Sex in games is bad, age of consent and what?

Remove all ads!

WASP -> White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Remember: Catholics were mostly not well liked immigrants in the realms of: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

 

I'm glad that Chev at least stated that not all US soldiers do such repulsive acts. One thing that IS overlooked is that most criminals keep company with other criminals (or with people they can control). The abuser in ANY relationship is all about control. It is not different if the abuser is domestic (parent) or is in the military.

There are over 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and these reports, although horrific, are not as common as many here would want to promote. Far more common are the stories that NEVER get posted here: the national guardsman who has spent over $100,000 of his own money restoring schools in Iraq, the time spent by soldiers and marines rebuilding homes and schools (off-duty time at that) and distributing the schools supplies sent by people in the US, the thousands of hours spent by military personnel giving free medical and dental care to the Iraqi's. And all this in the wake of a bombing campaign by the insurgents.

The things Chev has noted are indeed horrific and those responsible should be fully punished. However, it is a very small percentage of soldiers who are committing such crimes. To state such crimes are only being done by Americans is simply naive.

 

No one wants to say that Americans are sadists and rapers per se. No one in their right minds at least.

I am sorry T2, but arent we well past the point where people say that these "incidents" are merely the deeds of a small number of soldiers that want to have themselves some fun on their watch? Rather that torture, rape, sexual humilation have become almost standard procedures when working on them suspects?

 

Well, that's exactly what is being implied. And no, we're not past that point. I do not agree that criminal acts are standard procedures. The VAST majority of soldiers are normal, compassionate individuals. They are trained to both destroy and provide assistance. Right now the military is involved in more humanitarian aid than fighting.

I've heard it said that 2-5% of any society is part of "the criminal element." Let's assume the military actually weeds out 90% of these. That's still 200-500 less-than-reputable individuals in Iraq. They can do a lot of damage. But it certainly does not mean the US military or the government supports these individuals (or knowingly allows them to commit atrocities).

The US military is NOT an autonomous beast which destroys everything in it's path like a hoard of orcs or robots. The US military is made of individuals from every part of the US, every demographic of race, religion and political belief.

It appears that many believe a horrendous transformation occurs once a person puts on a uniform -- a transformation that makes all morals and ethics go away in military member. I know this misconception to be false.

 

No, that's not what is being implied. Not by me.

What I think should be clear is that there is torture and abuse NOT because the US forces and secret service are attractive to a certain type of personality. Maybe they are, but I cannot tell. Neither that military service turns normal people into monsters.

There is torture because the US has made it a part of its 'war against terror'. To go and claim detainees are merely being 'abused' by a negligible part of US soldiers gone astray therefore is wrong. That's what I meant with my above post. We are indeed past the point of placing blame on a few individuals, when the orders have been given from higher circles.

 

I know that it can be hurtful to have your people and country criticized, as I see my country protrayed in a bad light every July, but anything I personally say is directed at individuals, though sometimes I do go overboard. The thing that saddens me is that either people outright refuse to admit that such things are even done, or they say nothing about it. A good example of the former would be people not protesting Lt. Calley, a veteran from Vietnam, living a very peaceful life, and owns a successful jewelry shop, dispite raping women, killing children, and other atrocities in Mi Lai. He was pardoned by Nixon.

I am going off topic, but I know lots of people serving in Iraq are actually there to help, and when I was in Dublin last year there was a large peaceful anti-Iraq war protest that was being led by Americans.

Maybe the problem is that the not so good American's get more attention, overshadowing any good deeds?

 

Cu --

I wonder just how much you know about that incident. Do you have all the facts of what happened during that? No one here is condoning what was done back then -- and there was plenty of dissension when it happened. I'm just wondering -- are these children he was accused of killing the same ones who used to give US soldiers candy laced with the tiniest of bamboo slivers, so that they go down nice and easy, but cut a body to shreds? A nice, slow, agonizing death. Could these be the very same ones? Oh wait -- those were probably the other children from the next village over.

The point is -- it was WAR -- I can't even begin to understand or put into words what he or his men were thinking at the time.... none of us can. Does that excuse it? Hell no. But it's HIS nightmare, one he has to live with for the rest of his life.

[ November 15, 2005, 00:50: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Am I the only one who finds the title of this thread so poorly worded that it's painful to read?

 

No, you're not.
Spellbound, no matter what they did, killing children is wrong. Killing is wrong. But hell, why just him? There must have been a hundred, a thousand atrocities on both sides. There must have been a hundred acts of unparalleled heroism on both sides. But for every heroic act, there are two foul ones.

 

You may think the example of the bamboo slightly justifies attacks on innocents, but I would rather take a chance and reach out to people. Only a bitter and cowardly person would attack and kill to keep themselves 'safe'. It takes a worse person to rape and torture.

I have no problems with Americans at all, though I have the right not to like any that actively support terrorism in Ireland. People are more civillized here, than to beat up anyone wearing a 'I love New York' t-shirt and a stetson hat. Our two countries can still be friends.

 

Cu:

I sincerely hope you never find yourself in a war or doing any soldiering of any kind. Man, would you ever have a rude awakening -- if you survived long enough to recognize it.

But, as DR pointed out, we're off topic.

 

Certain people are attracted to military service for the wrong reasons, IMO, and that shouldn't detract from the ones who do it because they wish to defend their country, way of life, families, et cetera. In any organisation, you will always have people who don't fit with that organisation's principles and standards. That isn't an excuse; it's just the way things are.

In wartime, most basic standards of behaviour go out the window. The person trying to kill you may be a psychopath, or have three kids, a loving partner and a respectable lifestyle - the real tragedy of war is that it makes those things irrelevant. There's a huge difference between acting out of necessity and actually enjoying your work. I'd imagine that a certain element of dehumanisation of the enemy is necessary to survive in that environment; it's certainly nothing which should make you like killing. I've seen documentary footage with US tank personnel talking about how they like to go into battle with the Bloodhound Gang's Fire Water Burn playing... I fervently hope that they are not reflective of my nation's armed forces.

As others have said, sexual assaults and abuse are deplorable and should never, ever be deployed as a weapon of war or instrument of "tactical interrogation" (I must confess, I love some of the euphemisms used). My greatest concern is that it's not just the work of a few "bad apples", and it's absolutely preposterous to suggest that nobody in command knew about this sort of conduct. The sort of person who could order or condone such actions is not the sort I want involved in handling prisoners or army resources/personnel.

Funny, though, how a conservative, God-fearing person can oppose a ban on torture (including such base violations), but think that a game involving sex, magic or violence is unacceptable. I just don't see the logic... not unless it's a case of "crap in your own nest", which is hardly a defensible ground, IMO.

@ Spellbound: Hadn't heard of that bamboo sliver issue - could you post or PM a source or a reference to have a look at? Not doubting, just curious. As you said, it still doesn't justify or excuse what Lt. Calley and others did at My Lai.

 

NS -- That recollection was told to me by a few returning soldiers who were there and knew people who fell for it.

But I did do a search and found this, a similar "game", but different means:

"Hot, tired, smelly and uncomfortable, you hear a voice. "Cold soda, Marine?" You smile a "yes!"

She flips off the soda top and pours the fluid into a paper cup full of chipped ice. You gulp down a large mouthful of the cold, sweet fluid. Small chips of ice slide down your throat along with the soda. Then you realize, too late, that slivers of glass are cutting your stomach . . . from the inside, out. The games people play in Vietnam are deadly."

...taken from here .

 

So you think it was all OK then to kill those children? I mean all the Vietnamese children were naturally demonbreeds as some of them had given candy with bamboo slivers to soldiers? Sorry, but even if they had been the children who gave the soldiers some of this death candy it still won't excuse child killing, in fact nothing ever will excuse child killing. No matter what the children did, they were still children. However it's perfectly obvious that this sort of things happen in wars so I'm not going to start yelling what a crappy job the soldiers are doing because a bunch of them decide to start abusing the chaos of war. What I would however expect are through investigations through these cases and proper punishment for those involved.

 

Morg... I think you missed this part.

 

You are still defending the actions of this man, while I don't really see how it can be defended. War does make funny things to the mind but it's no sandbox, and people treating it as such should be taken away fast and judged accordingly to the full extent of the law. Unfortunaetly it seems that a lot less attention is focused on crimes in war than crimes done in civilian life, and it's not really just an American issue. European UN troops did plenty of bad things in Yugoslavia when the conflict there was on its worst and that too was more or less ignored until the media reports started flowing.

 

I'm not defending his actions -- I'm saying I don't understand his actions (implying that there might be some "understanding" to be had of this issue in a wartime environment) -- what state of mind could bring him to do that, etc. I've posted some other links in a new thread here, since we've moved grossly off topic in this one.

 

@T2Bruno:

And that I don't state, but I do point out that we don't hear as much of such from other civilised countries' armies.

@BTA:

Well, it's different when they torture you and when they make you look as they beat up or rape everyone in your immediate family.

@Dendri:

I think I will have to agree. Abu Ghraib was not invented by the guards not exceeding the rank of sergeant. There were orders from military intelligence and come on, where military intelligence is at play, there must be at least a couple of senior officers behind the whole thing. Heck, what if it has always been the standard procedure there but only recently exposed to daylight? Such things don't just happen. Dubya's administration willingly partakes of the blame by coming up with euphemisms such as "having sex with a female detainee". Whoever calls raping having sex places himself on the side of the rapist, not the victim.

@Cuchulainn:

Well, that puts Nixon in a very bad light. Alas, he can't be handed over to Vietnamese women.

@Spelly:

What you said works just fine for shooting children but this discussion isn't about plain physical violence. It's about sexual violence. How could your arguments justify sexual violence? It's logical (painfully logical) that soldiers will start to fire at children if children develop the habit of exploding. But what about raping children or women or anyone, for that matter?

Let's just set aside the Lieutenant's record for plain physical violence and focus only on his rapes and other such. Does "you weren't there" work for rape? Can anything ever justify sexual violence?

@NonSequitur:

"Simple" violence can be explained away, but I still can't cease to wonder how a God-fearing person can condone sexual violence if, according to his religion, even consensual sex between anyone other than husband and wife is a mortal sin. In my eyes, those people just wipe their shoes with religion.