You folks just need to learn to deal with it...

[markomalley]

...yup, I said it.

The photos of prisoners, civilians, and so on, getting abused, raped and murdered are simply a cost of having a powerful army, navy, and air force. We have built a capability to destroy entire landmasses, much less any form of life that exists on those landmasses. Training people to commit mayhem is a part of it. Sure, the military trains their folks in professionalism. Sure, the law of armed conflict is briefed, re-briefed, trained, tested, practiced...but we still train people to maim, kill, and destroy -- "the mission comes first" is a commonly heard saying in military circles.

The army doesn't use target circles for training their people on marksmanship -- they use a head and shoulders pattern that looks like the silhouette of a person. They have pop-up targets that look the same on their courses. Why? Because you will see a head and shoulders more often than a simple circle when you are doing it for real. The same thing in other services. Maybe somebody in the navy can verify this, but if I remember correctly, we call our ships "she/her," but call enemy ships, "it." Why? to not think about the hundreds or thousands of lives that are on that ship -- its easier to sink an "it" than a "them" or a "her."

How many of you think you could go out and kill, maim, and destroy and keep your psyche straight -- especially after a year of doing it? Should it be small wonder why some of our folks out there are going a little nuts -- and taking a few liberties with some of the enemy (the same ones that may have killed a buddy not too long ago and may have been trying to kill YOU???) I think they are doing pretty darned good out there under the circumstances...no support from home...knowing that there are cries of "baby killer" just waiting for them when they get off the plane at BWI airport...

Do you know that they deploy shrinks out there with the troops to help them cope -- a little bit of "immediate action" psychotherapy so they can keep killing??? (http://pao.hood.army.mil/4id/Iraqi/desert_news/Ironhorse%20Update-15.pdf -- look at page 5)

What is wrong with this picture? Do we not see what we are doing to our fellow citizens? How many thousands of people have been permanently scarred by war -- not just this one but any of them? When will we ever learn??? This kind of thing (rape, pillage, abuse, torture) is going to happen when we send people to kill and to die...

Thus, the subject line of my post. This is going to happen. I am not excusing it (in fact, my position is that the war criminals need to be turned over to the host nation for adjudication)...but this is going to happen. A good percentage of the country (including a lot of people right here on DU) have indicated that they want to maintain a strong military so that we can "help" when needed. So it will happen again...there may not be somebody stupid enough to document their own crimes with their own pictures...but it will happen again...proof or no proof.

This is why my personal position is that of almost a pure pacifist. We need to do away with the army and the navy and the air force. We need to trim the people and the weaponry to that which is legitimately needed to defend our borders and the seas immediately adjacent to our borders. Since we don't need to worry too much about an invasion from Canada, Mexico, or the Dominican Republic, I really don't think that those needs are very high. We need to remove the temptation that having such a force brings. Look...every president...not just the shrub, but every one of them has fallen prey to that temptation...maybe not for "combat" but for something. There has not been a single presidential administration where there wasn't some kind of deployment of troops into a hostile territory. I can think of very few of them that were actually necessary to "defend the country." Why do we need an Imperialist army???

Just remember, if you think we need one...then you'd better just learn to deal with it...

</rant>

[mopaul]

1. deal with THIS torturpologist

[markomalley]

7. "Torturpologist?"

Excuse me...but I have taken a harder line on the subject than anybody else on this board...

---

Thus, the subject line of my post. This is going to happen. I am not excusing it (in fact, my position is that the war criminals need to be turned over to the host nation for adjudication)...

---

So, how am I apologizing for torture?

(edited for grammatical correction)

[mopaul]

12. taking a few liberties with the enemy? a few liberties? c'mon mark

[markomalley]

21. Literary license...

...but I am sure there have been worse in this conflict (just the soldiers weren't stupid enough to photograph themselves doing it). And I have no question that there were worse in other conflicts.


But...it was literary license...that's all.

[sandnsea]

41. torturpologist, yes

good word. I'm stealing it.

Fuck these goddamn fuckwads. Stuff like this just does not happen because you have a strong military. Dumb, lame, stupid, horrific, no word to describe these torturpologists. Fuck them.

[Cannikin]

2. fur real, yo.

[wtmusic]

3. No army?

That's just plain naive. And no, war doesn't have to involve sadism and torture, at least on the scale we're seeing here.

I have no problem with a strong military. I do have a problem with no differentiation between fighting a war and wanton cruelty. Anyone who can't tell the difference shouldn't be in the military.

[markomalley]

6. Name me a war where there hasn't been some form of abuse...

...and I'll eat my words. I sure cannot think of one (well, maybe not the Grenada invasion...)

I am not saying that all of the soldiers are going to flip out. I am saying that there will be some in any war that won't be able to handle it.

But other wise, we need to have an imperialistic army? For what? I've asked the question before and I'll ask it now...who is a military threat to us? Who will be a military threat to us if we downsize the miltiary to a territorial defense force?

I have never gotten a straight answer on that one...maybe this time.

[wtmusic]

10. Call it a territorial defense force, if you like

but the problem with an army is not having one. It's having one and thinking you need to use it.

There was a great post earlier about how the military-industrial complex makes wars happen. There's a lot of truth to that.

[markomalley]

16. Every president has succumbed to that temptation...

...without exception. And, you are absolutely right about the military-industrial complex. There are a lot of jobs out there that could be eliminated. I don't like unemployment, but I'd be willing to deal with it in order to get rid of Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, Halliburton, and SAIC.

[mediaman007]

13. shouldn't the guys that "flip out," be the ones engaged in battle?

I can't see the prison guard feeling threatened by prisoners. I think that handling the prisoners would be a better assignment, than driving in a convoy.

[markomalley]

24. And they will have gotten less training for that than the

11B's. So, seeing mortar rounds landing in their compound every night could be considered to be a form of stress. But, the point is that the abuse happens. It happens every time. Every soldier does not flip out. But there are always those who do.

Train people to kill efficiently? Just think about it.

[babzilla]

79. all wars had abuse except for the Grenada invasion?

you must be kidding on the square.

Do tanks running over civilians in their cars ring a bell with you?

"and taking a few liberties with some of the enemy (the same ones that may have killed a buddy not too long ago and may have been trying to kill YOU???) I think they are doing pretty darned good out there under the circumstances...no support from home...knowing that there are cries of "baby killer" just waiting for them when they get off the plane at BWI airport..."

Pahleeze with the airport baby killer cries, no support from home bullshit. Oh yeah, I see that ALL the time at my local airport, not to mention the newspaper reports Mark.

Good to know that the soldiers may have been trying to kill ME???? Not to mention their buddies, which according to you happened not too long ago. That is a pretty darn good statement when you consider that your post may be more like the ravings of a lunatic than anything a soldier may attest to.

Do you honestly believe that this is going on? Don't bother to answer, it is a rhetorical question, I'm sure you know better.

[markomalley]

80. I was being charitable...

...figuring Grenada wasn't long enough for significant quantities of abuse to happen...but I'll take your word for it; it simply bolsters the original argument that this is a necessary side effect of military service. Which brings us back to the original point -- that we either should "get used to it" or take action to prevent it from possibly happening again in the future.

[leesa]

66. So you recognize that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were just

wanton cruelty. That's good!

[markomalley]

67. Yes...maybe there is hope...nt

[whistle]

4. The shrinks need to be deployed to the White House....

...to the Pentagon and to congress.

[patrick g]

9. here's my .02

i am not excusing it

to me, it sure sounds like you are mate. and just deal with it? great way to prove a point, isn't it? that translates to sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming "i'm coming home to dixie". you said what you want, and no one should say anything more, because you DON'T want to hear it. well, here is a thought mate, don't read the thread if that's the case . . .. :headbang:

[markomalley]

17. NO...

my point is that if you want a strong military...one capable of global engagement...then you better get used to the side effects. And this is one of the side effects.

Better solution...scale the military so far back that it won't be dangerous anymore.

[Blue_Roses]

29. LOL!

definite good one:D

[KissMyAsscroft]

5. You make some valid points..

But I don't think our army needs to ride an old women around like a donkey in order to "fulfill the mission"...

Especially when the "mission" is liberation.

The trick is not to have a warmongering asshole running the country and only involve ourselves in conflicts that are not pointless quagmires.

[Curious Dave]

11. KissmyAsscroft you must be a genius....

Because I agree with you 100% :)

[markomalley]

15. I don't think that abuse should be necessary either...

...but I am not in the position. Shoot, I haven't been deployed in any kind of a war zone in six years...and that was to a so-called "peacekeeping" mission.

---

The trick is not to have a warmongering asshole running the country and only involve ourselves in conflicts that are not pointless quagmires.

---

Here's the problem...as long as the ability is there, the temptation will be there too. * is not the only president to do this. He is just the current one. All of them are guilty of deploying the military into hostile territory. All of them.

[jimshoes]

8. The US needs a military

just not a bloated one that can be deployed at the whim of a CinC that speaks or listens to invisible beings.

[markomalley]

18. Yup...or when a president gets pressure to send troops to...

...(name the country)...because the media is putting pressure on him to "do something."

[nostamj]

14. fine, except this scandal is about

'civilian contractors'

and untrained troops

it's about 'war for profit' and profiteers are responsible this time.

yes, there have always been atrocities in war.

but, this 'war' is only about profit. and profiteers are responsible this time.

[markomalley]

20. You are right...

...but so was Vietnam..."a little war is good for the economy."

And what about the innocent civilians we killed in Yugoslavia during the illegal bombing of that country (the UN never authorized action in Kosovo either). And what about the innocent civilians that got killed in Panama. Or El Salvador. Or (name the country).

I agree that this one is particularly egregious -- even more so than Vietnam. But all war has that in common. Abuse. Rape. Murder. All of them. Why is it that we need to have by far the largest military in the world? To defend our borders???

[pinto]

19. We could have rebuilt Iraq the home grown way, bought our way through

it. Paid Iraqi organizations, groups, labor unions, etc. Bought them hospitals, schools and roads and let them build them, run them and determine their own future. We could have given them the money we are now spending killing people and burying our own dead to let Iraq build Iraq, post Saddam. Worst case scenario. An Islamist state with strong secular history and the memory of our assistance.

Iran should have taught us something, or at least, Britain ought to remember Mossadegh and the betrayal of Iranian democracy.

Your point about no war without atrocity is well taken. That is self evident. The bigger point is helping nations reconcile differences and negotiate for their self interests without military action.

(ed for clarity)

[madrchsod]

26. you are right

for 10+ billion or so we could have paid off saddam. then the usa contractors could have rebuilt the country,rebuilt the oil fields and gasoline would be 1+ a gallon. but because the dumb asses put george in charge the contractors are going to get 0 for their investment in george. the boys backed the wrong horse and they are losing money on the deal..i know i`d be pissed if i saw my investment go down the drain because some one fucked it up...

[mia]

32. "To win 100 fights in 100 battles is not the greatest skill,

to win without fighting at all, that is the greatest skill."

This ancient saying says it all.

[politicat]

22. No. I will not give up expecting better of people I know can perform it.

I am married to a man who served with the West Virginia National Guard. He went to Iraq in 1991.

Iraqis surrendered to his unit. His unit was in charge of dealing with these new prisoners of war.

Sure, they were handcuffed. Sure, they were separated from their weapons. But my husband and his unit treated their prisoners of war with respect, kindness, and honor. They fed these men who had been starving, helped them eliminate as needed, held their cigarettes for them and never, ever once did my husband see a single POW struck, let alone subjected to the crap that his old duty roster has been handing out. (Needless to say, he's rather ashamed to be associated with them, even separated by a decade.....) But the training for war does not automatically make a person incapable of compassion, gentle behavior, appropriate action, professionalism or loving kindness.

Personally, I am highly ambivalent about wars and armies - I far prefer the much more direct method of throwing money at a problem (and with the defense budget....:eyes: ) That said, there are times when the only option is to throw bodies and bullets at a problem. I know this is not one of those times. (If you wish to debate when those times are, I'm willing, provided we use the formal debate guidelines set up by internet infidels. ) I do believe that until every nation on this planet can live up to the code of honor that is not seen in any nation so far, we will have need of peace keeping forces. Perhaps the direction we need to go is to create an international force. But that's an ultimate goal, not an immediate one.

you said
Training people to commit mayhem is a part of it. Sure, the military trains their folks in professionalism. Sure, the law of armed conflict is briefed, re-briefed, trained, tested, practiced..

And therein lies your problem. These folks are supposed to be briefed, rebriefed, trained, tested, practiced and professional. My husband was, and his unit was at that time, during Iraq I. Things have obviously changed, and not for the better.

The fact is, the National Guard should never be sent into combat. (Training aside, they have the worst of equipment and readiness, and are in fact our protection for American soil.) This unit should not have been there. But they were, and they failed to be professionals. They betrayed their training.

And I doubt they were the only ones.

The difference between this unit and the one that it used to be? They bought into the crap about evil Ay-rabs and Eye-rackies that * spews. They let themselves be hypnotized by the right, and that didn't happen in Iraq. It happened right here.


Pcat

[stevedeshazer]

35. Wow

Great post.

[maggrwaggr]

51. yes, great post n/t

[Tinoire]

73. They're all trained this way now. Things have changed. Warrior Ethos

Our military has been totally poisoned in the last few years and it's only going to get worse. The Warrior Ethos program, designed to awaken the sleeping "inner warriors" is in its infancy.

Some kids are more impressionable than others and it really sets them off. As always, the success of the brainwashing varies per individual. The Army your husband knew and that I knew exists no more. The military is now in the hands of the Gestapo.

In 2003, they even launched a new soldiers creed that conveniently has no mention of taking any responsibility for your actions.

Soldier’s Creed

I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.

==========================

Must_B_Free (1000+ posts) Tue May-04-04 08:49 PM
Original message
The Conduct is Pervasive - it's part of the Warrior Ethos Program


Warrior Ethos, a product of Task Force Soldier, is the concept of preparing every Soldier to close with and destroy the enemy when necessary, even if it means doing it with his or her bare
hands.
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/026404.asp

-------------------------------------------------------

"The gas chamber is a beautiful place," said a smiling Sgt. 1st Class Freddie Thompson, 2nd Platoon drill sergeant. "I’ve had privates big and bad, and they’re the biggest sissies in there."

Thompson has been a drill sergeant for more than a year and is in his seventh BCT cycle. He said the gas chamber is one of the top three most memorable events for trainees in basic training, up there with the 40-foot high Treadwell Tower and qualifying with the M-16A1 rifles.

"It’s kind of along the lines of thrill-seeking," he said.

"The majority are kind of excited. It’s something you’re scared of, but it’s so scary it’s fun, and it’s so fun it’s scary."

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/031704.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

The nature of missions being conducted in Iraq right now requires Soldiers to have close contact with the civilian populace, where a lack of combatives skills can be a major concern, said Maj. Jon Segars, 3rd Brigade training and operations officer.

Soldiers are taught to dominate opponents by seizing the initiative in a fight rather than reacting to enemy attacks as most civilian self-defense courses teach.

Sgt. 1st Class Jeremy Brown, a Combatives School instructor, said the school is using feedback from Soldiers who were deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans through after-action interviews to further develop the curriculum. For example, the Soldiers felt they weren’t prepared to deal with large numbers of detainees.

The course teaches Soldiers to fight, but it also has an indirect effect on the Soldiers, he said. It also instills aggressiveness and confidence in the Soldier and embodies what Warrior Ethos represents, he said.

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/032804.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

"I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America, states the Soldiers Creed. These words will subconsciously remind Soldiers and leaders they have to be comfortable with uncertainty", Simpson said.

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/033504.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

Not interested in directing a research project, rather with getting results as quickly as they can be made available, Cloy said his office uses resources from the civilian sector as well as the military.

The future force Soldier is equipped for battle, physically but also spiritually, morally and ethically, Cloy said. This Soldier is able to accept and adapt to cultural as well as environmental differences.

"We research how to teach Soldiers what they believe in Army Values and how those values work in other countries, like Iraq. We don’t teach Soldiers that in basic training: how to deal with people who think differently," said Cloy. "The human dimension is cognitive, psychological, physiological and spiritual. It’s an attitude, a warfighter attitude. That’s why we say it’s ‘from the skin in.’"

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/036304.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

Fifty percent of Drill Sergeant School is conducted in classrooms. There, candidates must learn not only what their training must produce but what priority to give motivation to fight. Because drill sergeants train new Soldiers, the huge responsibility for creating the right mindset rests solely on their shoulders.

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/036504.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

The training has made Chan ready, he said. "The warrior in me was dormant, and it was awakened by my drill sergeants. I will fight for my country," he said.

Chan joined the Army, he said, because three of his friends and a cousin were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center Sept. 11, 2001.

"It was a horrible experience. If there was anything I could do, this was it," he said.

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/021804.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

This is a series about change.

How a 17-year-old from Nettleton, "Mis’sippi," is changed from a boy to a man in less than one-fourth the amount of time it will take for his unborn child to grow from an egg to a baby in his fiancee’s womb.

It’s about training warriors.

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/WarriorEthos/023704.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

"Three hundred thousand Soldiers are deployed right now and doing things not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the globe. It’s incredible," Schoomaker said. "And these people are operating on intent. I’ve been there, looked them in the eye. And what I recognize is what I’ve seen many, many times over: a degree of will, the ability to kill and the kinds of things we have got to be able to do on the battlefield to win."

The Army’s plan is to have Warrior Ethos totally embedded into every Soldier by Fiscal Year 2006. This includes making it part of basic and AIT for new Soldiers, and potentially part of the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation System and Officer Evaluation System as well. By implementing Warrior Ethos worldwide, the Army will enhance the warrior spirit in the world’s greatest fighting force, enabling Soldiers to be more ready to fight and win anytime, in any conditions, anywhere in the world.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1530692#1535180


Look for Kevin Byrnes and Warrior Ethos.
===================================

Must_B_Free (1000+ posts) Mon May-03-04 12:47 AM
Response to Original message

39. Here's some coincidental strategy branding regarding Fallujah

Edited on Mon May-03-04 01:43 AM by Must_B_Free
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html

Tuesday December 9, 2003

The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment, but a military planner, Brigadier General Michael Vane, mentioned the cooperation with Israel in a letter to Army magazine in July about the Iraq counter-insurgency campaign.

"We recently travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas," wrote General Vane, deputy chief of staff at the army's training and doctrine command.

"When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn't mean we blindly accept it," Col Peters said. "But I think what you're seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can't win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others, and attacks have gone down in the area."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3702655 /
Dec. 13, 2003

JERUSALEM - In fighting insurgents in Iraq, the United States is drawing on some of Israel’s methods and experiences in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including running checkpoints and tracking militants with drone aircraft, Israeli officials say.

Israeli and U.S. security experts have met repeatedly in recent months to discuss urban warfare and Israel’s lessons from its grueling three-year fight against Palestinian militants

Israeli expert predicts U.S. defeat

“They are already doing things that we have been doing for years to no avail, like demolishing buildings ... like closing off villages in barbed wire,” Van Creveld said. “The Americans are coming here to try to mimic all kinds of techniques, but it’s not going to do them any good.”

“I don’t see how on earth they (the U.S.) can win. I think this is going to end the same way Vietnam did,” Van Creveld said. “They are going to flee the country hanging on the strings of helicopters,” he added, referring to the 1973 U.S. departure from Saigon.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0929/p07s02-wome.html
September 29, 2003 edition

US eyes Israeli software as training tool for forces in Iraq

For US soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli military has developed a software program to teach junior commanders 11 "codes of conduct'' when operating among civilians - fight only those fighting you, respect the dignity of the local population, don't pillage, and so forth.

The subsequent animation tells viewers that mistreating civilians can turn them into the enemy. Another image depicts civilians who deserve to be treated with "dignity and humanity": a woman holding a child, a cleric, an elderly man, and a representative of the civil authority.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/28/stories/2004042802061600.htm
Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004
U.S. tactics in Iraq carry Israeli imprint

MANAMA, APRIL 27. In enforcing its siege around Fallujah, the U.S. has employed tactics similar to the ones that Israel has adopted against Palestinian fighters, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The U.S.-Israeli connection in this field can be traced to the April 2002 battle of Jenin in the West Bank, defence analysts say. American troops, soon after this clash, were reportedly sent for training to the mock Arab town that the Israeli Army had created in the Tzrifin area of the southern Negev Desert.

The U.S. publication Defence News has reported that in December 2003, senior Israeli military officers hosted a series of meetings involving a U.S. team headed by Gen. Kevin Byrnes, commander of the U.S. army's training and doctrine command.

------------------

Could it be possible that rekindling Americas new spirit of torture is just one of many parts of a strategy called "New Realism"?

I would almost expect "Neo Conservatives" to use "New Realism" as a coined justification for torture?

Here's where it gets really ugly:

------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1207-06.htm

Published on Sunday, December 7, 2003 by the New York Times
Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

=============================

Aries (442 posts) Sat May-08-04 11:28 AM
Response to Original message

30. Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, for one


via Josh Marshall:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002926

"...In many of the articles on this emerging Iraqi prisoners story, it has been claimed that some of the key instigators or enablers of bad acts were military intelligence officers.

Now, who's the head of military intelligence? 'Head' is too vague. There's no such post per se. But what comes pretty close is the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

And who's that? Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin.

Remember him? He's the one who got in trouble last year for describing his battle with a Muslim Somali warlord by saying "I knew that my God was bigger than his God. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol", saying President Bush was chosen by God, and generally that the war on terror is an apocalyptic struggle between Christianity and Satan...."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1553028#1554466

[theoceansnerves]

23. what?!

"Should it be small wonder why some of our folks out there are going a little nuts -- and taking a few liberties with some of the enemy (the same ones that may have killed a buddy not too long ago and may have been trying to kill YOU???) I think they are doing pretty darned good out there under the circumstances...no support from home...knowing that there are cries of "baby killer" just waiting for them when they get off the plane at BWI airport..."

a few liberties? you call what is observed in the photos "a few liberties?" what about when the rest of the photos come out, of young boys being raped, of necrophilia, of rapes with broomsticks? will that also be "a few liberties." this is the same apologetic crap being spewed by rush, hannity, et al.

i'm not even going to address the "no support from home"- that's just ludicrous.

[markomalley]

30. As I said before...

a little literary license. However, compared to abuses in the past (e.g., My Lai, being the best documented)...but, I am not excusing it (to repeat, my position is that the abusers should be turned over to the host nation for adjudication).

No support from home...yup...now that the truth of what "our boys (and girls)" do out there for kicks...not all, just a few...I think we will start to see this from some circles. Not from the DU, but from some radical groups. The next anti-war protest will undoubtedly have some signs prominently featuring some of these pictures. And it will become more prominent, the more of these stories that come out into the light of day.

[playahata1]

65. "a few liberties."

I think Mark is trying to make his point via UNDERSTATEMENT. This is a rhetorical strategy (use of irony) in which you appear to minimize the seriousness of a situation in order to illustrate how serious the situation is.

[scarletwoman]

25. I get what you're saying and I totally agree.

Too bad so many posters on this thread have such a problem with reading comprehension. :eyes:

I'd be just fine with a Department of Defense -- if it really WERE for "Defense"! But what we have is a Department of OFFENSE. The old name was "Department of War", which was much more honest and accurate.

I'm with you. Reduce the military to the bare minimum necessary to protect our country WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS ONLY. Everything beyond that is just imperialism and piracy, it's NOT defense.

General Smedley Butler had it exactly right ("War is a racket"). Eisenhower had it right too, warning us about the "military-industrial complex". We went ahead and created it anyway. And then trained people to be soulless, conscienceless killers in order to feed it.

If you are going to support an OFFENSIVE military force, then you'd best understand that what you are supporting is the training of certain members of your society to dehumanize, demonize, and brutalize whatever "enemy" the imperialists have decided to test their latest hardware on.

Warfare is nothing but organized slaughter. It brutalizes and dehumanizes ALL the participants. If you support the military machine, then, yes, you'd best learn to deal with the truth of what it does.

I am a pacifist, too.

sw

[peacetalksforall]

27. I can't deal with the hypocrisy....

We claim we are the leaders of the world....

IN WHAT!

[kaitykaity]

28. So Saddam's torture and rape rooms are just fine, too?

Because that's the chant from the Hannity crowd.

And that's the point. Don't tell the world Saddam is evil
for raping and torturing, and then come back and say it's
okay if Americans do it.

I'm not naive, I know it happens. It's a big deal now b/c
the wingnuts made it one.

[markomalley]

31. Thank you for making my point...

...it's all evil. We need to cleanse ourselves from this evil and take action to make sure IT CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN (regardless of who the president is...we need to make sure he or she can't abuse the power by not giving him or her the power).

[kaitykaity]

33. You're welcome.

I think.

I don't think pacifism has a prayer in hell's chance
of catching on. It's just not realistic. The world
is not ready to be completely demilitarized, and until
it is, we have to be ready. Being ready doesn't mean
handing the treasury over to the weapons makers either,
or letting the PNACers make defense policy.

I'm more in the Brzyzinski (sp?) camp rather than the
Chomsky camp on this one.

[markomalley]

34. Unfortunately, you are probably right...

...pacifism doesn't fit with our culture. But...I think we might be able to justify a "defense" force and not an "offense" force. And that would remove a lot of the temptation.

In our history, we built up for war...made war...and then demilitarized. After WWII, we kept the wartime strength because of a "threat" from the USSR (a threat that I believe was largely our own threat in the making). Most of us grew up with a million-man army and are used to thinking that this was the norm. It wasn't. isn't. and shouldn't be.

[kaitykaity]

37. Defensive force is good. We should also become

a real part of the international community--Kyoto, the
International Criminal Court, paying our UN dues, and so
forth. Also, we have to stop insisting that things go our
way all of time time. And we have to get out of the business
of propping up US-friendly dictators.

There's a lot wrong with the way we do things that
has to be made right.

[markomalley]

38. Absolutely! A constructive thing we should do is...

...give up our permanent membership in the UN Security Council. That would show that we are relinquishing empire...

[kaitykaity]

42. Constructive and counterproductive.

The chickenhawks and "kill other people's kids" warmongers
would have a field day with that idea.

We say we are a benevolent power in the world, we should
back that up with actions. I think it is enough to stop
exploiting developing nations' resources, stop the IMF and
World Bank cycle of debt and privatization, to start with.
We have to keep our power, just use it better.

[markomalley]

43. We will just have to agree to disagree...

...I have seen far too much history to think that we can "benevolently" use it. I can think of no president who has not deployed troops to hostile environments (none at least since WWII). A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. A kind and thoughtful empire is still an empire. If there is power available for abuse it will be abused.

[kaitykaity]

44. I thought we were discussing. Having fun, too.

Not all powerful governments fall to the temptations of
empire. And not all governments are dictatorships.
Power is power, and it goes where it's captured. The money
will still be there, too. The need to feed people, keep the
lights and heat on, and move the economy, will still be there.
If we give up the power, someone else will take it. I would
rather have it and be able to have a voice in how it is used.
We have to define better on whose behalf we are exercising it.
And acknowledge and try to protect the people we could hurt if
we weren't paying attention (like now).

[markomalley]

45. You and I are talking two different things...

...I am strictly referring to military and diplomatic power. The power to force our will on other countries. The power to veto a resolution that is clearly favored by the entire world. The power that we have abused. If you want to talk about the power of economics, the power of ideas, the power of doing the right thing...if you are talking about that, I'm there with you. But you don't need a million men under arms to accomplish that. You don't need the power to turn the entire northern hemisphere into a sheet of volcanic glass to accomplish that. You need to be able to lead...not bully.

[kaitykaity]

46. Can Americans live the way that we live and

have the things that we have without the military and
diplomatic power that we have? I don't think you can
neatly separate our economic might from our military and
diplomatic standing. They reinforce each other.

Those questions go to the sustainability of this consumer-
based economy. I have my doubts about that, and I have a
feeling that the military and diplomatic power we have abused
so far will be put to even more barbarous uses as the basis
for our lifestyle, petroleum, becomes less and less available.

In an ideal world, you would be right. I think the first
step is to change regimes and have a real leader in place,
someone who can go to the world and apologize for the Bush
abberation. Then we would go from there.

[markomalley]

49. Maybe we need to change our way of thinking and our way of living.

Maybe we need to treat other countries with the dignity we'd like to be given. Maybe we need to take the first step. Maybe instead of wasting billions on armaments we could waste millions on education, millions on research to figure out a better way to power our economy, and millions on undoing some of the damage we've done around the world.

Maybe we have to reach for the idealistic world...because look at what compromise has wrought...

[kaitykaity]

52. Pragmatic treachery undoes idealism every time.

(That's a variation on the old age and treachery and youth
and idealism phrase.)

I try to be optimistic, but it's hard. I want to be idealistic,
but I'm too old for it.

I completely agree that our priorities are completely out of
whack, and that if we redirected our resources, no one on
the earth would be hungry, be uneducated, or die from preventable
disease.

Do you think we can fix the global power system from within,
or will things get so bad that the scrapping is done for us
in the form of some kind of global holocaust?

How do you undo a system that works nonstop to protect itself?
That has it's fingers on all of the levers of power, so that
the big fish eat the little fish, until all that's left are
big fish. Then what? The whole system is set up not to monitor
it's own behavior but to protect itself from internal and external
threat.

It will take some big players to come together and agree that
the Bush administration has to go. That they are doing the
big fish more harm than good. Once that happens, and it will,
Bush is sunk.

It is in that moment that your vision has a chance. A small
one.

[markomalley]

60. Honestly, I don't think that eliminating the * administration will do...

...anything of substance. It goes deeper than that. When 50% (+ or -) of the American public supports him, that shows a deep sickness in the public that has to be dealt with. Our priorities are out of whack. The basic way we think as a country is simply wrong. If you want an explanation, see: http://www.catholicworker.org . We still have the fundamental greed and lust in our hearts that will cause us to accept this type of arrogance one way or another -- its not just * (although he is the most egregious example of this), it will exist even if Kerry is in office. A man like Kucinich is more closely aligned to the ideal I look for, but look at how he got blown away in the primaries -- he had no chance of winning.

How to undo it? I don't know. The temptations of a materialistic lifestyle are very lucrative. A message of voluntary sacrifice (not state-sponsored, but voluntary mind you) is a hard message to realize. Not many of us have the wisdom of Soloman to get it all and then realize how empty it is (see Ecclesiastes for details). We don't get much encouragement from the pulpit -- they are either greedy, self-serving bastards themselves or, if they do understand, don't have the chutzpah to say what they think...

You know, when I lived in the ME, I had a lot of friends from all economic strata. The poor ones had little but would give the shirts off their backs. They had barely enough food to feed themselves, but would make sacrifices to treat their guests well. The culture was different over there. Maybe there is something that we could learn from that -- not the entire culture, but maybe that one aspect of it.

[kaitykaity]

Now you're talking about basic human nature.

I think you're further on the road to enlightenment than
I am. I could go into my reasons for absolutely detesting
organized Christianity, but I think you're on the same page
with me.

But they way we think as a country is influenced by our
media, and our media is in the back pockets of the oligarchs
who directly benefit from a frightened, overly-militarized
population.

They've been keeping the public dumb, fat, and happy for twenty
years, and now that they've succeeded in numbing us into
complacency, they think they can do away with the need to keep us
dumb, fat, and happy.

They forget it is the pain of the masses that starts
revolutions.

There is a psychic sickness in consumerism, and the need
for more and more stuff. But that's another conversation.

[markomalley]

72. Read some of these documents...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1565414

http://www.catholicworker.org

all of Christianity is not that bad...

[kaitykaity]

82. I know that.

That's why I inserted the qualifier. I love with all my
heart Christians who walk the walk--worship in private,
help the less fortunate, behave in private the way they
behave in public.

But I find it obscene that a faith that was founded on
helping our fellow humans has devolved into cathedrals
glittering with gold, and the acceptance of judgmental
assholes who think their way is the only way who are
willing to kill all 'others' who do not share their
beliefs.

Agnosticism is as far as I'm willing to go.

[markomalley]

83. Believe it or not, I understand completely what you're saying...

...as I have a lot of problem seeing so-called ministers driving around in brand new caddies or jags; wearing Christian Dior suits, etc.

[Beaker]

36. the military is about more than just protecting our borders.

there treaties, trade routes, shipping lanes and many other things that come into consideration.

but yes, it is a big bloated mess that needs some reigning in.

[JimT]

39. I understand what you are saying...

I understand what you are saying, but much of the anger is that the military brass ever let it get that out of hand. Having a strong military doesn't mean letting soldiers deal with their psychoses by taking it out on prisoners. Any system in place, if there was one, obviously failed. Leading us also to be angry with BushCo for running his precious war so poorly.

[markomalley]

40. Its not just bushco...

...it is a lot deeper than that. He didn't invent imperialism (didn't have the brains to do so). This is a common sickness with any case of imperialism and an expeditionary army. We need to cure the sickness, not just lance the particular infected boil that is giving us grief at this moment...

[maggrwaggr]

47. I think that's a pathetically cynical outlook that guarantees failure

I'm not sure why you'd want an outlook on life that is guaranteed to fail but you might want to talk to a shrink about that.

That's like saying you should never get married because so many spouses abuse each other, or most marriages end in divorce. Or you shouldn't have kids because "look at the world we're bringing them into".

I grew up in the military, as the son of an army officer, so I sure as hell don't have any rose-colored glasses about any of it. But I know that yes, soldiers are trained to kill and to destroy. And you can expect people to do just about damn near anything in the HEAT OF BATTLE.

Being a guard in a prison is not in the heat of battle.

My take on the whole thing is that our soldiers were told from the very beginning the following:

That the Iraqis were to blame for 9/11.

That all the Iraqis are "terrorists".

"Terrorists" have no rights and are scum and we're sending them to Guantanamo, throwing away the key, and fuck them all.

So since they're terrorists, and they have no rights, and they're responsible for 9/11, let's FUCK WITH THEM.

[markomalley]

48. And that just validates what I'm saying...

...and I spent a full 20 year career as a grunt. And I finally came to my senses when I was building target folders for Kosovo. When I finally realized that we were committing war crimes over there...it caused me to think about it.

As a result I am a full fledged pacifist to this day. And I realize that the only way to solve the problem is to restructure the miltiary so that the only way it can function is in a terrotorial defnse capacity. Otherwise it will be abused again and again and again -- resulting in the death and dismemberment of more and more innocents.

[maggrwaggr]

50. Okay, I'm confused as to whether you're an idealist or a cynic

or maybe it's two sides of the same coin.

What I do know is that somebody, somewhere, has to think outside of what is "realistic" and .... well, to dream.

To make dreams reality is what we call progress. Unless you're George Bush and Dick Cheney, in which case you dream of war and mayhem and destruction.

Their dreams HAVE come true. And it's ruinous for all of us.

So fine, call me the negative one. Maybe I am. Hell if I have any answers to a lot of this stuff.

[markomalley]

61. Its deeper than that...

...remember, some good democrats (truman, kennedy, johnson) have gotten us mixed up in some pretty messed up military affairs, as well. The problem, imho, is a deep systematic illness within our society that needs to be cured...simply dealing with the symptoms (the current one being the shrub and his weeds), will not solve the problem. We need to cure the illness, or the symptoms will keep coming back.

Idealist? No -- I don't think it will ever happen, but it must.
Cynic? Maybe a little...but I can still hope, can't I?

[Tinoire]

53. Welcome to DU

You have plenty of company. There are many veterans here and more are speaking out.

[markomalley]

62. Thank you for the warm welcome...

it is sincerely appreciated.

[Tinoire]

69. I read your other posts

It's pretty clear you're an ex-soldier in angst. I wish, as an old soldier, that I could do more than just welcome you here.

Just hang tight ok? You're not alone.

You & I may come to minor/moderate disagreements later on down the road but the vet circle here is growing and talking and hanging TIGHT.

Are you, by any chance a Vet For Peace? Check them out- lots of like-minded people there and we would be happy to welcome you.

Welcome :toast: soldier. You can finally lay down your arms...

[markomalley]

71. Thanks again...

...but no angst here. I have reconciled to what I have done and what I continue to do. I have grown a little and grown up a lot. If you want a synopsis of my beliefs on the subject, please read the following: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1565414

[LibertyorDeath]

54. WTF

"and taking a few liberties with some of the enemy"the same ones that may have killed a buddy not too long ago and may have been trying to kill YOU???) I think they are doing pretty darned good out there under the circumstances "

You can dress this post up anyway you want but this is where it's at for you.

Where to begin..

No Soup For You....Ever!!!!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

55. Its real fuckin' simple: FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

You're way fucking off base.

[mr blur]

56. I don't think markomalley is apologising for anything...

and I think this is the smartest thing I've read for a long time:

<quote>We need to do away with the army and the navy and the air force. We need to trim the people and the weaponry to that which is legitimately needed to defend our borders and the seas immediately adjacent to our borders. Since we don't need to worry too much about an invasion from Canada, Mexico, or the Dominican Republic, I really don't think that those needs are very high. We need to remove the temptation that having such a force brings. Look...every president...not just the shrub, but every one of them has fallen prey to that temptation...maybe not for "combat" but for something. There has not been a single presidential administration where there wasn't some kind of deployment of troops into a hostile territory. I can think of very few of them that were actually necessary to "defend the country." Why do we need an Imperialist army??? </quote>

Of course, it will never happen - anywhere.

[BeFree]

58. It has happened

Many an army has been destroyed with the result being that imperialist intentions were eliminated. So don't say it can't happen.

It's nice to finally see someone else, mark, in this case, say what I have been saying for sometime now. "If we don't have a huge military, we can't invade". You want to end war? Then help put an end to war making machinery and the troops necessary for war making.

Really, it is quite that simple.

[rucky]

59. agree.... and to expand

a more realistic scenario (if anybody would accept it) would be TWO military branches that basically amount to a War Corps (defense/killing) and a Peace Corps (expansion of current program to include humanitarian missions in "hostile" territory.

If we had sent the Peace Corps in (or even let in the Red Cross) a year ago - instead of keeping in our invading forces - I think the outcome would be very different.

Would you be more or less likely to go to Iraq if it were a Peace Corps mission?

[0rganism]

57. circular vs. human-shaped training targets

I recall a History Channel ("all Hitler, all the time") program about the infantry in WW2, how a fairly large percentage of the conscripts couldn't bring themselves to shoot directly at the enemy. They'd intentionally miss, or not be able to fire at all. Most of the small-arms kills were made by relatively few people.

During the Korean (or maybe it was Vietnam?) war, the Army anthropomorphized the targets used in basic training, and pretty soon everyone was used to the idea of shooting people. Result? A much more even distribution of kills. Great idea, from the standpoint of generating an army of willing killers.

Now, of course, we've taken it one step further. We have video game indoctrination for youngsters. There was a school shooting back in the mid '90s where the police were absolutely amazed, because the kid with the pistol distributed a bunch of very accurate head shots and killed half a dozen schoolmates. Most of the time, aggravated murderers will pump half the clip into a single person, but this kid was efficient -- one or two bullets to a victim, fast and accurate. That there's FPS training, no question. No surprise, then, that the military's invested a lot of money into putting out some extremely realistic FPS tactical combat games. These days, by the time a kid enlists, chances are that he's already had some valuable training in the idea of killing people efficiently.

Not that we'd need this incredible military machine, if our only goal was Defense. And that's exactly why we'll always have to be invading, or "peace keeping", or enforcing sanctions somewhere: how else can the Defense Contractors get paid untold billions of dollars? When you add it all up, and count payments on the national debt accrued due to military expenditures as a percentage of total annual defecits, more than half our federal budget is paying for war. That means there's dozens of companies like Lockheed-Martin at the other end of the money stream, counting on taxpayer-funded subsidies to bring in the billions. For these guys, a few million spent on pushing pro-war candidates isn't an ideological move, it's a fucking investment.

[markomalley]

63. And that's why an "electable" candidate will never be a ...

...pacifist. We have too much "reality" to envision doing things as a country without the implicit threat of bullying.

[indigobusiness]

64. They call it HUMANITY for a reason...

There are zoos for the less than human.

[kalian]

68. Excuse me?!

:wtf:

You sir, sound like a friggin apologists for the SS Gestapo.
And what the hell are you talking about when you mention a "strong
military"? For invading and occupying third world nations?!

Get your head out of your ass. :mad:

[markomalley]

70. WTF are you talking about???

Did you not read my post:

---

Thus, the subject line of my post. This is going to happen. I am not excusing it (in fact, my position is that the war criminals need to be turned over to the host nation for adjudication)...but this is going to happen. A good percentage of the country (including a lot of people right here on DU) have indicated that they want to maintain a strong military so that we can "help" when needed. So it will happen again...there may not be somebody stupid enough to document their own crimes with their own pictures...but it will happen again...proof or no proof.

This is why my personal position is that of almost a pure pacifist. We need to do away with the army and the navy and the air force. We need to trim the people and the weaponry to that which is legitimately needed to defend our borders and the seas immediately adjacent to our borders. Since we don't need to worry too much about an invasion from Canada, Mexico, or the Dominican Republic, I really don't think that those needs are very high. We need to remove the temptation that having such a force brings. Look...every president...not just the shrub, but every one of them has fallen prey to that temptation...maybe not for "combat" but for something. There has not been a single presidential administration where there wasn't some kind of deployment of troops into a hostile territory. I can think of very few of them that were actually necessary to "defend the country." Why do we need an Imperialist army???

---

Does that sound like somebody who is an apologist?

My point is that if you like maintaining an imperialist army, you better get used to seeing more and more of this stuff. (The obvoius solution is to get rid of the imperialist army)

[Tinoire]

74. Not just shrinks but chaplains

That was my pet beef- chaplains deploying with the troops to tell them that it's ok to kill, to calm their consciences and send them back to kill one for Jesus. Not to use a broad brush but the Fundamentalist chaplains were the WORST- some of them actually bitching because they weren't supposed to carry firearms because they wanted to be right there with the troops and lob a few off for God. Urgh.

The whole thing is calculated to keep the soldiers from turning away in disgust.

[markomalley]

75. I knew a couple of chaplains that were jump qualified...

...I even knew a few that were former rangers -- got out, studied at the seminary, and came back in...

When I really awoke spiritually, I found a belief in the teachings of Christ to be incompatible with military service. I know not everybody does...not even all Catholics...but for me, life as a grunt and life as a Catholic were irreconcilable.

I don't understand how a full time minister could do it.

[Tinoire]

78. I never could either.

Really glad to have you aboard.

[bigtree]

76. We spend too much time and money on war

We have a State dept. that is a mere PR office for the Defense Dept.'s war machine. If they worked for peace as hard as they shilled for war we might have a chance of avoiding the perpetual war that Bush and his cronies have committed us to.

With every pursuit there is some sacrifice, but peaceful actions often lead to more peace, preparations for war often encourage the adoption of more militarism and more war.

We need to value and support the actions and mechanisms of peace and encourage only peace in the absense of a clear threat to the nation or our allies. All of our efforts should be to avoid war. All of our actions should be to avoid more war. Instead, we are perpetuating conflicts in the name of preserving our militaristic posture around the world.

Is it best to arm ourselves, and the world to follow, with the hollow reasoning of keeping up with perceived threats to our ‘security’; or is it more reasonable and more practical to reach out to the world diplomatically, to lessen the animosity toward America that our military interventions have engendered?

Our aggression resigns the nation to a perpetual global threat against the United States and our interests. Diplomacy provides hope that the killing among all countries would end, by the force of our collective resolve; not at the point of a weapon. We should turn our efforts away from preparing for war, and spend as much effort in actions to prevent it, through the U.N., the Red Cross, and every other instigation of peace and aid we can muster.

Me Book

[markomalley]

77. Modern diplomacy...

...is better because of a lack of destruction. But it still attempts to take the advantage over the opponent and relies, in many cases, upon a threat of action (either military or economic).

A different line -- an honest one -- is what is needed.

[indigo32]

81. Ya know in a sense you are right

I will never sit quietly and deal with it. But as my mother has said in discussions regarding this... what the hell do we think war is? Damn. That is why I fought so hard to stop this in the first place. Lets not pretty it up. Lets end it.

[markomalley]

84. But you're not one who...

...is saying "we need a big/ strong/ tough military" so that we can (fill in the blank), are you?