AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → US soldiers out of control?

206 50451
DSM
offline
DSM
1,303 posts
Nomad

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/13/us/video-marines-urinating/index.html?hpt=ias_c1

I want to hear your opinions about this. So far in the original video, there is only supportive people about this. After my opinion this is inhuman.

  • 206 Replies
Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

No. What I meant to say is that we are increasingly made aware of such excesses in war, which might bring in public opinion to the fore. As it is, I don't think this was the only case in the media reported since the past year.


We're becoming more aware of it as it happens (or as near as) but we've always been aware of it. Unfortunately, right or wrong, it is part of war and always will be. Being aware of it will not stop it happening, the soldiers simply won't film it in future. Then there will be no proof.

The only reason we don't see what the Talibans do to the dead American soldiers is because they don't film it, and even if they did, the way the Taliban are portrayed as being barbaric religious freaks who live as if they were in the middle ages, it wouldn't have the same shock factor as when the Americans do it.

I realise reading back my previous posts on this subject that I may appear to be lacking an emotional response to the act on the video, but if you look at the link I posted up, there are disturbing images of war that haven't been edited like the OP video link. War is disgusting, it is disturbing and it is all inhuman.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Eh, kick 'em out of the army or navy or whatever and have a coupla buckets of urine chucked over them on the way out, eye for an eye and all that.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

right or wrong, it is part of war and always will be.

Quotes like this is what disgusts me more than anything. The acceptance of such acts with no real reason to clarify it as an "irreversible" standard at which soldiers operate on. There is a difference between fighting the enemy and humiliating them. Is it a demoralization? Especially in the case against religious fanatics, it would only fuel their desire to strike vengeance, and whilst they've slunk into killing civilians, using guerrilla tactics and likely doing far worse to the remains of our men, it, as agreed by most, should not be done by us as a result.

Whether you agree with that or not, your apparent "tough luck" attitude only contributes to the alternative, which is a negative effect on all of us.

Do not use it, it is not physically impossible to have an alternate reality to that which you already pose towards us, as a result, if it is a better one, it should be strived for. That is a common belief I hold in an attempt to make better people, and a better world -- it's optimistic, of course, but why change views and accept one's flaws when you know you can change? "Nobodies' perfect", "It's the way it is", and the like, are all invalid, under this simple and reasonable philosophy.

and have a coupla buckets of urine chucked over them on the way out, eye for an eye and all that.

I would actually respect the idea of other marines doing that, in the sense of them knowing it was wrong and the idea of having "your side" condemning your actions. Eye for an eye genuinely doesn't work (I believe in a harsher punishment for the initial offender, in most scenarios) in that sense, and the idea of having your own allies' disgust shed on you is not a nice thought, at all.

- H
Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

Quotes like this is what disgusts me more than anything. The acceptance of such acts with no real reason to clarify it as an "irreversible" standard at which soldiers operate on.


I apologise for disgusting you, but it is a matter of fact, not an opinion or a judgement. If you have an answer to why men have behaved like this through every documented conflict throughout history, I'm all ears.

Whether you agree with that or not, your apparent "tough luck" attitude only contributes to the alternative, which is a negative effect on all of us.


At what point did I infer 'tough luck'? You've read it like that and started a rant with your assumptions.

Do not use it, it is not physically impossible to have an alternate reality to that which you already pose towards us, as a result, if it is a better one, it should be strived for. That is a common belief I hold in an attempt to make better people, and a better world -- it's optimistic, of course, but why change views and accept one's flaws when you know you can change? "Nobodies' perfect", "It's the way it is", and the like, are all invalid, under this simple and reasonable philosophy.


So your general whine is that you wish to berate me for stating facts, but can offer no viable alternative or course of action? Well done, have a biscuit.

I would actually respect the idea of other marines doing that, in the sense of them knowing it was wrong and the idea of having "your side" condemning your actions.


You're a hypocrite as well as a fantasist. You have the nerve to criticise someone else and call them disgusting for stating the facts of what soldiers do in a combat zone, yet rather than understand it or come up with any real solution, you'd happily promote the continuation of humiliation that only a moment ago you found 'disgusting'.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

If you have an answer to why men have behaved like this through every documented conflict throughout history, I'm all ears.

It is not a confirmation that this will recur throughout every future conflict.

Unless of course, you can prove otherwise.

At what point did I infer 'tough luck'?

Perhaps "tough luck" sounds more harsh, but it's far from me reading it like such and starting a rant based on that -- you are saying, quite simply, that it won't change, "tough luck" implies the same. I was basing on the scarcely cynical (in the sense that you don't seem to strive for enhancement by shedding flaws) attitude you seemed to hold.

Is that more clear?

but can offer no viable alternative or course of action?

Is there a need for alternatives or courses of action? We're talking about the desecration of corpses, are you implying, and can you prove that there needs to be a substitute?

You're a hypocrite as well as a fantasist.

A fantasist? Sure, probably. I aim high -- I know that, I'm also very well aware that the chances of any of what I say actually happening, especially in my lifetime, is minimal.
Should THAT stop me from trying, and should that stop you, or justify your attitude? Not really.

You have the nerve to criticise someone else and call them disgusting for stating the facts of what soldiers do in a combat zone,

I know they do that in a combat zone -- that was not what I was questioning. It was that you said it will continue, and that your attitude implies, as said in my first statement:
"to clarify it as an "irreversible" standard at which soldiers operate on."

yet rather than understand it or come up with any real solution,

I am very, VERY far off from understanding the trauma and pain soldiers go through -- but I know that I won't understand it until I go through it myself. Moreso, I have philosophically developed on a very large scale which is an advantage I've been given that others do not have, so even if I were to go into war, there is doubt I will still be able to understand that.
I do not understand, or feel that many "injust" actions of soldiers are justified, because of what they've been through -- I rather not question it.
But this? Actions like this, or more severe / physical / harmful to others is something I will not brush under the cover.

you'd happily promote the continuation of humiliation that only a moment ago you found 'disgusting'.

To those that did it in the first place.
Do I agree with cold blood murder? Of course not. Do I agree with the murderer (being proven to be the murderer) being killed? Definitely.

"An eye for an eye" is not a philosophy I commonly associate myself with, as said in my previous post, I would prefer an even more "harsh" punishment be exacted upon the offender. To the point where killing an innocent being is immoral is far away from killing a cold blooded killer. There are ways to specify moral values that makes it justified, and the humiliation of people who desecrated on corpses with urine, is far different from the original act. Infact, it's usually the "original" act that is the immoral one.

Tell me, at which point do you soldiers who did this deserve any better, and why?

- H
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

If you have an answer to why men have behaved like this through every documented conflict throughout history,


well not every but the sweden vikings used to cut of all the enemies heads. they take out the inside of the skull. and fill the holes whit clay. then they fill it some sort of fuel.
now the next time they go in batlle whit these enemies. (even if it was just a random town) they 1st siege these burning heads to the eenmy to scare them befor battle so their moral drops by seeing their own peoples cut off burning heads. and the town is burning causing chaos.

there was a good reason for them to do this. it was part of the tactics.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

And people wonder why america is most hated nation,
have had there been some hot heads in talibans, they will retaliate with all there might.

Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

It is not a confirmation that this will recur throughout every future conflict.

Unless of course, you can prove otherwise.


Like it or loathe it, it is human nature. Do you think this is an isolated incident? Do you really believe this is the worst thing that is going on over there right now?

Perhaps "tough luck" sounds more harsh, but it's far from me reading it like such and starting a rant based on that -- you are saying, quite simply, that it won't change, "tough luck" implies the same. I was basing on the scarcely cynical (in the sense that you don't seem to strive for enhancement by shedding flaws) attitude you seemed to hold.

Is that more clear?


No, simply because you're pretending to know my intent without the common courtesy of asking. Key phrase:

attitude you seemed to hold.


You've made an assumption. You've attempted to claim the moral high ground based on your own thoughts on what you think I was saying.

Is there a need for alternatives or courses of action? We're talking about the desecration of corpses, are you implying, and can you prove that there needs to be a substitute?


Can you prove there are no alternatives or courses of action?

A fantasist? Sure, probably. I aim high -- I know that, I'm also very well aware that the chances of any of what I say actually happening, especially in my lifetime, is minimal.
Should THAT stop me from trying, and should that stop you, or justify your attitude? Not really.


Again, assumption of my attitude. Are you really so arrogant to presume you know it all?

I know they do that in a combat zone -- that was not what I was questioning. It was that you said it will continue, and that your attitude implies, as said in my first statement:
"to clarify it as an "irreversible" standard at which soldiers operate on."


I made a statement of fact based on human nature, so yes, it will continue, unless you have a valid suggestion how human nature can be changed.

I am very, VERY far off from understanding the trauma and pain soldiers go through -- but I know that I won't understand it until I go through it myself. Moreso, I have philosophically developed on a very large scale which is an advantage I've been given that others do not have, so even if I were to go into war, there is doubt I will still be able to understand that.
I do not understand, or feel that many "injust" actions of soldiers are justified, because of what they've been through -- I rather not question it.
But this? Actions like this, or more severe / physical / harmful to others is something I will not brush under the cover.


I, on the other hand, do understand it. You've made the assumption that I'm expressing an opinion rather than considering I may well be speaking from experience. I don't condone it, but I understand it.

To those that did it in the first place.
Do I agree with cold blood murder? Of course not. Do I agree with the murderer (being proven to be the murderer) being killed? Definitely.


You're a hypocrite then. No better than the soldiers you're so disgusted with.

Tell me, at which point do you soldiers who did this deserve any better, and why?


The evidence should be submitted to an international court who can then make an informed judgement based on the evidence on whether what they did constitutes a war crime. If they are found guilty, they should be stripped of rank, dishonourably discharged and then sentenced to an appropriate term of incarceration.

They are soldiers, not animals. They've done something disgusting and vile, but they are still soldiers and should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

But good luck with your idea, you obviously have no clue about the military or you wouldn't have been daft enough to suggest that other soldiers would even consider throwing urine over soldiers who have risked their lives in a combat zone.

The soldiers in the video have done something wrong, but it that one act doesn't discount everything else they have ever done. They will be punished for what they've done in accordance with the law.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

And people wonder why america is most hated nation,
have had there been some hot heads in talibans, they will retaliate with all there might.


you have the audacity to claim that AMERICAN SOLDIERS are the evil ones, and then not take heed of all of the terrible things the taliban has done? how...hypocritical of you. you know nothing, except for the "I hate america" drivle that is shoved down your throat by your uninformed circle of friends and family. our soldiers are treated terribly over there, and you're saying that the taliban can justify their inhumane dealings of our men? how dare you.

-Blade
Dewi1066
offline
Dewi1066
539 posts
Nomad

well not every but the sweden vikings used to cut of all the enemies heads. they take out the inside of the skull. and fill the holes whit clay. then they fill it some sort of fuel.


Yes every, every documented conflict. I'm not linking to every single one PD, you're going to have to do the Googling yourself, but every documented conflict has soldiers doing some unspeakable thing to another soldier under the banner of war.

Start with the Korean war, what the North Koreans did to the American soldiers when they got their hands on them (dead or alive). Then look at the treatment of the dead by the Japanese, but do this before you see their treatment of living soldiers because you may vomit. WW2, there are too many instances to mention, but actions by the British, the Americans, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians, the Russians, the Australians... in fact pretty much every nation involved in the conflict.

It may not be palatable, but the only thing rare about this case is that they've filmed it.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Like it or loathe it, it is human nature.

One moment please, grabbing a quote from myself earlier in another topic.

Before this quote you stated it a possibility of human nature. For your sake, don't try and protect your inability to control yourself (yes, that's supposed to sound blunt) with a generalized judgement on humanity. Learn to develop your actions based on what you think is the most logical / reasonable, where that fuels your discipline. It is much easier if you're able to tell yourself to shut up and do what you know is right, especially.

That just about sums it up.

No, simply because you're pretending to know my intent without the common courtesy of asking.

What other message do you send, can you send, with what you said? What was you actually trying to say then?

You've made an assumption.

An educated guess.

You've attempted to claim the moral high ground based on your own thoughts on what you think I was saying.

We would both benefit at this point if you would actually tell me what you was saying. At which point do you think I could've interpreted differently? At which point do you appear to hold a sufficiently different perspective?
At which point was it even you I was paying reference to?

Quotes like this is what disgusts me more than anything.

It is the ideology that it shows. Nothing more.

Can you prove there are no alternatives or courses of action?

Can you explain the need for the initial act? There is no need to provide alternatives when there is no need for the thing you're doing it for.

Again, assumption of my attitude. Are you really so arrogant to presume you know it all?

Derived from what you have said. Care to actually explain yourself instead of going on a direct offensive against myself?
Quote, from unknown (on my profile):
"What matters is not the source, nor the presentation - but the point."

Continue to throw rubbish at me if you will, but at this point of time you only appear to be doing just that.

Arrogant? Yes.
Know it all? I know for a fact that is not the case.

I made a statement of fact based on human nature,

Based on what, exactly?

I'll try not to tread on this argument too much, I've been in positions where I've found it difficult to articulate something in an effective way, although I understand my point and its viability entirely... but, also -- what I said in a previous post, that I did quote earlier (I'll wait on reposting it to see if you've already responded to it later in your post).

so yes, it will continue, unless you have a valid suggestion how human nature can be changed.

Logic and reason. Human actions can very well be determined by their perception, and I am a testament to being able to form perception -- of course this is secondary and unreliable evidence to you, but surely you've examples of being able to see things in different ways?

I, on the other hand, do understand it.

I would appreciate if you could elaborate.

You've made the assumption that I'm expressing an opinion rather than considering I may well be speaking from experience.

I speak philosophically as well as on an empirical degree -- because reason can easily outweigh experience, and your form of experience can not possibly be founded by fact other than that of human nature, which can be changed.
Precisely why I dislike arguments based on experience, it's too easily biased -- does that stand for you? I don't know, yet.

You're a hypocrite then. No better than the soldiers you're so disgusted with.

I recommend you stop passing statements and not justifying them... I'll repost what I said earlier based on this example (which you apparently quote-mined):
There are ways to specify moral values that makes it justified,

Being as morality is primarily based on subjectivity or measurements, founded by logic and facts... this makes sense if done properly. It's a difficult subject that could quite easily be made into its own thread.

If they are found guilty, they should be stripped of rank, dishonourably discharged and then sentenced to an appropriate term of incarceration.

A suiting sentence. A more formal and a formidably more civilized one at that -- I would enjoy to see the same punishment introduced to the offenders as the offense itself, in a lot of scenarios. Would the "eye for an eye" system work in this way? The admittedly uncivilized treatment bares no real punishment in itself, where it's primarily psychological... and thus why I find a custodial sentence more fitting...

They are soldiers, not animals. They've done something disgusting and vile, but they are still soldiers and should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

We all follow under the Kingdom Animalia, by the way-- you're talking about intelligence, I would think. So think about it: relatively very intelligent animals who behave with such dishonor and etc, what makes them better than an "animal" when you consider that they're so much more capable? This is a good tangent we should follow (and of course I am not saying they should be put into a zoo and the like).

You can often see acts of kindness, mercy or blatant care from animals, particularly dogs -- all you need do is check YouTube, so it would, in a sense be wise to tread lightly on this topic when considering that we are supposed to be equally or moreso capable.

you obviously have no clue about the military or you wouldn't have been daft enough to suggest that other soldiers would even consider throwing urine over soldiers who have risked their lives in a combat zone.

Suggested in a serious sense, as if it would happen? No. How could it? Formalities are always introduced and there would be little to change that -- and there shouldn't be anything to change that in order to maintain consistency (as is with many points of law). Hypothetically, it would be a suiting punishment.

but it that one act doesn't discount everything else they have ever done.

... Please elaborate, I know it does not discount what they have ever done... but are you saying it provides an excusal or something?
Please elaborate.

They will be punished for what they've done in accordance with the law.

Which is preferable. Vigilantism or any other form of punishment against the soldiers who did this would in its own sense by a form of hypocrisy, it would deny decency in itself. Especially if they're not given the possibility of trial.

- H
LucasDaLegend
offline
LucasDaLegend
1,066 posts
Nomad

I have been following this whole conversation and i am going to have to clarify that i completely agree with Dewi1066. Just because someone has actually got evidence of them doing this, doesn't mean we know that the talibans dare completely innocent. For all we know, they could be doing things that are ten times worse. If you think about being away from any family for months possibly also years, i would imagine that they honestly wouldn't care about them. A soldiers job is to terminate their enemy. If you were in the position that they were in were you were merely lasting on food considering the body type you are and every single day you get ****ing bullets over your head then you would want them to feel what they felt.
1) Destroying the Twin Towers wasn't such a good idea in the first place.
2) Imagine the conditions that they were living in. Away from home for all that time but you were also being permantley attacked. Every night you go to sleep with the same fright. Those men out there protecting you whilst you sleep are the same men that fight with you. The army learn to work as a force and in groups, rather than individually.

If you knew what conditions they went through, perhaps many of you wouldn't have been so careless. I would love to see that news lady go to Afghanistan and experience it.

I would understand this 'Big Deal' if it was occuring on the streets or in your home country but if, as it happens, is to be in a country that is, at this time and era, represented by war and disgrace you wouldn't exactly give them a smile. I understand that the civilians of that country have done nothing wrong at all but i wish that every single taliban perishes.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/07/14/taliban_posing.jpg

Bringing up a major clan which is hated by the public but adored by the racist - Ku Klux Klan. Both taliban and KKK are mass murderes. One is based in USA where the other is based in Afghanistan and some of Pakistan. Both of them are racist in different ways.
KKK: Racist to colours.
Taliban: Racist to a particular country's people.

http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/anti-semitism2.gif

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

and you're saying that the taliban can justify their inhumane dealings of our men? how dare you.

That honestly sounds very far from what he was trying to say. The point he seemed to be blatantly putting out there was that were the enemy to do the same as what the American soldiers did, then the form of retaliation would be much worse.
I'm not speaking for his point -- I'm not even entirely sure what it is, but I'm just saying you seem to jump quite far in assumptions.

As for documentations of what has happened -- that still does not boast the point of accepting future instances. As you undoubtedly hinted in the first post this argument originated from:
it is part of war and always will be.


- H
ThroatLozenge
offline
ThroatLozenge
146 posts
Nomad

Haven't read much of the discussion.

But there's a pretty simple saying which can apply here.

"Do unto others as you would have other do unto you."

Not much more for me to say...

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

If you knew what conditions they went through, perhaps many of you wouldn't have been so careless.

I have tried to establish just how little I actually know, and struck my point forward from that. There is a difference between trauma and damage, and disregard of honor / decency (that which they fight for), or even logic and reason.

Do not try and cross to me just how little I know. Because I don't think you know either, and even if you did, I care not for how much you care to elaborate on it, because I STILL will not understand. It is only the qualities that I follow that make me believe otherwise, those that I think others should know, and if you believe for whatever reason that what I'm saying is wrong, then I'm happy to debate the fundamentals we are discussing.

The soldiers are tough as nails, and I firmly believe they overcome damage that exceeds the four qualities I previously mentioned.
Trauma
Damage
loss of Logic
loss of Reason

- H
Showing 16-30 of 206