Military training and it's effect on humans

Gosh, you're a funny man, aren't you, and so optimistic. So, just because you've been 'over there' propagating the problem you think that that is the only way to go. The blood's not on my hands.
For the record, I don't smoke weed. You have no idea.
Now, here's the conjecture,(and it's not too late, despite naysayers like you)...if we stop spending money on the military and start spending it on empowering all people everywhere we might just get somewhere. But as long as there are people such as you who try to justify killing people (state-sanctioned murder), and in the name of some misplaced patriotism/nationalism instead of offering olive branches, then yes, you are correct: the world will continue to be an ugly place, blighted by warmongering arseholes such as yourself.
Hey, that's fair isn't it? [SNIP]

I especially like the 'grow up' part. That's rich coming from someone who hasn't evolved passed playing a glorified game of Cowboys and Indians. For the record, I'm into my fifth decade.

The flip side of the effect of military training on humans is that you get people such as I who stand up against it. Don't worry, it's not just you, it's the military everywhere. However, as a member of the "most powerful nation on Earth, hoo-rah" it should behoove you to be a shining example, and unfortunately, from where I'm sitting, it just doesn't come across as that at all.

Perhaps there is another way, but you seem to have never entertained it, such is the efficacy of your training.

I choose the other path. It's arguably a harder road than riding in (side-saddle) with all guns blazing, or even the threat of it, but it may just be that in the long run it is the road that gives us all hope and respect and wipes clean the slate of blood that people are brought up on, fed, vomited/regurgitated and reconsumed until it becomes the only meal they can stomach.

Shame.

Originally posted by MarkScheppy

Originally posted by Equidae
And England (with the exception of the Trent Affair) stayed out of the Civil War shenanigans as much as possible.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 7/1/12 by Equidae because: (no reason given)

Keep singing your hymns. Britain was the Confederacy for trade. They brought slaves to America and the south were the ones that had slaves as a lifeline for the British colonies producing cotton textiles. Palmerston wrote a letter to his Queen from India the day that the civil war began, saying that he is happy to report the United States are going to be permanently dissolved. Wikipedia (ya'll are educated) you are giving me links from an online propaganda based encylopedia.

Racism and slavery are synonymous with the British's empire for the same reasons why American troops are getting killed and dying and coming back with war syndrome and trauma from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't have the time to perfect you're thought and do In situs analysis research for you cuz you can't do your own figuring things out (posting from wiki, com'on.)

Someone's been reading too much Harry Turtledove. Wikipedia is about as neutral as an archive can get. Anyone who has made it through a high school history or government course knows the Civil War was not about slavery. I do not look fondly on the South, or it's obsession with attempting to prove some sort of morally righteous victory in an asinine conflict long since ended. But one of their canards is true: the Civil War was not about slavery, especially not in any moral sense.

The Civil War was fought over whether the Federal government or the individual states had the legal final say. Namely, in whether or not a state could legally secede. Slavery was merely the issue that turned the debate into a war. Towards the end of the war (before the Emancipation Proclamation) several prominent Confederate officials discussed the need to free the slaves, both to bring the South into the industrialized world and to secure the monetary and military support of Great Britain (who masterfully played both sides against each other in much the same way the US did with France and Britain during the Napoleonic Wars.)

[SNIP]

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I know I have made a difference I know people are alive because I was there or because of the training I gave them.

What about the people who are dead because you were there or due to the training you gave people? Does that ever come into play? That 'the others' are people too: sons, fathers, brothers etc?

Because of course only The West can cause harm, or unjustified death. Tell that to the families of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl who were tortured to death (because beheading is not a quick slice, but a slow saw with a dull blade that is often sharpened in front of the captive.)

War is a horrible thing, and I have become a pacifist as a result of my experiences there. But make no mistake: during my two deployments we did not target the innocent to brutalize for believing differently than us. We did not fight the Taliban by tossing acid on sympathizers, or mutilate them, or intentionally place bombs (often loaded with nails, screws, or any other piece of metal intended to cause maximum maiming) that could be as easily triggered by a child as it could a soldier. We did not target noncombatants, we did not kidnap children to force on missions to ensure we would not be fired upon.

I know friends who I have lost due to firm US (and NATO) policies that prevent firing on noncombatants. This was immediately taken advantage of, and gunmen would fire from crowds of children, hospitals, mosques, and dwellings knowing that we could not (and did not) return fire. Thus resulting in the deaths of many friends. We could not return fire if there were ANY children, women, or elderly. This included urban areas, dwellings, and firing areas that we could not positively identify as containing only enemy combatants. There were also several incidents involving insurgents kidnapping local children to bring with them to place IEDs. We would watch the whole thing via UAV, on scene observation, or reports from out aircraft. As long as there was a child we would not shoot, even if it meant letting the IED placer go free to repeat the scenario in the future.

We provided medical care to not only any Afghan who might have been injured as the result of combat, but also anyone who was at risk of losing life, limb, eyesight, or mobility as a result of ANY injury. I specifically remember MEDEVACing an Afghan child who had a stone wall collapse on him, and suffered severe brain swelling that would have killed him had we not intervened at the behest of his family (and diverted dedicated air and medical assets for no other benefit that to try and save this boy.) We also treated injuries from 'accidents' that were almost certainly enemy combatants. Once they were patched up we sent them on their way, more than likely to fire on us again.

I have seen ALL of this with my own eyes (including videos of the beheading of captives.) Every incident I have reported I have in some way witnessed. The cost of all war is death, but do NOT accuse me (or any other NATO soldier) of thoughtless destruction or murder. You have so far shown to have taken no part in any of this (other than reading the snippets or watching the video clips provided to you by those with an agenda to push) so do not talk as if you know what happens in any war, especially not this one.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by aorAki


Good to read some common sense on here for a change, it is normally fully loaded with the warmongering murderers who are delusioned into thinking that they are serving their countries.
Imagine all the people living in peace???
Not whilst these war crazed zombies have control.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by aorAki
Excellent, I've obviously hit a nerve.
No chance, France.
By the way, I'm not in my fifties, I'm into my fifth decade.
You are one of the reasons for the problems. You were used as a tool, and are still a tool.

I'll leave you to ponder things. We're obviously not going to agree.
I love how you state that because I'm not in the military I haven't achieved anything. Typical self-entitled b.s. as a product of your training.
Thank you for your service. Thanks for continuing the status quo.
Thank you for being brave enough to stand up to the Military-Industrial Complex.
Thank you for continuing to give people reasons to hate.
You're awesome mate.

He ihu kuri, he tangata haere.


"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace".
Michael Franti and Spearhead

Of course you've hit a nerve: you are pushing unsubstantiated rumor as truth. You have witnessed none of what you claim, and have no proof beyond a few snippets and video clips. You are accusing people of vile things with substantially less evidence than could even get a case started in United States Civil Court.

And I have never said or implied that you have achieved nothing. I spent five years in the Marines which resulted in two deployments to Afghanistan. My training has never tried to push that those who were never in the military have achieved nothing. My training HAS made me a highly competent individual who recognizes that without support and teamwork nothing can truly be achieved. Nor can focus on the self, or your own interests result in any significant accomplishment. SOME of the people I encounter daily could really use that memo, but then again it's nothing something a Facebook status update or Tweet could adequately articulate.

Well, War is obviously a bad thing but it's also a natural thing.

If you get attacked in the street you generally defend yourself. If you see a helpless person being attacked most people feel compelled to do something about it.

This is a micro-cosm of war.

On our level it's about not wanting to be killed and being able to maintain our way of life.

To describe the actual in-field experience of being in a war-zone as a glorified version of cowboys and indians is just smug, arrogant and insulting, To soldiers, civillians, cowboys and Indians.

But to suggest that the intentions of western nations in others countries are entirely honourable is also ridiculous and insulting to anyone with a shred of intelligence.

Civvies: Don't blame soldiers.

Originally posted by apodictic
Hate? You just suffer from a delusional lack of reality due to living a sheltered and over privileged life thanks to those who have gone to war for you to live that way.

Nobody is going to war on My behalf , or at My request.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves against attack from whatever, as those in Iraq /Afghanistan and libya have been doing so against the imperialistic invaders and authorised murders that have ATTACKED their countries.
Those doing the killing their for the invaders are not serving their countries, they are serving their masters who are corperate profit driven low lifes.

Murder is murder, no matter who creates a piece of paper legitamising it.
The self generated honour and feeling of serving others is garbage that needs exposing for what it is....bull#.

The general population is been subjected to intense propogander at the momnt to try and show the troops as HEROES, they are not, one or two may perform an heroic act whilst out there murdering innocent women and children, but they are cannon fodder in reality , pawns who are mugs , thinking they are special, they are...special mugs who have been easily duped by those who sit behind desks laughing at the mugs been blown to bits, whilst they inflate their riches ever more.

Originally posted by gravitor

Originally posted by apodictic
Hate? You just suffer from a delusional lack of reality due to living a sheltered and over privileged life thanks to those who have gone to war for you to live that way.

Nobody is going to war on My behalf , or at My request.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves against attack from whatever, as those in Iraq /Afghanistan and libya have been doing so against the imperialistic invaders and authorised murders that have ATTACKED their countries.

I never said we are doing it at your request. Frankly I don't give a # what you request. I am attacking the point of view that war is unnecessary and somehow an unnatural act. I was addressing the fact that without war he wouldn't be able to sit here with the freedom of speech that he seems to take for granted.

I also find it funny how you think the stance of jihadists in Iraq as patriots. You might want to do a little research regarding their origins and motives.

Afghanistan I will agree with, as a lot of them tend to be lower class peasants etc who feel the need to protect their land. This is not the case with Iraq, however. I will agree that we no longer should be occupying Afghanistan as the goal was to pop Bin laden's grape under the pretense of 9/11, and that objective has been accomplished. Those who are not Afghani patriots and Osama's Al Qaeda minions however deserve to be taken out. They are not unlike Iraqi Mujaideen etc who call for global jihad. I will also assume you did not do any research on that, either.

Al Qaeda

Under Salafist jihadism they believe that the killing of civilians is religiously sanctioned, and they ignore religious scripture which forbids the murder of civilians and also internecine fighting.[9][24] Al-Qaeda also opposes man-made laws, and wants to replace it with a hardline form of sharia law.[25]
Al-Qaeda is also responsible for instigating sectarian violence among Muslims.[26]

So yes, we must be evil for eradicating Islamic extremist scum. Also, as a lot of delusional misguided civilians living in fantasy land tend to do (yourself included) is you take the soldiers who choose to disobey the ROE, and lump them together with the ones who don't. Hence we all must be civilian killers, baby rapists, psychopaths, et al. I find that disgusting.

So yes, the military is evil, and jihadists are good, because you don't hear about what they do on the nightly news, right? They're noble patriots.

What I find even more disgusting is you don't even choose to consider the point of view WHY we kill. Like has been said, the killing is a microcosm of the whole war picture. When you are under fire you aren't thinking about the greater cause, you are thinking of yourself and your brothers next to you and doing what ever it takes to live. It goes beyond the motives of WHY we are there, and goes directly to the primal instinct for survival. As it has also been said, you will not understand completely until you are put into a life or death situation, but the least you can do is try. We get objectives and try to complete them as best as possible with minimum casualties. Combat is a very basic idea that you're just over analyzing because you're an outsider.

It takes two to have a gunfight, remember that. Part of the ROE is do not fire unless fired upon.

upload.wikimedia.org...

That's all I have to say regarding your post. If you choose to let your fit of arrogance control your response without properly taking into consideration what I have just said, then just forget responding at all because I've been down this road many of times.

reply to post by Raivan31


I agree with what you're saying. Depending on when most LTs fresh out of OCS get promoted to O-3, they most likely never have seen combat. It's easy for them to sit behind a desk and make the orders. I find that to be bull# and that certain criteria should be met in order to lead. I feel that they do this so there is no sympathizing for the men under their command for what they have gone through.

Wars wouldn't be waged as often with people in charge who know the experience. I would like this to be the case with presidents, also. IMO you are not fit to be Commander In Chief of our armed forces without ANY military experience, let alone no combat experience.

Originally posted by Raivan31
Well, War is obviously a bad thing but it's also a natural thing.

If you get attacked in the street you generally defend yourself. If you see a helpless person being attacked most people feel compelled to do something about it.

This is a micro-cosm of war.

On our level it's about not wanting to be killed and being able to maintain our way of life.

To describe the actual in-field experience of being in a war-zone as a glorified version of cowboys and indians is just smug, arrogant and insulting, To soldiers, civillians, cowboys and Indians.

But to suggest that the intentions of western nations in others countries are entirely honourable is also ridiculous and insulting to anyone with a shred of intelligence.

Civvies: Don't blame soldiers.

reply to post by Equidae


Great point. A lot of civilians tend to blame the military for their own # ups. If you want the wars to stop, then quit voting idiots into office. I mean really? Bush twice, and now Obama, and you're whining because we're in the situation we're in? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you want the wars to stop, elect someone with more than two brain cells. That tells me a lot about the average populous

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Equidae

 

Great point. A lot of civilians tend to blame the military for their own # ups. If you want the wars to stop, then quit voting idiots into office. I mean really? Bush twice, and now Obama, and you're whining because we're in the situation we're in? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you want the wars to stop, elect someone with more than two brain cells. That tells me a lot about the average populous

Thats it, no personal responsibility...blame someone else for your actions, your murderous manner.
You of course are just doing as ordered, which is the whole point of this thread, and here You are now stating that your leader should be military, should have fought in war.
thus the cycle can be complete where everything is war based.
I notice that YOU are becoming angry and starting to swear...loosing it???
gravitor

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by gravitor

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Equidae

 

Great point. A lot of civilians tend to blame the military for their own # ups. If you want the wars to stop, then quit voting idiots into office. I mean really? Bush twice, and now Obama, and you're whining because we're in the situation we're in? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you want the wars to stop, elect someone with more than two brain cells. That tells me a lot about the average populous

Thats it, no personal responsibility...blame someone else for your actions, your murderous manner.
You of course are just doing as ordered, which is the whole point of this thread, and here You are now stating that your leader should be military, should have fought in war.
thus the cycle can be complete where everything is war based.
I notice that YOU are becoming angry and starting to swear...loosing it???
gravitor

Apoditic, don't mind Lil Buddy here. Me 'n Grimpachi love this guy! An example of who we would not be hearing if we really lived in some omnipresent evil police state