ABUSE CRISIS: "Almost everybody was naked all the time." Shocking Sexual Pics of Lynddie England

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I get tired of hearing the arguements you use, Jethro, because Ive heard them a million times.

Bottom line, IF a woman is physically and mentally qualified for combat, they should be allowed to do so, period.

This bull# that Americans will go nuts by women getting abused as POWs is bull#, pure and simple.

America has no problem with women getting raped and murdered en masse within thier own borders.

When the lies first published that Jessica Lynch was raped by her captors, did people freak out? there was more inbterest in seeing and buying naked pics of her on Ebay!

So, no, your "gentlemens" mentality does not exist within America. The American public needs to shake off the idiot mentality that consumes it where war is regarded.

Women have fought in quite a few wars in histoey and suffered greatly. But no where near the type of suffering that is inflicted on them within thier own borders. By thier own countrymen.

If they are qualified, then they should do it. If they aint, then they should stick to something they can hack.

I could care less if there are women in the military myself, but ignore the reality if you want to. How many times do I have to say it before people either read, or get past their sensativities to the scant chance of sexism. Whooooooooohh. Scary eh?

But I'm sure we'll see "The Berg Story". Or better yet, have ANY MAN be interviewed by Diane Sawyer.

So tell me the names of the others involved in the scandle (no cheating)?

Can't do it? Well no one else can either. I already blamed most of it on the media, what more do you want?

But do we reflect the media? Or does the media reflect us? I think the latter.

Originally posted by curme
Actually jsobecky, the majority of Americans are outraged over this and want to find out who is responsible, where the break-down occured.

curme, you are absolutely correct that the majority of Americans want to find out who is responsible, etc. In fact, that includes the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans.

But every poll I've seen, every talk show I've listened to seems to indicate that the outrage is overstated. There is lots of anger, and disappointment, but the outrage seems to be weakening, in light of the Berg incident. It's more of an attitude of "Let's find who is responsible and punish them, and as quickly as possible".

Two sides of the same coin, I think.

Lyndie England was not sexually assaulted, Jethro, she was taking pictures of naked Iraqis and pointing at thier genitals. Whats this got to do with Women in combat?

Her MOS was a desk clerk, not a combat job at all, far from the front lines. Her position has nothing to do with combat.

Her position has more to do with the quality of soldiers allowed in the military, and commanders regulating combat behavior.

It has to do with her fitness as a soldier, not her gender. She is simply a worthless person with no real moral or ethical standards of her station, and should be expelled.

The reason all the attention is focused on her is because she is pretty much the onlyone featured in those photos. I only saw one other with a male present. Since the photos she posed in were the only ones that could be fit to be posted on public tv, the others too graphic and sick, theres your answer.

KJ

But do we reflect the media? Or does the media reflect us? I think the latter.

That is definitely a topic for another thread. I think the media force-feeds us what they think we should be interested in. As an example, and I know I'm straying off topic a bit, but the Laci Peterson case is fed to viewers every night. Now, I admit it is tragic and all, but hundreds of other tragedies occur daily here in the US. Why has that case stayed in the spotlight for so long?

As I said, a very good topic for a thread, IMO.



[Edited on 15-5-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Lyndie England was not sexually assaulted, Jethro, she was taking pictures of naked Iraqis and pointing at thier genitals. Whats this got to do with Women in combat?

Her MOS was a desk clerk, not a combat job at all, far from the front lines. Her position has nothing to do with combat.

Her position has more to do with the quality of soldiers allowed in the military, and commanders regulating combat behavior.

It has to do with her fitness as a soldier, not her gender. She is simply a worthless person with no real moral or ethical standards of her station, and should be expelled.

The reason all the attention is focused on her is because she is pretty much the onlyone featured in those photos. I only saw one other with a male present. Since the photos she posed in were the only ones that could be fit to be posted on public tv, the others too graphic and sick, theres your answer.

I was pointing out an example, not a rule. As for Lynddie, there are thousands of pictures.

Thousands. What pictures are you looking at? I haven't found damn near any of them.

Only Lynddie, same with you.

The only reason we are still interested on Lyddie England is because the media keep feeding us the pictures that is the only reason. The media have psycologial control over us.

Originally posted by marg6043
The only reason we are still interested on Lyddie England is because the media keep feeding us the pictures that is the only reason. The media have psycologial control over us.

This is half of my point.

TextThis is half of my point.

And the other half is?

That the media feeds off of our society as well. It's a mutual parasitic relationship we have going on.

Have you not seen the escalation of fear mongering in the media? I have.

TextThat the media feeds off of our society as well. It's a mutual parasitic relationship we have going on.

And you are right. I think that linddie England is dying out has been replace by guy that got a bargain to talk against all the other people involve.

This is a fine example of the problems with the youth of America. They are taught from day 1 that they are not responsible for their actions. How many counties are out there that say if your kid breaks a law, the parents are responsible? What message is that sending? A couple of years ago I was watching a program about the World Wide Web and they had this guy from America complaining about the content of the web. He finished off by saying that he wants his government to sensor what his kids see on the web. How is that for fine parenting skills? Now his kids aren�t responsible for their actions, and he is not responsible for their up bringing. Then the kids grow up somewhat and join the military that isn�t allowed to belittle them, demoralize them, or physically touch them during basic training, (which if I remember right, is supposed to tear you down as an individual, and bring you back up as a team, while also testing your limits, if you can�t survive basic training, you can�t make it in a war situation.) because they might be offended. So they get shipped out to war, knowing there are not responsible for their actions, perform this stupid act, with a camera no less ( I still can�t get over that one) and when caught, they were following orders. In other words they are not responsible. Then the country is in an uproar over this and wants to blame the people in charge, because the ones that did it are not responsible, is this ever going to end? But then how can parents teach responsibility, if I look at my kid wrong, I can be reported to child services. I think we have just defined Irony. I can�t discipline my kid, but when my kid does wrong it�s my fault. A former friend of mine, went off on his kids teacher in front of the whole class because his kid was caught cheating, and was made to sit in front of the class. What message did that send to the class? I am not condoning what Lynndie England did, I can only hope that she will get what should be coming to her, but I suspect she will get off light, and will probably be ok in the future. Sure her name is tarnished, and most people will hopefully not associate with her, but she supposedly did perform sexual acts if front of a camera, and that just screams porn industry.

Here's the answer to your ironic thoughts.

HIT YOUR KIDS. Obviously in an age appropriate fashion, but hit them none-the-less.

It is healthy and normal for kids to have a fear of their parents.

Not the be afraid of them, but to have some small level of fear of their wrath should they do something the KNOW is wrong.

Raise em the way you want. The system be damned.

Originally posted by Drew321
This is a fine example of the problems with the youth of America. They are taught from day 1 that they are not responsible for their actions. How many counties are out there that say if your kid breaks a law, the parents are responsible? What message is that sending?
:
Then the kids grow up somewhat and join the military that isn�t allowed to belittle them, demoralize them, or physically touch them during basic training, (which if I remember right, is supposed to tear you down as an individual, and bring you back up as a team, while also testing your limits, if you can�t survive basic training, you can�t make it in a war situation.) because they might be offended. So they get shipped out to war, knowing there are not responsible for their actions, perform this stupid act, with a camera no less ( I still can�t get over that one) and when caught, they were following orders. In other words they are not responsible. Then the country is in an uproar over this and wants to blame the people in charge, because the ones that did it are not responsible, is this ever going to end? But then how can parents teach responsibility, if I look at my kid wrong, I can be reported to child services. I think we have just defined Irony. I can�t discipline my kid, but when my kid does wrong it�s my fault.

I see your point, but if you look at what it is intended to accomplish, it does make some kind of sense: Underage kids get into trouble and get off the hook because of their age. The parents shrug it off and say "He's out of control, what can I do?"

Answer: Well, what you can do is start being a parent. If you don't want to do that, well you'll still be responsible for the damage that this kid, who you brought into the world, has done to society because he is an undisciplined brat. To me, it's along the same lines of keeping your dog on a leash.

The best solution, IMO, is to stop coddling them and start punishing them and the parents. Fines, community service, mandatory "Start being a good kid" classes that the parents have to attend. Not every kid can be rehabilitated...that same brat that is tipping over the trashcans today will be causing road rage or worse when he drives, if not taught how to act responsibly while still a kid.

And boy, do I hear you about the military thing! There actually was a thread in here a while back where somebody wanted to know what the military could do to him if he wanted to sleep in instead of getting up at 5AM. "Can they touch me?" Needless to say, my responses were not what they wanted to hear.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I see your point, but if you look at what it is intended to accomplish, it does make some kind of sense: Underage kids get into trouble and get off the hook because of their age. The parents shrug it off and say "He's out of control, what can I do?"

Answer: Well, what you can do is start being a parent. If you don't want to do that, well you'll still be responsible for the damage that this kid, who you brought into the world, has done to society because he is an undisciplined brat. To me, it's along the same lines of keeping your dog on a leash.

The best solution, IMO, is to stop coddling them and start punishing them and the parents. Fines, community service, mandatory "Start being a good kid" classes that the parents have to attend. Not every kid can be rehabilitated...that same brat that is tipping over the trashcans today will be causing road rage or worse when he drives, if not taught how to act responsibly while still a kid.

And boy, do I hear you about the military thing! There actually was a thread in here a while back where somebody wanted to know what the military could do to him if he wanted to sleep in instead of getting up at 5AM. "Can they touch me?" Needless to say, my responses were not what they wanted to hear.

To combine the two topics, I'd say that much like in the military, authority must come with responcibility.

If the parent is responcible to be the main authoritative force for their child (which they took that yoke of their own volition), then should the main responcibility be theirs?

Yes. I find that the main problem, is that people excuse kids for too long, then try to play catch up.

Example:

Kid at 2 - "oh, he's only two years old."

Kid at 5 - "Oh he's only 5 years old"

Kid at 10 - "Shoot, I've got no control of this kid"

Kid at 15 - "This kid does what he wants"

You need to take the reins early, before they can think for themselves.

Cement the idea of who is the boss, with no sway in that resolve.

No the victims of 911 weren't stripped and humiliated or forced to commit perverted sexual acts or starved.

They were burned alive though

If I had a choice I would chose the stripped humiliated every time. When its over I could then go home to my family... The 911 victims don't have that option.

"That's just nasty okay"! Seriously folks, this is disgusting in more ways than one huh? What a bunch of clowns.