EPTIs it important to stop sexual abuse? Absolutely. Do they have the resources, time, and manpower to do this to a satisfactory extent? Probably not.
Sex Abuse in the Military - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Is it important to stop sexual abuse? Absolutely. Do they have the resources, time, and manpower to do this to a satisfactory extent? Probably not. | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On April 17 2012 19:23 Omnipresent wrote: You should know that leaders in the military, including the ranking officer in each of the army, navy, airforce, and coastguard supported repeal long before it finally got passed. As did the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and a majority of active service members. It's probably better to look at this as an organization going out of its way to protect members of the in-group. It's much more like the way the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks. True that. The system is rigged, thats why. Cant get it fixed the next day, it will take generations. When and How?...that seems a lil bit complicated. | ||
|
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 18 2012 10:51 acerockolla wrote: You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation. Exactly. I remember in Infantry school, the first thing they told us before starting our unarmed combat and bayonet training: "And if you ever need to use any of this shit, you fucked up and should have worked harder at the range." I was in a unit with a totally fucked chain of command, and the real nutjobs STILL got kicked out. We only had minor nutjobs, and most of their issues were a combination of fostered overconfidence and steroids. Anybody who was a serious detriment to society got their shit documented, got medicated, got arrested as needed, and got an appropriate (medical or dishonorable, depending on circumstances) discharge. | ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 10:56 danbel1005 wrote: True that. The system is rigged, thats why. Cant get it fixed the next day, it will take generations. When and How?...that seems a lil bit complicated. Yeah, the DADT example is completely false. Any such regulations are the product of the government and its people. In the US, the military does as its told. It's completely subject to the civilian government. Besides, DADT was intended as a gateway to the present day situation. Do you think Clinton really wanted to discriminate against gays? | ||
|
Man with a Plan
United States401 Posts
On April 18 2012 10:51 acerockolla wrote: You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation. As far as reports go, there are ALWAYS reports of sex abuse and even criminal abuses on every military missions by our very own US military. Name it, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. Wherever our armies are, there always seem to be cases of these abuses. Now, tell me, is that an aberration or not? But this is not the topic discussed here. When I said I understand his basic sentiment, I was taking into consideration the totality of the situation. You should have read further into my post to see that I called for higher standards in the conduct of gentlemen and women in the military. | ||
|
B1-66ER
30 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:00 EchoZ wrote: Rape has happened, is happening and will happen in the future again. These kinda stuff always happen, its just the way different sector handle it. I guess in the military this is the way of covering it up. Maybe it is because it is military and not some kinda of corporate company that people are angry about and tend to focus on, because they expect the people in the military to behave better. More than the expectation from military men to behave better, I believe it is actually within the political interest of US as a political entity. While I cannont comment thoroughly on the merits of psychological review and actual procedure of military in this case, I would like to bring to the surface US's foreign policy and attendant unilateral agreements with the nations that "host" their armies. Every US military mission is always covered by a judicial provision whereas offenses incurred during missions are within the jurisprudence of USA. This effectively handicaps the "host" countries, but in most cases, this is subverted via charity missions in the form of lunch packages being dropped to the community, medical missions, infrastructure, etc. | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
| ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:11 Man with a Plan wrote: As far as reports go, there are ALWAYS reports of sex abuse and even criminal abuses on every military missions by our very own US military. Name it, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. Wherever our armies are, there always seem to be cases of these abuses. Now, tell me, is that an aberration or not? But this is not the topic discussed here. When I said I understand his basic sentiment, I was taking into consideration the totality of the situation. You should have read further into my post to see that I called for higher standards in the conduct of gentlemen and women in the military. aberration noun 1. the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course. 2. the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type. 3. deviation from truth or moral rectitude. Yes, these are abberations. Do you realize how many American troops have set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan? I personally don't know, but it's in the hundreds of thousands if not 7 figures. For an example of what would not be an abberation, study the exploits of the Japanese Imperial Army during WW2. When the media reports on these abberations, it gives it so much attention that makes people feel as though it's common. It is not common, even if you can find occurrences in every war. | ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote: I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. | ||
|
Rebel_lion
United States271 Posts
--In the Army, 16% of all soldiers are women, but females constitute 24% of all personality disorder discharges. --Air Force: women make up 21% of the ranks and 35% of personality disorder discharges. --Navy: 17% of sailors are women and 26% of personality disorder discharges --Marines: 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges apparently most real "nutjobs" are female. I find that 19,000 estimate extremely disconcerting. | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote: Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. | ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote: That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. | ||
|
xjoehammerx
United States191 Posts
| ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:48 Rebel_lion wrote: Despite the Defense Department's "zero tolerance" policy, there were 3,191 military sexual assaults reported in 2011. Given that most sexual assaults are not reported, the Pentagon estimates the actual number was probably closer to 19,000. from the article in the op. --In the Army, 16% of all soldiers are women, but females constitute 24% of all personality disorder discharges. --Air Force: women make up 21% of the ranks and 35% of personality disorder discharges. --Navy: 17% of sailors are women and 26% of personality disorder discharges --Marines: 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges apparently most real "nutjobs" are female. I find that 19,000 estimate extremely disconcerting. I don't know how the civilian rate compares, but keep in mind that there are 1.5 million active duty alone. There are also 1.5 million in reserves, which are frequently called up. 19,000 is absolutely unacceptable, but it should also be kept in context. The statistics on personanilty disorder discharges don't tell the full story. The military does not seek out people in these diagnosis. It's a pretty widely accepted fact that women are more likely to seek help, whereas men are too ashamed/stupid to reach out for help. This is why PTSD in veterans is such an issue... the military is basically incapable of seeking out troubled people unless they ask for help. | ||
|
Jojo131
Brazil1631 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote: I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. Reading your post reminded me of one of my favorite pictures http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 smbc always so relevant! | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote: I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. I understand your point, but the only way to counter the hegemony of any discussion is to provide a diversity of voices. | ||
|
TheBlueFalcon
United States20 Posts
Let's say it's an NCO fucking around with a non NCO. In the military that could be considered fraternization under the UCMJ. That means possible loss of rank, pay, and possible restriction. If that NCO or non NCO claims rape, they get off the hook for fraternization. There is HUGE incentive to claim rape. I've seen this one happen. Another classic is when a military member is fucking around outside their marriage. Another punishable offense under the UCMJ. I've met a female who was cheating on her husband. Someone before her got Court Martialed and was sent to the brig. She was starting to fuck around with another guy, and I told him what was up. I wanted her to get in trouble but that marine didn't want to do anything. Unfortunately that's not enough proof to get her convicted. Here's a third reason why you might want to claim false rape. You don't want to be in the military anymore. You can't just "quit." If you claim rape you can claim mental issues and get a free out. Believe me, I know plenty of people who want to quit. At the same time I don't think they'd stoop that low, but you never know. I haven't seen this one yet. There are also other problems involved in rape charges. One being that women can't consent when drunk but men can. So if a woman consents, but the next day regrets it she can claim rape. It doesn't work the other way around. However, even if we assumed half of all the rapes in the military were fake anything greater than 1 is way to high. Hopefully we can come together as a group and cut this shit out. I know I would stop it from happening if I caught it. | ||
|
IshinShishi
Japan6156 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote: Saying "yet feel they know everything", followed by "but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please" (as in : I know I'm right, but by all means, keep on being delusional) is a good indicative that the irony on your posts is really present on so many levels it's tangible, but please, continue defining how "sane people" think and how insane the "vocal minority" is.I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. Any respectable discussion needs representatives of multiple parts. | ||
|
acerockolla
United States219 Posts
On April 18 2012 13:43 IshinShishi wrote: "yet feel they know everything", followed by "but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please" (as in : I know I'm right, but keep being dellusional), the irony on your posts is really present on so many levels it's tangible, but please, by all means, keep on talking about how every 'sane people' thinks. This is what I mean by perceive things how you please, lol. I explain what I was implying, to clear up any misconceptions, but ultimately you (or anyone) will read it as you please and interpret it how you want. The part where you interpret that as "I know i'm right, but keep being dellusional" is exactly the stuff I'm talking about. Everything I've said was strictly my opinion, and if you interpret my posts as me declaring everything as factual, that is your issue. | ||
| ||
