Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

Users who are viewing this thread

Your bros will cover for you no matter what you do? I thought the organized crime part of the military was reserved for the ones in the high positions but maybe every army is just like Goodfellas then, for all I know. No rats, unless there's a plea bargain then you rat out everyone.
 
Sir Saladin said:
Your bros will cover for you no matter what you do? I thought the organized crime part of the military was reserved for the ones in the high positions but maybe every army is just like Goodfellas then, for all I know. No rats, unless there's a plea bargain then you rat out everyone.
 
Yeah, I saw that movie so I guess all we can do is let them do what they will. Rape, murder and stealing are just time honored military traditions that should be respected and not messed with.
 
Dodes said:
History tells a different tale.

Social psychology tells a very different tale.

If you want to lose hope in humanity or at least feel a lot less inclined to believe moral philosophizing, it's as simple as takings some introductory course for sociology.

Not to say people can't be be good, but people doing the right things for the right reasons happens a lot less than we might wish, especially when you examine events through research.
 
The question if the systems/institutions/establishment are improving in the sense of adapting to human psychology/sociology for a better society.

But now we're diving into the pillar of political philosophy, so I'm not sure if anyone wants to go there.
 
In general people are very nice once you look past all of the stupidity, greed and envy. It always helps to also remember the good qualities most people have, such as the ability to believe anything as long as it's a lie.
 
Amontadillo said:
Úlfheðinn said:
Social psychology tells a very different tale.

If you want to lose hope in humanity or at least feel a lot less inclined to believe moral philosophizing, it's as simple as takings some introductory course for sociology.

Not to say people can't be be good, but people doing the right things for the right reasons happens a lot less than we might wish, especially when you examine events through research.
I'm starting to see why you're always drunk. :razz:

Specialize in Social Psychology and focus on Gender/Stereotypes and Morals/Values...

Then lose all faith in humanity and start drinking.

It's what I did.  :wink:

I am only partially joking, it is actually pretty depressing ****, but interesting...
 
Seff said:
Seff said:
The talk about sexual advances and 'human nature' and so forth is justified in a sense, except it should not be a problem for the professional soldier to handle. If I as a professional soldier can control my natural instinct to kill the person I've captured that has just tried to kill me, or control my instinct to slap the children throwing rocks at me as I drive by, then I can goddamn jolly well control my natural instinct to make sexual advances towards a colleague. Any army that trains soldiers to act on their instincts, as opposed to control and direct them, is training braindead muppets.

The pregnant women rates smacks of improper training and insufficient understanding of being a combat unit and not a dating unit. It's a regrettable tendency and it's the fault of both genders, but it doesn't change the over-all validity of capable and responsible women in combat.

Consider my statement here and the statistics you posted, FUBAR, and see if you can conclude anything about my impression of US soldiers. :razz:
I cant say much about the quality of training, but I have heard that the standards have been lowered in recent years.

Fehnor said:
**** you, Seff. :razz:

FUBAR's statement is a mention of a number not supported by any reference but a blog, and misreads the statistic as the number of reported cases, not the expounded number based on the number of reported cases. While the issue is disgustingly prevalent, misinterpreting statistics is no place to start an argument.

When you consider that the only basis of statistics for rape in the military comes from a source in the military that includes the numbers of victims of rape of both genders, inappropriate advances, including verbal sexual assault and threatening/attempt of rape, and the average number of those cases per year is between 1-2000, it's much less of a dire issue, but still prevalent and indicative of problems that need fixed.

I would not trust the US military or any US federal organization, especially when it comes to statistics that may damage their reputation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/us/politics/veterans-testify-on-rapes-and-scant-hope-of-justice.html

Another source with similar statistics, also from the New York times (a quite reputable source).

“I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command,” Ms. Havrilla said. When she sought help from an Army chaplain, she said, he told her “the rape was God’s will” and urged her to go to church.

Interesting quote from the article, which is about a senate panel investigating military rape.
 
The whole world has changed in views regarding rape in 25 years. Also note, The statistics in the article are from military sources.

Also, the senate is a U.S. federal organization that you do not trust.

The article does have a lot of good information, and goals I agree with.

"Many members of the committee said they would like to see all sex offenders in the military discharged from service and would like to replace the current system of adjudicating sexual assault by taking it outside a victim’s chain of command. The senators focused in particular on a recent decision by an Air Force general to reverse a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case with little explanation."

'"...if you think you are achieving discipline and order with your current convening authority framework I am sorry to say you are wrong."'

The underlying purpose of that hearing was to gather information to add additional structure for reporting and care for victims, and punishment and dismissal of offenders. That is the direction the military has to take, and it has to be a serious punishment enforced the same way the zero tolerance on drug and alcohol in the '80's. I think this is right around the corner, and will probably have some retroactive effects.
 
Darwin is the only language moderator in charge of monitoring bad language. That's why he has "Watching your language" written in his profile. What a thankless and time consuming task it must be.
 
Back
Top Bottom