DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 25, 2015, 12:05:23 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-muslims-threatened-after-american-sniper/ar-AA8yeUj
An organization of American Muslims is worried that viewing of "American Sniper" is liable to increase the harassment of Muslim people.
"A majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are (a) result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper," the ADC said.
The ADC notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and local police about the threats and asked the two Hollywood stars to condemn the violent rhetoric used by filmgoers.
"Your visibility, influence, and connection to the film would be a tremendous force in drawing attention to and lessening the serious dangers facing the respective communities," the letters signed by ADC president Samer Khalaf said.
I am struck at how a movie might have greater effect showing simulation and recreation than news footage of the exact same thing did.
-
There are people that believe that anyone's life can be turned into a good novel. This is blatantly untrue: a novel can be written in such a way that there is a clear sense of direction to a character's life. This is almost never the case with actual people: life is chaotic, much of it makes no sense and has no logic. It would be quite easy to make a movie of Kim Jung Il playing his perfect game of golf: 18 shots, 18 holes in one, fortified with special music and all manner of accompaniment of other actors. The ball could falter on its way to the hole: it might rain: there might be evil trained enemy falcons that were sent to prevent the triumph. You could easily do the same thing with an entire team of bowlers, all bowling a perfect 300. A convincing film could be made of a quadriplegic winning the Iditarod as well, or Stephen Hawking winning an Olympic luge race. Compared to something like Avatar all these would be but a piece of cake.
Even if these happened in reality and were filmed as a documentary, the film would never be as good as a well dramatized one.
Of course, not all films represent a "what would happen if" situation can be convincing. Tarantino's Django Unchained and his Inglorious Basterds are a couple of bad examples. I am pretty sure that the basic plot of both of these could have been made credible had several changes been made. As it was, both were too cartoonish. I am not sure that this was not Tarantino's intent.
O Brother Where Art Thou was similar, but it was a great film, because it was clearly a comedy. Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds were far too violent to be funny, though there was a bit of irony in both.
-
BOX OFFICE: "AMERICAN SNIPER" #1,
BREAKS SUPER BOWL WEEKEND RECORD
In its third weekend of wide release, director Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" is expected to gross another $31.3 million, which breaks the record for the highest grossing film over Super Bowl weekend.
What's extraordinary about this feat is that previous record holder, 2008's "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert," debuted on this weekend to $31.1. million.
At 84 years-old, Eastwood can still make liberals cry.
By Monday, "Sniper" is expected to be at $250 million, or close enough to pass the magic mark by Tuesday.
"Sniper" humiliated this week's second place. In its third weekend "Paddington" won?t crack $8 million, nor will the found footage, time travel drama "Project Almanac," which debuted to $7.75 million.
Kevin Costner's racial drama "Black and White" went wide with 1823 screens this weekend and earned $6.2 million.
Both "The Wedding Ringer" and "Taken 3" seem to be slowing down fast. After 3 weeks the Kevin Hart comedy earned just $5.6 million for a total of $48 million. "Taken 3" sits at just $81.5 million after 4 weeks, which puts it way behind pace with its two predecessors.
"Selma" dropped completely out of the top 10. The Civil Rights drama sits at $43.6 million after earning $2.37 million this weekend.
http://deadline.com/2015/01/american-sniper-project-almanac-super-bowl-box-office-1201361696/
-
"Selma" dropped completely out of the top 10. The Civil Rights drama sits at $43.6 million after earning $2.37 million this weekend.
Well there you go....proof positive that our nation is a bunch of racists......right?
-
Comparing films by their ability to earn money is not a useful way to judge their merit or the attitudes of theatergoers. People go to the movies to be entertained. I don't think a majority of people consider the events of Selma as entertaining as the events portrayed in American Sniper or in some entirely fictional film. Everyone knows what happened in Selma. Most people know nothing about the central character in American Sniper: not his name, not his experience, not whether he is dead or alive.
Of the three films mentioned, the Costner film Black or White is the one I would prefer to see, though I imagine I will eventually see all of these.
Eastwood is a grumpy old SOB, but the movies he has directed have always been excellent, in my opinion. Less so the ones in which he has the starring role, especially some of the early ones. His chimpanzee movie was LOTS better than Reagan's chimpanzee movie. Neither was as good as most of the Planet of the Apes movies, but they were not so much chimpanzee movies as apesuit movies, as the apes were more human than simian.
-
If I made a movie, could I get Howard Dean, Michael Moore and the first lady talking about it?
This is terrific marketing.
-
I can agree that this film has received great publicity.
The life story of a sniper is surely worthy of an insightful book and/or film. Anyone who has a realization that the people he is killing have lives and loved ones just as he does should make for a serious inner conflict. Only a psychopath would not be conflicted a bit over this job.
A successful sniper lies in hiding and kills people that are unaware of his existence, often shooting them in the back. Shooting people in the back was pretty much against every Code of the West that has ever existed. If there are other snipers lurking about to shoot the sniper in question, then perhaps a sniper is brave.
But heroic? Firemen are generally far more heroic than snipers in anyone's book.
-
That'd be your book
-
Most of the time, snipers are hidden from danger. Firemen are always near danger, and fires are always a threat.
They do not make that many fireman movies because house fires are commonplace, and society never questions the need to put out fires.
The wars that this country has fought after WWII have all been questionable, and sending soldiers off to fight them has required a lot of hoopla to convince the public to support these expensive and largely unnecessary wars.
It is like the Man Bites Dog phenomena. Fireman heroism is of the dog bites man variety: it is expected.
-
The issue here is not how public you are in the lives saved, but how many lives you save, regardless of if anyone sees you or doesn't. Minus the obligatory insult about shooting people in the back, and the fact that the enemy goes out of its way to try and hunt down a sniper, where as a house doesn't target firemen to kill, one sniper can save hundreds, if not thousands of lives. That defacto makes him a hero, just as much, if not more, than any fireman.
It's a little like the firearms argument, that the left frequently tries to ignore, where despite what "evil" a gun does in taking a a life, in this country a gun saves far more, than taken. Not my stats either....nor the NRA's. That'd be referred to as the FBI's stats
Speaking of which, I happen to recall a certain professor opining a while back, how school shootings were supposedly increasing in frequency, in this gun crazy culture of ours.....once a month, I heard in fact. Boy, are those gun nuts not getting the memo??
-
So are you going to tell me that snipers do NOT shoot people in the back?
That is not an insult...it is a job description.
You have it backwards: shooting snipers saves lives.
-
So are you going to tell me that snipers do NOT shoot people in the back?
IF they know that the person in question is heading towards who they're trying to protect with the intention of harming/killing those whom they are trying to protect. Absolutely
That is not an insult...it is a job description.
Of course it is, when its made in the context, MM uses it, in that the tactic is supposedly standard procedure, where the bad guy isn't necessarily being a bad guy
You have it backwards: shooting snipers saves lives.
See?...you just made my point. Depends on who's lives now, doesn't it. Our American military or terrorists/insurgents/"bad guys". Thank you Shooting American snipers puts at greater risk American lives. An American sniper shooting "bad guy" snipers saves American lives. An American sniper shooting terrorists trying to shoot Americans saves American lives. An American sniper shooting insurgents trying to get close with a high explosive saves American lives. 1 American sniper can save hundreds, if not thousands of American lives
-
You made no point at all.
Shooting people in the back is a NOT an act of bravery, no matter who does it. It may or may not be necessary to win a battle.
Whether a battle is won is a good thing depends entirely on what the battle is about.
Rescuing people from a burning building cannot be described as anything other than heroic.
In Iraq, we have fought "bad guy" Sunnis to save "good guy" Shiites.
We have also fought "bad guy Shiites" in order to save "good guy" Sunnis.
The US invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake. Many more Americans could have been saved by just not engaging in this war.
Now if a sniper could have plugged Henry Kissinger, Zbignev Brzezinski or Dick Cheney at the appropriate moment, thousands of American lives could have been saved.
-
Shooting people in the back is a NOT an act of bravery, no matter who does it.
You just can't help yourself. I NEVER SAID THAT SHOOTING SOMEONE IN THE BACK WAS A BRAVE ACT. I referenced that its insulting when you imply it with the context that its a cowardly act, as in "not necessary", or that its simply something snipers just do. That's a direct insult to American snipers
Rescuing people from a burning building cannot be described as anything other than heroic.
AND WHO SAID THAT IT WASN'T?? Point being, that I HAVE MADE, is that 1 American sniper can save hundrends if not thousands of lives. THAT's the point, despite your best efforts at misdirection
-
When I say that snipers shoot people iun the back, that is not just an insult to American snipers. It is a description of ALL snipers, because it is not an act of bravery for any of them. You can say the same thing about submarines torpedoing ships, knowing that they cannot prevent passengers and others who now pose no threat to the submarine from drowning.
Sniping, poison gas, nukes, biological warfare, submarine attacks, terrorism and torture are all dastardly deeds that can easily be described as cowardly. Modern warfare is a whole assemblage of dastardly deeds. There is no longer such a thing as a fair fight.
-
When I say that snipers shoot people iun the back, that is not just an insult to American snipers.
It IS, in the context of how you're using it...that its simply something they do. As I said, they'll only shoot bad guys in the back if they're an imminent threat to American lives
It is a description of ALL snipers, because it is not an act of bravery for any of them.
Bravery is irrelevent to where snipers shoot people. That'd be related to accuracy. So you can ddisense trying lump bravery with shooting people in the back. No one is claiming that as a popint of bravery. In war, it isn't about "fighting fair". It's about killing as many bad guys as possible, while saving as many of your guys in the process
-
You can believe that they will only shoot bad people in the back only to prevent them from doing harm to citizens, but I do not think that this is always the case.
Shooting people in the back is shooting people in the back. It is essentially murder. War is organized murder. That is the definition of war. That is why wars should be avoided. We can learn from Switzerland and Sweden.
-
Most of the time, snipers are hidden from danger.
This is sort of the opposite of a fact.
Snipers hide in the midst of danger, being sneaky , they go the furthest forward.
There is a lot of advantage in high altitude bombing, a lot of capability in remotely controlled drones, but....
... if you want the most bang for the buck and the least mistakes and collateral damage , snipers are the best.
-
Snipers are only in real danger if the other side has snipers.
This has not been the case very often in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The main damage done to American snipers is that they return as very sick puppies or murderous loons.
-
Which is where the Bravery component comes in. People can BMW all they want. This country wouldn't have come to exist, if not for war. We might all be subjugated under Fascist rule, if not for war. Sometimes war is asked upon us, and thank God for the Bravery of such men like Chris Kyle. ..an absolute American hero
-
This country would never have gotten to where it was without slavery, either. But that is no reason to return to slavery. WWII was necessary. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and those petty stupid Reagan and Olebush Wars were the result of bad diplomacy and machinations of the CIA that should never have happened.
-
This country would never have gotten to where it was without slavery, either.
Actually, yea, it would have. That's just part of our country's history....a darker side. The Civil War was largely "about" slavery, but this country would have come to be with or without slavery
And we can debate all the rationalizations as to why this war and not that one.....which is also largely irrelevant to the point being made about snipers. I recommend starting a new thread if you wish to opine on that tangent
-
Im still gonna see it since clint made it. But on the subject of snipers. I just chaulk it up all the other requirements of war. We should not sugar coat it but acknowledge something need to be done.
I do have issues when veterans of previous wars critiques this one and say they would never of done it. Heroes can never be excused from acting like douches.
-
American snipers is that they return as very sick puppies or murderous loons.
Can you source your statement that snipers are often in high percentage of being murderous when they return from war?
-
I work with ex-military and police and i gotta tell you some will give an impression thiers a jerk requirement is these fields. I previously stated last year i had a guard go insane in the museum and had to be banned from returning to work. That guy was a jerk and very similiar to the guys i worked with when i did security in shipyards.
-
THere was Richard Whitman, who killed a bunch of people, there was Lee Harvey Oswald, there was the guy who shot the guy whose story American Sniper was based on. There is the whole cultural phenomena about ex soldiers who "go postal". When ex-snipers have mental issues, it generally does them more harm than anyone else. Of course, the military downplays snipers who have gone ape. Timothy McVeigh was also an ex-soldier who did a huge amount of damage, as was the guy the jailed for being his accomplice. I note that his military record was NOT featured in stories about him.
Countries that train people to kill have a larger number of trained killers who come home and kill people, Whether or not this is a fair trade off is a value judgement.
I did not say that there was a high percentage of snipers who became homicidal maniacs, but it does happen.
-
Where does it classify Whitman as a "sniper"? Oswald was not a "sniper". He was designated a "marksman" in the military, which is neither the same accuracy as a sniper, nor functions as a sniper. The man who shot Kyle, Eddie Ray Routh, wasn't a sniper at all, just simply an ex marine suffering from PTSD
You throw accusations every which way, without 1 neuron of thought behind them, outside of some preconceived mindset of what must have been the case. There are thousands upon thousands of snipers, in U.S., history and the best you can do to support the accusation that a "high percentage" return as murderous loons, are 3 examples that doesn't include even 1 designated sniper?? I think the "sick puppy" is the one making up all this crap
-
Oh, bullshit
Anyone trained to be an accurate shot is a sniper in my book.
The result is the same if they go postal. And by the way, where does this come from, "go postal"? It comes from the fact that Congress required the Post Office to give preferential treatment in hiring to ex-military.
So blow it out your hole, pipsqueak.
-
Oh, bullshit
Anyone trained to be an accurate shot is a sniper in my book.
In your warped lunatic leftist book perhaps. But in reality, only someone trained as classified as a sniper is called a sniper. Not a marksman, not a discharged former military fella, but someone actually trained and functioning as a sniper gets that honor
-
A sniper is a type of marksman but not all marksman are snipers. Marksman is part of a group. But snipers tend one or two man system. Lets just say most marksman dont qualify to be snipers or even desire the job.
-
Exactly.
I think the problem the professor is having is with his hatred at anything "war". Thereby anyone that can shoot straight is apparently a "sniper", and then jump to an even more ignorant accusation that some high percentage of "snipers", come back to America, just itching to kill people.
It's why American snipers apparently can't be considered a "hero" or even brave, despite where they put themselves on a battlefield, and the thousands of lives they personally have saved. War is just one big mass of "bad", and since snipers are integral to a war effort, they must defacto be bad too. Especially when compared to a fireman ::)
-
Snipers may or may not be heroic, depending on the degree of danger to which they are exposed.
My point is that not all snipers are heroes, even when doing a perfect job. Firemen, on the other hand, are indeed heroic when they do a good job, all the time.
-
Well
I never met snipers to form an opinion if thier good or bad guys. But i know many who serve and not all can be used as role models. Heroes yes we can call them that but people we want to work with in a job. Not so sure. Lets just say i'm safer working in a law firm than the museum with these guards and I've actually dealt with gun threats in a lawfirm
-
Snipers may or may not be heroic, depending on the degree of danger to which they are exposed.
They're in a war situation. There are enemy soldiers ACTIVELY looking to kill them, knowing how integral they are to the war effort. There isn't a lot more degree of danger than that
My point is that not all snipers are heroes, even when doing a perfect job. Firemen, on the other hand, are indeed heroic when they do a good job, all the time.
Again, making my point....its situational. When they're going into a burning building, they are indeed being heroic. When sniper is taking out someone about to kill scores of Americans and/or civilians, they are indeed being heroic. Nor are not all firemen heroes. It depends on what they are doing, that make someone a hero or not. It's the actions that make a person a hero, not their occupational title
-
Snipers may or may not be heroic, depending on the degree of danger to which they are exposed.
I think I am willing to concede this point.
But not on the basis of risk, but on the basis of choices made in the face of risk.
Taking extra risk without good reason is foolhardy thrillseeking.
Taking a measured or a large risk for good reason can be heroic.
American Snipers are not casually chosen, they are schooled and ready to make good choices, but they are much more than other soldiers alone when they make these choices.
-
I am glad to hear that.
Still, when playing a hero, John Wayne never shot anyone in the back.
Even when they were very very bad.
As for the film, American Sniper, I will not comment on it until I actually see it. Eastwood is at his best when he thinks things through.
Polanski, Eastwood and even Mel Gibson have made some truly excellent, thoughtful films.
I am never, however, going to watch "Passion of the Christ" again. It and "Reservpoir Dogs" were the most annoying two films I have ever seen. But I do trey to saty away from horror flicks. And any film with the words "Bride" or Wedding" in the title.
-
No movie will ever surpass "Young Frankenstein", but that is a genera of its own.
-
I love young frankenstein. When you play the commentary it's kinda of history lesson on borsh belt humor. You learn that sixty percent of the humor is over our heads. It's more for mels humor than ours. Ex. Damn your eyes. Too late.
Frau blucher. Lol
P.s. I saw the wedding ringer
I have a goal to pack as much lame comedies in me as i can stomache. Actually pretty funny
-
I am glad to hear that.
Still, when playing a hero, John Wayne never shot anyone in the back.
Even when they were very very bad.
See what I mean......the implied derrogatory insult, ala Michael Moore. Putting aside that JW was a fictional hero, another more recent fictional "hero", is Jack Bauer, who had no problem doing whatever was needed to save thousands, if not millions of lives. Inlcuding executing one of the good guys, at the President's authorization. (one of the toughest episodes of the series)
Point being, its their actions that make a person brave and/or heroic. Not their job title
-
Jack bauer
The only problem i have is his world had two nuclear attacks . Meaning doing what it takes seems to up the danger factor.
But i still can't wait for the movie to come out if it ever gets made
-
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10264399_10154141059575471_300077928307149288_n.jpg?oh=13ae5733e78264fe1dbfaf78ce047154&oe=5555F243)
-
Jack bauer
The only problem i have is his world had two nuclear attacks . Meaning doing what it takes seems to up the danger factor.
But i still can't wait for the movie to come out if it ever gets made
Ditto.....now there's a movie needing made. Of course they'll have to rename it...."2", or "2.4" ;)
-
John Wayne was the prototypical hero. Since I am discussing a term (heroism) that is a subjective epithet, it seems entirely appropriate to mention the prototype. As for Jack Bauer, I don't watch any of that stuff. After noting that it is impossible for Chuck Norris to get out of any vehicle that does not immediately explode afterward, I have avoided his films and stuff like that, because I already recognize infantile prototypes and find observing any more of them a waste of time.
I imagine that a lot of ex-snipers are among the large number of returning vets that find life after the war unbearable and kill themselves. Clearly, there needs to be more useful therapy and perhaps less hoopla. Soldiers who kill themselves are victims of war. And we prefer not to even think about them.
-
What you imagine, and what is reality can be divided by a grand canyon of seperation
-
That would be your opinion.
-
No...opinon would be that a lot of ex-snipers are among the large number of returning vets that find life after the war unbearable and kill themselves
-
The military does not categorize the activity of veterans who commit suicide and release the data for public consumption.
What is known is that a higher percentage of vets commit suicide than people who have not served in the military of the same age.
Seeing violence committed and participating in it are known to cause mental problems in soldiers everywhere.
I imagine that the military does have statistics on former snipers, but I doubt that they would release it because doing so could cause additional problems.
-
In other words, again, its just your unsupported, invalid, 99% erreoneous claim, that a lot of ex-snipers are among the large number of returning vets that find life after the war unbearable and kill themselves
As in an opinion
As in your imagination
-
Get stuffed.
-
Brilliant....it's always nice to know when the "other side" has shot their wad, and have nothing left
-
You need more stuffing. Get stuffed some more.
-
Need to clean out the bottom of that barrel. It's getting mighty foul smelling
-
on the matter of suicides and PTSD. I knew several veterans who are very confused on the subject ,they went through the same experience and are none worse for wear . it does explain the incredibly slow response of the military in treating it though.
-
Different people react to violence in different ways. The main problem is that a lot of the brass think that shell shock and PTSD are the stuff of sissies and can be cured by humiliation. This simply makes the afflicted vet not seek treatment.
-
Yea....that must be what they believe. ::)
-
That was what General George Patton believed. The concept is that soldiers are either brave or sissies. Note the custom of drill sergeants calling recruits as "ladies". Note the cultural meme that joining the military "will make a man out of you". Note the Marine Corps tradition of constantly insulting and berating recruits as part of the custom of "tearing them down in order to build them up again". There are a lot of cultish customs in the military. Anyone that deviates from the rules of the cult is reviled as a coward, a sissy and unmanly. And that is frequently why those afflicted with PTSD, shell shock, battle fatigue and so forth do not seek treatment. When their internal conflicts become insupportable, many commit suicide.
-
Also note that your example is long dead. so, as far as current "brass" believing that the best way to treat PTSD is humiliation.....well, lets just add that to the laundry list of other, shall we say, far fetched claims, like a predominance of military snipers come back and kill themselves ::)
-
There is ample evidence that what I have written is true. You may choose to remain ignorant of the facts.
The fact that an important historical figure is dead does not mean that his belief are also dead. Jesus is dead. Buddha is dead. Confucius is dead. All the writers of the Constitution are dead. Your argument is invalid.
-
People who believe in Jesus, SAY SO. Same with Buddha. Same with Confucius. What "Brass" believes that the way to treat PTSD with humiliation?? Ball in your court
-
I have yet to hear any military honchos criticize Gen. Patton.
The brass rarely is in any position where they are threatened, and therefore they just follow the same warmongering propaganda that has always been a tradition in the US military... and most other militaries as well. Lately, they have not been quite so strident about this, because it is bad publicity.
-
I have yet to hear any military honchos criticize Gen. Patton.
Patton's dead...and no, you're not going to get away of lack of proof is somehoe defacto proof. Fact is, you have no support for the asinine claim that the military "brass" use humiliation to treat PTSD. We'll just chalk that up there with some large % of snipers killing themselves
-
presently ..no
but in recent history very much.
but how about bootcamp. I know many marines who told me of recruits who brokedown during training. I found no record of it online yet but from the guys I`ve asked it does happen. but only marines I think the different training might be a factor army and navy I found incident
-
What is known is that a higher percentage of vets commit suicide than people who have not served in the military of the same age.
This is true.
But it is new.
Fourty years ago veterans killed themselves at about half the rate of the general public, presently they are committing suicide at twice the rate of the general public.
Something we have done during this time , must have been a mistake.
-
i got doubts about those stats. remember until recently the military has a very negative view about mental health so maybe the data maybe skewed about the past.
due to the internet it`s a lot harder to stop information . servicemen can now contact anyone unhindered and issues of critical strategic data is a problem now.
ever since Vietnam war support has been growing so servicemen has more help now than in the past. so the idea suicides is higher now than the past is abit doubtful to me
-
presently ..no
but in recent history very much.
but how about bootcamp. I know many marines who told me of recruits who brokedown during training. I found no record of it online yet but from the guys I`ve asked it does happen. but only marines I think the different training might be a factor army and navy I found incident
Someone in or out of the military can provide you a better perspective of the training that's required, but much of it is literally to toughen the soldiers up, both physically & mentally. They are being trained for combat, so if they mentally breakdown during training, it's better that they breakdown at that time, when no lives are hanging in the balance
-
physically true enough but mentally not so sure. we`re talking about the military here . definitely not experts of the human mind. notice a lot of the improved changes took prolonged reactionary responses. ex. MRE is a result of finally acknowledging combat anorexia exist .
I know many veterans who talked about how super easy it is to never eat. if you youtube some of the training videos it`s literally C/Os yelling at men to finish their plate. lets just say it`s really wishful thinking on the military that hunger will get the men to eat.
-
................. we`re talking about the military here . definitely not experts of the human mind.......................
?
why not?
-
I do not think that the increase of suicides in the military has much to do with the Internet.
It may be a result of the fact that people have smaller families and therefore fewer relatives to provide aid and comfort to them. It also might have something to do with the fact that the population as a whole is less religions, and the taboo against suicide are less strong.
There are a lot of soldiers who were horribly wounded and yet recovered because of better and faster medical care. In previous wars a lot of these people would have died, but now they are alive, but horribly maimed.
Those are some of my speculations. Obviously, there is a reason for the increased frequency of suicides.
-
Why not?
I. Believe it was only 8years ago the military started to addrrss the issue of mental care for thier servicemen. I remember it because it was started by one general who stated the military is highly lacking the field and the culture in highly restitant of such change.
Actually i was amazed the change is so quick to the point people here make it sound like mental healthcare in the military is common.
Is it really that common?
-
The military certainly WANTS us to believe that their attitude toward mental health has changed. I think one would need to be an afflicted veteran to judge if they are doing a proper job.
Much of what they do in boot camp is in no way necessary or healthy mentally. Much of it is essentially brainwashing.
The opportunity needs to be adequate and effective. Whether it is common is not all that important.
-
As we've already presented adnauseum, what you think/believe, and what is present day reality, are largely 2 different entities, completely. Possibly even polar opposite to each other
-
I agree bootcamp is brainwashing but not as a negative. it`s very important to ensure those recruits follow orders without question then to resist and get everybody killed. it`s the very reason 18 yr. old are preferred than 25 yr.olds.
the trick is to hope the C/O is not into thinking his troops are chess pieces to sacrifice . I`ve heard west pointers are known to think like that and do have a harder time earning respect because of it.
-
Agreed
-
Is humiliation necessary to cause unquestioning obedience?
And of course, unquestioning obedience was inadequate when it came to prosecuting Nazis, even those who were in their teens when they were trained. Many were sentenced for just carrying out orders. My Lai was another case where unquestioned obedience led to serious atrocities.
The US Army and even the Marines should not be utterly mindless goons: that is NOT "professional soldiering".
-
is humiliation needed? I say yes to a degree
this is where it gets tricky . the process is called breaking them down then building them up and their really no gentle way to do that.
the trainers themselves are required to follow a strict guideline also because it`s really close to abuse already.
thiers a difference between following orders in a combat situation than herding people to a building. the military does has regulation that allow a soldier to report anything questionable. refusing is allowed but highly frowned upon. these rules were spelled out very clearly during the Ollie north trial
-
Do we actually WANT our military to be "good Nazis", and obey their superiors, even when their superiors violete the Constitution or the Declaration of Human Rights?
The military is no longer the job of last resort, as it was back when petty thieves were told that they could choose between going to prison ot joining the Army of Marines. People with room temperature IQ's are no longer the average soldier, not even at the lowest level.
It might be that in days past, the commanding officers wanted their underlings to be unquestioning, mindless droids. But of course, that is hos utter disasters like the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Somme Offensive occurred. The generals in charge were fools, and huge numbers of troops died from their foolishness. The British invasion of Gallipoli, commanded by Winston Churchill was based on ancient military campaigns in the classical age. Winston did not take into account that the Turks had mortars and machine guns, while the Greeks only had spears, arrows and swords. Winston did not get killed or maimed like over half of the Aussies and Kiwis, who he thought of as cannon fodder. Winston was not there. And if anyone questioned him, including his generals, they were ignored, because Winston was from the upper class.
Just because the old "tear them down and build them up like robotroops" worked at one time, that does not mean that it is the best way to do it now, ot that it has ever been the best method.
-
Our military obey orders, or there is chaos. They are also smart enough to recognize what is and isn't Constitutional. Holding enemy combatants in Gitmo has nothing to do with the Constitution, so there's no "issue" or violation for them to have to figure out
-
Holding ANYONE prisoner without charges or trial is a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
The US signed this, therefore it is law.
Even more so that Iran is obligated by treaty to not build nuclear weapons, which was a document signed by the Shah, who was essentially a US/UK puppet, and no longer rules.
-
Is humiliation necessary to cause unquestioning obedience?
That is a delicate and difficult question, if the military does not discipline well then they might as well be a bandit band.
But making a soldier mindless is very contrary to US tradition.`
George Washington lead volunteers, so did Sam Huston. John Paul Jones was noted for endorsing a new level of respect for the common sailor.
For the last four decades all of our soldiers and sailors have been volunteers, which seems good for the mutual respect of the commissioned and enlisted .
The expectation of humiliation is a discipline tool , but it can't be overdone if you expect to keep the volunteers, volunteering.
Bootcamp needs to be stressfull to fulfill its role as a filter and proving ground, someone who cannot stand the stress of bootcamp , shouldn't be given the much higher stress of combat.
Is the trend of bootcamp to become easier , counterproductive in turning out soldiers who are less hardened?
-
If bootcamp is becoming less harsh, I think it is probably due to more women being enlisted, more than anything else. As more women become drill sergeants, new and perhaps better ways of training soldiers are likely to be adopted.
Once we got a gung-ho vet in charge of our scout troop. He was convinced that scouts should learn how to do precision marching. Most of the scouts, including me, precisely marched out of that troop into troop 211. We were more into camping, singing songs, whittling, earning merit badges and learning dirty words. After about three months, the guy quit. It is hard to do impressive precision marching when you just have six scouts left.
-
hmm
now that`s interesting. if bootcamp is easier now and it creates less harden soldiers. could this be a factor of increased mental issues. I say doubtful only because bootcamp is simply just a intro before combat and would hardy make it that much more easier to handle the real thing.
-
Is getting yelled at three inches from your nose a substitute for combat? Is being told that you are worthless scum a substitute for combat? Is getting extra KP duty because a quarter will not bounce off your bunk a substitute for combat? Are shoes shined to a mirror finish an adequate preparation for battle?
There are different sorts of people in the military: those who are not very bright respond well to being treated as children. But now that the draft has ended, truly stupid people are no longer accepted into the military, and the weapons used are much more complicated. A drone is more complicated than a bayonet. Every soldier is now equipped with electronic devices. In WWII, only one person had a field telephone.
Perhaps fear is still an acceptable motivator. I suppose fear makes me a better driver, as I am constantly looking in the mirrors for possible danger from other incompetent drivers. More than once, I have seen some fool coming up fast behind me and vvered out of his lane. On one occasion, a fool passed me and rear-ended the poor soul who had been in front of me.
I am just saying that perhaps some reevaluation of training is needed to deal with smarter soldiers and much smarter and complicated weapons.
-
hmm
now that`s interesting. if bootcamp is easier now and it creates less harden soldiers. could this be a factor of increased mental issues. I say doubtful only because bootcamp is simply just a intro before combat and would hardy make it that much more easier to handle the real thing.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is a lot of head game in Bootcamp, it is stressful even if less stressful than combat.
Presumably all those who wash out of bootcamp would not do well in the greater stress of combat, making bootcamp winnow the crop more thoroughly very likely saves problems from later.
Is getting yelled at three inches from your nose a substitute for combat? Is being told that you are worthless scum a substitute for combat? Is getting extra KP duty because a quarter will not bounce off your bunk a substitute for combat? Are shoes shined to a mirror finish an adequate preparation for battle?
There is hardly any stress that could really simulate the stress of being injured and watching your close friends being injured in a very noisy environment. People who cannot handle being yelled at rudely should not think that getting shot at is less of a problem.
There are different sorts of people in the military: those who are not very bright respond well to being treated as children. But now that the draft has ended, truly stupid people are no longer accepted into the military,.......
Yes this is true, but the stress is still very high , just as it was when the Musket was the weapon of regiments. Having a weapon that is sophisticated means it requires even more presence of mind to operate
I am just saying that perhaps some reevaluation of training is needed to deal with smarter soldiers and much smarter and complicated weapons.
The smarter soldiers are applying their smarts to this . There is a lot of training that uses video simulation to train at firing complex weapons , so that the simulated shot costs cents rather than wasting a real round on basic familiarization, after a tank gunner has shot hundreds of rounds in simulation , he won't need a large number of real shots to be expert.
On the battlefields of Europe and America where the regiments were firing muskets at one another , there was sometimes found a musket that had several rounds crammed in the barrel. If the first round misfires , but the soldier is too flustered to notice the lack of recoil, he might go through the motions of reloading several times before he realized he was just making his weapon more and more hard to repair , and if a musket that was loaded six times finally does fire it is a sort of a pipe bomb. Getting good training is not only learning to operate it is also learning to stay calm and operate it well. greater sophistication of weapons does not help with this problem at all.
-
Being the predisposition our professor has towards war and anyone that carries a gun, its probably a good thing he's not in charge of training our military
-
Being the predisposition our professor has towards war and anyone that carries a gun, its probably a good thing he's not in charge of training our military
Well this depends.
He is an expert on the subject of language and culture. This is nowhere useless.
The officer corps and the Green Beret especially need this sort of expertise to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that gets the wrong people shot.
Knowing the enemy well is important , and so is knowing the friends.
I'll agree that XO doesn't seem to know firearms well, but his professional knowledge would be useful stuff for someone that didn't want to use his firearm inappropriately.
When I was in the Navy I took a few college courses for free on board ship. The teachers were professors on loan from the University of Florida.
Oh yes, I would have taken Spanish if that had been offered, we were in Spain often.
I was enlisted of course , but JPJ's words are aspirational.“It is by no means enough that an officer be capable...He should be a gentleman of liberal education, refined, manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor... No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention, even if the reward be only one word of approval. Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate.'”
John Paul Jones quotes (Scottish born American Naval Hero in the U.S. War of Independence, 1747-1792)
-
I have never had any desire whatever to be in the military in any capacity. I have the right to give my opinion about the military, however, because my taxes pay their salaries.
-
You have a right to discuss you opinion regardless, and you are welcome to as far as I am concerned.
Neither of us is compelled to agree, and the disagreement is often the interesting part.
These professors were licensed to teach , but they were guests , not members of the Navy.
We had two on my ship, one for history and one for Math, they both got a ride to Spain out of it, but then had to put up with a ride to Djbouti as well.
The Navy has a lot of education going on that is directly job related, which is good stuff, but this was different I really liked these classes , but on my small ship such opportunities were not common. Large ships can accommodate more special programs.
-
It makes sense for the Navy to encourage sailors to pursue an education. Math and history are both useful things to know.
Ever sense they have been "reforming" education, they have concentrated on math, reading and writing, and history and geography are barely taught.
-
The Navy has a strong requirement for engineering degrees, after all we were all living in a machine.
But John Paul Jones is not forgotten and he advised knowing language and customs, it is pretty useful to have a language understood if there is some chance to avoid a fight.
-
I agree entirely. Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. And everyone is born ignorant.
-
I`ve brought this up with my friends who serve and so far they agree. military leader does not mean their great leaders. the military make soldiers ready to follow so thier leaders don`t need any real ability to actually get troops to follow but in the private sector they will be hard press to get folks to follow ex. xo`s scout leader is a classic example. I have supervisor experience and can get people to do as I request due to the fact I`ve proven I know what I`m doing. true my friends are supervisors but they gain those skills working up and learning on the way. none has ever claimed those skill came from the military with the exception they learned discipline from the service
-
Other than Washington and Eisenhower, generals have tended to make lousy presidents. You can expect obedience when leading an army, but when you are leading civilians, you will never get total obedience. Washington and Eisenhower were good politicians. Grant, Taylor and Harrison were less than great. Garfield had a lot of talent, but he was assassinated before he could do much of anything.
MacArthur would probably have been a wretched president and certainly a one term one.