|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 12:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Essentially all they did was preserve the memory of their triumph over people who were actively trying to kill them. |
What triumph? The only group the US military is managing to destroy is the American middle class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| What triumph? |
See that suicide bomber in the picture? See the still living and unharmed Afghani and American forces? That triumph.
| Quote: |
| The only group the US military is managing to destroy is the American middle class. |
This is a point I wouldn't disagree with, so long as by 'US military' you mean the high-ranking officials who actually have decision-making powers and not individual soldiers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| See that suicide bomber in the picture? See the still living and unharmed Afghani and American forces? That triumph. |
That's not a triumph. That's like the opposing team's backup center snapping the football over the punter's head for a safety when they're ahead 62-0 in the fourth quarter.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| This is a point I wouldn't disagree with, so long as by 'US military' you mean the high-ranking officials who actually have decision-making powers and not individual soldiers. |
Even the lowest ranking soldiers made the decision to sign up and contibute to their bankrupting of America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
That's not a triumph. That's like the opposing team's backup center snapping the football over the punter's head for a safety when they're ahead 62-0 in the fourth quarter.
|
That's a horrible analogy. US forces aren't there fighting to topple the Afghani government and military. They're there fighting an insurgency, a stupid and (probably) impossible goal. It's more like a team down 0-62, celebrating about sacking the QB after he stumbled on his own feet. Except instead of linemen and footballs there's suicide bombers and IEDs.
| Quote: |
| Even the lowest ranking soldiers made the decision to sign up and contibute to their bankrupting of America. |
And I suppose every person that joins the police force is automatically guilty of corruption after receiving his badge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Reggie wrote: |
That's not a triumph. That's like the opposing team's backup center snapping the football over the punter's head for a safety when they're ahead 62-0 in the fourth quarter.
|
That's a horrible analogy. US forces aren't there fighting to topple the Afghani government and military. They're there fighting an insurgency, a stupid and (probably) impossible goal. It's more like a team down 0-62, celebrating about sacking the QB after he stumbled on his own feet. Except instead of linemen and footballs there's suicide bombers and IEDs.
| Quote: |
| Even the lowest ranking soldiers made the decision to sign up and contibute to their bankrupting of America. |
And I suppose every person that joins the police force is automatically guilty of corruption after receiving his badge. |
Your analogy is the same as mine. The opposing team just screwed up in different ways in each analogy.
Not every cop is corrupt, but all US soldiers in Afghanistan are costing the USA a ton of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| Your analogy is the same as mine. |
It's not... at all. But if you think it is, you must agree it is still a triumph, albeit a small one.
The suicide bomber would have blown up a US/Afghani soldier or some innocent civilian had he not blown himself up first. The US soldiers who took and posed for these pictures deserve condemnation for no reason other than doing something stupid enough to encourage more idiots to blow themselves up.
| Quote: |
| Not every cop is corrupt, but all US soldiers in Afghanistan are costing the USA a ton of money. |
Really? I guess we have different definitions of 'a ton of money.'
And that still doesn't speak to the average soldier's responsibility for the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jasonXkeller
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Location: Redlands, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
I'm asking where our military learned it was acceptable behavior - even desirable in order to be accepted among their peers - to deface, demean, mutilate and otherwise disrespect the dead.
these aren't "boys" they are men - and women - adults, who have their own minds and consciouses to adhere to - how is it they would participate in such acts, even to the point of being proud, taking photos, and not have the slightest idea how unacceptable their behavior is to society at large?
how would they feel if the same was done to their own families back home? does that not matter?
so are these acts condoned by the hierarchy, unless reported on, or is it something brought into the military by the soldier him/herself? |
War is hell. There are acts of barbarism by every side in any war. Japanese officers in WW2 beheaded POWs and were proud of it. The samurai also collected heads and noses as tangible evidence of victory. There are cases of GIs in WW2 who gunned down unarmed POWs. I'm glad it wasn't another case of soldiers harassing civilians.
Most soldiers in modern times act relatively civil compared to the past. This isn't as wide-spread or instituted now because that kind of shit doesn't fly in the 21st century. It isn't "desirable" because no commander would want that kind of PR nightmare.
Put yourself in their shoes. They've been indoctrinated, trained, and conditioned to kill and dehumanize the enemy (makes it easier to kill) then they're sent to war where they're under constant enemy fire, they see their buddies get shot, they don't have the same basic comforts (sleep, comfy beds, regular showers) you and I take for granted.
The Taliban are especially hard to deal with because they use guerrilla tactics where they use the locals to blend in and attack without warning. It's extremely stressful because they don't know when and where an attack could come. Often times they can't even see the enemy. A soldier in an interview said it was like fighting ghosts.
Would you act differently if you were put through the same thing? Would you be even able to retain the same rationale and mindset after that? Maybe it's different for women, but as a guy who's been in the military, I can't honestly say I wouldn't act the same way if I were in their shoes. The guy just tried to kill me and my buddies.
I recommend the book On Killing for a deeper look into a soldier's psychology in combat. Not having war is the only way to stop this sort of thing all together. |
Thank you. You saved me some time in typing out a response to this. "Civilized" people can sit in classrooms and ponder what it means to kill the people who are trying to kill you day in and day out, but it's all mental masturbation. There are all sorts of "shoulds" in life, but until the bullets are flying down range it means nothing.
@Luckylady: I would like to address your first premise. It is neither true, nor sound that one is required to respect a dead body. A dead body has no rights or entitlements. It has no soul, desires or dreams. By what logic must one have reverence for the dead? Perhaps by some religious tradition, but which one? Who should decide? Would it be worse to leave someone out to be eaten by animals(look up Buddhist sky burials) or to burn them? Maybe offer them a post-mortem baptism?(I'm sure a Muslim would love that.) Which one would make killing them more civilized? What difference does it make? They're dead.
Now to my larger point. You want to know what makes someone do some "Deplorable" act like taking photos with body parts? How about having your friend's brain explode and splatter on your face? How about digging up(by hand) the bodies of your fellow Marines who's bodies where left in shallow graves for weeks in the desert? How about carrying your legless buddy from a burning hummvee? Or cutting down the burned and disemboweled bodies or American snipers? Then hold it together because tomorrow you have to get up and do it all again.
Did you know that handling human remains is sited as one of the most traumatic parts of being on the battlefield and a major cause of PTSD?
People want us to fight wars, but they want it to be neat and tidy. They want it to reek of romance and heroism, but the don't want to see the blood and guts. They don't want to see the grit, the crude horrible humor that one might take on, just to be able carry on and stay alive when faced with the things our soldiers and marines are faced with. The things these soldiers are doing is a defense mechanism because the human psyche could not otherwise handle the death and destruction they are faced with in war. These are not indoctrinated inhumane or otherwise insensitive men. They are survivors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jasonXkeller
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Location: Redlands, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Zackback wrote: |
| Specify the code they violated. |
The United States is a signatory of the Geneva convention.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: �As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken � to protect [the killed] against � ill-treatment.�
Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: �The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities � shall be respected�.
Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour �
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
�
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment �
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, �[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity� constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
As well as from American sources
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides that �maltreatment of dead bodies� is a war crime.
United States of America
The US Instructor�s Guide (1985) states: �In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: � mutilating or mistreating dead bodies�.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides that �mutilation and other mistreatment of the dead� are representative war crimes.
I misspoke, it isn't specifically mentioned in the code of conduct.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule113 |
Zing? Haha. I admit I got a little fired up. with my last post. Thank you for being more level headed about this than I was. I've been considering this issue for a while now.
And apparently dead bodies do have rights under the Geneva convention...but my argument is not with the law, it is with the fundamental idea that we must treat a dead body in such-and-such a way. I claim no religion, and most days I feel more like an atheist than an agnostic. I feel like the treatment of the dead is a religious issue. It me it's a pragmatic problem: Where to put them so they don't stink and their rotting doesn't pollute the ground-water, i.e. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sml7285
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jasonXkeller wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Zackback wrote: |
| Specify the code they violated. |
The United States is a signatory of the Geneva convention.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: �As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken � to protect [the killed] against � ill-treatment.�
Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: �The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities � shall be respected�.
Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour �
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
�
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment �
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, �[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity� constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
As well as from American sources
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides that �maltreatment of dead bodies� is a war crime.
United States of America
The US Instructor�s Guide (1985) states: �In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: � mutilating or mistreating dead bodies�.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides that �mutilation and other mistreatment of the dead� are representative war crimes.
I misspoke, it isn't specifically mentioned in the code of conduct.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule113 |
Zing? Haha. I admit I got a little fired up. with my last post. Thank you for being more level headed about this than I was. I've been considering this issue for a while now.
And apparently dead bodies do have rights under the Geneva convention...but my argument is not with the law, it is with the fundamental idea that we must treat a dead body in such-and-such a way. I claim no religion, and most days I feel more like an atheist than an agnostic. I feel like the treatment of the dead is a religious issue. It me it's a pragmatic problem: Where to put them so they don't stink and their rotting doesn't pollute the ground-water, i.e. |
Every time news of the desecration of bodies or disrespecting of religious objects is leaked to the press, there is always a spike in suicide bombers and attacks on US troops. If for nothing else, soldiers should contain themselves because their actions directly contribute to the death of their fellow soldiers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jasonXkeller wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
I'm asking where our military learned it was acceptable behavior - even desirable in order to be accepted among their peers - to deface, demean, mutilate and otherwise disrespect the dead.
these aren't "boys" they are men - and women - adults, who have their own minds and consciouses to adhere to - how is it they would participate in such acts, even to the point of being proud, taking photos, and not have the slightest idea how unacceptable their behavior is to society at large?
how would they feel if the same was done to their own families back home? does that not matter?
so are these acts condoned by the hierarchy, unless reported on, or is it something brought into the military by the soldier him/herself? |
War is hell. There are acts of barbarism by every side in any war. Japanese officers in WW2 beheaded POWs and were proud of it. The samurai also collected heads and noses as tangible evidence of victory. There are cases of GIs in WW2 who gunned down unarmed POWs. I'm glad it wasn't another case of soldiers harassing civilians.
Most soldiers in modern times act relatively civil compared to the past. This isn't as wide-spread or instituted now because that kind of shit doesn't fly in the 21st century. It isn't "desirable" because no commander would want that kind of PR nightmare.
Put yourself in their shoes. They've been indoctrinated, trained, and conditioned to kill and dehumanize the enemy (makes it easier to kill) then they're sent to war where they're under constant enemy fire, they see their buddies get shot, they don't have the same basic comforts (sleep, comfy beds, regular showers) you and I take for granted.
The Taliban are especially hard to deal with because they use guerrilla tactics where they use the locals to blend in and attack without warning. It's extremely stressful because they don't know when and where an attack could come. Often times they can't even see the enemy. A soldier in an interview said it was like fighting ghosts.
Would you act differently if you were put through the same thing? Would you be even able to retain the same rationale and mindset after that? Maybe it's different for women, but as a guy who's been in the military, I can't honestly say I wouldn't act the same way if I were in their shoes. The guy just tried to kill me and my buddies.
I recommend the book On Killing for a deeper look into a soldier's psychology in combat. Not having war is the only way to stop this sort of thing all together. |
Thank you. You saved me some time in typing out a response to this. "Civilized" people can sit in classrooms and ponder what it means to kill the people who are trying to kill you day in and day out, but it's all mental masturbation. There are all sorts of "shoulds" in life, but until the bullets are flying down range it means nothing.
@Luckylady: I would like to address your first premise. It is neither true, nor sound that one is required to respect a dead body. A dead body has no rights or entitlements. It has no soul, desires or dreams. By what logic must one have reverence for the dead? Perhaps by some religious tradition, but which one? Who should decide? Would it be worse to leave someone out to be eaten by animals(look up Buddhist sky burials) or to burn them? Maybe offer them a post-mortem baptism?(I'm sure a Muslim would love that.) Which one would make killing them more civilized? What difference does it make? They're dead.
Now to my larger point. You want to know what makes someone do some "Deplorable" act like taking photos with body parts? How about having your friend's brain explode and splatter on your face? How about digging up(by hand) the bodies of your fellow Marines who's bodies where left in shallow graves for weeks in the desert? How about carrying your legless buddy from a burning hummvee? Or cutting down the burned and disemboweled bodies or American snipers? Then hold it together because tomorrow you have to get up and do it all again.
Did you know that handling human remains is sited as one of the most traumatic parts of being on the battlefield and a major cause of PTSD?
People want us to fight wars, but they want it to be neat and tidy. They want it to reek of romance and heroism, but the don't want to see the blood and guts. They don't want to see the grit, the crude horrible humor that one might take on, just to be able carry on and stay alive when faced with the things our soldiers and marines are faced with. The things these soldiers are doing is a defense mechanism because the human psyche could not otherwise handle the death and destruction they are faced with in war. These are not indoctrinated inhumane or otherwise insensitive men. They are survivors. |
Strawmen, irrelevancies, and sheer apologism.
What is the mission in Afghanistan?
| Quote: |
| NATO-ISAF aims to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, to help provide security, and to contribute to a better future for the Afghan people. |
Desecrating enemy combatants undermines all three goals. And don't give me this PTSD garbage. A review of the symptoms of PTSD fails to uncover any symptom of 'desecrates human bodies.' A hundred thousand other coalition soldiers managed to make it through their tours without desecrating Afghan bodies.
It was a shameful act, which should be punished to the highest extent by military law, and which wantonly places the mission and all coalition members in greater jeopardy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sml7285 wrote: |
[
Every time news of the desecration of bodies or disrespecting of religious objects is leaked to the press, there is always a spike in suicide bombers and attacks on US troops. .[/b] |
You have a link showing a direct correlation for that?
And by "direct correlation" I mean actual stats which compare and contrast with the attacks by suicide bombers and attacks on U.S troops when they don't desecrate dead bodies or disrespect religious objects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Strawmen, irrelevancies, and sheer apologism.
What is the mission in Afghanistan?
| Quote: |
| NATO-ISAF aims to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, to help provide security, and to contribute to a better future for the Afghan people. |
Desecrating enemy combatants undermines all three goals. And don't give me this PTSD garbage. A review of the symptoms of PTSD fails to uncover any symptom of 'desecrates human bodies.' A hundred thousand other coalition soldiers managed to make it through their tours without desecrating Afghan bodies.
It was a shameful act, which should be punished to the highest extent by military law, and which wantonly places the mission and all coalition members in greater jeopardy. |
Can't speak for jasonxkeller but my post was to understand the soldier's point of view and why this would happen, and to not to make moral judgements against the fighting men and women. Noone's saying guys who undermine the mission and disobey orders should not be punished. Orders are orders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jasonXkeller
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Location: Redlands, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Strawmen, irrelevancies, and sheer apologism.
What is the mission in Afghanistan?
| Quote: |
| NATO-ISAF aims to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, to help provide security, and to contribute to a better future for the Afghan people. |
Desecrating enemy combatants undermines all three goals. And don't give me this PTSD garbage. A review of the symptoms of PTSD fails to uncover any symptom of 'desecrates human bodies.' A hundred thousand other coalition soldiers managed to make it through their tours without desecrating Afghan bodies.
It was a shameful act, which should be punished to the highest extent by military law, and which wantonly places the mission and all coalition members in greater jeopardy. |
Correct, correct, and correct. My argument was hot-headed and poorly formed(at best). My PTSD argument was really a poorly placed digression. I meant only to say that the handling of human remains is extremely traumatic. It was also partly in response to @luckylady, who questions whether the military has somehow indoctrinated young men into doing things like this.
I agree with you that these are violations of the Geneva convention and contrary to the overall mission. I don't know of a direct correlation between desecration and increased attacks by insurgents, but it seems possible. When you place it in pragmatic warfighting terms rather than moral terms, I feel that you are quite right. If we were to have a dialog about how and why these things compromise the mission, I have no doubt we would fall on the same side. By all means, prosecute those who commit war crimes.
Where we differ is on the idea that the acts are "shameful" or "deplorable." Perhaps regrettable because of the consequences. Otherwise, I am not convinced that there is a moral issue at hand.
I should also say, that I don't condone this behavior. I just don't condemn it on moral grounds.
Going back to my point that may have been overlooked in my "sheer apologism"(my fault, no doubt), I really do feel that the macabre and crude humor among some service members is a defense mechanism. If they were to wake up every day with sober meditation on exactly what was happening between them and the men who are trying to kill them they would crack. I do admit that I lack psychological studies and any real facts to back this up. For that reason I am certainly open to different ideas on the "whys" of this issue. Maybe these guys are the same homophobic, low IQ, testosterone-fueled, barbarian rednecks that people would like to see them as. Personally I think there's more to the story. And I am interested in actual whys.
Also, I am suspicious of your claim that other coalition troops have not been desecrating bodies. I also question whether taking photos of one's self with body parts constitutes desecration. I'm not saying "no way:" just that it's open for debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
