PDA

View Full Version : Two teens found guilty - Steubenville



Adelaide
03-17-2013, 02:44 PM
Mays was sentenced to a minimum of two years in a juvenile correctional facility. Richmond was sentenced to a minimum of one year, but like Mays, he could be in detention until he is 21.

The Department of Youth Services will rule whether the two boys will be detained longer, Lipps said, adding it will depend on their behavior and rehabilitation.

The two will be required to register as sex offenders and undergo treatment while in detention. Lipps said he would postpone a hearing into which sexual offender registration category they will be classified until the end of their incarceration.

Mays and Richmond, who will be credited for the time they served before the trial, were also ordered to stay away from the victim until they are 21.

Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Well. Apparently gang-raping someone won't get you as much prison time as stealing a car would. Isn't that quaint.

Captain Obvious
03-17-2013, 02:46 PM
There is a lot more to this story though and while I haven't followed it closely, it's one of the big news items in the Ohio valley.

Chris
03-17-2013, 02:48 PM
Sentence seems light but they are juveniles and liberal courts argue you don't reach moral maturity till around 25.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 02:51 PM
Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Well. Apparently gang-raping someone won't get you as much prison time as stealing a car would. Isn't that quaint.

I don't know what the local laws are, but apparently they were charged as juveniles- I am not sure if being tried as adults was an option or not.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 02:51 PM
Sentence seems light but they are juveniles and liberal courts argue you don't reach moral maturity till around 25.

16 and 17 (and some of the rapists were apparently well over the age of 18 but didn't get charged) is old enough to know not to rape someone, film raping that someone, post videos of the rape on Facebook and Twitter, and so forth. The sentences are more than too light - it's downright insulting.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 02:52 PM
Sentence seems light but they are juveniles and liberal courts argue you don't reach moral maturity till around 25.

Most states allow the prosecutor to decide whether to charge a minor as an adult under certain circumstances.

Chris
03-17-2013, 02:53 PM
16 and 17 (and some of the rapists were apparently well over the age of 18 but didn't get charged) is old enough to know not to rape someone, film raping that someone, post videos of the rape on Facebook and Twitter, and so forth. The sentences are more than too light - it's downright insulting.

I agree, but that's the way the courts see it.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 02:56 PM
Most states allow the prosecutor to decide whether to charge a minor as an adult under certain circumstances.

I think the law here is that anyone over the age of 14 can be charged as an adult depending on the nature of the crime, psychological testing, and findings by a judge. Something like that. It's pretty rare to hear of someone under the age of 16 getting charged as adult, but regardless of the laws here I would think 16 & 17, regardless of maturity, is old enough to know how wrong their behaviour was and to charge them as adults.

Edit: it might be different if the crime were different. Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example. But gang-raping someone who is completely unconscious and filming it and posting it on social media? They should have been charged and convicted as adults.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 03:12 PM
I think the law here is that anyone over the age of 14 can be charged as an adult depending on the nature of the crime, psychological testing, and findings by a judge. Something like that. It's pretty rare to hear of someone under the age of 16 getting charged as adult, but regardless of the laws here I would think 16 & 17, regardless of maturity, is old enough to know how wrong their behaviour was and to charge them as adults.

Edit: it might be different if the crime were different. Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example. But gang-raping someone who is completely unconscious and filming it and posting it on social media? They should have been charged and convicted as adults.

Apparently these are the first two trials. There will be a grand jury to determine whether to charge others.

I think that they all should have been charged as adults. What they did cannot be excused from some sort of minority status- I saw parts of the video- the things they were saying make it clear that they realized what they were doing. Also people urinated on her. If I were her father, I would probably be in jail at this point.

But there was also an attempt to push the case under the rug, so ironically, the colossally inane idea to video it and post it is what got this trial started and the coming grand jury.

But we have seen lots of soldiers in the war zone film and post illegal activity..., just plan stupid. As a prosecutor in the army I always said that stupidity should be a separate offense under the UCMJ.

IMPress Polly
03-17-2013, 03:38 PM
I've commented at some length on this story in the Females social group because I agree that this was more than just a standard case. This particular case was an unusually important flash point, particularly in that the party-goers all seemed to approve of what was going on.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 03:42 PM
I've commented at some length on this story in the Females social group because I agree that this was more than just a standard case. This particular case was an unusually important flash point, particularly in that the party-goers all seemed to approve of what was going on.

There used to be a time when other people would have stepped in and stopped it.

patrickt
03-17-2013, 03:54 PM
16 and 17 (and some of the rapists were apparently well over the age of 18 but didn't get charged) is old enough to know not to rape someone, film raping that someone, post videos of the rape on Facebook and Twitter, and so forth. The sentences are more than too light - it's downright insulting.

I don't know how old you are, Adelaide, but you are presumbably old enough to know you can't get a sensible discussion started with an OP that lies.

But, your new argument that the juvenile justice system should be done away with because even children are old enough to know they don't rob, murder, rape, assault, or whatever.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 04:08 PM
I think the law here is that anyone over the age of 14 can be charged as an adult depending on the nature of the crime, psychological testing, and findings by a judge. Something like that. It's pretty rare to hear of someone under the age of 16 getting charged as adult, but regardless of the laws here I would think 16 & 17, regardless of maturity, is old enough to know how wrong their behaviour was and to charge them as adults.

Edit: it might be different if the crime were different. Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example. But gang-raping someone who is completely unconscious and filming it and posting it on social media? They should have been charged and convicted as adults.
I have to say there is little scope for youthful misunderstanding here. Utter selfish disregard more likely. I can't imagine what kind of parenting produces that kind of selfish misogynistic behavior.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 04:21 PM
I don't know how old you are, Adelaide, but you are presumbably old enough to know you can't get a sensible discussion started with an OP that lies.

But, your new argument that the juvenile justice system should be done away with because even children are old enough to know they don't rob, murder, rape, assault, or whatever.

They're not children; they're young adults. Teenagers. Old enough to realise what they did was never alright in any context. As I said in one of my posts, it's not just a teenage date rape case where a teenager could misunderstand what is consent and what is not; it's a group of young adult males who viciously gang-raped a teenage girl.

Please explain to me how a teenage boy would find that behaviour anything but disgusting and criminal. Even some of the bystanders in the videos were commenting that it wasn't alright.

Chris
03-17-2013, 04:25 PM
Here by way of comparison is a local case: Lackland trainer guilty of rape, sentenced to 4 years in prison (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Lackland-trainer-guilty-of-rape-sentenced-to-4/KIKQNpV1h0CDk0q5ktv9Ow.cspx). Sentences even for adults seem light.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 04:30 PM
Here by way of comparison is a local case: Lackland trainer guilty of rape, sentenced to 4 years in prison (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Lackland-trainer-guilty-of-rape-sentenced-to-4/KIKQNpV1h0CDk0q5ktv9Ow.cspx). Sentences even for adults seem light.

Definitely. Literally, cars are worth more in terms of sentencing, which is pretty pathetic.

What struck me about the sentencing here was just how much lighter a sentence they were even in the context of what would be considered usual. Yes, they were tried as juveniles, but 1 year for one of the convicted? Seriously? It's a joke.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 04:38 PM
Here by way of comparison is a local case: Lackland trainer guilty of rape, sentenced to 4 years in prison (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Lackland-trainer-guilty-of-rape-sentenced-to-4/KIKQNpV1h0CDk0q5ktv9Ow.cspx). Sentences even for adults seem light.
Gang rape should garner an even harsher punishment because it is even more reprehensible. Each participant considers and revels in the assault by themselves and by others. How disgusting and inhuman.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 04:43 PM
A girl who from the audio of the video and various text message who "looked like she was dead."

Warning about the links to the video: contains graphic language. (I took the video link out of the post) I hope this asshole on the video has this follow him around the rest of his life. One guy appears to disapprove, but not much.




There was the now-(link in article)[/URL] from the night of the assault. In it, a former classmate of the young men can be seen mocking the victim, laughingly referring to her as “dead” and repeatedly joking about sexual assault. And there was nearly one more video: a classmate of the attackers testified that he [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html"]took a video of part of the actual assault (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0drRrNWpNE&feature=youtu.be)with his cell phone but later deleted it.

And then there were all of the text messages. There were messages recounting the events of the night. One the attacker allegedly wrote: “I’m pissed all I got was a hand job, though. I should have raped since everyone thinks I did.” And messages to the victim, including one in which one of the attackers tried to persuade her that “nothing happened.” (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html)


[In fact if you want to watch the video look for it yourself. I realize we are supposed to provide links, but not this time.]

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 04:51 PM
Here by way of comparison is a local case: Lackland trainer guilty of rape, sentenced to 4 years in prison (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Lackland-trainer-guilty-of-rape-sentenced-to-4/KIKQNpV1h0CDk0q5ktv9Ow.cspx). Sentences even for adults seem light.

I got 10 years for an Army SFC who had sex with the 16 year old daughter of his battle buddy who was deployed. The defendant's sister (also in the military) testified on his behalf during sentencing. It was the good soldier defense. The general rule is not to cross examine the family members- what do you expect them to say? But in this case I did cross her, and she was crying within a few minutes and the defense attorney didn't even try to rehab her testimony.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 05:12 PM
A girl who from the audio of the video and various text message who "looked like she was dead."

Warning about the links to the video: contains graphic language. (I took the video link out of the post) I hope this asshole on the video has this follow him around the rest of his life. One guy appears to disapprove, but not much.




There was the now-(link in article) from the night of the assault. In it, a former classmate of the young men can be seen mocking the victim, laughingly referring to her as “dead” and repeatedly joking about sexual assault. And there was nearly one more video: a classmate of the attackers testified that he took a video of part of the actual assault (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html)with his cell phone but later deleted it.

And then there were all of the text messages. There were messages recounting the events of the night. One the attacker allegedly wrote: “I’m pissed all I got was a hand job, though. I should have raped since everyone thinks I did.” And messages to the victim, including one in which one of the attackers tried to persuade her that “nothing happened.” (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html)


[In fact if you want to watch the video look for it yourself. I realize we are supposed to provide links, but not this time.]



Apparently, molesting an unconcsious girl doesn't seem to register on the perpetrator as an assault. What kind of moral guidance have these kids received? How do they define assault? I'm sure they might figure it out if they were the victim of a pedophile, but can't somehow transfer the concept to sexual invasions of the opposite sex. This begins with lack of respect and compassion for others. Their parents should look very hard at what they taught their children.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 05:15 PM
Apparently, molesting an unconcsious girl doesn't seem to register on the perpetrator as an assault. What kind of moral guidance have these kids received? How do they define assault? I'm sure they might figure it out if they were the victim of a pedophile, but can't somehow transfer the concept to sexual invasions of the opposite sex. This begins with lack of respect and compassion for others. Their parents should look very hard at what they taught their children.


And as Polly pointed out- what about all of the bystanders? And there was an attempted cover up by the school and community. Apparently Anonymous had a lot to do in forcing the trial. In a sense that is a much bigger social issue.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 05:26 PM
And as Polly pointed out- what about all of the bystanders? And there was an attempted cover up by the school and community. Apparently Anonymous had a lot to do in forcing the trial. In a sense that is a much bigger social issue.

I remember reading that one bystander clearly said that it wasn't right and he wasn't going to be a part of it. But yeah... it's amazing/sickening how many people witnessed it and did not intervene.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 05:27 PM
I remember reading that one bystander clearly said that it wasn't right and he wasn't going to be a part of it. But yeah... it's amazing/sickening how many people witnessed it and did not intervene.

On the video, a guy off screen was saying that. He even asked the big-talker what he would do if it was his sister. But he didn't do anything else....

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 05:37 PM
And as Polly pointed out- what about all of the bystanders? And there was an attempted cover up by the school and community. Apparently Anonymous had a lot to do in forcing the trial. In a sense that is a much bigger social issue.
The bigger social issue is the general lack of empathy for the victim. A drunk girl can't be a victim - she deserves what she gets? That is the moral apathy that is pervading society. The fact that these boys would assault this girl in front of so many without fear of repercussion is a testiment to the degree of depravity among their peer group. The fact that the school and community are trying to cover it up simply explains why these kids are so depraved. The community in which they are being raised seems to be wanting for any moral fiber. Clearly they are more concerned with reputation than dysfunctional kids.

Private Pickle
03-17-2013, 06:08 PM
Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Well. Apparently gang-raping someone won't get you as much prison time as stealing a car would. Isn't that quaint.

Not to mention they took pictures of it and posted it...

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:19 PM
On the video, a guy off screen was saying that. He even asked the big-talker what he would do if it was his sister. But he didn't do anything else....

Most kids are taught not to do anything especially coming from schools. You know the zero tolerance laws.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:22 PM
Most kids are taught not to do anything especially coming from schools. You know the zero tolerance laws.

Not even call 9-11?

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:23 PM
Not even call 9-11?
Were some underage? Would they call the cops and risk themselves being put in jail?

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:25 PM
Were some underage? Would they call the cops and risk themselves being put in jail?

Oh sure. And video yourselves joking about it. You can call 9-11 and bail.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 06:26 PM
Most kids are taught not to do anything especially coming from schools. You know the zero tolerance laws.
Have we created zero tolerance laws without imparting the reason why? Simply being afraid of consequences is not enough. These kids need to understand why this kind of behavior is wrong. If we are not teaching morals, ethics, compassion and empathy, we are a very sorry society.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:27 PM
Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Well. Apparently gang-raping someone won't get you as much prison time as stealing a car would. Isn't that quaint.



They can thank God they were convicted of rape, instead of felony possession of weed.

What a warped justice system.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:28 PM
Most kids are taught not to do anything especially coming from schools. You know the zero tolerance laws.

Actually, schools teach you to basically find an authority figure to intervene in things, (bullying for example) and to show disapproval/not take part in the process. It's a big thing that being a bystander is as bad as being the antagonist.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:28 PM
Oh sure. And video yourselves joking about it. You can call 9-11 and bail.

I am a female and most certainly not defending them, just trying to think what may have been a reason the bystanders didn't help. Were some too drunk or was there drugs involved that they wouldn't call the cops or didn't think they could get away? Were they scared of the guys?

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:29 PM
" Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example".

That is complete BS, unless they were just flat out retarded.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:30 PM
Actually, schools teach you to basically find an authority figure to intervene in things, (bullying for example) and to show disapproval/not take part in the process. It's a big thing that being a bystander is as bad as being the antagonist.

No they expect a child to take hits and not block or defend themselves. I had children.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:30 PM
There used to be a time when other people would have stepped in and stopped it.



There used to be a time when forcible rape was a capital crime.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:31 PM
" Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example".

That is complete BS, unless they were just flat out retarded.
I am sure they knew it was wrong.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:32 PM
I have to say there is little scope for youthful misunderstanding here. Utter selfish disregard more likely. I can't imagine what kind of parenting produces that kind of selfish misogynistic behavior.


The kind of parenting where the Gameboy, Nintendo et al do the raising.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:32 PM
" Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example".

That is complete BS, unless they were just flat out retarded.

In this specific case there is no question about consent. But under many state laws (and military law), if the girl is intoxicated you have a rape case. The prosecution still has to prove it, but the male can have a high BAC and still be found guilty.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:32 PM
They're not children; they're young adults. Teenagers. Old enough to realise what they did was never alright in any context. As I said in one of my posts, it's not just a teenage date rape case where a teenager could misunderstand what is consent and what is not; it's a group of young adult males who viciously gang-raped a teenage girl.

Please explain to me how a teenage boy would find that behaviour anything but disgusting and criminal. Even some of the bystanders in the videos were commenting that it wasn't alright.


Commenting, but doing NOTHING. Had the victim died, they would have been complicit in murder.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:33 PM
There used to be a time when forcible rape was a capital crime.

It probably still is in most states. These guys were tried as juveniles.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:34 PM
Have we created zero tolerance laws without imparting the reason why? Simply being afraid of consequences is not enough. These kids need to understand why this kind of behavior is wrong. If we are not teaching morals, ethics, compassion and empathy, we are a very sorry society.

These young kids may see the consequences different than you. Could be a reason a scholarship is not granted, or a career.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:35 PM
" Some teenage boys might not realise that a girl is too drunk to consent, for example".

That is complete BS, unless they were just flat out retarded.

I agree - it's not an excuse. But there are some complicated situations where some males might not recognize just how drunk someone is. I know girls who get blackout drunk, but they're still fully or partially functioning. It's not until the next day they realise they had no idea what happened for parts of the night. Ditto for drugs. So, they could consent the night of but then the next day not remember anything.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:37 PM
In many states statutory rape is strict liability. You could pick a girl up in a bar that was serving her all night (so you think she is well over the age of consent) and still get convicted of rape- even if it was entirely consensual.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:37 PM
Have we created zero tolerance laws without imparting the reason why? Simply being afraid of consequences is not enough. These kids need to understand why this kind of behavior is wrong. If we are not teaching morals, ethics, compassion and empathy, we are a very sorry society.


Morals and ethics in a public school? Surely you jest.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:39 PM
No they expect a child to take hits and not block or defend themselves. I had children.


When teaching, I saw a kid who was blindsided, knocked unconscious, and then arrested because he was part of "the fight".

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:39 PM
I agree - it's not an excuse. But there are some complicated situations where some males might not recognize just how drunk someone is. I know girls who get blackout drunk, but they're still fully or partially functioning. It's not until the next day they realise they had no idea what happened for parts of the night. Ditto for drugs. So, they could consent the night of but then the next day not remember anything.
That I agree. Some may have been too drunk or high to fully understand including the young woman. They all know what happened but gang rape, that's pretty serious.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:40 PM
I agree - it's not an excuse. But there are some complicated situations where some males might not recognize just how drunk someone is. I know girls who get blackout drunk, but they're still fully or partially functioning. It's not until the next day they realise they had no idea what happened for parts of the night. Ditto for drugs. So, they could consent the night of but then the next day not remember anything.


That is hardly consent.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:41 PM
When teaching, I saw a kid who was blindsided, knocked unconscious, and then arrested because he was part of "the fight".

Yes, and I always told mine they had better fight back, just don't start it.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:42 PM
That I agree. Some may have been too drunk or high to fully understand including the young woman. They all know what happened but gang rape, that's pretty serious.


We have a culture in which gang rape, cop murder, etc, is glorified in rap, and we wonder why this stuff happens. I wonder why it does not happen more often, to tell the truth, and it probably does but we do not hear about it.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:43 PM
Yes, and I always told mine they had better fight back, just don't start it.


Same school, the QB got in a fight on the day of playoffs, and the principal suspended the arrest policy "for further review".

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:45 PM
No they expect a child to take hits and not block or defend themselves. I had children.

I disagree, at least with the way it is here. When I was in grade 10 a girl at my high school was being jumped by 4 other girls. Everyone was standing around watching and cheering and because of the crowd, teachers and other school employees were unable to get through. I jumped in to try and pull her out from under them. One of them pulled my hair so I punched her in the face before proceeding to get the girl out from under them. There was video footage from the corridor and I didn't even get a warning because I was trying to break it up (and was the only one) and only punched her in self-defense. I was a witness when the police were investigating.

Most school officials are able to use common sense when it comes to fights and bullying. Yes, there is a zero tolerance policy in most places including here, but situations arise where that doesn't apply due to the nature of the event.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:47 PM
That is hardly consent.

Yes - obviously. I guess I should have put "consent" instead of consent so that people would understand what I was saying. Someone can "consent" the night of, but then not remember anything the next day.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:49 PM
Yes - obviously. I guess I should have put "consent" instead of consent so that people would understand what I was saying. Someone can "consent" the night of, but then not remember anything the next day.

And then local laws are key. Many places in the States, it is not possible for a female to consent if she is impaired.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 06:51 PM
I agree - it's not an excuse. But there are some complicated situations where some males might not recognize just how drunk someone is. I know girls who get blackout drunk, but they're still fully or partially functioning. It's not until the next day they realise they had no idea what happened for parts of the night. Ditto for drugs. So, they could consent the night of but then the next day not remember anything.
Somewhat different however to consenting to being violated by various males, I would think. They did imply that she looked "dead". I would think that implied that she was completely unconcsious.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:53 PM
Somewhat different however to consenting to being violated by various males, I would think. They did imply that she looked "dead". I would think that implied that she was completely unconcsious.

I was replying to an earlier post not related to the Steubenville case; the victim in Steubenville was totally passed out, if I am remembering correctly, which is very different. There is absolutely no gray area. There was absolutely no way for anyone involved to think she had consented.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:56 PM
I disagree, at least with the way it is here. When I was in grade 10 a girl at my high school was being jumped by 4 other girls. Everyone was standing around watching and cheering and because of the crowd, teachers and other school employees were unable to get through. I jumped in to try and pull her out from under them. One of them pulled my hair so I punched her in the face before proceeding to get the girl out from under them. There was video footage from the corridor and I didn't even get a warning because I was trying to break it up (and was the only one) and only punched her in self-defense. I was a witness when the police were investigating.

Most school officials are able to use common sense when it comes to fights and bullying. Yes, there is a zero tolerance policy in most places including here, but situations arise where that doesn't apply due to the nature of the event.

I only had one get into a fight and she was defending herself and others. Because she blocked this person she was also suspended. Most wouldn't try her.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 06:57 PM
I don't understand where the other females were. Even if I didn't like the girl, I would have tried to help. Why didn't any come to her rescue?

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 06:58 PM
The story mentioned that they went from one party to another- so that other party may not have had any females at it.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 06:59 PM
I don't understand where the other females were. Even if I didn't like the girl, I would have tried to help. Why didn't any come to her rescue?


Wouldn't be surprised if other girls were watching and cheering too.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 06:59 PM
I don't understand where the other females were. Even if I didn't like the girl, I would have tried to help. Why didn't any come to her rescue?

Good question. I remember reading that her ex-boyfriend had sort of turned the school against her. But still... I could absolutely fucking hate someone, and I wouldn't just stand by. It's incomprehensible.

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 07:03 PM
The story mentioned that they went from one party to another- so that other party may not have had any females at it.

Women should never go without a friend or at least other females. I would have never let a friend be relocated even if she hated me the next day. If they did have females it wouldn't surprise me that she wasn't liked.

Adelaide
03-17-2013, 07:10 PM
Women should never go without a friend or at least other females. I would have never let a friend be relocated even if she hated me the next day. If they did have females it wouldn't surprise me that she wasn't liked.

Yeah - It can be annoying as hell, but you don't leave your friend even when she's telling you to. A friend of mine went into a guy's room in my dorms in university and I was standing outside banging for 10 minutes after, retrieved my drunk friend and told the guy he could contact her tomorrow and see how she feels. He never tried to contact her. I was annoyed as hell, but females need to stick together, particularly when there are drinking or drugs involved.

Uteruses before duderuses, as Leslie Knope would say.

This whole case is just bizarre. Teenagers/young adults are scary these days.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 07:24 PM
Women should never go without a friend or at least other females. I would have never let a friend be relocated even if she hated me the next day. If they did have females it wouldn't surprise me that she wasn't liked.

80% of the rape cases I tried started like that. In the soldier world when everone would go to the Ville (Korea), the common line was- your (female) battle buddy is drunk, let me take her back to her room so you can stay out and and fun....

roadmaster
03-17-2013, 07:28 PM
80% of the rape cases I tried started like that. In the soldier world when everone would go to the Ville (Korea), the common line was- your (female) battle buddy is drunk, let me take her back to her room so you can stay out and and fun....

No way would I have left mine. I always had their backs and still talk to them today. True friends are hard to find but when you do find them, they are for life no matter what state they live in.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 07:39 PM
80% of the rape cases I tried started like that. In the soldier world when everone would go to the Ville (Korea), the common line was- your (female) battle buddy is drunk, let me take her back to her room so you can stay out and and fun....
A rather mercenary attitude...

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 09:03 PM
It probably still is in most states. These guys were tried as juveniles.


I may be wrong, but I think the SCOTUS has ruled out capital punishment for rape, maybe with the exception of child rape.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 09:22 PM
I may be wrong, but I think the SCOTUS has ruled out capital punishment for rape, maybe with the exception of child rape.

I wouldn't endorse capital punishment for rape, but I'd have no problem with housing the rapist with the biggest bubba who's into guys.

Peter1469
03-17-2013, 09:24 PM
I may be wrong, but I think the SCOTUS has ruled out capital punishment for rape, maybe with the exception of child rape.

The only thing that I see is that SCOTUS outlawed the death penatly for the rape of a child if the child doesn't die.

It is still the maximum sentence under the UCMJ.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 09:29 PM
I wouldn't endorse capital punishment for rape, but I'd have no problem with housing the rapist with the biggest bubba who's into guys.


I find, when examining the history of crime, that long sentences, especially life, are the cruel and unusual punishment.

Societies functioned for eons without long term incarceration, either fines or corporal punishment taught the lesson, and if they didn't, execution did.

Old Sparky sure rehabilitated Ted Bundy, and states like California have gone bankrupt housing scum like the Mansonites.

With DNA testing now available, a return to swift and certain capital punishment is in society's best interest, IMNSHO.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 09:30 PM
The only thing that I see is that SCOTUS outlawed the death penatly for the rape of a child if the child doesn't die.

It is still the maximum sentence under the UCMJ.


I wonder when the traitor who fragged his officers in Kuwait in the days before the Iraq invasion, and the Fort Hood shooter, get theirs?

Or, will they get Freedom medals from the Obama?

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 09:32 PM
I find, when examining the history of crime, that long sentences, especially life, are the cruel and unusual punishment.

Societies functioned for eons without long term incarceration, either fines or corporal punishment taught the lesson, and if they didn't, execution did.

Old Sparky sure rehabilitated Ted Bundy, and states like California have gone bankrupt housing scum like the Mansonites.

With DNA testing now available, a return to swift and certain capital punishment is in society's best interest, IMNSHO.
Except the problem with mistaken identification.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 09:35 PM
Except the problem with mistaken identification.

NO system is perfect.

What about giving a life sentence for mistaken identification?

A life being raped and treated like an animal is just as bad.

I don't like prisons, since they are now a major industry that just turns out meaner better criminals.

Not to mention that three hots and a cot and all the sex you can force out of other inmates is very attractive to some thugs.

And once one gets life, there is no penalty for murder inside prison walls if the death penalty is off the table.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 10:19 PM
NO system is perfect.

What about giving a life sentence for mistaken identification?

A life being raped and treated like an animal is just as bad.

I don't like prisons, since they are now a major industry that just turns out meaner better criminals.

Not to mention that three hots and a cot and all the sex you can force out of other inmates is very attractive to some thugs.

And once one gets life, there is no penalty for murder inside prison walls if the death penalty is off the table.
I can't speak for everyone, but where there is life, there is hope for vindication. Is it better to let 10 murderers live or kill one innocent? It is complicated.

Greenridgeman
03-17-2013, 10:27 PM
I can't speak for everyone, but where there is life, there is hope for vindication. Is it better to let 10 murderers live or kill one innocent? It is complicated.


My answer would be that there are many more murders committed by lifers, parolees, and other released early for whatever reason, than there are proven mistaken executions.

So, playing it safe by sparing convicted murderers from execution costs many, many more lives.

Dr. Who
03-17-2013, 10:55 PM
My answer would be that there are many more murders committed by lifers, parolees, and other released early for whatever reason, than there are proven mistaken executions.

So, playing it safe by sparing convicted murderers from execution costs many, many more lives.
Logically I would agree with you, but I have a serious moral issue with killing people unless it is in self defense. Unfortunately I can't reconcile logic with morals. I would say this. If the crime were witnessed by many people and the perpetrator was caught in the act, I guess I could overcome my moral objections, unless there was some compelling reason like mental illness or that the deceased was threatening the lives of someone's family.

Common
03-18-2013, 05:30 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but where there is life, there is hope for vindication. Is it better to let 10 murderers live or kill one innocent? It is complicated.

Thats an understatement, I feel the same way until I look at individuals like Ted Bundy and Geoffrey Dahmer and many other supposed humans that are unsalvageable.
Thankfully DNA has taken alot of the uncertainty out of convictions are they perfect ? of course not.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 08:36 AM
I wonder when the traitor who fragged his officers in Kuwait in the days before the Iraq invasion, and the Fort Hood shooter, get theirs?

Or, will they get Freedom medals from the Obama?

Oh didn't you know? That wasn't terrorism....that was workplace violence... They just needed a vacation...

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 08:42 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but where there is life, there is hope for vindication. Is it better to let 10 murderers live or kill one innocent? It is complicated.

I think that is two different questions. The question of wrongful imprisonment/punishment and the question of capital crimes.

For example, we aren't contemplating removing the punishment of prison because sometimes the wrongfully convicted go there. Justice, just like everything else in the world of humanity, isn't perfect. We can only do our best.

I am for capital punishment but the doubt of guilt needs to be removed completely...not just beyond a reasonable doubt... I don't think 1 out of every 10 would be an acceptable number. Perhaps 1 for every 100,000.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 08:52 AM
I think that is two different questions. The question of wrongful imprisonment/punishment and the question of capital crimes.

For example, we aren't contemplating removing the punishment of prison because sometimes the wrongfully convicted go there. Justice, just like everything else in the world of humanity, isn't perfect. We can only do our best.

I am for capital punishment but the doubt of guilt needs to be removed completely...not just beyond a reasonable doubt... I don't think 1 out of every 10 would be an acceptable number. Perhaps 1 for every 100,000.


Since there is no proof that anywhere near one of ten convictions is erroneous, that figure is invalid.

I would say the actually wrongful convictions rate in the country is actually closer to the one in one hundered thousand figure.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 08:54 AM
Since there is no proof that anywhere near one of ten convictions is erroneous, that figure is invalid.

I would say the actually wrongful convictions rate in the country is actually closer to the one in one hundered thousand figure.

Agreed.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 08:58 AM
Agreed.


I also think juries are responsible enough to distinguish between those who might deserve the benefit of the doubt and get life, and those like Bundy, Manson, et al, that needed swift and sure execution.

Having had a friend murdered by a parolee who was later executed, I am on the harsh side of this issue.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 09:05 AM
I also think juries are responsible enough to distinguish between those who might deserve the benefit of the doubt and get life, and those like Bundy, Manson, et al, that needed swift and sure execution.

Having had a friend murdered by a parolee who was later executed, I am on the harsh side of this issue.

I don't consider it harsh really. Harsh is capital punishment for a non-capital crime.

Sorry about your friend.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:15 AM
Logically I would agree with you, but I have a serious moral issue with killing people unless it is in self defense. Unfortunately I can't reconcile logic with morals. I would say this. If the crime were witnessed by many people and the perpetrator was caught in the act, I guess I could overcome my moral objections, unless there was some compelling reason like mental illness or that the deceased was threatening the lives of someone's family.


Society exercising its right to self-defense would bother you?

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:16 AM
I don't consider it harsh really. Harsh is capital punishment for a non-capital crime.

Sorry about your friend.

Examples of capital punishment for a non-capital crime. I find your post confusing.

Cigar
03-18-2013, 09:19 AM
If that was someone's daughter we knew or one of our own, I'm sure individuals would think differently.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:24 AM
If that was someone's daughter we knew or one of our own, I'm sure individuals would think differently.

Having no daughters, it is hard for me to speak, but, should someone rape my GF, and the cops did not have him securely incarcerated, I would not hesitate to kill him and take my chances with a jury.

Cigar
03-18-2013, 09:30 AM
Having no daughters, it is hard for me to speak, but, should someone rape my GF, and the cops did not have him securely incarcerated, I would not hesitate to kill him and take my chances with a jury.

I agree, the safest place for these boys is in jail.

Maybe if they were Leroy's boyfriend for several months, they would understand the errors of their ways. :)

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:34 AM
I agree, the safest place for these boys is in jail.

Maybe if they were Leroy's boyfriend for several months, they would understand the errors of their ways. :)


We differ in that I find prison rape just as offensive.

Cigar
03-18-2013, 09:41 AM
We differ in that I find prison rape just as offensive.

I don't endorse it, but justice has a strange way of finding level ground.

Example; I can't imagine why there's actually a congressional inquire on rape in the military? You mean to tell me the most disciplined branch of government can't police their own from raping each other?

Mister D
03-18-2013, 09:46 AM
I don't endorse it, but justice has a strange way of finding level ground.

Example; I can't imagine why there's actually a congressional inquire on rape in the military? You mean to tell me the most disciplined branch of government can't police their own from raping each other?

Rape occurs in an integrated military? The hell you say!

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:48 AM
I don't endorse it, but justice has a strange way of finding level ground.

Example; I can't imagine why there's actually a congressional inquire on rape in the military? You mean to tell me the most disciplined branch of government can't police their own from raping each other?


Anybody with any sense could have, and did, predict the consequences of such a foolish PC decision as a co-ed military.

Hell, we are in an unending "War on Terror" because we defiled the Muslim Holy Land(Saudi Arabia) with our PC policy.

Just part of the arrogance that is part of American foreign policy.

Remember when Osama was our ally, and we turned our back on him, as we had turned our back on Ho Chi Mihn after using him like a rented mule against the Japs.

Osama offered to get Iraq out of Kuwait, as he helped get the Russians out of Afghanistan.

I don't defend how he responded, but, we did screw him first.

And last.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:50 AM
Rape occurs in an integrated military? The hell you say!


I had a lady friend in the Army, according to her, lesbian rape is more prevelant, and virtually unreported.

It all goes to show ya...........!!

Mister D
03-18-2013, 09:52 AM
I had a lady friend in the Army, according to her, lesbian rape is more prevelant, and virtually unreported.

It all goes to show ya...........!!

Dang!

Cigar
03-18-2013, 09:54 AM
There's those who sit back and say that's just the way it is ...

.. and then there's those who do something about it.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 09:56 AM
There's those who sit back and say that's just the way it is ...

.. and then there's those who do something about it.


Cannot argue with that.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 10:02 AM
Examples of capital punishment for a non-capital crime. I find your post confusing.

Like being hanged for committing adultery.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 10:06 AM
Like being hanged for committing adultery.


If the law said adultery were a capital crime, then, one should not commit adultery.

I do not think this has ever been a problem in the GOUSA, if it happens in other countries, it is wrong, but, still none of our business.

Sticking our PC noses in other countries' business got us in this mess anyway.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 10:16 AM
If the law said adultery were a capital crime, then, one should not commit adultery.

I do not think this has ever been a problem in the GOUSA, if it happens in other countries, it is wrong, but, still none of our business.

Sticking our PC noses in other countries' business got us in this mess anyway.

Yeah I'm just making an example with regards to what I think would be harsh. Although we could have an entire discussion on the USA and the idea of "blowback" which I think is a complete load of bullshit.

Mister D
03-18-2013, 10:20 AM
There's those who sit back and say that's just the way it is ...

.. and then there's those who do something about it.

You mean like creating a Congressional Commission to help prevent rape in the military?

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 10:34 AM
There's those who sit back and say that's just the way it is ...

.. and then there's those who do something about it.

Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who the victim is.

let me guess, you thinking raping a drunk girl who was wearing a short skirt is cool cause she shouldn't have gotten drunk and dressed provocatively right?

Cigar
03-18-2013, 10:40 AM
Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who the victim is.

let me guess, you thinking raping a drunk girl who was wearing a short skirt is cool cause she shouldn't have gotten drunk and dressed provocatively right?

If I were you, I'd stop guessing ... you're not good at it.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 10:48 AM
If I were you, I'd stop guessing ... you're not good at it.

If I were you I'd stop advocating for prison justice. It's barbaric.

Mister D
03-18-2013, 10:50 AM
If I were you I'd stop advocating for prison justice. It's barbaric.

Yes, it is.

Cigar
03-18-2013, 10:54 AM
If I were you I'd stop advocating for prison justice. It's barbaric.


You're not me ... but you can still dream :)

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 10:58 AM
You're not me ... but you can still dream :)

More like a nightmare...

Mister D
03-18-2013, 11:00 AM
You're not me ... but you can still dream :)

What does that even mean?

patrickt
03-18-2013, 11:54 AM
Absolutely. Prisons should be more like Club Med sites around the world. I did like the comment "rape is rape". Whoopie Goldberg's explanation that there is rape and rape/rape aside, a rape where a woman is beaten with a bottle, dragged down an alley, and raped with such severity she requires surgery is not the same a a girl who asks someone she's hooked up with to have sex and changes her mind the next morning.

In the last state I lived in, they can both be prosecuted as rapes and both can result in a conviction.

Peter1469
03-18-2013, 03:15 PM
I don't endorse it, but justice has a strange way of finding level ground.

Example; I can't imagine why there's actually a congressional inquire on rape in the military? You mean to tell me the most disciplined branch of government can't police their own from raping each other?

There have been several studies. One lead to the revamping of all sex crimes under the UCMJ.

IMPress Polly
03-18-2013, 05:01 PM
Cigar wrote:
I don't endorse it, but justice has a strange way of finding level ground.

Example; I can't imagine why there's actually a congressional inquire on rape in the military? You mean to tell me the most disciplined branch of government can't police their own from raping each other?

The truth is that the military above all needs a better gender balance. That was an important part of the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women into combat roles formally. The military is presently 85% male, and the gender imbalance gets even more extreme as you go up the ladder of authority. I expect that changing those stats in the direction of more balance will lead to more sympathy for the institution's rape victims and thus to more enforcement of standards against it. The same could be said of the police generally, the Congress, etc., in my view. The simple fact is that stereotyping and just generally discriminatory and oppressive treatment of social groups tends to increase when one group outnumbers the other/s dramatically in a given setting or institution. When we had racial segregation, for example, racist sentiments and structural treatment were openly tolerated by society. By contrast, in our post-segregation America, one must be much more secretive about such sentiments because we've figured out they're wrong through the experience of diversity. The same basic principle applies generally. If you want to root out prejudice and discriminatory treatment within any given institution, one of the most effective ways to do so is to ensure that all groups therein are well-represented in the processes of decision-making.

Dr. Who
03-18-2013, 05:17 PM
Society exercising its right to self-defense would bother you?
I have a problem with people killing people. If there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt, I can live with capital punishment, but that absolute beyond reasonable doubt should not be based on a collection of circumstantial evidence. Police have been known to decide who they think is guilty and keep exculpatory or doubt creating evidence out of the hands of the defense.

Mister D
03-18-2013, 05:25 PM
The truth is that the military above all needs a better gender balance. That was an important part of the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women into combat roles formally. The military is presently 85% male, and the gender imbalance gets even more extreme as you go up the ladder of authority. I expect that changing those stats in the direction of more balance will lead to more sympathy for the institution's rape victims and thus to more enforcement of standards against it. The same could be said of the police generally, the Congress, etc., in my view. The simple fact is that stereotyping and just generally discriminatory and oppressive treatment of social groups tends to increase when one group outnumbers the other/s dramatically in a given setting or institution. When we had racial segregation, for example, racist sentiments and structural treatment were openly tolerated by society. By contrast, in our post-segregation America, one must be much more secretive about such sentiments because we've figured out they're wrong through the experience of diversity. The same basic principle applies generally. If you want to root out prejudice and discriminatory treatment within any given institution, one of the most effective ways to do so is to ensure that all groups therein are well-represented in the processes of decision-making.

Wow...

First of all, the effectiveness of our military trumps sympathy for victims of rape. The military does not need a gender balance unless of course you believe the military's primary job is socializing individuals and indoctrinating them.

Secondly, America's experience of diversity has been overwhelmingly negative in spite of the official propaganda as White Flight and the continued reality of segregation in the US clearly demonstrate. In fact, those who most favor diversity tend to be those least likely to actually experience it. Third, "we" have never had racial segregation if by that you mean official state policy. Only one region of the country had such a thing. Voluntary segregation, on the other hand, is simply the reality of life in a multiracial society. It has always been that way and likely always will. You don't have to like it but you do more evil than good insisting on what ought to be instead of what is.

Sorry, I don't mean to jump down your throat but that was a jaw dropping comment .

Dr. Who
03-18-2013, 05:26 PM
Absolutely. Prisons should be more like Club Med sites around the world. I did like the comment "rape is rape". Whoopie Goldberg's explanation that there is rape and rape/rape aside, a rape where a woman is beaten with a bottle, dragged down an alley, and raped with such severity she requires surgery is not the same a a girl who asks someone she's hooked up with to have sex and changes her mind the next morning.

In the last state I lived in, they can both be prosecuted as rapes and both can result in a conviction.
If a woman changes her mind after the fact, it wasn't rape. That kind of behavior simply causes authorities to be skeptical about date rape. I agree however that there is simple rape and rape combined with aggravated assault and even murder.

Bigred1cav
03-18-2013, 05:27 PM
What does this BS have to do with two football players raping a drunk 16 year old girl?

roadmaster
03-18-2013, 05:41 PM
We need to be careful not to blame the victim here. This is why so many women don't think they have a chance to report anyone, if it be an officer of any sex and a young girl raped while drunk. Would any of you men be upset if you were raped by two men because you were drunk?

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 05:49 PM
The truth is that the military above all needs a better gender balance. That was an important part of the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women into combat roles formally. The military is presently 85% male, and the gender imbalance gets even more extreme as you go up the ladder of authority. I expect that changing those stats in the direction of more balance will lead to more sympathy for the institution's rape victims and thus to more enforcement of standards against it. The same could be said of the police generally, the Congress, etc., in my view. The simple fact is that stereotyping and just generally discriminatory and oppressive treatment of social groups tends to increase when one group outnumbers the other/s dramatically in a given setting or institution. When we had racial segregation, for example, racist sentiments and structural treatment were openly tolerated by society. By contrast, in our post-segregation America, one must be much more secretive about such sentiments because we've figured out they're wrong through the experience of diversity. The same basic principle applies generally. If you want to root out prejudice and discriminatory treatment within any given institution, one of the most effective ways to do so is to ensure that all groups therein are well-represented in the processes of decision-making.


Maybe we need an all female draft, and let them fight all the wars for the next 200 years.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 05:51 PM
Wow...

First of all, the effectiveness of our military trumps sympathy for victims of rape. The military does not need a gender balance unless of course you believe the military's primary job is socializing individuals and indoctrinating them.

Secondly, America's experience of diversity has been overwhelmingly negative in spite of the official propaganda as White Flight and the continued reality of segregation in the US clearly demonstrate. In fact, those who most favor diversity tend to be those least likely to actually experience it. Third, "we" have never had racial segregation if by that you mean official state policy. Only one region of the country had such a thing. Voluntary segregation, on the other hand, is simply the reality of life in a multiracial society. It has always been that way and likely always will. You don't have to like it but you do more evil than good insisting on what ought to be instead of what is.

Sorry, I don't mean to jump down your throat but that was a jaw dropping comment .


I know mine sure dropped, we need gender balance, but not the same physical standards.

No that is just foolish.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 05:51 PM
We need to be careful not to blame the victim here. This is why so many women don't think they have a chance to report anyone, if it be an officer of any sex and a young girl raped while drunk. Would any of you men be upset if you were raped by two men because you were drunk?

Upset, and, homicidal.

Violate my arse, and DIE!!!

Peter1469
03-18-2013, 06:04 PM
The truth is that the military above all needs a better gender balance. That was an important part of the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women into combat roles formally. The military is presently 85% male, and the gender imbalance gets even more extreme as you go up the ladder of authority. I expect that changing those stats in the direction of more balance will lead to more sympathy for the institution's rape victims and thus to more enforcement of standards against it. The same could be said of the police generally, the Congress, etc., in my view. The simple fact is that stereotyping and just generally discriminatory and oppressive treatment of social groups tends to increase when one group outnumbers the other/s dramatically in a given setting or institution. When we had racial segregation, for example, racist sentiments and structural treatment were openly tolerated by society. By contrast, in our post-segregation America, one must be much more secretive about such sentiments because we've figured out they're wrong through the experience of diversity. The same basic principle applies generally. If you want to root out prejudice and discriminatory treatment within any given institution, one of the most effective ways to do so is to ensure that all groups therein are well-represented in the processes of decision-making.

I am not sure how you are going to achieve those gender balances in combat arms units (some more than others). The Marines have already said that they will open up the courses to women, but if not enough pass, none will be assigned to the combat units.

Adelaide
03-18-2013, 06:11 PM
You mean like creating a Congressional Commission to help prevent rape in the military?

The idea is to try and create awareness campaigns and to decide how rape cases should be handled. Previously, the structure of the military and the procedures involved led to injustice.

Private Pickle
03-18-2013, 06:24 PM
The truth is that the military above all needs a better gender balance. That was an important part of the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women into combat roles formally. The military is presently 85% male, and the gender imbalance gets even more extreme as you go up the ladder of authority. I expect that changing those stats in the direction of more balance will lead to more sympathy for the institution's rape victims and thus to more enforcement of standards against it. The same could be said of the police generally, the Congress, etc., in my view. The simple fact is that stereotyping and just generally discriminatory and oppressive treatment of social groups tends to increase when one group outnumbers the other/s dramatically in a given setting or institution. When we had racial segregation, for example, racist sentiments and structural treatment were openly tolerated by society. By contrast, in our post-segregation America, one must be much more secretive about such sentiments because we've figured out they're wrong through the experience of diversity. The same basic principle applies generally. If you want to root out prejudice and discriminatory treatment within any given institution, one of the most effective ways to do so is to ensure that all groups therein are well-represented in the processes of decision-making.

Problem is...we have a completely voluntary military...what are you gonna draft females or something?

roadmaster
03-18-2013, 06:28 PM
Upset, and, homicidal.

Violate my arse, and DIE!!!

Exactly, people need to put themselves in her situation. Not only that they filmed it and most straight men would be wanting to kill them if it had happened to them or gays.

Greenridgeman
03-18-2013, 06:35 PM
Exactly, people need to put themselves in her situation. Not only that they filmed it and most straight men would be wanting to kill them if it had happened to them or gays.


She put herself in danger, possibly, by being drunk in the presence of a lot of other drunks, but, that does not justify rape.

Nothing justifies rape, it is a power play by otherwise powerless cowards.

Peter1469
03-18-2013, 06:37 PM
The idea is to try and create awareness campaigns and to decide how rape cases should be handled. Previously, the structure of the military and the procedures involved led to injustice.

The military (since I joined in 1987) has always gone out of its way to at least have frequent classes on sexual abuse, harassment, etc. Often times actual allegations were ignored- that is true. And often, the cases were the he said-she said that are difficult to prove. The best success that the military has in rape cases are when the woman reports it right away and a blood test proves she is drunk. Case over for the guy. But many times women will wait days or weeks to report a rape.

The army has gone to 100% prosecution of any allegation. It's conviction rates have dropped greatly.

IMPress Polly
03-20-2013, 06:08 AM
Greenridgeman wrote:
I know mine sure dropped, we need gender balance, but not the same physical standards.

No that is just foolish.

I disagree. Any "sympathetic" lowering of standards for females only promote chauvinist attitudes, just like they do in professional sports. There are reasons why so few people bother following the WNBA and so on. They're considered inferior sports leagues because their participants aren't held to the same standards as the main institutions, which are exclusive to men. Inferior standards promote the belief that women are inferior athletes. Same basic rule applies to the military: inferior standards for women promote the belief that women are less physically capable than men, which just isn't true. Female military personnel are really only going to gain respect if held to the same standards as men. Don't do us any demeaning "favors", guys. Just as I believe that women should be admitted to the same sports leagues as men, so too do I believe they should be admitted to all units of the military on an equal basis with men. Equality is equality, not something else.

Lower physical standards for women, by the way, would be the very factor that would tend to lower the effectiveness of combat units.

hanger4
03-20-2013, 06:56 AM
I disagree. Any "sympathetic" lowering of standards for females only promote chauvinist attitudes, just like they do in professional sports. There are reasons why so few people bother following the WNBA and so on. They're considered inferior sports leagues because their participants aren't held to the same standards as the main institutions, which are exclusive to men. Inferior standards promote the belief that women are inferior athletes. Same basic rule applies to the military: inferior standards for women promote the belief that women are less physically capable than men, which just isn't true. Female military personnel are really only going to gain respect if held to the same standards as men. Don't do us any demeaning "favors", guys. Just as I believe that women should be admitted to the same sports leagues as men, so too do I believe they should be admitted to all units of the military on an equal basis with men. Equality is equality, not something else.

Lower physical standards for women, by the way, would be the very factor that would tend to lower the effectiveness of combat units.

Woman will never and can never compete in any sport that requires any type of body strengh.


I'm 5' 10'', 175lbs. I have a size 44 chest. I'm not a BIG man by any stretch of the word.


Do you want a 44 chest ??


You (women) don't have the lung capacity to build the body strength to compete at that level.


Sorry Polly, nothin' personal but what you said just isn't true.

Santa's Little Helper
03-20-2013, 07:03 AM
I disagree. Any "sympathetic" lowering of standards for females only promote chauvinist attitudes, just like they do in professional sports. There are reasons why so few people bother following the WNBA and so on. They're considered inferior sports leagues because their participants aren't held to the same standards as the main institutions, which are exclusive to men. Inferior standards promote the belief that women are inferior athletes. Same basic rule applies to the military: inferior standards for women promote the belief that women are less physically capable than men, which just isn't true. Female military personnel are really only going to gain respect if held to the same standards as men. Don't do us any demeaning "favors", guys. Just as I believe that women should be admitted to the same sports leagues as men, so too do I believe they should be admitted to all units of the military on an equal basis with men. Equality is equality, not something else.

Lower physical standards for women, by the way, would be the very factor that would tend to lower the effectiveness of combat units.

If that's sexist then how come you women still expect us guys to open doors for you, carry your bags and all that sort of special stuff women expect us guys to do

Can't have it BOTH WAYS

IMPress Polly
03-20-2013, 11:40 AM
Santa's Little Helper wrote:
If that's sexist then how come you women still expect us guys to open doors for you, carry your bags and all that sort of special stuff women expect us guys to do

Can't have it BOTH WAYS

I don't. The women who expect that stuff are usually non-feminists. I, like most feminists, find these paternalistic gestures demeaning, as if to suggest that ladies aren't capable.

The attitude displayed above is what happens when one judges a group holistically based on pure stereotyping.

Peter1469
03-20-2013, 06:03 PM
I disagree. Any "sympathetic" lowering of standards for females only promote chauvinist attitudes, just like they do in professional sports. There are reasons why so few people bother following the WNBA and so on. They're considered inferior sports leagues because their participants aren't held to the same standards as the main institutions, which are exclusive to men. Inferior standards promote the belief that women are inferior athletes. Same basic rule applies to the military: inferior standards for women promote the belief that women are less physically capable than men, which just isn't true. Female military personnel are really only going to gain respect if held to the same standards as men. Don't do us any demeaning "favors", guys. Just as I believe that women should be admitted to the same sports leagues as men, so too do I believe they should be admitted to all units of the military on an equal basis with men. Equality is equality, not something else.

Lower physical standards for women, by the way, would be the very factor that would tend to lower the effectiveness of combat units.

The PT tests for men and women have always been different in the military.

http://www.apft-standards.com/

Greenridgeman
03-20-2013, 06:08 PM
The PT tests for men and women have always been different in the military.

http://www.apft-standards.com/


So much for equality of the sexes.

I wonder how one would feel if his son was killed because a woman ammo hauler, for example, could only bring half what a man could have carried?

Greenridgeman
03-20-2013, 06:10 PM
I don't. The women who expect that stuff are usually non-feminists. I, like most feminists, find these paternalistic gestures demeaning, as if to suggest that ladies aren't capable.

The attitude displayed above is what happens when one judges a group holistically based on pure stereotyping.


My feminist, commie girlfriend does not mind me opening doors; it is a sign of respect and affection, and not demeaning in the least.

That, and I drive a 4WD pickup, and it is a huge step up from her little Honda.

Now, if she would only help me haul my long ass up out of that low slung car.....!

Greenridgeman
03-20-2013, 06:11 PM
You're not me ... but you can still dream :)


If I were you, well, I would get an infraction if I said what I would do if I were you.

Bigred1cav
03-20-2013, 07:17 PM
Juvy Judge decides in Ohio. They were in affect sentenced until they are 21 years old based upon the rehabilitation while in Juvy system. 1 and 2 years if they play well with others. Can be reduced by Judge for shock probation.

IMPress Polly
03-21-2013, 06:30 AM
Peter wrote:
The PT tests for men and women have always been different in the military.

http://www.apft-standards.com/

...And this means they should continue to be?

We're not the only country that has dealt with these questions (admitting women to combat units and equal standards) before. Take our neighbor to the north, Canada, for example. Women have been admitted to combat units in their military on an equal basis for two decades now. (Though continuing discrimination ensures that they rarely actually get assigned combat roles.) What has been their experience with this? They've found that it has improved their overall performance and readiness.

Or we could go back further. When we (wrongly IMO) fought the Vietnamese communists, they were admitting women to combat units already at that time. And we lost that war. That's right America: We were, to no small degree, "beaten by girls" as they say in middle school.

Just a couple examples that could be cited.

Chris
03-21-2013, 06:32 AM
We were beaten by micromanaging politicians.

Chloe
03-21-2013, 09:00 AM
I don't. The women who expect that stuff are usually non-feminists. I, like most feminists, find these paternalistic gestures demeaning, as if to suggest that ladies aren't capable.

The attitude displayed above is what happens when one judges a group holistically based on pure stereotyping.

I guess this is one of the few things we will probably disagree on. I really don't mind it when a guy opens a door for me, pulls out my chair for me, offers to carry something for me, or things like that. I think it's nice. I'll open doors for guys too like if I get to a door first while on campus or something then I'll open it for the person behind me to go in first, guy or girl, but if I walk up and a guy opens the door for me or offers to carry something for me it honestly just doesn't bother me. Same goes for something like a date. I don't mind paying but I think it's nice if the guy reaches for the check first.

Greenridgeman
03-21-2013, 09:07 AM
I disagree. Any "sympathetic" lowering of standards for females only promote chauvinist attitudes, just like they do in professional sports. There are reasons why so few people bother following the WNBA and so on. They're considered inferior sports leagues because their participants aren't held to the same standards as the main institutions, which are exclusive to men. Inferior standards promote the belief that women are inferior athletes. Same basic rule applies to the military: inferior standards for women promote the belief that women are less physically capable than men, which just isn't true. Female military personnel are really only going to gain respect if held to the same standards as men. Don't do us any demeaning "favors", guys. Just as I believe that women should be admitted to the same sports leagues as men, so too do I believe they should be admitted to all units of the military on an equal basis with men. Equality is equality, not something else.

Lower physical standards for women, by the way, would be the very factor that would tend to lower the effectiveness of combat units.



There should have been a ? at the end of the sentence.

No way do I think women should be in combat unless they meet the same standards across the board.

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 01:55 PM
...And this means they should continue to be?

We're not the only country that has dealt with these questions (admitting women to combat units and equal standards) before. Take our neighbor to the north, Canada, for example. Women have been admitted to combat units in their military on an equal basis for two decades now. (Though continuing discrimination ensures that they rarely actually get assigned combat roles.) What has been their experience with this? They've found that it has improved their overall performance and readiness.

Or we could go back further. When we (wrongly IMO) fought the Vietnamese communists, they were admitting women to combat units already at that time. And we lost that war. That's right America: We were, to no small degree, "beaten by girls" as they say in middle school.

Just a couple examples that could be cited.

I don't know what the Canadian army PT standards are. I would be surprised to learn that there was one standard for both sexes.

I do know from 22 years of active and reserve service, that if US Army PT standards were the same for the sexes, there would be a lot less women in the military. Perhaps they just expect too much from us men?

As far as Vietnam goes, they were largely fighting a guerrilla war and I am not aware of women in combat units of the NVA. And the US was not beaten in a military sense. We were beaten politically. But that is still the same thing. Loser.

I come back to the example of light infantry or SoF. How many women do you know who can carry over 160 pounds of crap for a week or two, and still be able to fight when they make contact with the enemy?

And yes, many, if not most guys can't either. But they wash out.

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 01:57 PM
I guess this is one of the few things we will probably disagree on. I really don't mind it when a guy opens a door for me, pulls out my chair for me, offers to carry something for me, or things like that. I think it's nice. I'll open doors for guys too like if I get to a door first while on campus or something then I'll open it for the person behind me to go in first, guy or girl, but if I walk up and a guy opens the door for me or offers to carry something for me it honestly just doesn't bother me. Same goes for something like a date. I don't mind paying but I think it's nice if the guy reaches for the check first.


I have had women bark at me when I opened the door for them before. I just said, yes ma'am. :grin:

IMPress Polly
03-21-2013, 01:57 PM
Chloe wrote:
I guess this is one of the few things we will probably disagree on. I really don't mind it when a guy opens a door for me, pulls out my chair for me, offers to carry something for me, or things like that. I think it's nice. I'll open doors for guys too like if I get to a door first while on campus or something then I'll open it for the person behind me to go in first, guy or girl, but if I walk up and a guy opens the door for me or offers to carry something for me it honestly just doesn't bother me. Same goes for something like a date. I don't mind paying but I think it's nice if the guy reaches for the check first.

But see that's just it: Santa's Little Helper was describing a double standard (women expecting both equality and special services), whereas you're describing equal treatment without regard to one's sex, i.e. common courtesy. Nothing wrong with common courtesy! I don't demand the traditional forms of special treatment though. In fact, given the history they're bound up with, personally I tend to insist on opening my own doors, etc. It's just a way of clarifying that I'm an able, independent person.

As for the guy paying the tab, that's a tradition that comes out of the days when women didn't generally have careers and therefore didn't tend to have much money of their own, or at least not nearly as much as guys did. I don't find male payment to be offensive. As an understood tradition, it reflects the reality that women tend to be poorer. It will come to seem more irrational and out of place the more women advance economically relative to men and thus will eventually phase itself out IMO. Eventually it won't make a social difference who pays. For now, it continues to make a small amount of social difference, i.e. the guy's reputation may be hurt just a little if he doesn't.

Cigar
03-21-2013, 02:01 PM
I have had women bark at me when I opened the door for them before. I just said, yes ma'am. :grin:


You're just trying to check-out that Ass ... you're not fooling anyone. :laugh:

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 02:02 PM
But see that's just it: Santa's Little Helper was describing a double standard (women expecting both equality and special services), whereas you're describing equal treatment without regard to one's sex, i.e. common courtesy. Nothing wrong with common courtesy! I don't demand the traditional forms of special treatment though. In fact, given the history they're bound up with, personally I tend to insist on opening my own doors, etc. It's just a way of clarifying that I'm an able, independent person.

As for the guy paying the tab, that's a tradition that comes out of the days when women didn't generally have careers and therefore didn't tend to have much money of their own, or at least not nearly as much as guys did. I don't find male payment to be offensive. As an understood tradition, it reflects the reality that women tend to be poorer. It will come to seem more irrational and out of place the more women advance economically relative to men and thus will eventually phase itself out IMO. Eventually it won't make a social difference who pays. For now, it continues to make a small amount of social difference, i.e. the guy's reputation may be hurt just a little if he doesn't.

So if you were walking behind me, and we were entering a building, should I shut the door, so that you could open it yourself? :shocked:

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 02:02 PM
You're just trying to check-out that Ass ... you're not fooling anyone. :laugh:

Sunglasses, my friend.

Santa's Little Helper
03-21-2013, 02:07 PM
Sunglasses, my friend.

That's a big ass bird
Peter1469 what KIND OF BIRD is that

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 02:15 PM
That's a big ass bird
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) what KIND OF BIRD is that

It is a war hawk!

IMPress Polly
03-21-2013, 02:40 PM
Peter wrote:
I do know from 22 years of active and reserve service, that if US Army PT standards were the same for the sexes, there would be a lot less women in the military. Perhaps they just expect too much from us men?

And this is where you lose me because I have no idea which way it is. But anyhow, I'm pretty sure that more women would join regardless if there were more jobs open to them in the military.


As far as Vietnam goes, they were largely fighting a guerrilla war and I am not aware of women in combat units of the NVA. And the US was not beaten in a military sense. We were beaten politically. But that is still the same thing. Loser.

As an ex-Maoist, I'm familiar with the subject of protracted people's war and how that strategy works. I mean of course we couldn't be outgunned by a country like Vietnam or anything...at first. That's not the essence of PPW. The essence of PPW is, as the title suggests, the mass line: winning the ideological battle over time. That's the main thing. Gaining the ability to outgun the enemy follows from that. PPW (which is what the Vietnamese communists employed) is rooted in Mao's idea that war is essentially about politics, not armaments. Guerilla warfare is employed to inspire and grow morale: you only fight battles you can win. Conventional warfare comes once you've managed to acquire sufficient armaments, which usually are supplied by the enemy. The Viet Cong won the ideological battle in both the key countries concerned (both in Vietnam and in the United States) and therefore won the war. But mobilizing women was a crucial part of that. They wouldn't have been able to pull off nearly so many victories at any given point if not for maximizing their pool of fighters in such a way, and their egalitarian, populist politics rationalized it.

I hear so many conservative-minded people tell me that Vietnam was an endurance test that we failed and that's why we lost the war. That's just a technocratic failure to comprehend the mass line. Essentially our defeat was ideological. What we need to ask ourselves therefore is why our ideas didn't win out. What were the moral problems with our ideas? Were the ideas we advanced to the people of Vietnam inferior to those of the Viet Cong? Were they inconsistent with our actions? These questions are the keys to real understanding.

Mister D
03-21-2013, 02:46 PM
Polly, the Viet Cong got its ass kicked and ceased to be a major player after the Tet Offensive. The VC did not follow Mao's advice and attempted to confront the US and ARVN in conventional battle. The idea was that there would be a mass uprising across South Vietnam but they miscalulated...badly. The South Vietnamese did not rise up as planned. It was a costly lesson.

Saigon and South Vietnam fell to the conventional forces of Noth Vietnam in 1975.

IMPress Polly
03-21-2013, 02:53 PM
Most Maoists take Mao's advice in a general more than a strict way. The question the Vietnamese communists struggled with at various points was that of which stage of PPW they were at. The Tet Offensive wound up somewhat unintentionally being a trade-off: it failed tactically (thus resulting in a significant drop-off in the morale of South Vietnam's local communist movement), but resulted in a major drop in our morale on this side of the battle lines. Bet the Tet Offensive, most Americans supported the war effort. Afterwards, the majority opposed it. So did it succeed? On balance, yes. Not in the short run, as planned, but it did succeed in the long run. The point is that the drop-off in our morale was larger and more significant than the drop-off in the morale of the communist fighters. (The Vietnamese communist movement considered itself unitary.) Do you see what I'm getting at?

Mister D
03-21-2013, 02:57 PM
Most Maoists take Mao's advice in a general more than a strict way. The question the Vietnamese communists struggled with at various points was that of which stage of PPW they were at. The Tet Offensive wound up somewhat unintentionally being a trade-off: it failed tactically (thus resulting in a significant drop-off in the morale of South Vietnam's local communist movement), but resulted in a major drop in our morale on this side of the battle lines. Bet the Tet Offensive, most Americans supported the war effort. Afterwards, the majority opposed it. So did it succeed? On balance, yes. Not in the short run, as planned, but it did succeed in the long run. The point is that the drop-off in our morale was larger and more significant than the drop-off in the morale of the communist fighters. Do you see what I'm getting at?

You're right. Tet certainly had a serious effect on the American public but that wasn't the plan. That's all I'm saying. The plan was for a mass uprising in Vietnam. Communist planners were extremely fortunate the political fallout in the US was so devastating to the American effort.

Mister D
03-21-2013, 02:58 PM
Alas, war is a game of chance to some extent.

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 05:11 PM
And this is where you lose me because I have no idea which way it is. But anyhow, I'm pretty sure that more women would join regardless if there were more jobs open to them in the military.



As an ex-Maoist, I'm familiar with the subject of protracted people's war and how that strategy works. I mean of course we couldn't be outgunned by a country like Vietnam or anything...at first. That's not the essence of PPW. The essence of PPW is, as the title suggests, the mass line: winning the ideological battle over time. That's the main thing. Gaining the ability to outgun the enemy follows from that. PPW (which is what the Vietnamese communists employed) is rooted in Mao's idea that war is essentially about politics, not armaments. Guerilla warfare is employed to inspire and grow morale: you only fight battles you can win. Conventional warfare comes once you've managed to acquire sufficient armaments, which usually are supplied by the enemy. The Viet Cong won the ideological battle in both the key countries concerned (both in Vietnam and in the United States) and therefore won the war. But mobilizing women was a crucial part of that. They wouldn't have been able to pull off nearly so many victories at any given point if not for maximizing their pool of fighters in such a way, and their egalitarian, populist politics rationalized it.

I hear so many conservative-minded people tell me that Vietnam was an endurance test that we failed and that's why we lost the war. That's just a technocratic failure to comprehend the mass line. Essentially our defeat was ideological. What we need to ask ourselves therefore is why our ideas didn't win out. What were the moral problems with our ideas? Were the ideas we advanced to the people of Vietnam inferior to those of the Viet Cong? Were they inconsistent with our actions? These questions are the keys to real understanding.

No, I agree with your assessment. The VC and North just kept taking casualties with the hopes that the US would grow tired of the war, without the will to end the war. They ended up being correct.

Greenridgeman
03-21-2013, 05:16 PM
No, I agree with your assessment. The VC and North just kept taking casualties with the hopes that the US would grow tired of the war, without the will to end the war. They ended up being correct.


That is the kind of war Nathan Bedford Forrest wanted the South to fight, the North eventually bled the South dry fighting a war of attrition.

Private Pickle
03-21-2013, 05:19 PM
Most Maoists take Mao's advice in a general more than a strict way. The question the Vietnamese communists struggled with at various points was that of which stage of PPW they were at. The Tet Offensive wound up somewhat unintentionally being a trade-off: it failed tactically (thus resulting in a significant drop-off in the morale of South Vietnam's local communist movement), but resulted in a major drop in our morale on this side of the battle lines. Bet the Tet Offensive, most Americans supported the war effort. Afterwards, the majority opposed it. So did it succeed? On balance, yes. Not in the short run, as planned, but it did succeed in the long run. The point is that the drop-off in our morale was larger and more significant than the drop-off in the morale of the communist fighters. (The Vietnamese communist movement considered itself unitary.) Do you see what I'm getting at?

Lest we forget the VC's systematic slaughter of Vietnamese villages who did not comply with aiding, supplying and conscription.

Greenridgeman
03-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Lest we forget the VC's systematic slaughter of Vietnamese villages who did not comply with aiding, supplying and conscription.


Terror is a key feature of People's War.

And do not forget My Lai, or John Kerry's Winter Soldier Inquiry testimony.

You do believe John Kerry, right?

IMPress Polly
03-22-2013, 06:28 AM
Terrorism is a factor in (conventional) PPW, I'm not gonna lie, but it's not the main thing. It's viewed as a form of discipline. For much of the war, we had a fundamentally similar policy of burning Southern villages to the ground and moving their populations into concentration camps if they featured any communist elements for that matter. Our policy was much more widely employed. But again, the essence though is the ideological battle. We were talking about the Tet Offensive yesterday. There was a reason why that was possible. There was a reason why they could mobilize so many fighters in that effort. That reason had everything to do with the comparative strength of the communists' ideas, which they worked very hard to advance. You've pointed out that punishments existed for disloyalty. There were also rewards for loyalty to the communists' cause, conversely. And the communists employed political education and propaganda lavishly, aiming to make sure the ordinary Vietnamese people understood that they were fighting an oppressive, colonial force and feudalism. By the time we learned the importance of aid on the one hand and got serious about our political propaganda efforts on the other, it was too late. Ideas made the difference, not armaments.

IMPress Polly
03-22-2013, 06:45 AM
So getting back to the topic of Steubenville, the day after the verdict Piers Morgan interviewed the attorney for the defense. I couldn't help but find the interview amazing. They'll be appealing the case evidently. Not only that, the guy very much sought to put the victim on trial, questioning her judgment with the drinking and everything like this. At a couple of points, he highlighted that there were lots of sobs...which he concludes were for his clients...when the verdict came in. On a similar note, we have learned that were also threats against the victim, including a death threat, immediately after the verdict came in. In commemoration of these developments, The Onion (a spoof news site) re-released a joke story they did in 2011 on the day of the Steubenville verdict. They remark that "It could have been produced by the CNN team covering the Steubenville rape verdict." I largely agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWLJZw9Ws-g

IMPress Polly
03-22-2013, 02:24 PM
(Sorry to triple-post! I would've just edited my last post with this addition, but you can't edit anymore after you've logged out it seems.)

On a more serious note though, I think it's a positive sign there's now an ongoing investigation into broader involvement in the incidents. I think it bodes well for our culture, I mean: that they're making it clear that complicity counts too.

Like I said before, this case was/is especially important. I've characterized it as the Newtown of the rape issue. It seems to be provoking a real change in people's attitudes toward all this is what I mean by that, of course.

Probably one of the best commentaries on all this (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2013/01/04/nr-brooke-ohio-rape-dr-drew-intv.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2013/01/04/nr-brooke-ohio-rape-dr-drew-intv.cnn) IMO was made by Dr. Drew back in early January when this case was first starting to get major national attention. He captures my sentiments exactly. Sometimes it gets a little energetic, but that's as it should be, I think. People should be awakened and offended by this case. The new developments I've just described though, especially the broadening of the investigation, makes me feel that we've learned a lesson from this and that we're headed in the right direction culturally on this issue.

Private Pickle
03-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Terrorism is a factor in (conventional) PPW, I'm not gonna lie, but it's not the main thing. It's viewed as a form of discipline. For much of the war, we had a fundamentally similar policy of burning Southern villages to the ground and moving their populations into concentration camps if they featured any communist elements for that matter. Our policy was much more widely employed. But again, the essence though is the ideological battle. We were talking about the Tet Offensive yesterday. There was a reason why that was possible. There was a reason why they could mobilize so many fighters in that effort. That reason had everything to do with the comparative strength of the communists' ideas, which they worked very hard to advance. You've pointed out that punishments existed for disloyalty. There were also rewards for loyalty to the communists' cause, conversely. And the communists employed political education and propaganda lavishly, aiming to make sure the ordinary Vietnamese people understood that they were fighting an oppressive, colonial force and feudalism. By the time we learned the importance of aid on the one hand and got serious about our political propaganda efforts on the other, it was too late. Ideas made the difference, not armaments.

Indoctination by force made the difference. The VC and NVA forced their idea via armaments...not better arguments.

IMPress Polly
03-22-2013, 05:54 PM
No. You're still missing the core point of how protracted people's war works. Look, let me give you a present-day visual and a story. Maybe that will help you grasp the essence of it:

There happens to be a Maoist-led PPW going on right now in certain rural parts of India. One reporter managed to get allowed on the inside of the leading rebel group in 2011 to report on how the Maoist fighters live. You can find his report, including a video, here at this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662941). As you can see, the Maoists have been able to gain a foothold in this said part of India for a combination of reasons, but in particular because the Maoist fighters are defending the homesteads of the poor peasants and providing them with basic services (like medical care) that the government does not. There's nothing truly unique about the case of India in these regards. That's how PPW works. You serve the people, and in particular you step into the vacuum of needs that the government isn't providing for and fill those needs especially. Propaganda is wielded in conjunction with aid, not apart from it. It's not a standalone thing. You can't just brainwash or terrorize people into believing you've got the solutions they need. You have to prove you care about their needs and interests through your actions. It's through that that you gain the popular legitimacy required give the anger of the oppressed direction and leadership. Serving the people is at the root of the PPW. If you're defeated by this strategy, that's fundamentally because you failed to meet the needs of the people and adhere to their interests in an adequate way.

As you can also see, women are integrated into their combat forces. That too is nothing new. Female fighters have always been a part of Maoist-led armies. Mobilization of as many people as possible has always been seen as part and parcel to the mass line. The concept of female fighters is only new to capitalist societies like ours.

Peter1469
03-22-2013, 06:28 PM
(Sorry to triple-post! I would've just edited my last post with this addition, but you can't edit anymore after you've logged out it seems.)

On a more serious note though, I think it's a positive sign there's now an ongoing investigation into broader involvement in the incidents. I think it bodes well for our culture, I mean: that they're making it clear that complicity counts too.

Like I said before, this case was/is especially important. I've characterized it as the Newtown of the rape issue. It seems to be provoking a real change in people's attitudes toward all this is what I mean by that, of course.

Probably one of the best commentaries on all this (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2013/01/04/nr-brooke-ohio-rape-dr-drew-intv.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2013/01/04/nr-brooke-ohio-rape-dr-drew-intv.cnn) IMO was made by Dr. Drew back in early January when this case was first starting to get major national attention. He captures my sentiments exactly. Sometimes it gets a little energetic, but that's as it should be, I think. People should be awakened and offended by this case. The new developments I've just described though, especially the broadening of the investigation, makes me feel that we've learned a lesson from this and that we're headed in the right direction culturally on this issue.

To me the story is not how young men treat young women (that is certainly bad enough)- it is how the local community tried to brush it under the rug (that is much worse).

Peter1469
03-22-2013, 06:32 PM
No. You're still missing the core point of how protracted people's war works. Look, let me give you a present-day visual and a story. Maybe that will help you grasp the essence of it:

There happens to be a Maoist-led PPW going on right now in certain rural parts of India. One reporter managed to get allowed on the inside of the leading rebel group in 2011 to report on how the Maoist fighters live. You can find his report, including a video, here at this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662941). As you can see, the Maoists have been able to gain a foothold in this said part of India for a combination of reasons, but in particular because the Maoist fighters are defending the homesteads of the poor peasants and providing them with basic services (like medical care) that the government does not. There's nothing truly unique about the case of India in these regards. That's how PPW works. You serve the people, and in particular you step into the vacuum of needs that the government isn't providing for and fill those needs especially. Propaganda is wielded in conjunction with aid, not apart from it. It's not a standalone thing. You can't just brainwash or terrorize people into believing you've got the solutions they need. You have to prove you care about their needs and interests through your actions. It's through that that you gain the popular legitimacy required give the anger of the oppressed direction and leadership. Serving the people is at the root of the PPW. If you're defeated by this strategy, that's fundamentally because you failed to meet the needs of the people and adhere to their interests in an adequate way.

As you can also see, women are integrated into their combat forces. That too is nothing new. Female fighters have always been a part of Maoist-led armies. Mobilization of as many people as possible has always been seen as part and parcel to the mass line. The concept of female fighters is only new to capitalist societies like ours.

The women are integrated into the paramilitary forces, not the official combat forces.

Private Pickle
03-22-2013, 07:01 PM
No. You're still missing the core point of how protracted people's war works. Look, let me give you a present-day visual and a story. Maybe that will help you grasp the essence of it:

There happens to be a Maoist-led PPW going on right now in certain rural parts of India. One reporter managed to get allowed on the inside of the leading rebel group in 2011 to report on how the Maoist fighters live. You can find his report, including a video, here at this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662941). As you can see, the Maoists have been able to gain a foothold in this said part of India for a combination of reasons, but in particular because the Maoist fighters are defending the homesteads of the poor peasants and providing them with basic services (like medical care) that the government does not. There's nothing truly unique about the case of India in these regards. That's how PPW works. You serve the people, and in particular you step into the vacuum of needs that the government isn't providing for and fill those needs especially. Propaganda is wielded in conjunction with aid, not apart from it. It's not a standalone thing. You can't just brainwash or terrorize people into believing you've got the solutions they need. You have to prove you care about their needs and interests through your actions. It's through that that you gain the popular legitimacy required give the anger of the oppressed direction and leadership. Serving the people is at the root of the PPW. If you're defeated by this strategy, that's fundamentally because you failed to meet the needs of the people and adhere to their interests in an adequate way.

As you can also see, women are integrated into their combat forces. That too is nothing new. Female fighters have always been a part of Maoist-led armies. Mobilization of as many people as possible has always been seen as part and parcel to the mass line. The concept of female fighters is only new to capitalist societies like ours.

I know you have a romantic view of how it works. I'm just telling you what happened.

Peter1469
03-22-2013, 07:10 PM
I know you have a romantic view of how it works. I'm just telling you what happened.


She gives a good view from the other side. That is how they view their role in the conflict. In Vietnam, they were being slaughtered; their generals admit to that to this day. But they knew that if by their actions they could get the American people to turn against the war, they could affect change in American policy.

They ended up doing just that. Albeit with the help of many Americans.

Common
03-22-2013, 07:17 PM
My feminist, commie girlfriend does not mind me opening doors; it is a sign of respect and affection, and not demeaning in the least.

That, and I drive a 4WD pickup, and it is a huge step up from her little Honda.

Now, if she would only help me haul my long ass up out of that low slung car.....!


I agree and my wife appreciates my doing the heavy lifting and opening doors and letting her pass first, she likes the unexpected single rose when I walk in the door or a small inexpensive bouquet, to let her know I think of her and love her. My wife would also have no problem kicking me in the nuts if she thought I earned one of those.
Femnists in my opinion have many emotional issues they take offense to what most women find romantic or endearing. They believe in order to advance womens rights they have to act like men and demand all that men have, that to me is not only sad but the totally wrong approach. As a man with daughters I say no thank you to women in combat. Kids lose their dads and thats horrific enough, now we want them to possibly lose their mothers that is unthinkable to me.

Private Pickle
03-22-2013, 07:31 PM
She gives a good view from the other side. That is how they view their role in the conflict. In Vietnam, they were being slaughtered; their generals admit to that to this day. But they knew that if by their actions they could get the American people to turn against the war, they could affect change in American policy.

They ended up doing just that. Albeit with the help of many Americans.

Views are great but rarely, and especially in this case, reality. American perspectives were influenced less by Communist ideals and more by the medias impact on bringing the reality of war to the home front as well as their own take on the news. In addition, the VC and NVA didn't espouse their ideals via their charity to the people, rather through a systematic and aggressive policy of murder, conscription, coercion and forced indoctrination from the business end of their rifles.

Peter1469
03-22-2013, 07:39 PM
Views are great but rarely, and especially in this case, reality. American perspectives were influenced less by Communist ideals and more by the medias impact on bringing the reality of war to the home front as well as their own take on the news. In addition, the VC and NVA didn't espouse their ideals via their charity to the people, rather through a systematic and aggressive policy of murder, conscription, coercion and forced indoctrination from the business end of their rifles.

Agreed.

It is almost eerie to read the POV from the true believers.

Mister D
03-22-2013, 08:09 PM
Terrorism is a factor in (conventional) PPW, I'm not gonna lie, but it's not the main thing. It's viewed as a form of discipline. For much of the war, we had a fundamentally similar policy of burning Southern villages to the ground and moving their populations into concentration camps if they featured any communist elements for that matter. Our policy was much more widely employed. But again, the essence though is the ideological battle. We were talking about the Tet Offensive yesterday. There was a reason why that was possible. There was a reason why they could mobilize so many fighters in that effort. That reason had everything to do with the comparative strength of the communists' ideas, which they worked very hard to advance. You've pointed out that punishments existed for disloyalty. There were also rewards for loyalty to the communists' cause, conversely. And the communists employed political education and propaganda lavishly, aiming to make sure the ordinary Vietnamese people understood that they were fighting an oppressive, colonial force and feudalism. By the time we learned the importance of aid on the one hand and got serious about our political propaganda efforts on the other, it was too late. Ideas made the difference, not armaments.

Strategic hamlets were not "concentration camps", Polly. Just think of the awful fate of South Vietnam had it been won for the dreaded imperialists! It would have suffered the horrible fate of South Korea. :smiley:

There is a lot wrong with the current liberal order, Polly, but it doesn't help to bet on this horse.

Private Pickle
03-22-2013, 08:19 PM
Strategic hamlets were not "concentration camps", Polly. Just think of the awful fate of South Vietnam had it been won for the dreaded imperialists! It would have suffered the horrible fate of South Korea. :smiley:

There is a lot wrong with the current liberal order, Polly, but it doesn't help to bet on this horse.

The real concentration camps were the ones set up after the US' withdrawal. Often called "reeducation camps" hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. More of their charitable contributions to society I guess.


Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the final NVA Spring Offensive were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hoa in 1975.[57] Sources have estimated that 165,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps out of 1-2.5 million sent,[58][59] while the number executed could have been as high as 200,000[60] (Jacqueline Desbarats estimates an absolute minimum of 100,000 executions[58][61]). Rummel estimates that slave labor in the "New Economic Zones" caused 50,000 deaths (out of a total 1 million deported).[58][62] The number of Vietnamese boat people who died is estimated between 200,000 and 400,000, out of the 2.5 million that fled.[63] There were also tens of thousands of suicides after the North Vietnamese take-over.[64] Including Vietnam's foreign democide, Rummel estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi.[62] In 1988, Vietnam suffered a famine that afflicted millions.[65]
Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed 1-3 million Cambodians in the killing fields, out of a population of around 8 million.[66][67][68] The Pathet Lao killed some 100,000 Hmong people in Laos.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Deaths_after_U.S._withdrawa l

Adelaide
03-22-2013, 08:47 PM
I agree and my wife appreciates my doing the heavy lifting and opening doors and letting her pass first, she likes the unexpected single rose when I walk in the door or a small inexpensive bouquet, to let her know I think of her and love her. My wife would also have no problem kicking me in the nuts if she thought I earned one of those.
Femnists in my opinion have many emotional issues they take offense to what most women find romantic or endearing. They believe in order to advance womens rights they have to act like men and demand all that men have, that to me is not only sad but the totally wrong approach. As a man with daughters I say no thank you to women in combat. Kids lose their dads and thats horrific enough, now we want them to possibly lose their mothers that is unthinkable to me.

I don't believe mothers are worth more than fathers. Or vice versa. Losing a parent, regardless of their gender, is tragic and life altering.

IMPress Polly
03-23-2013, 09:01 AM
Common wrote:
Femnists in my opinion have many emotional issues they take offense to what most women find romantic or endearing. They believe in order to advance womens rights they have to act like men and demand all that men have, that to me is not only sad but the totally wrong approach. As a man with daughters I say no thank you to women in combat. Kids lose their dads and thats horrific enough, now we want them to possibly lose their mothers that is unthinkable to me.

While I guess I understand these paternalistic sentiments, women are not children. We are your equals and deserve the according life opportunities: the same ones you have.


Private Pickle wrote:
Views are great but rarely, and especially in this case, reality. American perspectives were influenced less by Communist ideals and more by the medias impact on bringing the reality of war to the home front as well as their own take on the news. In addition, the VC and NVA didn't espouse their ideals via their charity to the people, rather through a systematic and aggressive policy of murder, conscription, coercion and forced indoctrination from the business end of their rifles.

Okay so you say our defeat was just all the treasonous American media's fault for showing us the war in all its graphic, horrific detail. Can you extrapolate that notion to today? Consider the Afghanistan War. It gets almost no media coverage at all in this country. The press today isn't even allowed to show you the coffins of our troops, let alone fields of bloodied and dismembered corpses. Yet, despite this change in the nature of press coverage, something like 70% of Americans today are opposed to continuing our role in the Afghanistan War and believe we should be exiting that theater much faster than we are...like right now. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not the media, it's the war. People don't like war. They tend to get tired of it if it just drags on forever inconclusively without victory in sight or even clear-cut progress, especially if there's no clear mission in the first place. Morale is very important. As for the difference in street protests between then and today, that can be explained by the fact there's no draft today. Thus the public's sentiment winds up getting expressed as dismay in opinion polls rather than as anger in the streets.

(Btw, we used things like conscription, organized murder campaigns, and even formal propaganda to an extent ourselves. Let's not rely on double-standards in making our case.)


Mister D wrote:
Strategic hamlets were not "concentration camps", Polly. Just think of the awful fate of South Vietnam had it been won for the dreaded imperialists! It would have suffered the horrible fate of South Korea. :smiley:

One wonders why then you probably wouldn't care to be moved to one of these "strategic hamlets" yourself. A concentration camp, as the term suggests, is a camp where large numbers of people are held and cannot leave. Like I was just saying to Private Pickle about relying on double-standards...

Further, is the Korean Peninsula, with all its constant fissures and conflicts, really a good model for the region? Do you really think many Vietnamese people regret the reunification of their country? Do you really think they wish they had to deal with a DMZ and the constant threat of war from the other side like the Korean people do?


Peter wrote:
It is almost eerie to read the POV from the true believers.

You're somewhat mischaracterizing me. I'm not really a "true believer" in protracted people's war today. I was simply describing PPW as someone who knows what it is. I used to be a Maoist and out of that past I happen to not only have academic knowledge of this topic, but also happen to know a few people who are fighting in India's PPW. I'm still Friends with them on Facebook and we've had online hang-outs before and stuff. That was one of the perks of being a partisan Maoist: you got to meet people like that.

People's war seems kind of outdated to me. It really only works in very rural countries where the government doesn't have a pervasive presence everywhere. Look at Nepal even! Today even a very backward, feudalistic country like Nepal is too developed for PPW to work as a strategy. The Maoists there tried it. From 1996 to 2006, they fought a people's war, eventually winning control of about 80% of the country. But try as they might, they couldn't successfully make the final push. They couldn't successfully transition to the last stage of PPW: conventional warfare to take the major cities. They simply couldn't beat out the Royal Army on its home turf with their forces and armaments. Now since the king had dissolved the parliament in order to rule by decree, the Maoists were ultimately able to find a way out of this stalemate by forging an alliance with the disenfranchised parliamentary parties that did have roots and influence in the major cities. In early 2006, the ex-parliamentary parties called a general strike in the capitol city of Kathmandu that mobilized half the city's population while the Maoists blockaded the city to prevent the government from sending in reinforcements to quell the strike. At that point, the king was forced to reinstall the parliament. And, as per their agreement, the Maoists subsequently gave up their arms, dissolved the People's Liberation Army, and forfeited exclusive control of their base areas in exchange for recognition as a parliamentary party. They won the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections. These developments express the long-term trend-line for all PPWs going on today. The long-term trend-line today is away from warfare-based models and toward electoral methods of power transfer. So what about those countries without democracy? Where a country is starting to undergo economic development yet features a tyrannical form of government, the prevailing revolutionary method today is that of urban insurrection, not agrarian warfare.

The fact that PPW no longer seems to work today in terms of getting all the way to completion was one of the main reasons I gave up on Maoism. The group I was with was contemplating ways of changing the people's war formula such that it might work in more urban settings, but the ideas being proposed didn't seem workable or at all moral to me. The talk was about getting into things like organized crime: drug-dealing and so forth. Not where I was interested in going. That's neither progressive nor the path of the future. Subsequently, I've also looked more closely at the case and results of Mahatma Gandhi of India and really come to question whether or not PPW was ever a truly necessary approach in fact. I'm what you might call semi-pacifist these days.

Ultimately, without abandoning most Marxist principles (like dialectics, class analysis of history, etc.), I converted to democratic socialism, persuaded that communism doesn't have a future, or at least not in this century. Looking at the world today very broadly, you'll observe that very few of the significant communist parties out there are functionally different from the regular democratic socialist parties at this point. Regardless of their rhetoric, they behave the same as regular democratic socialist parties and, in fact, appear to be in a slow process of merging with them. That's the path of the future, I believe.

None of this is to say I don't sympathize with the 20th century communist movement. I'd be lying if I said I despised it or even found it less favorable than capitalist alternatives. I just think communism today appears to be very dogmatic and behind the times. I sympathize with India's Maoist rebels as well, but I don't think their path will lead to victory. I think eventually they're going to have to reach a peace agreement with the government because they're going to run up against the limits of the fact that India is a fast-developing country and that their rural warfare methodology of acquiring power just doesn't mesh with that reality.

Newpublius
03-23-2013, 09:26 AM
True, they don't like war, but a couple of things distinguish the conflicts today with Vietnam. 1. There's no draft, 2. The casualties today pale in comparison to those suffered during Vietnam both nominally and as a percent of the population and 3. The military has gotten very effective, as you allude to in your post, of controlling the media. Embedded reporters, no Hanoi Jane, we don't see young girls running in abject terror from a napalm strike that's blown the clothes off of them, we tend not to see some of the more gruesome images that can be war (the picture of a South Vietnamese soldier summarily executing a man at point blank range comes to mind).

This is why the overall level of dissent is much lower even given 70% opposition because its not just about opposing it, its also about how much you oppose it to actually have political consequences.

The biggest source of discontent I tend to see appears to be anything connected with drones, but more specifically their use domestically which in a sense is tangential. Good post, Polly, it was thought provoking.

Private Pickle
03-23-2013, 09:53 AM
Okay so you say our defeat was just all the treasonous American media's fault for showing us the war in all its graphic, horrific detail. Can you extrapolate that notion to today? Consider the Afghanistan War. It gets almost no media coverage at all in this country. The press today isn't even allowed to show you the coffins of our troops, let alone fields of bloodied and dismembered corpses. Yet, despite this change in the nature of press coverage, something like 70% of Americans today are opposed to continuing our role in the Afghanistan War and believe we should be exiting that theater much faster than we are...like right now. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not the media, it's the war. People don't like war. They tend to get tired of it if it just drags on forever inconclusively without victory in sight or even clear-cut progress, especially if there's no clear mission in the first place. Morale is very important. As for the difference in street protests between then and today, that can be explained by the fact there's no draft today. Thus the public's sentiment winds up getting expressed as dismay in opinion polls rather than as anger in the streets.

(Btw, we used things like conscription, organized murder campaigns, and even formal propaganda to an extent ourselves. Let's not rely on double-standards in making our case.)

Well I never said teasonous American media... Lets not start tossing the hyperbole around and obfusciate each other's intent.

The media was just doing what the media does. The media realized it could get more ratings from showing a losing war rather than a winning war. That's why you don't see coverage of Afghanistan...we're winning. That and it's old news. Guaranteed though, if an American FOB were to be overan by Taliban fighters, it would be on every news outlet across the globe. Americans are opposed to the war for multiple reasons... One, it's war but secondly, a point we agree upon, is it's been going on way too long and the American public has never been keen on protracted foreign wars. Not to mention that Afghanistan is an unredeeming place whose people are beyond helping in any meaningful way. We can accomplish our goals now by leaving and warning them that if we even smell a trace of terrorist support we bomb them from afar.

The draft absolutely contributed to the protests but I would contend that the protests are what led to the withdraw from Vietnam, not any one ideal or a victory from the Communists standpoint. Protests on the streets amplify public opinion to a drastic degree (it's why it is a right here). Political policy is rarely built around polls (Obamacare) except during campaign time. Bottom line, we beat ourselves in Vietnam and South Vietnam is still paying the price for it today.

Lastly, we will never agree that the United States utilized to any degree the same methods as the VC or NVA on the Vietnamese people. There were certainly incidents which occur in any war, but never as policy.

Mister D
03-23-2013, 09:54 AM
One wonders why then you probably wouldn't care to be moved to one of these "strategic hamlets" yourself. A concentration camp, as the term suggests, is a camp where large numbers of people are held and cannot leave. Like I was just saying to Private Pickle about relying on double-standards...

Further, is the Korean Peninsula, with all its constant fissures and conflicts, really a good model for the region? Do you really think many Vietnamese people regret the reunification of their country? Do you really think they wish they had to deal with a DMZ and the constant threat of war from the other side like the Korean people do?.

Polly, you do realize that the Strategic Hamlet Program was instituted by the South Vietnamese government and was over by the time the US became seriously committed in 1965? Secondly, the hamlets were not camps. They were small villages used to isolate the rural population from VC insurgents who, as you know, didn't take no for an answer. People worked normal jobs, loved, played and went about their lives. That doesn't happen in concentration camps.

You may want to read up on Vietnamese history. It was rarely a united country and little such sentiment existed. Furthermore, I seriously doubt the Vietnamese people would have regretted a fate similar to South Korea's. You can't possibly be serious.

Peter1469
03-23-2013, 01:40 PM
While I guess I understand these paternalistic sentiments, women are not children. We are your equals and deserve the according life opportunities: the same ones you have.



Okay so you say our defeat was just all the treasonous American media's fault for showing us the war in all its graphic, horrific detail. Can you extrapolate that notion to today? Consider the Afghanistan War. It gets almost no media coverage at all in this country. The press today isn't even allowed to show you the coffins of our troops, let alone fields of bloodied and dismembered corpses. Yet, despite this change in the nature of press coverage, something like 70% of Americans today are opposed to continuing our role in the Afghanistan War and believe we should be exiting that theater much faster than we are...like right now. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not the media, it's the war. People don't like war. They tend to get tired of it if it just drags on forever inconclusively without victory in sight or even clear-cut progress, especially if there's no clear mission in the first place. Morale is very important. As for the difference in street protests between then and today, that can be explained by the fact there's no draft today. Thus the public's sentiment winds up getting expressed as dismay in opinion polls rather than as anger in the streets.

(Btw, we used things like conscription, organized murder campaigns, and even formal propaganda to an extent ourselves. Let's not rely on double-standards in making our case.)



One wonders why then you probably wouldn't care to be moved to one of these "strategic hamlets" yourself. A concentration camp, as the term suggests, is a camp where large numbers of people are held and cannot leave. Like I was just saying to Private Pickle about relying on double-standards...

Further, is the Korean Peninsula, with all its constant fissures and conflicts, really a good model for the region? Do you really think many Vietnamese people regret the reunification of their country? Do you really think they wish they had to deal with a DMZ and the constant threat of war from the other side like the Korean people do?



You're somewhat mischaracterizing me. I'm not really a "true believer" in protracted people's war today. I was simply describing PPW as someone who knows what it is. I used to be a Maoist and out of that past I happen to not only have academic knowledge of this topic, but also happen to know a few people who are fighting in India's PPW. I'm still Friends with them on Facebook and we've had online hang-outs before and stuff. That was one of the perks of being a partisan Maoist: you got to meet people like that.

People's war seems kind of outdated to me. It really only works in very rural countries where the government doesn't have a pervasive presence everywhere. Look at Nepal even! Today even a very backward, feudalistic country like Nepal is too developed for PPW to work as a strategy. The Maoists there tried it. From 1996 to 2006, they fought a people's war, eventually winning control of about 80% of the country. But try as they might, they couldn't successfully make the final push. They couldn't successfully transition to the last stage of PPW: conventional warfare to take the major cities. They simply couldn't beat out the Royal Army on its home turf with their forces and armaments. Now since the king had dissolved the parliament in order to rule by decree, the Maoists were ultimately able to find a way out of this stalemate by forging an alliance with the disenfranchised parliamentary parties that did have roots and influence in the major cities. In early 2006, the ex-parliamentary parties called a general strike in the capitol city of Kathmandu that mobilized half the city's population while the Maoists blockaded the city to prevent the government from sending in reinforcements to quell the strike. At that point, the king was forced to reinstall the parliament. And, as per their agreement, the Maoists subsequently gave up their arms, dissolved the People's Liberation Army, and forfeited exclusive control of their base areas in exchange for recognition as a parliamentary party. They won the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections. These developments express the long-term trend-line for all PPWs going on today. The long-term trend-line today is away from warfare-based models and toward electoral methods of power transfer. So what about those countries without democracy? Where a country is starting to undergo economic development yet features a tyrannical form of government, the prevailing revolutionary method today is that of urban insurrection, not agrarian warfare.

The fact that PPW no longer seems to work today in terms of getting all the way to completion was one of the main reasons I gave up on Maoism. The group I was with was contemplating ways of changing the people's war formula such that it might work in more urban settings, but the ideas being proposed didn't seem workable or at all moral to me. The talk was about getting into things like organized crime: drug-dealing and so forth. Not where I was interested in going. That's neither progressive nor the path of the future. Subsequently, I've also looked more closely at the case and results of Mahatma Gandhi of India and really come to question whether or not PPW was ever a truly necessary approach in fact. I'm what you might call semi-pacifist these days.

Ultimately, without abandoning most Marxist principles (like dialectics, class analysis of history, etc.), I converted to democratic socialism, persuaded that communism doesn't have a future, or at least not in this century. Looking at the world today very broadly, you'll observe that very few of the significant communist parties out there are functionally different from the regular democratic socialist parties at this point. Regardless of their rhetoric, they behave the same as regular democratic socialist parties and, in fact, appear to be in a slow process of merging with them. That's the path of the future, I believe.

None of this is to say I don't sympathize with the 20th century communist movement. I'd be lying if I said I despised it or even found it less favorable than capitalist alternatives. I just think communism today appears to be very dogmatic and behind the times. I sympathize with India's Maoist rebels as well, but I don't think their path will lead to victory. I think eventually they're going to have to reach a peace agreement with the government because they're going to run up against the limits of the fact that India is a fast-developing country and that their rural warfare methodology of acquiring power just doesn't mesh with that reality.

On one point I take issue. Americans do like war. Just a fast war. Like Desert Storm. Had Bush simply crushed Iraq and Afghanistan - and left (conventional forces) Americans would love him. It is the occupations that hurt. I am tempted to pull up the speech that Patton gave when he took command. But I will spare you. :smiley:

Bigred1cav
03-23-2013, 05:06 PM
High school athletes accustomed to privilege:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21878/big-red-football-anonymous-leaks-disturbing-video-in-steubenville-rape-case

Dr. Who
03-25-2013, 06:37 PM
I agree and my wife appreciates my doing the heavy lifting and opening doors and letting her pass first, she likes the unexpected single rose when I walk in the door or a small inexpensive bouquet, to let her know I think of her and love her. My wife would also have no problem kicking me in the nuts if she thought I earned one of those.
Femnists in my opinion have many emotional issues they take offense to what most women find romantic or endearing. They believe in order to advance womens rights they have to act like men and demand all that men have, that to me is not only sad but the totally wrong approach. As a man with daughters I say no thank you to women in combat. Kids lose their dads and thats horrific enough, now we want them to possibly lose their mothers that is unthinkable to me.
The question is how many young women with children enter the military because it offers better money than the jobs that they could otherwise get or simply offers a job when they can't find employment. Of course the same could be said of some men who enter the military.

Ivan88
03-26-2013, 01:23 AM
In some South American countries they used to release the rapist if the girl would accept him as husband. In this case she could get 2 husbands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Dona-flor-e-seus-2-maridos-poster02.jpg/220px-Dona-flor-e-seus-2-maridos-poster02.jpg

Captain Obvious
03-26-2013, 05:10 PM
In some South American countries they used to release the rapist if the girl would accept him as husband. In this case she could get 2 husbands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Dona-flor-e-seus-2-maridos-poster02.jpg/220px-Dona-flor-e-seus-2-maridos-poster02.jpg

That's out of line.

And coming from me, it says a lot.

simpsonofpg
03-26-2013, 06:11 PM
That is good news but what would be even better would be the rest of the team that took pictures and made fun of the girl. Stubenville must be a great town to live in. I can sure see where their values lie.