Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
prole

What's Up With Ft. Lewis?

Recommended Posts

bottomline, nothing's changing - angry hairless monkies gathering poo at all hours to fling in all directions :)

 

Actually, hairless or not, most monkeys (by far) do not throw feces at one another. There are even quite a few countries that have not been at war for a long, long time. The norm isn't a state of warfare even if it is popular to claim otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bottomline, nothing's changing - angry hairless monkies gathering poo at all hours to fling in all directions :)

 

Actually, hairless or not, most monkeys (by far) do not throw feces at one another. There are even quite a few countries that have not been at war for a long, long time. The norm isn't a state of warfare even if it is popular to claim otherwise.

 

Nonsense. And history proves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you two are just arguing right?

 

Not quite. Arguing requires an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your interested in the direction of our military foreign policy, I'd suggest reading Burnett's The Pentagon's New Map. It was published in '04. Here's a link: PNM smiley_gun_sniper.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where is your proof, then?

no time but to spray and run - couldn't think of a medium to large sized western power not associated with a violent conflict since the end of world war 2 - what can you think of?

 

by some standards at least, humanity is experiencing the most peaceful period of its existence in recorded history - the congo might not be much better off, but the vikings at least have largely chilled the fuck out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but the vikings at least have largely chilled the fuck out :)

I don't think Off White resembles that remark, but who knows, he is gettin' old...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no time but to spray and run - couldn't think of a medium to large sized western power not associated with a violent conflict since the end of world war 2 - what can you think of?

 

by some standards at least, humanity is experiencing the most peaceful period of its existence in recorded history - the congo might not be much better off, but the vikings at least have largely chilled the fuck out :)

 

Well, you picked a group of countries with the greatest and most recent colonial legacy that many have failed to deal with peaceably, and it also doesn’t help that we now twist their arms into participating to conflicts they would never start on their own.

 

But, nonetheless, my point is that the overwhelming majority of people (and somewhat less of countries) are at peace most of the time, and even most of those engaged in wars would rather not be either because they are on the receiving end of aggression or because being cannon-fodder isn’t a very rewarding business. Not only is there little evidence that war was common before agriculture (or that it is common in the animal world) but war often results from democratic deficits when power hungry sociopaths take over the direction of nations and, at best, lie to incite violent aggression. In fact, as you noted, there could be now fewer conflicts as decision-making is on average more widely shared than at any moment in history since nomadism was the norm. I see little justification to claim the inevitability of war as if it were part of our dark nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR

 

The modern practice of "war" involves surrogates so things seem far more peaceful than they are, the few fight for the most who reap the benefits......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone talks about violence like it's always a bad thing. Hatred and anger have their place, we evolved them for a reason. what a bunch of hippies you guys are with your peace and love and rock & roll.

 

They should just kick this guy out of the military and let him go. People are gonna snap in combat, it sounds like he was a good guy who got all messed up in the head and we should take care of our own. After all, we turned him into a pit bull in the first place. We should take some responsibility and take better care of our soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no time but to spray and run - couldn't think of a medium to large sized western power not associated with a violent conflict since the end of world war 2 - what can you think of?

 

by some standards at least, humanity is experiencing the most peaceful period of its existence in recorded history - the congo might not be much better off, but the vikings at least have largely chilled the fuck out :)

 

Well, you picked a group of countries with the greatest and most recent colonial legacy that many have failed to deal with peaceably, and it also doesn’t help that we now twist their arms into participating to conflicts they would never start on their own.

 

But, nonetheless, my point is that the overwhelming majority of people (and somewhat less of countries) are at peace most of the time, and even most of those engaged in wars would rather not be either because they are on the receiving end of aggression or because being cannon-fodder isn’t a very rewarding business. Not only is there little evidence that war was common before agriculture (or that it is common in the animal world) but war often results from democratic deficits when power hungry sociopaths take over the direction of nations and, at best, lie to incite violent aggression. In fact, as you noted, there could be now fewer conflicts as decision-making is on average more widely shared than at any moment in history since nomadism was the norm. I see little justification to claim the inevitability of war as if it were part of our dark nature.

 

Ah, yes, recall the peaceful days of Native Americans, who never went to war with one another, never enslaved others, subnjugated weaker tribes, or had blood sacrifices on large stone monuments.

 

And the Romans...the Greeks... the Egyptians, Persians, Hittites... all peaceful and kind.

 

The Mongol hordes, were indeed a Golden one, spreading peace and harmony across the steppes and into Europe.

 

The Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks. All peaceful by nature, and would never have harmed a fly.

 

The Moors... and the Crusaders. More of the same

 

No, it is clearly not in man's nature to engage in war. It is not natural, and only a modern phenomenon.

 

Thanatos, my ass, Dr. Freud!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, He should not be let go. This soldier did not live up to his contract with the Army, the Constitution, The United States of America, or humanity. He did not live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity,and Professionalism. This SSG Makes me sick. If he wasn't in the Army he would still make me sick. He broke his social contract with society and should be duly punished after due process.

 

On another note

 

to Qoute Ivan,

"by some standards at least, humanity is experiencing the most peaceful period of its existence in recorded history - the congo might not be much better off, but the vikings at least have largely chilled the fuck out"

 

This leads to a great TED talk at the following link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, He should not be let go. This soldier did not live up to his contract with the Army, the Constitution, The United States of America, or humanity. He did not live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity,and Professionalism. This SSG Makes me sick. If he wasn't in the Army he would still make me sick. He broke his social contract with society and should be duly punished after due process.

 

 

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right?

 

You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah, yes, recall the peaceful days of Native Americans, who never went to war with one another, never enslaved others, subnjugated weaker tribes, or had blood sacrifices on large stone monuments.

 

And the Romans...the Greeks... the Egyptians, Persians, Hittites... all peaceful and kind.

 

The Mongol hordes, were indeed a Golden one, spreading peace and harmony across the steppes and into Europe.

 

The Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks. All peaceful by nature, and would never have harmed a fly.

 

The Moors... and the Crusaders. More of the same

 

No, it is clearly not in man's nature to engage in war. It is not natural, and only a modern phenomenon.

 

Thanatos, my ass, Dr. Freud!

 

 

Don't forget the Vandals ;)

 

[img:center]http://hintsofgreen.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/joebanner1.jpg[/img]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some forms I agree with you. That is why I say due process. If he is found mentally deficient, then by all means get him the help. If he is found mentally competent for trial and was competent when he allegedly (He is assumed innocent, I should add.) comitted the crimes, then the punishment should be appropriate to the crime.

 

I have been in similar situations with multiple combat tours as an infantryman. The stress is unimaginable some days. The military does provide help to soldiers dealing with these situations. And to be fair, we may not know the entire story.

 

Regardless of the situation he was in, the killing of 14 civilians is intollerable in any way shape or form. I had to constantly evaluate a valid target in the form of collateral damage to the civilian populations and use appropriate force and response to force. We constantly try to make the best decisions possible in really difficult and dangerous situations.

 

Your argument sound like the age old argument that there are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders. I disagree. sometimes there are soldiers who should have due process. That is why they have the uniform code of military justice.

 

Just my two cents, thanks for the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right -- due process sounds great. Assuming that means we take care of our decorated veterans who are suffering from job-related PTSD or whatever (I'm assuming that's the case here, by all accounts he sounds like he used to be a really good soldier but I guess the investigators will figure that out).

 

Of course the killing of civilians is terrible, but the Afghanistan government's desire for this guy's blood isn't worth an ounce of piss to me. They can go stuff themselves as far as I'm concerned, they're pretty poor allies. So I hope that we treat this service member fairly instead of throwing him under the bus as a political expediency because those bunch of jackals aren't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, He should not be let go. This soldier did not live up to his contract with the Army, the Constitution, The United States of America, or humanity. He did not live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity,and Professionalism. This SSG Makes me sick. If he wasn't in the Army he would still make me sick. He broke his social contract with society and should be duly punished after due process.

 

 

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right?

 

You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them

 

How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, He should not be let go. This soldier did not live up to his contract with the Army, the Constitution, The United States of America, or humanity. He did not live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity,and Professionalism. This SSG Makes me sick. If he wasn't in the Army he would still make me sick. He broke his social contract with society and should be duly punished after due process.

 

 

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right?

 

You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them

 

How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer?

 

Jeffery Dahmer wasn't a good guy with a decorated history who snapped after the trauma of extended tours and injuries that he signed up for in the first place in the defense of his country. Of course, I'm assuming that's the case with this guy, which by all accounts seems to be the case.

 

I get your point, but if you can't see the difference between any two given cases of insanity than you're living in a pretty simple world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer?
Well, he didn't eat anyone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer?
Well, he didn't eat anyone...

:lmao:

"you can run me, you can starve me, you can bore me, and you can kill me....just don't eat me, that's against the law." SFC Mitchell circa 1993 FT. Carson

 

Edited by gruntpltleader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grunt, as you well know the UCMJ is much different than civilian criminal courts. The efficacy (or lack therof) of a PTSD and/or insanity defense will be interesting to see. Good that he has civilian and military advocacy. He'll need it all.

 

My heart goes out to the Afghans affected, his family and friends, and yes, him.

 

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, He should not be let go. This soldier did not live up to his contract with the Army, the Constitution, The United States of America, or humanity. He did not live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity,and Professionalism. This SSG Makes me sick. If he wasn't in the Army he would still make me sick. He broke his social contract with society and should be duly punished after due process.

 

 

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right?

 

You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them

 

How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer?

 

Jeffery Dahmer wasn't a good guy with a decorated history who snapped after the trauma of extended tours and injuries that he signed up for in the first place in the defense of his country. Of course, I'm assuming that's the case with this guy, which by all accounts seems to be the case.

 

I get your point, but if you can't see the difference between any two given cases of insanity than you're living in a pretty simple world!

 

Killing civilians is killing civilians, no matter where they live. If this guy had gone nuts in Tacoma and killed 16 people in a mall he'd be facing a US criminal trial like the Oklahoma bomber, wouldn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This leads to a great TED talk at the following link.

that was the guy i was thinking of in my post above - think i heard him on npr before? the fact that wars were once measured in decades and centuries (and in antiquity hardly named at all, given their lack of clear beginnings or endings) seems illustrative enough of the decline in the general level of violence of our species.

 

as for animals not warring w/ each other, here's a video of 2 lions killing a 3rd for fuckig w/ their territory - wolves do it too - i suppose the semantic argument could be had, but jesus, it's not a revolutionary concept - living things, in a world characterized by scarcity and lawlessness, tend to be rather aggro with all of their neighbors, relations or not

[video:youtube]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×