Military Service

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Sandy;810027]At least I got some real discussion going on after all those posts that basically repeated the same arguments over and over again. ;D[/QUOTE]Matter of opinion really. That and you know you love to cause drama, changing your custom title doesn't fool me. :p [quote name='Sandy']Politically-wise, I wouldn't actually terminate the army, but [U]I'd prefer to see one with hired personel motivated by the right reasons instead of a ragtag group of [B]immature youngsters[/B] thinking that no man is a true man if he hasn't crawled in a forest with a big gun.[/U'] I would want to see that the young men of Finland were given a true choice of how to serve their country.[/quote]That is a generalization and I sincerely doubt it's true. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. I think your using examples of a few to describe the military service as a whole. Finland is a peaceful country so I find it hard to believe that the general consensus is that they are what you just described.

I find your debate/discussion riddled with these types of sweeping generalizations and all they do is destroy the foundation your views are standing on. Your making the same mistake you accuse those who support it of doing, unfair personal judgments that just aren't universally true.

You placing the slant of your immature or a warmonger if you support the military, them of you're a hypocrite if you don't support the military. One can want improvement, but no one is going to listen if you're insulting them.

Now as for being required to serve, I do see why you would want a choice, because like Crystia mentioned, unless it's war time, we do. More so for women than for men. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[quote]So what's wrong with getting practice or even finding people who agree with you? Why should they only discuss things where their views are different? You're still hung up on the idea that it has to be different or opposing for it to be a discussion and that's just not true.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think that's what Sandy is saying. He's saying that for a discussion or debate to progress, there usually needs to be differing points of view.

I think that's totally reasonable.

He's right in saying that there isn't much point having a discussion where everyone agrees all of the time - if that were the case, The Lounge would die off in a second.

At this point I think it is reasonable to discuss differences of opinion when it comes to the military, given the subject of this thread. Arguing the semantics of what constitutes a discussion probably isn't going to further said discussion. :catgirl: [/font]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think that's what Sandy is saying. He's saying that for a discussion or debate to progress, there usually needs to be differing points of view.

I think that's totally reasonable.[/font][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]:animesigh

Yes. It is.

The concepts [I]usually needs to be[/I] and [I]does not need to be[/I] are not mutually exclusive. If one was asked "does there need to be differing opinions for a discussion to occur", the answer is No. If one was asked "how often are there differing opinions in a discussion", the answer is Most Of The Time.

I have no beef with someone injecting a stance in opposition to the norm. To hold such a contention would be completely illogical.

My problem is with those who do so merely for the sake of causing a "discussion". In the vast majority of those cases, the person who takes the opposing stance does not hold with it, and is only arguing for the sake of arguing; i.e., Devil's Advocate. In others, the person who takes the opposing stance does actually believe what they say, but only under certain conditions; i.e., the debate equivalent of a fair-weather friend.

I view neither of these motivations with high regard, and the former tends to attract a large degree of animosity from me. Since I know [COLOR="DarkRed"]Sandy[/COLOR]'s intent, I have made a point not to become anywhere near volatile.

And if we actually go back to the opening post, the presented object of discussion was not whether you are for or against the military, but what your views were (much more broad), and whether you had or you would ever consider serving. The answers up until a certain point were "yes, I would" or "no, I wouldn't", with reasons for the latter running from [I]Not my choice of career[/I] to [I]I don't like the strictness and massive relocating potential[/I] to [I]I have asthma[/I].

And I [I]certainly[/I] wouldn't have minded Sandy's contribution if it he hadn't openly declared that the only reason he shared it was to "provide discussion"?which draws me back again to Discussion vs. Debate. Discussion can just be people sitting around talking. And that's what people were doing. Debate is when sides are taken deliberately and explicitly for the purpose of exploring opposing or differing viewpoints; the potential for heated arguments runs extremely high, and so trying to start a debate for little or no reason seem to me the equivalent of looking for a fight.

So yeah, it ain't the stance I'm nit-picking at. It's the intent.

(And I [I]still[/I] love the irony of a pacifist looking for an argument. :p)[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Sandy;810032]Well, why don't we all just shut up, then, with our poor discussion skills. That'll turn this board into a fun place. ;D[/QUOTE]I'm sure that's not the point being made. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium'] Arguing the semantics of what constitutes a discussion probably isn't going to further said discussion. [/font][/quote]:p No reason why a thread on the finer points or rather [I]semantics[/I] of what constitutes a discussion couldn't be started. After all, like you said, it's not advancing the discussion or rather the topic of the one in here.

So going elsewhere with it would be a good idea at this point. To avoid total thread derailment and because it could be an interesting topic... maybe. XP

As for the original topic, which by the way, my first stance still stands, I may have no interest in it, but I don't think it's just for war either. Part of why or rather the main reason I support the military in the first place, is because [I]I know[/I] it's a hell of a lot more than just for waging war.

[James]

[quote]So yeah, it ain't the stance I'm nit-picking at. It's the intent.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Right. And the intent is to share opinions. So there's no nit-picking required, I think (unless, of course, one wishes to debate particular points of view related to this topic).[/font]

[quote] it could be an interesting topic... maybe.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I have actually been pretty interested to see people's views on the military in general.

I suppose that someone can't talk about the military without eventually referencing the military's role in terms of conflict (obviously). Still, that said, I do think it's interesting to note the very different views of people from different countries/backgrounds.

One thing I've really wanted to point out was that being pro-military (in any capacity) is not necessarily the same as being pro-war. I don't think most people have argued that, but still, it might be worth pointing out to any pacifist observers. :catgirl:[/font]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And I [I]certainly[/I] wouldn't have minded Sandy's contribution if it he hadn't openly declared that the only reason he shared it was to "provide discussion"[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Seriously, you read what you want to read from my words, don't you? Of course my "only" intention to post wasn't to try to throw this thread off, but mostly to give you guys a different point-of-view from a country with a different military system. And also my personal, [I]individual[/I] thoughts on war and military. All the generalizations are things that [I]I[/I] have encountered and perceived, which of course doesn't mean they're the ultimate truth. I never claimed that!

I have seen documents and read articles about normal Americans who buy guns to their homes to feel safe (the most recent one being the Virginia Tech students who want to be able to carry guns in school). Does that mean I think [I]all[/I] Americans are like that? No, Beth, no.

I have also met plenty of immature youngster - many of which haven't even gone to the army yet - who think I'm a coward and a wussy for choosing the 13-months civilian work service over going to the army. Does that mean I believe all who support army are like that? Again, Beth, no.

I simply can't know what every individual thinks about these things, nor can I list all of those thoughts into my posts. That's why I have to use generalizations and my own observations in my posts. I cannot give you the objective truth, because I only have subjective knowledge about this issue.

As for a final note, Allamorph, as a pacifist I of course want to question the purpose of wars and military. Verbal debate has nothing to do with violence - unless it deters into insults, which I'm glad we've mostly steered away from. So really, I'm not looking for a "fight".

[Aberinkula]

[size=1][color=DarkSlateGray][quote name='Sandy']
As for a final note, Allamorph, as a pacifist I of course want to question the purpose of wars and military. Verbal debate has nothing to do with violence - unless it deters into insults, which I'm glad we've mostly steered away from. [b]So really, I'm not looking for a "fight".[/b] [/QUOTE]

Oh come on Sandy, wouldn't a fight start even more discussion? :p It's funny you should mention verbal debates having nothing to do with violance. A few words have caused murder, and even a simple sentence can cause a whole war.

And oddly enough, 'war' leads us back to the army... huh :animestun

[quote name='Sandy']I have also met plenty of immature youngster - many of which haven't even gone to the army yet - who think I'm a coward and a wussy for choosing the 13-months civilian work service over going to the army. Does that mean I believe all who support army are like that? Again, Beth, no.[/quote]

Well say hello to a very immature youngster, just ask anyone in this thread. I don't think you're a coward for choosing something else over the army. In fact choosing something else has it's benefits for the good will of the locals and such. And I bet that if you asked all of those 'immature youngsters' if they'd join the army, some of them will probably say 'no.'

[quote name='Crystia']You're still hung up on the idea that it has to be different or opposing for it to be a discussion and that's just not true.[/quote]

Quite true! Ideas being different don't have to be present to 'stir a discussion.' Mostly because, sometimes that causes... duh duh duhhhn... debates. And debates can turn into disputes, and disputes can turn into violance, and a small speck of violance can cause of war.

This thread is like a freakin' minature '6 Degrees' game in how arguing over discusion and debating can cause war.[/color][/size]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Sandy;810150]I have seen documents and read articles about normal Americans who buy guns to their homes to feel safe (the most recent one being the Virginia Tech students who want to be able to carry guns in school). Does that mean I think [I]all[/I] Americans are like that? No, Beth, no.[/QUOTE]Then say so from the beginning and try to avoid sweeping generalizations. ^_~ I know you well enough to know that you don't mean it, but you can't assume everyone does. You've got to include those disclaimers that let the readers know you don't. Ironically, there were guns in the home when I grew up because my father and brothers were hunters. It was never about feeling like we needed them to be safe. I myself, other than to perhaps handle one to move it, have no experience with guns at all, I've never even fired one.[quote name='Sandy;810150]I have also met plenty of immature youngster - many of which haven't even gone to the army yet - who think I'm a coward and a wussy for choosing the 13-months civilian work service over going to the army. Does that mean I believe all who support army are like that? Again, Beth, no.[/QUOTE]See, I've met just as many individuals who think nothing of the fact that their friends aren't interested in military service. Again, it's better to be a little more clear than using generalizations because that way, people understand what you feel and think upfront instead of having to wonder if you really [I]do[/I] think that way.[QUOTE=Sandy'']I simply can't know what every individual thinks about these things, nor can I list all of those thoughts into my posts. That's why I have to use generalizations and my own observations in my posts. I cannot give you the objective truth, because I only have subjective knowledge about this issue.[/quote]The problem with relying on generalizations is that they come across as an intent to argue just to argue, something you even joked about. But for a lot of people who take serving and protecting their country seriously, it's like a slap in the face. I may not serve but I have relatives who do. I have ancestors who [I]died in wars[/I] doing what they believed was the right thing to do. So when you use a generalization that can be taken as a negative slight against people who have served; I [I]will pin you down [/I]on it because otherwise, I too would be wondering if you really meant it or not. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Darren]

My grandpa served in the military and my brother is currently a marine on base at Camp LeJeune. (Not sure if that was spelled right) He's one of those people who are happy to serve. He hates being cooped up, not being able to do something. He would rather risk his life over in Afghanistan (which almost just happened) than to be here. For people like that, I take Rach's stance and say, "More power to you."

However, for people who only go to pay for college or, back in the days of drafting, didn't have a choice, I really feel sorry for them. I know a lot of people who couldn't pay for college and were forced to enlist. People who's parents refused to help... (What can I say, a lot of families are bums around here)

Anyway, the perks are great, should you decide to take the risk. As for me, I can't stand the thought of being tied down. A mandatory four years??? AHHH, I would lose my mind. I even know that I would go into journalism. However, that requires a lot of front-line action, and I don't think I could handle it.

Personally, I think it takes a really strong person to enlist, and I definitely look up to someone who can serve our country like that...

[Sandy]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I have ancestors who [I]died in wars[/I] doing what they believed was the right thing to do. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Who [I]doesn't[/I]? It's only been about sixty years since the last war in Finland, which ended a long string of wars after Finland became independent from Russia in 1917. As I said earlier, there are still plenty of hardcore patriots and war-veterans in here as well, so although we're safe from such threats now, the spirit of those wars still weigh heavily on the attitudes of many people here.

Sure, I'd believe most veterans would be offended or at least taken aback if I told to their face that I wouldn't do what they did back then, but if I'd let that affect my thinking, I wouldn't be me anymore. As an adult, I have the right to make my own decisions about these things, and if someone doesn't like them, it's their problem. I could draw comparisons to the issue of homosexuality, but that might take the discussion too far.

So I am aware that my views on military are looked down by some people as disrespect towards my country or my ancestry, but I'm not the kind of person to dedicate my life to such "higher powers". It also shows in me being an atheist, but that's another issue as well.

But enough about me and my inner world. I think I've said everything that needs to be said on my behalf, so I'll steer away from posting in this thread again. As much as I enjoy being the center of attention, I should give room to others as well now.

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]While Sandy's intial comments were a bit overstated (in my opinion), I think there is some truth to them.

Let's not fool ourselves here. The armed forces kill civilians during wartime -- both intentionally and unintentionally. To say otherwise would be a ridiculous denial of recorded fact. I know the US Army has carpet bombed residential areas, shot all on sight, taken no prisoners more than just once (to say nothing of the situation in Iraq). The incidents that make it to the news with a soldier killing a family are not isolated or "bad apples" -- a lot of the time, they are indicative of a systemic devaluation of human life that might be intrinsic to the armed forces.

On the other hand, I'm absolutely unwilling to say the armed forces are all cold-blooded murders and rapists who have zero regard for human life. There are countless good men and women doing what they believe to be the moral thing. I respect this greatly. I know that without our volunteer army, I wouldn't be able to enjoy my rights, my nation couldn't be protected. I express the sincerest gratitude for this service.[/font]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Sandy']Who [I]doesn't[/I]? [/QUOTE]*raises hand* It's true. Because those ancestors of mine who were in the military often were in fields of medicine or other aspects of support. As a result, it takes going back well over 300 years to find anyone who might have died during service; and even that is something we can't confirm with any certainty. So naturally I respect and admire those who do risk their lives for others because my family has been fortunate to survive so well because of their sacrifice. [/FONT]

[James]

[quote] The incidents that make it to the news with a soldier killing a family are not isolated or "bad apples" -- a lot of the time, they are indicative of a systemic devaluation of human life that might be intrinsic to the armed forces.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This kind of contradicts your latter statement to some extent, I think.

It is important to make a distinction between the deliberate killing of civilians and situations where civilians become casualties of a conflict in general - of course the end result is the same and is horrific, but it's unreasonable to suggest that deliberate attacks on civilians are systemic when they are clearly not.

So it really depends whether you are talking about deliberate killing (i.e. murder) or accidental death.

The latter is certainly no better for those involved, but it does make a significant difference when discussing the military's role in conflict.

I think it's true that soldiers go through unimaginable horrors during war - horrors that most of us could never fathom in our wildest nightmares. As such, we [i]know[/i] that some soldiers have highly adverse reactions (and can commit serious crimes). I believe that this aspect is often ignored and shouldn't be.

So although I'm a defender of the military (at least in terms of the inaccuracies that are often levelled at it as an organisation), I'm still very much a believer in the appropriate justice and punitive actions where required.

Unfortunately I think that the media plays a large role in distorting things - not so much in terms of not telling the truth, but in terms of misrepresenting a vast organisation.

If you think about the sheer number of soldiers involved in any given conflict and then compare that to the amount of [i]actual[/i] deliberate crimes or legal violations, you'll find that the ratio is pretty small.

Unlike some, I don't believe that this is a "left wing conspiracy", though. Instead, I think it's par for the course with the news media in general - I mean, even with domestic news, so much that gets reported is negative or scandalous.

We never hear good stories about politicians for example - the same is true with celebrities. It's often about sensationalism and negative news.

As some of Sandy's comments have evidenced, it's probably not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations - especially if they aren't terribly well-reasoned.[/font]

[Zen]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]While Sandy's intial comments were a bit overstated (in my opinion), I think there is some truth to them.

Let's not fool ourselves here. The armed forces kill civilians during wartime -- both intentionally and unintentionally. To say otherwise would be a ridiculous denial of recorded fact. I know the US Army has carpet bombed residential areas, shot all on sight, taken no prisoners more than just once (to say nothing of the situation in Iraq). The incidents that make it to the news with a soldier killing a family are not isolated or "bad apples" -- a lot of the time, they are indicative of a systemic devaluation of human life that might be intrinsic to the armed forces.

On the other hand, I'm absolutely unwilling to say the armed forces are all cold-blooded murders and rapists who have zero regard for human life. There are countless good men and women doing what they believe to be the moral thing. I respect this greatly. I know that without our volunteer army, I wouldn't be able to enjoy my rights, my nation couldn't be protected. I express the sincerest gratitude for this service.[/font][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue][size=1]

Boy, o'boy, I sure hope you count me in as the second group....

I mean, my primary goal in the military is to avoid killing somone, and I'm sure the people who work in supply or the medical field within the military are focused on that goal. My primary duty is paralegal after AIT, and after college, I want to be a psychologist with the Military and heal the kind of mental wounds that battlefield experiences create.

The military is a necessary thing for society, I believe. But I think the military should be used as a way to protect one's country rather than invade others, which is a primary reason why I disagree with our involvment in Iraq currenty (not that taking out Saddam Hussein was a bad thing). But my primary goal is to aid the military and the soldiers who fight for the country.

I think that's noble enough.[/color][/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James']This kind of contradicts your latter statement to some extent, I think.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I wouldn't say so. The first paragraph was essentially saying that there are a vast number of cases (recorded and unrecorded by Western media) wherein soldiers kill civilians intentionally. This stems from the military's processes of training, which I believe dehumanize the enemy to a large extent. The second paragraph said that despite the fact I believe many soldiers do commit these crimes, there are also a massive number of good soldiers out there. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. There is tension in this division, however I think it's a logical distinction to make. There are many terrible people in the military, but there are also many good ones as well.

[QUOTE]It is important to make a distinction between the deliberate killing of civilians and situations where civilians become casualties of a conflict in general - of course the end result is the same and is horrific, but it's unreasonable to suggest that deliberate attacks on civilians are systemic when they are clearly not.

So it really depends whether you are talking about deliberate killing (i.e. murder) or accidental death.[/QUOTE]
Accidental death is not what I'm talking about; I speak of intentional murder. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QolkuDjm8fM][b]This video[/b][/url] played a significant role in making me question what I thought about the armed forces, and I highly recommend it for everyone. No, it's not graphic at all, just very sad.

[QUOTE]I think it's true that soldiers go through unimaginable horrors during war - horrors that most of us could never fathom in our wildest nightmares. As such, we [i]know[/i] that some soldiers have highly adverse reactions (and can commit serious crimes). I believe that this aspect is often ignored and shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]
Certainly -- soldiers with PTSD should not be ignored or laughed at. It's a very serious thing. Conversely, however, this does not give them free license to grenade a family or shoot a child.

[QUOTE]Unfortunately I think that the media plays a large role in distorting things - not so much in terms of not telling the truth, but in terms of misrepresenting a vast organisation.

If you think about the sheer number of soldiers involved in any given conflict and then compare that to the amount of [i]actual[/i] deliberate crimes or legal violations, you'll find that the ratio is pretty small.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure about that. Unfortunately, there is no way to know exactly how many war crimes have been committed, but I would say that the number is higher than you'd think. There have been 601,027 violent deaths during the Iraq War, according to the Johns Hopkins Lancet (31% by Coalition, 24% by others, 46% unknown). That's disgustingly high. I understand war kills, but I can't help but feel that when in doubt, our soldiers were told to shoot first, ask questions later.

[QUOTE]Unlike some, I don't believe that this is a "left wing conspiracy", though. Instead, I think it's par for the course with the news media in general - I mean, even with domestic news, so much that gets reported is negative or scandalous.

We never hear good stories about politicians for example - the same is true with celebrities. It's often about sensationalism and negative news.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, Americans hear all about our soldier's casualties and how progress is not being made, but there is [i]almost no media coverage of American atrocities committed[/i], so I'm not sure you can say "the media preys on negativity" in this regard.

[QUOTE]As some of Sandy's comments have evidenced, it's probably not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations - especially if they aren't terribly well-reasoned.[/QUOTE]
If this is to insinuate that my comments aren't well-reasoned, I'm offended James. Simply because I feel war crimes have been committed does not mean I'm on logically weak ground.[/font]

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms]
I hope I'm not too OT, or getting too personal, but...

@ Zen: From your service and experience in the military, are the majority of people in service from lower-income classes? Of course I've heard this, and I've always found it interesting, but it'd be great to get first-hand views from someone in the military.[/font]

[Zen]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]
I hope I'm not too OT, or getting too personal, but...

@ Zen: From your service and experience in the military, are the majority of people in service from lower-income classes? Of course I've heard this, and I've always found it interesting, but it'd be great to get first-hand views from someone in the military.[/font][/QUOTE]


[color=royalblue][size=1]

It's a mixed batch. My father came from a relatively high class family then living in Greece. He moved to America (where he was born and raised for the most part) to make a life for himself rather than working for his parents. He ended up joining the Marines, and has been a career soldier since.

Though, admittedly, my father didn't have much of an education, he gained one through the military in the medical field, where he became an orthopedic technician eventually.

I myself, come from a middle class family, though I was raised in the lower class progressively to where I am now. And some people come from high class and end up as officers, others are lower class, so its no way really to predict. though I do admit that the military offers good ways to raise up from the lower class, it should also be noted that any kind of criminal record prior to joining makes it VERY difficult to join.

So yeah, its a mix bag I suppose. I was raised military also it should be noted, my entire life.[/color][/size]

[Godot]

Si vis pacem, para bellum...

[James]

[quote] wouldn't say so. The first paragraph was essentially saying that there are a vast number of cases (recorded and unrecorded by Western media) wherein soldiers kill civilians intentionally. This stems from the military's processes of training, which I believe dehumanize the enemy to a large extent. The second paragraph said that despite the fact I believe many soldiers do commit these crimes, there are also a massive number of good soldiers out there. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. There is tension in this division, however I think it's a logical distinction to make. There are many terrible people in the military, but there are also many good ones as well.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]My point was that you initially suggested that the deliberate killing of civilians was a systemic problem. You then said that you didn't believe that the majority were involved in this sort of activity.

I mean, to be technical I did say "kind of" - I can see what you're saying, but I also think that to some extent you're having a bet both ways.

The only reason I say this is because I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that deliberate civilian killing is either systemic or encouraged. In fact, I'd say that's blatantly untrue.

Also, killing civilians deliberately is [i]different[/i] from dehumanizing the enemy. It's one thing to make your enemy look like a batch of numbers (which I'm sure doesn't work out that way in the field anyway). It's another thing for a commander to say "go and attack this village full of innocent people".

The qualifying statement should thus be "there is a small minority of horrible people in the military, but a vast majority who follow protocol and do the right thing".

I would never say that these horrible people don't exist, because they clearly do. However, a very widely-reported minority should not be over-emphasized or exaggerated either.[/font]

[quote]Accidental death is not what I'm talking about; I speak of intentional murder. This video played a significant role in making me question what I thought about the armed forces, and I highly recommend it for everyone. No, it's not graphic at all, just very sad.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I can't watch that where I am right now, but I promise I will when I get home.

There's something you have to remember here, though.

I am not doubting that these horrible, horrific things happen. They do. And when a soldier breaks the law, he needs to be punished to the full extent of it.

[i]However[/i], as horrible and gut-wrenching as isolated incidents are, they should be seen as just that - not a representation of the norm.[/font]

[quote]Certainly -- soldiers with PTSD should not be ignored or laughed at. It's a very serious thing. Conversely, however, this does not give them free license to grenade a family or shoot a child.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Of course. And [i]nobody[/i] would suggest otherwise I'm sure.

Soldiers who commit horrible crimes - no matter what the cause - need to be dealt with appropriately.

My point, again, is to make that distinction. A soldier committing a crime (no matter why) is a horrible thing and should never be tolerated.

This does not mean that most soldiers fall into the same group, however.[/font]

[quote]I'm not sure about that. Unfortunately, there is no way to know exactly how many war crimes have been committed, but I would say that the number is higher than you'd think. There have been 601,027 violent deaths during the Iraq War, according to the Johns Hopkins Lancet (31% by Coalition, 24% by others, 46% unknown). That's disgustingly high. I understand war kills, but I can't help but feel that when in doubt, our soldiers were told to shoot first, ask questions later.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't doubt that there is a relatively high number of individual war crimes going on. However, you can't look at those figures in isolation; you must always view them in the context of overall military activity.

In terms of your figures, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that those figures relate to the percentage breakdown of [i]all[/i] deaths in Iraq during the war?

If so, I'm not sure how you view 31% as "disgustingly high". Based on what? It's a totally arbitrary figure.

What it doesn't explain is what those deaths represent - for example, what were the circumstances of that 31%? Presumably, if you took that figure and broke it down further, you'd find that the vast majority related to combat deaths (i.e. the deaths of those who were fighting against armed forces).

It is impossible to make a valid judgement on the basis of a fairly arbitary set of numbers. The 24% by "others" and the rest by "unknown" are also equally ambiguous figures. I notice that the only group named is the coalition.

I don't for a second deny the overwhelming negatives of the war. But, you know... I am very skeptical when it comes to arguments presented in the context of vague percentages.[/font]

[quote]Certainly, Americans hear all about our soldier's casualties and how progress is not being made, but there is almost no media coverage of American atrocities committed, so I'm not sure you can say "the media preys on negativity" in this regard.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Actually there is disproportionately high coverage of American atrocities. There's been disproportionately [i]low[/i] coverage of American/coalition successes. This is especially true with the international media (being that I'm not American, I can't speak for the local-only stations of course).

But even for the local stations, there's absolutely no question that the mainstream media loves negative stories. And I mean that in general - not just war-related.

When you learn about journalism in University (or any media studies really), you regularly see examples of sensational coverage by news outlets. We're always hearing about the shooting, the robbery, the swearing grandmother, etc etc...

Often these stories are pushed forward in place of potentially more important news. So it's quite a well-documented aspect of news coverage, especially given that much news coverage globally is now leaning towards a more entertainment-centric angle.[/font]

[quote]If this is to insinuate that my comments aren't well-reasoned, I'm offended James. Simply because I feel war crimes have been committed does not mean I'm on logically weak ground.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Don't be offended - I don't think all your comments are not well-reasoned.

But some clearly aren't. And I've outlined that in my post.

Don't make the mistake of confusing your emotional position with my insistence on drawing rational conclusions from appropriate information.

At the end of the day we are in agreement, in the sense that we both abhor any kind of war crimes. I am just as opposed to them as you are. And like you, I believe that we need to be far more aggressive in rooting them out.[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James']Also, killing civilians deliberately is [i]different[/i] from dehumanizing the enemy. It's one thing to make your enemy look like a batch of numbers (which I'm sure doesn't work out that way in the field anyway). It's another thing for a commander to say "go and attack this village full of innocent people".[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]This is true, but it is a well known fact that psychological distancing from and dehumanization of the enemy are heavily tied to the perpetration of war crimes. A batch of numbers, probably not. Subhuman? Less deserving of life? Savage and primitive? Don't think this doesn't happen in the armed forces, you'd be fooling yourself.

[QUOTE]What it doesn't explain is what those deaths represent - for example, what were the circumstances of that 31%? Presumably, if you took that figure and broke it down further, you'd find that the vast majority related to combat deaths (i.e. the deaths of those who were fighting against armed forces).

It is impossible to make a valid judgement on the basis of a fairly arbitary set of numbers. The 24% by "others" and the rest by "unknown" are also equally ambiguous figures. I notice that the only group named is the coalition.[/QUOTE]
The numbers of the other two groups are inconsequential if we are discussing coalition deaths exacted on civilians. Of course, this is a tricky business considering you can call a civilian who was shot an "enemy combatant". The lack of uniformed resistance allows this. However, I will also admit that the coin has two sides -- often we kill enemy combatants who are then listed as civilian deaths. The conflict does not lend itself well to 'traditional' body count. It should also be noted that the majority of Iraqi deaths will not be reported to officials for the record.

[QUOTE]Actually there is disproportionately high coverage of American atrocities. There's been disproportionately [i]low[/i] coverage of American/coalition successes. This is especially true with the international media (being that I'm not American, I can't speak for the local-only stations of course).

But even for the local stations, there's absolutely no question that the mainstream media loves negative stories. And I mean that in general - not just war-related.

When you learn about journalism in University (or any media studies really), you regularly see examples of sensational coverage by news outlets. We're always hearing about the shooting, the robbery, the swearing grandmother, etc etc...

Often these stories are pushed forward in place of potentially more important news. So it's quite a well-documented aspect of news coverage, especially given that much news coverage globally is now leaning towards a more entertainment-centric angle.[/QUOTE]
Largely true, but you are simply wrong about American media reporting American atrocities. Certainly, there are many American failures and shortcomings published (overwhelmingly so, actually), with the press generally highlighting body counts (on both sides), but there is generally no blame explicitly placed on the head of the armed forces.

American media focuses with a fine lens upon American deaths -- every single casualty or prisoner of war is generally accounted for, with the POWs receiving a great amount of media coverage (see: [url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5DE1E39F931A35757C0A9659C8B63][b]Jessica Lynch[/b][/url] for case in point). However, outlets such as the New York Times or Washington Post do not generally carry stories on American soldiers killing civilians intentionally. You will hear things here and there (see: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html?scp=20&sq=Blackwater&st=nyt][b]Blackwater shootings[/b][/url]), but very rarely are there reports of Americans destroying the lives of civilians (intentionally or not). It's perceived to be un-American and despicable stateside, so it's not really done, save for the most flagrant violations of human rights (Abu Ghraib, but again, I don't believe this was the "one bad apple" either).

Perhaps my opinions are overstated, but I approach an agency that dehumanizes its opposition with great caution and skepticism. By lowering the value placed on life, combined with general frustration at one's situation in a conflict, you are bound to have numerous war crimes. You're right, it's not the majority of people in the armed forces, but there is systemic encouragement to dehumanize -- it simply makes it easier for them to do their job. I fear there are many tragedies that result from this questionable practice of making the opposition seem subhuman.[/font]

[James]

[quote]The numbers of the other two groups are inconsequential if we are discussing coalition deaths exacted on civilians. Of course, this is a tricky business considering you can call a civilian who was shot an "enemy combatant". The lack of uniformed resistance allows this. However, I will also admit that the coin has two sides -- often we kill enemy combatants who are then listed as civilian deaths. The conflict does not lend itself well to 'traditional' body count. It should also be noted that the majority of Iraqi deaths will not be reported to officials for the record.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The other numbers are not inconsequential. You can't talk about how bad one group is without comparing it to other relevant groups. This is especially true if you're trying to look at the situation objectively.

As I said earlier, a blanket figure is one thing, but it has to be viewed in context.

Let's say you have 5,000 civilian deaths in one city in a month. How do you make a value judgement about it? You have to break that figure down and work out the causes and reasons.

I would just reiterate the point that there's a key difference between [i]deliberately[/i] hunting down civilians and civilians being caught in the crossfire. Admittedly, in the end, the result is tragic - nobody would deny that. But at the same time, it's not really fair to suggest that the military deliberately targets civilians as a general rule.

At the very least, seeing the other side of the coin has value. I appreciate that.[/font]

[quote]Largely true, but you are simply wrong about American media reporting American atrocities. Certainly, there are many American failures and shortcomings published (overwhelmingly so, actually), with the press generally highlighting body counts (on both sides), but there is generally no blame explicitly placed on the head of the armed forces.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The latter part is really what I was referring to. Mostly the inference is that this is a military problem (rather than a political one). Although political leaders are pobably most visibly targeted.

In any case, I do think both points are valid. If you focus on local stations (which I am not familiar with), I'm certainly more than happy to accept what you're saying. But if you look at those networks that have an international audience, you'll see a different story.

And then, of course, you have to look at print media as well. A lot of publications don't necessarily blame the military outright, but they [i]do[/i] emphasize the negatives and deliberately sensationalise a very serious situation.[/font]

[quote]American media focuses with a fine lens upon American deaths -- every single casualty or prisoner of war is generally accounted for, with the POWs receiving a great amount of media coverage (see: Jessica Lynch for case in point). However, outlets such as the New York Times or Washington Post do not generally carry stories on American soldiers killing civilians intentionally. You will hear things here and there (see: Blackwater shootings), but very rarely are there reports of Americans destroying the lives of civilians (intentionally or not). It's perceived to be un-American and despicable stateside, so it's not really done, save for the most flagrant violations of human rights (Abu Ghraib, but again, I don't believe this was the "one bad apple" either).[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the reason you don't generally see stories about American soldiers killing innocent civilians [i]intentionally[/i] is because a) it's extremely rare and b) it's incredibly difficult to prove. This latter point is probably a concern in and of itself, but it's also the current reality.

I think you are overestimating this idea of soldiers killing civilians [i]deliberately[/i]. Although I accept that civilian casualties are high as a result of the conflict. I just do take issue with the former statement, because it's very easy to say... and in many cases it casts a negative shadow where there need not be one.[/font]

[quote]Perhaps my opinions are overstated, but I approach an agency that dehumanizes its opposition with great caution and skepticism. By lowering the value placed on life, combined with general frustration at one's situation in a conflict, you are bound to have numerous war crimes. You're right, it's not the majority of people in the armed forces, but there is systemic encouragement to dehumanize -- it simply makes it easier for them to do their job. I fear there are many tragedies that result from this questionable practice of making the opposition seem subhuman.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I honestly can't speak to the issue of dehumanization - and I really don't think anyone can, unless they are actually in the military.

However, I don't tend to accept the slippery-slope argument. Dehumanizing one's enemy for the purpose of winning a tactical victory does not automatically equate to civilian killing sprees.

There's a great deal of training and discipline involved and I would not like to over-simplify that process.

Also, I do think that there are certain realities of war that are probably inescapable. This makes them no less palatable, however, as I mentioned a while ago, there's an important historical perspective missing from many of these public discussions.

Perhaps that is because people our age are not familiar with living in times of war. I mean, if you compare this war and World War II... well, there's just no comparison. Our parents and their parents probably have a slightly different perspective, because they knew what it was like not only to face serious threats but to suffer as a nation for a particular cause.

I think a lot of this plays into our generation's reaction to war, which, while understandable, can often be misguided or without perspective.

Having said all of that, a discussion about a war is one thing... a discussion about the military itself is another. I do think we agree on many points, but I have also tried to qualify certain things and point out that often, situations are not quite as simple as they first appear.

Having a healthy dose of skepticism without falling prey to a completely misinformed cynicism is probably healthy. And from some of the things you've said in your post, I actually think you walk that line pretty well. :catgirl:

I also think you've shown that people can debate without getting personal. Thank you for that - it's a good lesson to some other members. ;)[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]American media focuses with a fine lens upon American deaths -- every single casualty or prisoner of war is generally accounted for, with the POWs receiving a great amount of media coverage (see: [url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5DE1E39F931A35757C0A9659C8B63][b]Jessica Lynch[/b][/url] for case in point). However, outlets such as the New York Times or Washington Post do not generally carry stories on American soldiers killing civilians intentionally. You will hear things here and there (see: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html?scp=20&sq=Blackwater&st=nyt][b]Blackwater shootings[/b][/url]), but very rarely are there reports of Americans destroying the lives of civilians (intentionally or not). It's perceived to be un-American and despicable stateside, so it's not really done, save for the most flagrant violations of human rights (Abu Ghraib, but again, I don't believe this was the "one bad apple" either).[/font][/QUOTE]Since when? Are you talking only about mainstream media? Because it's absurdly easy to hunt around and find more in American newspapers about other aspect of deaths besides that of American soldiers. Deaths and other incidents that relate to the occupation in Iraq. Such as this tidbit that was published by the[I] Los Angeles Times[/I].

[INDENT]According to estimates by the Iraqi Police in Baghdad , US forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital alone, between May 1 and July 12, 2005.[/INDENT]

I think your confusing audience interest with a deliberate intent to keep people in the dark. Yes we want to know about what's going on, but on a personal level, it's those stories about our loved ones off somewhere that interest us the most. As heartless as that sounds, other than to know they died and that steps need to be taken to reduce civilian causalities, people are more interested in hearing about their own. I'm sure it's the same in on the other side, the focus is on their own people not ours.

Also, quite a few of as are well aware of civilians not only getting caught in the cross fire but being killed intentionally. Though I'd argue that it's not intentional in the sense you seem to be hinting at. Just as I don't agree with the implication that such killing was actually ordered by the military. You could come back and say, but this incident happened and I'd point out that usually, such a thing isn't ordered. And yes you can go back into history and find where such things have happened. Anyway...

Others have touched on the stress of war and how there are some who have acted in a manner that is unacceptable, but I don't see that as a systematic issue of people being taught that it's acceptable to kill civilians. On the contrary, I imagine that most find the idea of deliberately taking a life horrible. This is true among those I know personally. Both friends and family who have served in the military.[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Perhaps that is because people our age are not familiar with living in times of war. I mean, if you compare this war and World War II... well, there's just no comparison. Our parents and their parents probably have a slightly different perspective, because they knew what it was like not only to face serious threats but to suffer as a nation for a particular cause.[/font][/QUOTE]This I have to agree with, I may have been born after the war, but I remember how much that did and still does hurt my parents and others, even decisions made after the war, like the Berlin Wall for example. All it did was go from madness to being separated from loved ones for nearly three decades. And yes that is my way of saying we had relatives stuck behind that damn wall.

Anyway, now that I'm here, yes I believe in military service, events such as the holocaust have proven that no matter how peaceful you may be, others are not. I have no illusions over how I would not be willing to calmly sit by and let someone else make the call as to whether I or my family live or not. As a mother, I could not stand by and watch someone shoot my daughter and do nothing to stop it. It's not going to happen, even though the one pulling the trigger would be someone else's son or daughter.

I may wish we didn't need the military, but realistically, I have to wonder just how messed up our world really would be without it. So therefore, to those who do serve, I do appreciate the work and dedication given by those who do their best.

I myself have never served and never will (health reasons including too old) but I have the highest respect for those who do, including those who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being placed in a situation no one should have to face.

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I think you are overestimating this idea of soldiers killing civilians [i]deliberately[/i]. Although I accept that civilian casualties are high as a result of the conflict. I just do take issue with the former statement, because it's very easy to say... and in many cases it casts a negative shadow where there need not be one.[/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I think that this is essentially the debate in a nutshell. I won't bother blowing more hot air around. ;)

[QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Having a healthy dose of skepticism without falling prey to a completely misinformed cynicism is probably healthy. And from some of the things you've said in your post, I actually think you walk that line pretty well. :catgirl:

I also think you've shown that people can debate without getting personal. Thank you for that - it's a good lesson to some other members. ;)[/font][/QUOTE]
Always a pleasure.

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I think your confusing audience interest with a deliberate intent to keep people in the dark. Yes we want to know about what's going on, but on a personal level, it's those stories about our loved ones off somewhere that interest us the most. As heartless as that sounds, other than to know they died and that steps need to be taken to reduce civilian causalities, people are more interested in hearing about their own. I'm sure it's the same in on the other side, the focus is on their own people not ours.[/QUOTE]
There is no maliciousness in the news selectively reporting stories from Iraq, that's a fact of the press. Rather, I think their selective reporting is indicative of an overt American bias -- no, you really don't find frequent stories on Americans killing Iraqi civilians intentionally. I would assert that they're usually stories of collateral damage or accident, not of direct intent to murder (or at least that they're construed as such).

Generally war crimes are only reported on when the reporter was a firsthand witness of the act, which is exceedingly rare. Meh.[/font]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Also as a matter of journalistic standards, it would be inappropriate to essentially suggest that a murder has taken place when there is no evidence of it.

I mean, even just as a matter of general reporting bias (or lack thereof), you have to realize that you're in a war zone and therefore civilians will often get caught in the crossfire. Even if you assume that there are more deliberate killings occurring than are reported on (which is entirely possible), it's still unwise and unreasonable to suggest that it's a systemic or general problem.

So I think these things are reported as accurately as they can be most of the time. Whether or not all sides are presented equally at the news desk is another issue, I suppose.
[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]There is no maliciousness in the news selectively reporting stories from Iraq, that's a fact of the press. Rather, I think their selective reporting is indicative of an overt American bias -- no, you really don't find frequent stories on Americans killing Iraqi civilians intentionally. I would assert that they're usually stories of collateral damage or accident, not of direct intent to murder (or at least that they're construed as such).

Generally war crimes are only reported on when the reporter was a firsthand witness of the act, which is exceedingly rare. Meh.[/font][/QUOTE]Yes, there is bias, that's unavoidable really and applies to both sides in a conflict. Though I don't think it's because we don't want to hear it. I'd rather things like that were addressed instead of being hushed. Also, I think it's a given that crimes are often not reported unless seen by a third party, especially crimes involving intentional and accidental death. That's true of all killing/murder.