Are American troops undisciplined thugs dressed as soldiers?

Good points, but the thing is the public might very well see everything as one, the military not made up of various aspects, but as one, thus it is believed by some to be an outfit of thugs. Soldiers on the ground in fire fights accidentally (or intentionally) killing civilians, planes dropping bombs, the navy attacking, it all can look similar. The thing is to make it not seem like that.
The Iraqi war was compared to Vietnam a number of times, for moral, logistical and other reasons. Is it a fair label? It depends, certainly it is a war people seem convinced is wrong, and that is a big thing that links the two. The fact is that soldiers will seem like thugs until such a time as manipulative administrations do something about it. Maybe not every "psycho" can be caught, but most countries have more stringent entry requirements into say, becoming a police officer or teacher then being a soldier. More can be done that will both save lives of civilians and good soldiers while at the same time as aiding the reputaion of the armed forces in general.

Originally posted by PVS
LordShadowZ, you make generalisation on top of generalisation.

1-missle strikes are carried out from submarines and ordered from the top in command, possibly even dubya himself. how does that relate to ground troops? most (and i mean MOST) of the indiscriminate killing is done from missile strikes, not from soldiers shooting civilians. i and NOT justifying these actions, but lets place blame where it belongs, or you are unfairly generalising.

2-you try to structure this arguement that bilbo's relative should have not joined the military because of vietnam? WTF??? and wtf does that have to do with the other hundred thousand+ troops on the ground. and while you're thinking about that, think of how sadly wrong your vision of troops happily gunning down civilians are. please, put your oliver stone and fancis ford coppola films on a shelf and lets talk about the war in iraq. and i really fail to see how a bunch of assh0le americans spitting on soldiers and calling them babykillers during the vietnam war help to make your point. if anything, you should realise that you are using the same mentality as they were, just on a less viscious and hurtful scale.

3-there is no way to point out EVERY looney and psycho in boot camp. but they try their best. the whole point of it is to break down the soldiers ego, and make him/her part of a team, and think as a unit. sometimes a psycho is clever enough to make his/her way through it...maybe some are even seemingly sane when coming out of it, but snap once they see action. when has human nature ever been able to be pinpointed and scrutinised, without that person showing BLATENT signs of ill behavior. you preach this as if its so easy.

now before anyone tries to pin a convenient "war monger" label on me, which has been going on ALOT here, i will say that i strongly oppose this war and have from the get go. in my opinion every prick and assh0le who manipulated the system and lied to the public should be lined up and shot for what they've done. all these deaths are on their heads, and maybe...hopefully there IS a god, and he will deal these murdering profiteers justice.

I'm sorry but in that case you've helped make my point.

When in a war situation the overall commander of the military has to be the man at the top i.e George W. Bush (you said he may make important missile strikes happen) so in that sense he is part of and an essential part of the military and it is the whole rogue aspect of the military I am attacking. That includes being responsible for thousands of innocents being picked out of Iraqs rubble because he wanted to settle a score with an old enemy and increase America's oil supply. The troops on the ground or in their submarines are part of that military system and some are just as guilty for following his hare-brained orders. And in case of war as the overall commanding officer he is responsible for the actions of his troops. Because at the end of the day it is his system that employed those animals and it is his fault that he sent them into combat.

About the Vietnam thing, now listen carefully. I was making a reference about an event in history where all American soldiers were being generalised (by SOME their own people) as not very good people after. This was used to explain how one good (i.e Bilbos cousin), or indeed many decent soldiers could just as easily be labelled as bad by the actions of a few others and how that could discredit any army's image as a whole unit. This made my point because I was being accused of insulting his cousin by generalising all of them as thugs. If you would take the time and read up on a previous post, I conceded that the way I phrased this thread was "way too harsh".
But obviously you didn't bother, you just jumped in with your self-righteous speech on how generalising I am.

how do you know that most countries are more stringent in their screening process? where is your basis for comparison?????

and we are talking about ground troops here, not the eackless orders of an administration that i know is completely crooked.

I guess I am being a bit general, by most I meant Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Germany, I did a fair bit of research for an assignment recently on the military progression in New and Old world, and quite often the only requirement for being a soldier was they were physically fit. Compared to the stringent psycological and stress testing that police have to go through soldiers get in very easily.
And my take on the question is "are soldiers thugs, if so why?" Ergo, if they aren't thugs one should justify why as well. But the thing is they can be seen, underservingly, as mindless thugs due to the actions of a few "bad eggs", mistakes made by themselves and the airforce/navy and the way they are used and abused by those in power. Therefore it seems relevant. The majority aren't thugs, this is a concept created due to criminal actions, mistakes and what they are made do by the government.

and quite often the only requirement for being a soldier was they were physically fit.

Very true, some where the only real requirement is to be a certain age, that shows how lax some nations are with scanning potential soldiers, and assessing how well they might perform in the heat of battle.

Very true, some where the only real requirement is to be a certain age, that shows how lax some nations are with scanning potential soldiers, and assessing how well they might perform in the heat of battle.

True, but that is never the less far more physically based and would not be able to look to closely at the minds and feelings of the prospective soldiers.

True, but that is never the less far more physically based and would not be able to look to closely at the minds and feelings of the prospective soldiers.

Hmmm, no, there is no conscription in Australia, although I have a friend here in uni who served in the Israeli armed forces, and an Italian girl whose brother is currently serving in Italy, every nation is different, I take that into account. Generally European nations are very different in the way they handle their armed forces, which accounts for why they can be the preferred peace keepers for the UN and so forth, but generally speaking in many countries the fact remains that psychology is glossed over, and what is done is not enough to identify a person who will, say, crack easily and start firing on civilians, or shoot an unarmed enemy soldier in cold blood. Or think it is jolly good fun to get the prisoners out and make them form a nude pyramid. In fact it was splashed over all the media in this part of the world the the travesty's in Iraqi prisons was because the soldiers were insufficiently trained for the situation, that they were mentally unfit for the situation and what it required (looking after potential enemies) and couldn't handle the stress. Unless we go the other way and believe orders came from the top that it was to be done, in which case, if true, they were still unfit as soldiers as they broke international and US laws concerning the treatment of prisoners and enemy combatants (two very different things as Iraqi prisoners are no always soldiers)

Well, I must say that I am a Proud American though I HATE war. Our American troops are doing what they can to FREE everyone. They may have to be brutal, but they are not the ONLY ones. War is Brutal Unfortunately🙁. Do not get me wrong....I DO hate what is going on and wish this NEVER happened to begin with. 🙁

But...

Have we Americans forgotten 9/11? That was Brutal and definitely UNcalled for.

I SUPPORT our American Troops and PRAY for PEACEfor us all. 🙂

great...now everyone will repond to THAT and all previous debate will be forgotten 🙁

Sorry..Do not worry I posted in the other too. lol

there was never a connection between iraq and 9-11 or al quaida

now osama is trying to contact the leader of the insurgency, so thanks to bush's policy...there WILL be a connection between iraq and al quaida.

ironic huh?

Originally posted by PVS
now osama is trying to contact the leader of the insurgency, so thanks to bush's policy...there WILL be a connection between iraq and al quaida.

ironic huh?

Its not ironic in the least, its the point I was making pages back about the long-term inherent danger in this invasion. (that had you naively crying about how evil I was.)

no, rubbing a catastrophy in the faces of anyone who does not dispise all troops is what i found dispicable. you could have presented your views on this matter without using 9-11 just to say "IN YOUR FACE".

thats why i find you to be an insensative reckless bigmouth.

you made a valid point, but caked it in antiamerican hateful fecese, which was out of line and way uncalled for.

9/11 was unbelievably harsh on America and virtually uncalled for.

The next one wont be, if Osama is indded contacting Zarwhatever then all i have to say is he American government brought this on the American public and will have to face responsibility

Originally posted by Darth Sauron
9/11 was unbelievably harsh on America and virtually uncalled for.

The next one wont be, if Osama is indded contacting Zarwhatever then all i have to say is he American government brought this on the American public and will have to face responsibility

That's too glib, It's an easy out.

The responsibility for the deaths are the people who drop the bombs and send the troops: but the responsibility for our government is ours.

Yet the iraqi people have no such responsibility for the actions of their leadership and are still dying in droves.

True, but the first time round the people voting for Bush werent aware he was going to take us to war.

Voting for him again was rather odd, so i have to use this quote 'Only in America'

oh ok, so since britain is also a memeber of the 'coalition of the willing', you are responsible as well? or is that different?