Rape and Chicken Wings

hippiemom

reborncareerist wrote:

Exactly. The only way someone could truly avoid voting for a politician who might commit some immoral act in the future would be to use psychic powers. And since we ARE talking about politicians, even that wouldn't work .. Who would you vote for?

Not any immoral act ... he's talking about this war in particular and he has a point. Not about the people who voted for Bush in 2000, because although there were those of us who had an inkling that he might be a bit gung-ho, there was certainly no hard evidence of it. But in '04, we were already there, things were already going awry, there were already ugly stories floating around, there was NO QUESTION as to what you were supporting with a Bush vote. I wouldn't go so far as to say "YOU raped that girl and killed her family!" to everyone who voted for Bush, but yeah, there's some level of responsibility there. This is what happens in a war, and they voted for the war and the people who were responsible for getting us into it. You can't support war and not support atrocities like this, because they ALWAYS go hand in hand.

rebornFixer

hippiemom wrote:

Not any immoral act ... he's talking about this war in particular and he has a point. Not about the people who voted for Bush in 2000, because although there were those of us who had an inkling that he might be a bit gung-ho, there was certainly no hard evidence of it. But in '04, we were already there, things were already going awry, there were already ugly stories floating around, there was NO QUESTION as to what you were supporting with a Bush vote. I wouldn't go so far as to say "YOU raped that girl and killed her family!" to everyone who voted for Bush, but yeah, there's some level of responsibility there. This is what happens in a war, and they voted for the war and the people who were responsible for getting us into it. You can't support war and not support atrocities like this, because they ALWAYS go hand in hand.

Hmmm ... I guess one can make this argument in general terms ... A vote for Bush was likely to translate into ongoing U.S. participation in this bullshit Iraq war. It just seems like a stretch to me, to take it all the way down to these very specific acts commited by specific soldiers. War and atrocity do indeed go hand in hand, but that does not mean that someone who thinks a war is just also condones specific deviant acts like raping and slaughtering civilians in a foreign country. By that logic, anyone who thinks that Hitler and the Nazis needed to be defeated by force of arms in WW-II (something that many people will admit was necessary) also condones the firebombing of Dresden, and what Soviet troops did to civilians all over Germany.

hailhailkc

hippiemom wrote:

Not any immoral act ... he's talking about this war in particular and he has a point. Not about the people who voted for Bush in 2000, because although there were those of us who had an inkling that he might be a bit gung-ho, there was certainly no hard evidence of it. But in '04, we were already there, things were already going awry, there were already ugly stories floating around, there was NO QUESTION as to what you were supporting with a Bush vote. I wouldn't go so far as to say "YOU raped that girl and killed her family!" to everyone who voted for Bush, but yeah, there's some level of responsibility there. This is what happens in a war, and they voted for the war and the people who were responsible for getting us into it. You can't support war and not support atrocities like this, because they ALWAYS go hand in hand.

They may often times go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean that support for the war equals support for atrocities like Abu Grahib, or mass graves in Bosnia. It's like saying that if you enjoy getting tipsy on a Saturday night, you must be an advocate of drunk driving...because the two often go hand in hand. Most of us here would agree that's not the case. And to take it a step further, it would be akin to saying that those who like to get tipsy, somehow have some amount of blood on their hands from all of the drunk driving accidents that happen everyday in this nation. After all, if you drink alcohol, then you must support drunk driving, right?

Kinda stretchin' it if you ask me.

I guess people who shoot up with heroin now have blood on their hands via the tyrannical rule of the Taliban over the last decade or so in Afghanistan. After all, those poppy plants produce a drug that could be funded by the very people in this nation that buy the product. Therefore they help support and hold some responsibility for every head chopped off, every woman victimized, and every child raised with an AK-47 in his/her hand.

The list goes on...and on...and on...

hailhailkc

reborncareerist wrote:

Hmmm ... I guess one can make this argument in general terms ... A vote for Bush was likely to translate into ongoing U.S. participation in this bullshit Iraq war. It just seems like a stretch to me, to take it all the way down to these very specific acts commited by specific soldiers. War and atrocity do indeed go hand in hand, but that does not mean that someone who thinks a war is just also condones specific deviant acts like raping and slaughtering civilians in a foreign country. By that logic, anyone who thinks that Hitler and the Nazis needed to be defeated by force of arms in WW-II (something that many people will admit was necessary) also condones the firebombing of Dresden, and what Soviet troops did to civilians all over Germany.

You and I, we share the same brain! LOL! Nice post!!!

hailhailkc

And Hippiemom, just to be fair, I'm not saying that I don't see your point…or that you're completely wrong here either. I just don't want to see this analogy stretched out too far to the point of absurd. I know you reigned yourself in on your post, and said that you wouldn't go as far as saying that people who voted for Bush actually committed the rape, but I just want to keep some perspective here.

No harm meant.

Abookamongstthemany

hailhailkc wrote:

They may often times go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean that support for the war equals support for atrocities like Abu Grahib, or mass graves in Bosnia. It's like saying that if you enjoy getting tipsy on a Saturday night, you must be an advocate of drunk driving...because the two often go hand in hand. Most of us here would agree that's not the case. And to take it a step further, it would be akin to saying that those who like to get tipsy, somehow have some amount of blood on their hands from all of the drunk driving accidents that happen everyday in this nation. After all, if you drink alcohol, then you must support drunk driving, right?

Kinda stretchin' it if you ask me.

I guess people who shoot up with heroin now have blood on their hands via the tyrannical rule of the Taliban over the last decade or so in Afghanistan. After all, those poppy plants produce a drug that could be funded by the very people in this nation that buy the product. Therefore they help support and hold some responsibility for every head chopped off, every woman victimized, and every child raised with an AK-47 in his/her hand.

The list goes on...and on...and on...

If you get tipsy and then drive drunk then you are supporting drunk driving. How can it be alright for you but not everyone else? If you shoot up heroin and the money you spend on it goes to the Taliban, then yes, you are supporting them. I thought some of you guys were big on personal responsibility? I don't buy Coke products because my money would be supporting a corporation whose policies I don't condone. I wouldn't vote for Coke knowing that my vote would mean supporting their actions. If you're saying these things always happen in war and you voted for a guy who wanted this war, then yes, you have some guilt on your hands.

Echo27

The soldiers who did this should be drawn and quartered Braveheart style...Anyone who commits rape (let alone murder) should be put to death...Ideally in a painful fashion by the victim and her family...Of course, this is only if they're known to be guilty (that's my main problem with the death penalty as it stands). On the bright side? It would free up a lot of room for the drug offenders this country loves to imprison. Maybe that sounds harsh, but I'm Sicilian...We like our revenge...

These "soldiers" have dishonored their country in a way that is inconceivable. War is hell, but there are ways to avoid inflicting that hell on innocent civilians. We need to get the hell out of there yesterday. What a sad world we live in...

Spartanacus

I skimmed the story and didn't read any follow-up posts, but I have a HUGE craving for some Hooters wings now and it's only 9:30 AM. Thanks a lot.

Vedderlution_Baby

How come we aren't hearing about this in the news? Have I just been missing it? Or are the afraid to show it because it actually proves that shit isn't going the way they actually want it too and they can't fess up.

RockinInCanada

Jeremy2009 wrote:

You have no idea about professionalism in the military, and if someone crosses that line. You hope they get life in jail? No Saddam Hussein is so lucky to get that for murdering his people. Im sure in this case the death penalty will be the outcome.

Really?

Family to a UN Commander in Bosnia....yeah I have no sense of the military....

Vedderlution_Baby

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

How come we aren't hearing about this in the news? Have I just been missing it? Or are the afraid to show it because it actually proves that shit isn't going the way they actually want it too and they can't fess up.

I'm still looking to an answer for this.

robbie

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I'm still looking to an answer for this.

because they are busy reporting fake terrorist plots.

hailhailkc

robbie wrote:

because they are busy reporting fake terrorist plots.

Are you still busy blaming all the Bush supporters for every kitten that died in the past twenty five years?

Vedderlution_Baby

I don't think this could have come at a better time for the administration. Everyone's attention is diverted to the situation between Hezzbollah and Israel that this is going to slip through the cracks and swept under the rug. I seriously think the most dangerous enemy to a politician is someone with a good sense of observation and a memory.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I thought some of you guys were big on personal responsibility?

Sure, I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. What is your point? I've already conceded that the argument has some validity, at least in the sense that anyone who voted for Bush the second time around had to know that more Iraq was on the horizon. Not sure what your rant about Coke has to do with the main point (especially since whenever that topic comes up, you ignore me when I point out that Coke's rivals are just as bad).

BackwardsBlues1

these are the type of guys who would probably do something similar if they were sitting around drinking at home in the united states.

fridgehopper

That is distgusting! Sickening. These men should be tried by Iraqi law, and hopefully killed. I do not support the death sentence, but when grown men conspire to go out and kill some innocent people, and repeatedly rape a CHILD, there should be no mercy. They should be made examples of, maybe then it would stop those fucking dickhead's in the U.S army (and other armies) who think they have some sort of soverienty(sp) over the indegenous(sp) people. You would think they would turn away people like that, but I guess they are just cannon fodder, so who gives a shit right? Makes you wonder...no wonder some of these people want to kill us, these guys are the ambassadors for people of the west out there, and how do they treat them? We are totally misrepresented by both our armies(the other armed forces tend to be more disciplined) and our governments. And its the innocents on both sides that ultimately suffer.

Off topic, but my friend in the RAF told me that although the RAF are taught to kill by head shot, the average american soldier is taught that when the going gets tough, slap it onto auto and keep it at waist height. Anyone shed the light on this logic?

lukins fridge

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What goes wrong inside one's head and heart that allows them to do these normally unthinkable things and still be able to live with themselves?

they're trained to kill and then put into these horrific situations where it's all around them. why do you think these people come back fucked up...it's beyond you and me because we have never been there.

what pisses me off is this is the stuff that mary-joe and bill down on the farm who support the war because we "need to be safe-safe-safe" don't even think about for a second.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Sure, I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. What is your point? I've already conceded that the argument has some validity, at least in the sense that anyone who voted for Bush the second time around had to know that more Iraq was on the horizon. Not sure what your rant about Coke has to do with the main point (especially since whenever that topic comes up, you ignore me when I point out that Coke's rivals are just as bad).

I wasn't quoting you anyways, now was I? Just because you have conceded that the arguement holds weight doesn't mean I can't still make the same point to others to whom it may apply.

I have addressed your point about Coke's rivals. I don't drink those either. i remember telling you I first became aware of Coke's policies and started boycottong them and then later learned of Pepsi doing crooked shit, as well. What more do you need me to address? The Coke was used as an analogy to match HHKC's drunk driving and heroin analogies.

Vedderlution_Baby

I don't know if theses guys would have done it if they were at home. I think they did it because they thought they could get away with it. If this is what army programming creates, what's gonna happen when they come back?