona became the "front" of the war. The only difference, then, between us and the Terrorists is the technology we have (and, hopefully, our ethics/values).