USA Politics

The unedited version is on Wikileaks.

Invader, it has been my opinion that the sort of people you're talking about are very few and far between, at least in the Canadian Forces. I know quite a few members of the forces and they aren't insane, or sociopaths. The soldiers I have met from our American friends are the same. I think war makes people that way more than anything else.

The Geneva Conventions have never been fully followed by anyone. The most casual student of history can tell you that. There's lots of fellows who tried to surrender to Canadians in the past who were murdered. The problem is that we always manage to convince ourselves that *this time* we've moved past those sorts of things.
 
Invader, it has been my opinion that the sort of people you're talking about are very few and far between, at least in the Canadian Forces. I know quite a few members of the forces and they aren't insane, or sociopaths. The soldiers I have met from our American friends are the same. I think war makes people that way more than anything else.
Click to expand...

I didn't exactly mean insane people or sociopaths, just people with lower than normal regard for human life*; I also didn't mean that everyone would be like this, but more that, on average in a large population, there would be more of such people than in a population of civilians.  And I also know that most people of the Finnish military are normal.  
However, professional soldiers in the Finnish military do tend to be (based on my observations = 9 months in the military) more arrogant, more nationalistic, more narrow-minded, and less likely to admit their mistakes than people in general. I was mostly just speculating that the same might apply to other characteristics as well, especially for militaries of countries engaged in actual war.

*Though, reading my post again, I'll admit it sounds a bit different from what I meant.
 
Invader, professional soldiers probably seemed that way to you because you were a conscript - the lowest form of military life. Most of the professional soldiers I know are pretty decent people. Some of them have problems, but they're decent. But I don't think this video deals with people who are sociopathic; simply hardened. War has a way of changing people.
 
I'd agree with Loosey.  I don't know the quantity of soldiers that he does, but I know some.  Also, from what I recall, those in the helicopter were told from someone on the ground that they were being shot at.  I think that in that circumstance, the felt that they were doing something to save/assist their comrades. 
 
LooseCannon said:
Invader, professional soldiers probably seemed that way to you because you were a conscript - the lowest form of military life.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent, things certainly appear different when viewed "from the bottom".  However, also note that many of these soldiers I speak of are soldiers who have never even taken part in any military operations, whereas I would guess that your acquaintances are people who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc?  Soldier in this case refers to a person working for the military, mostly training conscripts and doing "office jobs".  Also, cultural differences probably play a part.
 
I'm just saying they're assholes, Invader. As a conscript, you're someone who has chosen not to participate in their lifestyle, something they consider valued. You don't want to be there, and they probably don't want you there. All volunteers hate all conscripts.
 
LooseCannon said:
All volunteers hate all conscripts.
Click to expand...

Invader said:
blah blah ...cultural differences probably play a part.
Click to expand...

This.  And overall (I was neglecting this earlier), differences in the system.  What I mean is, we're talking about different things here.  All Finnish professional soldiers started out as conscripts; and in case I was unclear, from what I've understood, the term "professional soldier" as it is understood in the USA/Canada is a lot different from the term as it is understood here.

Heck, the whole (assumed) purpose and role of the military is totally different in your country than mine.  So I think this discussion (besides going a bit off topic) is a bit hard to carry out because we are really talking very much about apples and oranges.
 
I know we haven't had much to say in here, but I just wanted to laugh at my country a little.  We bitch about Obama, he is socialist, he is trying to turn us into a communist state, etc (we love to bitch).  I like Obama, I think he is trying to fix a really fucked up situation.  And I think back.  We bitched when Bush was elected, and when he was elected the first time.  We bitched and impeached Clinton (for some head) and we bitched when he was elected the first time.  Then we bitched about Bush, and Reagan, and Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Nixon.... we love to vote and bitch.  But, again, I think Obama is trying to get it right, so good for him!
 
Wasted CLV said:
I know we haven't had much to say in here, but I just wanted to laugh at my country a little.  We bitch about Obama, he is socialist, he is trying to turn us into a communist state, etc (we love to bitch).  I like Obama, I think he is trying to fix a really fucked up situation.  And I think back.  We bitched when Bush was elected, and when he was elected the first time.  We bitched and impeached Clinton (for some head) and we bitched when he was elected the first time.  Then we bitched about Bush, and Reagan, and Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Nixon.... we love to vote and bitch.  But, again, I think Obama is trying to get it right, so good for him!
Click to expand...

Although I'd argue that I haven't witnessed any US president being opposed with such a passion like Obama. My parents argued that they remember the same being about Kennedy, which I can't judge. But Kennedy was shot, after all. I don't want to play the pc card, but is it possible that there are some people in America who will just not accept a non-WASP president?
 
Oh, sure.  There are MANY people that won't accept him for that reason.  JFK was Catholic, and that was really wild (at the time) that he won.  Clinton had huge detractors for his 'sex scandals', Reagan had his 'Reaganomics' and all the cold war stuff.  Bush I had his voodoo economics (and, IMO, was seen as 'Reagan-lite').  I won't pretend to have a great memory as to all the detractors of each pres, but I think they all have had some outspokenness against them, to a varying degree. 

But, there are many Americans that won't accept Obama cause of his color, his name, his suit color... you name it.
 
Damn, frightening developments in US education. Hear and fear, read and pay heed:

(source)

Texas schools to get controversial syllabus

Education officials in the US state of Texas have adopted new guidelines to the school curriculum, which critics say will politicise teaching.

The changes include teaching that the UN could be a threat to American freedom, and that the Founding Fathers may not have intended a complete separation of church and state.

Critics say the changes are ideological and distort history.

However, proponents argue they are redressing a liberal bias in education.

Analysts say Texas, with five million schoolchildren, wields substantial influence on school curriculums across the US.

The BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Los Angeles says publishers of textbooks used nationally often print what Texas wants to teach.

_47898164_009315949-1.jpg

Texas' decisions could influence curriculums across the US

Jefferson out

Students in Texas will now be taught the benefits of US free-market economics and how government taxation can harm economic progress.

They will study how American ideals benefit the world but organisations such as the UN could be a threat to personal freedom.

And Thomas Jefferson has been dropped from a list of enlightenment thinkers in the world-history curriculum, despite being one of the Founding Fathers who is credited with developing the idea that church and state should be separate.

The doctrine has become a cornerstone of US government, but some religious groups and some members of the Texas Education Board disagree, our correspondent says.

The board, which is dominated by Christian conservatives, voted nine-to-five in favour of adopting the new curriculum for both primary and secondary schools.

But during the discussions some of the most controversial ideas were dropped - including a proposal to refer to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade".

Opponents of the changes worry that textbooks sold in other states will be written to comply with the new Texas standards, meaning that the alterations could have an impact on curriculums nationwide.
 
Yep. Been following this story for awhile. Luckily, the folks who voted this in have already been voted out. Things could change soon. I find it shocking that anyone could put up with removing TJ from US history...
 
I wanted to make a post about that the other day, but I got stuck trying to write a rant about it... I was simply lost for words. And I still am. I mean seriously, this is the thing that happened in the Soviet Union and that happens in Iran today. I'd rather have them burn the books entirely than re-write them this way.
 
The difference from there compared to the USA is that the USA will undo such changes after a time. Consider the folks who tried to put "Intelligent Design" into the classrooms in Kansas and Pennsylvania. In the former, it was removed by the next school board; in the latter, by a court case.
 
True, even so, unlike Penn. and Kan, Texas does wiel enormous power in Nation-wide Curriculum, because it is the state that by and large purchases the most textbooks and printers are not exaclty going to tailor make them to each state, so what ever Texas dictates, Federal standards are soon to follow. Which is VERY scary, because it is not the first thing of this nature they decide to change.
 
The books aren't the big problem. Hopefully, the teachers themselves will have the integrity to teach the truth, regardless of what's in the required textbook. Remember, teachers below college level rarely get to choose their own text, and they were some of the most vocal opponents in Kansas and Pennsylvania.

The big problem is when the teachers are of the same political mindset as the school board.
 
"proponents argue they are redressing a liberal bias in education. "

How ridiculous is that? My History textbook is the most dry, fact-after-fact book I've ever read. It seems like Conservatives think the truth has a liberal bias.

It really pisses me off when those bible thumpers try to push their opinions on everyone else. I have nothing wrong with religion, it's these assholes who try to use it to control people that I hate.
 
LooseCannon said:
Yep. Been following this story for awhile. Luckily, the folks who voted this in have already been voted out. Things could change soon. I find it shocking that anyone could put up with removing TJ from US history...
Click to expand...

That shocked me, too.  But then I went on to read places elsewhere that TJ was very much about keeping church and state separate, and that's what it is all about.  They replaced TJ with Locke.  So the board is trying to keep some basic ideas the same, but keep religion a part of it.  Locke was openly religious, though he expressed the necessity to separate church and state.  So it is just the personal relation to religion that differentiates the two men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top