The Death of Others Does Not Solve Our Problems. The Deaths Become More Problems.

Do you realize that by saying they broke the rules, you are saying there are rules of behavior that expected to be followed by men who are taught that their enemies are less than human.

Soldiers are expected to abide by military rules. Soldiers who break these rules are punished to maintain order in the military. Soldiers are expected to kill their enemies, but that does not excuse violations of the military's rules.

but it is not alright for soldiers to disrespect their enemies who are dead ??

It is not all right for soldiers to defy military regulations.

Then why did they soldiers take orders from a C in C GW Bush who was unfit to command ??

Military rules do not allow you to refuse an order because you dislike the president.

I took orders, when I was in. Some of us collected ears, leaders looked the other way at times.

That does not change the fact that these Marines violated the military's rules for how soldiers can act. Some soldiers in the past have gotten away with violating these rules. That does mean that these Marines should be allowed to break the rules.

Miltary rules also say that you are legally responsible for follwing the orders of one who is not right in their mind.

There is no evidence that George Bush is mentally ill. The orders he gave were lawful.

I think Bush is insane

May I please see your medical degree and your psychiatric credentials please. Otherwise what you think is irrelavent

Nixon was the C in C when I was in and he was proven to be unfit for command

Just who are you to decide who if fit to command and who is not. Just because you do not like someone or disagree with their policies does not necessarily make them unfit.

I got your back on this one, cowboygrandpa; I doubt that Commisar or arkpdx ever served in the military. I defer to a long post in another article on the same subject:

http://jim2499595.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/14/10156827-anger-and-four-urinating-marines?threadId=3320105&commentId=61554196#c61554196

My mainl point there was that those who are arguing about the "morality" of this should get their asses in gear and get into the sh*t themselves; experience what war was and still is to understand how these Marines could do this. I've heard of far worse from Nam; soldiers and Marines who collected "souvenirs", like ears, noses, fingers, etc., forming necklaces or other body accessories out of these, from those they killed. You are right; was IS THE immorality. When faced with "the reality of it all" a soldier or Marine needs to deal with the guilt over doing something that had to be done, but that they had always been raised to not do. Commissar stated:

These soldiers broke the military's rules.

I call...BULLSH*T! There are no rules against pissing on your dead opponents. There is only the catch-all (Catch-22 style) rule of the UCMJ which states that any member of the military can be charged with "conduct unbecoming." The definition of "conduct unbecoming" is floating; it is anything that a commander wants it to be. You can pick your nose or scratch your ass in barracks and be charged with this code. Then, arkpdx stated:

Just because you do not like someone or disagree with their policies does not necessarily make them unfit.

I call BULLSH*T again! Despite his remarks to the contrary, Nixon WAS a crook and therefore, not fit to be C in C.

We are never going to be able to stop wars, cowboygrandpa; maybe instead, we should create mandatory service and send all of these "morality" whiners over to see what war is really like, and where they can find out if their sense of morality still stands after they watch the friends get killed in a hideous manner; maybe then they would join the call to end wars.

As a woman who was married to an Honorably Discharged disabled Vietnam Era veteran and the recipient of his reoccurring night episodes of Delayed Stress Syndrome while he was asleep, I can attest to the fact that the results of war are horrendous. I would much rather have had those episodes directed at his intended enemy and not me. To be woken up with hands around my neck and to have to struggle to get them off is nothing other than frightening. You have no idea how many times I was chased out of our marital bed because he was trying to destroy the 'enemy'.

I do not agree what these soldiers did, but I do understand the reasons behind it and, in my opinion, I would say this is not the first time something like this has occurred.

My concern is, not so much with the soldiers that committed the action or the Marine's Code of Conduct, but with the one(s) who actually filmed these actions and posted it on the web. I personally think that is more offensive than the act itself.

Not very pleasant huh ??

Nope I'm not the one who declared anyone insane or made any other medical diagnosis..

They are supposed to be professionals.

They showed an incredible lack of judgement

If you're not going to have enough self-control to follow such rules, at least have the damn sense to not let millions of people see pictures of you posing while breaking the rules.

I didn't do that. I went and slept on the floor for that night. I though it was better to let him be while he was going through these night terrors. I wasn't sure what would happen if I woke him up, but I didn't want to be too far away if something serious was happening. When it happened again, I went back on the floor again.

My mainl point there was that those who are arguing about the "morality" of this should get their asses in gear and get into the sh*t themselves; experience what war was and still is to understand how these Marines could do this.

These Marines broke the rules. The military has rules so that it can be effective. As such the people who break these rules like these Marines did punished so that order can be maintained. Had these Marines followed the rules they would not be in trouble.

Commisar who determine the rules, would you say the cop who pepper sprayed innocent protesters or caused serious head trauma to a decorated veteran violated rules / protocol ?

What about sanctions against Iran is Haliburton violating rules by continuing doing business with Iran??

As a DAV my self and hearing your comments I could tell you have never been in the marines situation, where adrenaline and emotions run deep especially seeing the atrocities committed against civilians and fellow troops by the enemy. I am not justifying what they did but I do understand why, and how this incident is better left for the military to decide without civilian interference and or opinion, especially from those who has no knowledge or experience in combat theaters.

Soldiers are not machines as some think, they too are prone to emotion and bitterness of war and daily witnessing to atrocities

Cowboy thanks though I served 1974-1990, USAF prior to that uncles who served during the height of Vietnam, my dad Korea, Grand father WW2 and every generation going back to the war of 1812. Odd those uncles still living and my self will not recommend my son to serve, in fact it is quite the opposite. In the past those who served were looked as being defenders of the USA, in the last few years it went from a lack of respect for the military and presently enlisted members are overly scrutinized and held as scrape goats.

Only a veteran can understand the brutality, fear, and constant feelings of death near by and fellow soldiers who had fallen upon enemy fire

Vietnam perhaps one of the most brutal theaters ever, and worst is the fact of the years it took to have the fallen and veterans recognized for their valiant service

Cowboy Grandpa, your article is outstanding and your service to our Country extraordinary

Thank you

To usa1, grumpy_jon, cowboygrandpa, and all of the other soldiers, nurses and veterans here...

The 'brutality, fear, and constant feelings of death' that a combat soldier feels, I think, are probably some of the worse things a person can feel.

I would venture to say that the nurses who served also felt much of the same things even though they were not actually on the front lines. I had a stint in the military for a period of time (4 years) and even though I did not see combat, I can envision some of what you and all of the combat veterans here are saying. I also had an aunt who was a WWII nurse who eventually was overcome by the malaria she contracted during her enlistment. She had continued to have nightmares about the war up until her death.

I commend all of our soldiers and veterans for defending our country. Someone has to do it whether it is mandatory or voluntary. Those of us who have not actually served in combat have no idea what we would do if we were faced with the brutality, the threat of death and the borderline panic mode we would be confronted with on a daily basis. Sometimes, I don't think it is that easy to turn off the blood lust that must occur when fighting in a war in order to stay brave. We might say 'I would never do such a thing' but then find out that we would.

I have to say this again, what in the world were the evesdropper(s) thinking who filmed and posted this stuff on the web? Some things should be private and should stay private just like the skeletons most of us have in our closets.

Thank you soldiers, nurses and veterans...and if you have a skeleton in your closet...please keep it there. I may not like what you did, but I do feel safer knowing I have someone who was willing to do their part to protect the country I live in.

I disagree. These photos should have been released because the horrors of war must be kept in the public mind. It is not a John Wayne exercise. Bush did his best to make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "clean" wars. We were not to see body bags or injured troops. Also, we were not to be forced to pay for these wars (off budget, no taxes). If we think a cause is worth sending our finest to die for their country, we should be able to ante up the cash and to be witness to what is happening in our name.

It may be an indicator of how well a war has been thought out. During WWII, we were all asked to participate in many ways, we all sacrificed, Rosie the Riviter was born. During Viet-Nam and later wars, every effort was made to keep the wars secret. Thank God for a free press.

For the life of me I cannot understand the logic that says, killing other people, that's okay, but it's horrible if you desecrate their corpse. If somebody I loved were murdered, the last thing I would care about is how their dead body was treated. I would care about their MURDER, their DEATH. After death, your body is no longer your body because you are no longer in it. People's priorities are completed screwed up about this.

OOM

The desecration of the enemy dead is looked down upon because in " normal" wars between countries the soldiers of both sides are mostly the same. Men fighting each other because they are dooming their perceived duty to their country. The enemy soldier died for what he truly believed just as our dead gave their lives for what they believed in. The dead of both sides made they extreme sacrifice for fellow countrymen and fellow soldiers and in that they, the dead if both sides, deserve the utmost in respect.

cowboygrandpa:

Do you realize that by saying they broke the rules, you are saying there are rules of behavior that expected to be followed by men who are taught that their enemies are less than human.

With all due respect this is not true. Its just a little more than a year since my last tour in Afghanistan and I can tell you that is simply not true. During deployment workups and once in country, the rules of engagement and laws of war are constantly being repeated. The central command general orders specifically address actions such as this. We are constantly reminded that the main reason for our presence is counter-insurgency and our every action will be scrutinized as such.

We are told to locate engage and destroy the enemy by fire and manuever...nothing in that says stop to take a piss on their corpses.

I understand, but we still KILLED them. Frankly, a corpse has no rights. When I die you can do whatever you want to my corpse because I will no longer be in it and it's none of my business. Feed my dead body to tigers for all I care. War itself is immoral unless you are literally defending your country. Only a few of our wars have really been about self defense.

How about the rights of the living relatives of the deceased?

As a mother I would be far more upset about the death of my child than by how they treated his dead body. Is that really so hard to grasp? A dead body is just nothing when the soul is gone. Yes we respect it because of what it once contained and what it represented, but that is all.

Oom That is because you are not looking at this in the context of WAR. arkpdx very eloquently explains this in #2.26. Further, even after wars are over we recognize this; that is why Reagan placed a wreath upon the graves of over 2000 dead German soldiers in Bitburg, West Germany, on May 5, 1985.
Do you remember when the Russian nuclear submarine (the Kursk) sank in the Barents Sea on the 12th of August, 2000, killing all on board? This was a submarine designed for one thing: to kill massive amounts of people, if the US (or any other country) took an action that Russia disagreed with, and war resulted. Yet submariners from countries around the world (including ours) attended ceremonies to honor the dead; the same dead who could and WOULD have wiped out the city of New York had they been ordered to.
Which leads me to a quote from the Devil's Dictionary, written by Ambrose Bierce in 1906:

Projectile: The final arbiter in international disputes.

That is what wars are...international disputes, where each side feels so strongly about an issue that it's members are willing to die in support of the issue. And when the people die in war, they are not to be hated or defiled; they are simply people who died for what they believed was right. Can you imagine if, in an international dispute that had NOT escalated to war, the Chancellor of one country squatted (or pulled it out) and peed on the shoes of the President of another? In war, we recognize that things have gone so far that killing becomes necessary. But to then continue on, videotaping yourself defiling corpses or torturing POW's? NO. It's that "honor" thing; honor for the basic "humanness" we all share.
Killing in the course of war is a necessary evil. Defiling corpses is not.
That said, I once again must say I do NOT believe these soldiers are "bad people". They are people stuck in an impossible situation...much like our soldiers in Vietnam were. And in situations like this, it seems, this behavior is common...whether as a coping mechanism or something else. I have already posted my feelings about that. But this is the best answer I can give to your question about why people are upset about the "peeing" incident.
Blessings, HD

Yet submariners from countries around the world (including ours) attended ceremonies to honor the dead; the same dead who could and WOULD have wiped out the city of New York had they been ordered to.

We honor the dead because we honor their LIVES; they were serving their country and not trying to destroy cities. We do not necessarily have to honor dead bodies. When my middle son died at birth, he was cremated. His ashes are in a box at the top of my closet, and eventually I must make final arrangements for them, but they are NOT my son. My son is with God and has been since he died. It's hard to celebrate his life since I'm the only person who experienced it directly with him kicking and all, but he had meaning to his father, grandparents and brother to whom he never came home. He died in utero and looked pretty bad by the time I was able to see him since I had a seizure giving birth to him. Over time, lividity sets in and if you are small, you start to go back to nature. But it wasn't his body that mattered.

Oom (Gott helfe mir) I lost a son at 28 weeks. We had an open casket, because I wanted others to see him; I wanted him to be as real to others as he was to me for the 28 weeks I carried him.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with soldiers dying in war. When the soldiers died, they were serving their country. Whether they were Russian submariners on the Kursk, in peacetime, German soldiers in Poland, fighting to take over the world for Deutschland, or soldiers of our country's current enemies, they were all serving their countries. They gave their lives for their countries. They believed so strongly in what they were doing that they sacrificed their lives.
If you don't see the distinction, I just can't explain it further. I'm kinda speechless.
Wow. Just...wow.
HD

I'm sorry for your loss. And yes, its not the same thing, because a an older person has mattered to a lot more people, but I'm sorry, urinating on a dead body is NOT like killing them in the first place.

Pissing on their bodies is worse than killing them, given they thought their cause for killing was just, and their reasons for pissing on the dead bodies was pure evil. There was an obvious understanding by the pissing soldiers that they should not have been doing what they did, which is why they looked around to make sure the coast was clear before pissing on the dead bodies. One even temporally stops the other soldiers from going through with the pissing long enough for someone off camera to move far enough not to be aware of the pissing. The soldiers were not stuck in a bad place where right and wrong are blurred, at not enough for them to have felt what they were doing was wholly justified, if this were so, they would not have hesitated, they would not have made sure nobody was watching before their awful act.

correction: at least not enough for them to have felt what they were doing was wholly justified, if this were so, they would not have hesitated, they would not have made sure nobody was watching before their awful act.

Nam by the way was full of reluctant soldiers, our current wars are fought by private contractors and soldiers who ran for their guns on 9/11 ready to shoot the first person they were told might be involved with 9/11. People were fighting not to go to Nam, people were/are fighting to go to our current wars. Big difference there at least.

Pissing on their bodies is worse than killing them, given they thought their cause for killing was just, and their reasons for pissing on the dead bodies was pure evil.

That's sick. Death is death. Anyone including a psychotic person can come up with a "reason" to kill you. Even if someone urinated on my live body, I would still be alive and I would survive. A dead body has no feelings anymore.

You speak in generalizations, I am speaking of these specific soldiers. I take it you assume these soldiers were killing people in a fight that the soldiers felt was morally justified, a just war - otherwise they are just murderous thugs doing what murderous thugs do, being paid by our Gov to do it, that would make the whole situation evil, not just the pissing.

At best, these soldiers went out of their way to be evil, pure and simple. At worst, this is typical of our military. From hours listening to soldiers call into local radio stations on this subject, there are some who somehow find a way to defend these soldiers, and by far the majority are more than adamant that such behavior is never tolerated or OK or justified or able to be simply swept under the rug as PTSD or just another ugly side of war. I agree that it is pure evil, with no justification.

That's sick. Death is death.

Then why all the hoopla over returning dead soldiers? What is the point of honoring them after they have fallen? Then why does it matter if crazy Westboro Christians want to protest with rude signs at soldiers funerals? What is all the fuss if death is death?

The soldiers looked around to make sure nobody was watching when they pissed on the bodies (if they were dead, were they even checked for a pulse? I doubt it!).

Did the soldiers have to look around to make sure nobody was watching before they shot the people they were pissing on in shame? (if there was no shame, they would not have shown any by making sure nobody was watching)

I assume they felt shooting the people was justified and they did it openly with pride, probably even reported it to their command. Big difference as compared to their thought out choice to then covertly piss on the bodies - somehow I doubt they reported that to command.

Civilians die in war, it is one of the side-effects of the enemy refusing to go stand in an empty field until they can be shot or blown up. Civilians are not allowed to be targeted.

Harsh sanctions, like the type that were imposed on Iraq

Are not responsible for the actions of the Iraqi leadership that lead to thousands of civilian deaths

Keep telling yourself that Joker. All sorts of moral quandaries can be fobbed off and shrugged away.

Your civilians should leave the battlefield argument makes a mockery of the concept of HOME. Further we do indeed target civilians there "Bomber" Harris. Whatever helps you to sleep....

Your civilians should leave the battlefield argument

Proves that either your reading comprehension or your honesty are lacking. I made no such argument.

Further we do indeed target civilians

Then feel free to come up with some evidence of such

Yep, poor reading on that one. I stand corrected, sorry.

As for targeting civilians..really? The WW II strategic bombing campaign. Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was the originator. Look it up. How about the the two atomic bomb drops? Not good enough. Heres one: ever wonder why ICBM's are called "city busters"? and on and on. Like Linebacker I and II in Vietnam.

How is it your going to argue and not know that?

How is it your going to argue and not know that?

I know all about those. If you go back another century, America has waged wars of genocide and conquest as well. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the modern world. Germany doesn't make thousands of people dig their own mass graves and Japan doesn't use civilian prisoners for beheading contests.

The actions of a few Pashtun, Talib or Marines does not a whole make. That being said, I got it with state sanctioned terror, boy do I get it. I am not tracking your point.

I am not tracking

Oh don't worry, that was clear since post 3

Yeah... great... whats yer point stud?

Read my posts if you're confused

Why yes, I have. You asked for examples, then say you "know". That's a game. Just spit it out already, yeah?

Just spit it out already, yeah?

Just scroll up and read my posts if you're interested.

Ugh. Look man, there is umpteen examples of nations targeting civilians. Nazzi Germany and Imperial Japan did target and the just about every country sinceWW II that has fought has targeted civilians as a matter of policy. That is viewing civilians as part of the war effort/potential. So why it is frowned upon on the tactical level, civilians as a matter of fact are viewed as fair game at the strategic level. There the ROE's a held differently. When civilians could not or would not leave the Iraqi city of Fallugha, the end result was the same. We leveled that place. We chewed up Panama when we there too, resulting in hundreds of dead civilians. We ended up killing 20% of the civilian population in Korea too.

So its a bit of a mystery as to what argument your trying to debate, non-answers not withstanding. If your trying to say that we don't encourage mass-killing civilians at the soldier's level, fine. But again, what we did in Fallugha is an example of how operational necessities just don't play out with a nice clean enemy kill.

I'm pointing out that your claim that imposing sanctions on a country somehow makes you responsible when they choose to skip feeding their people in favor of buying more weapons is utter nonsense.

Now was that so hard? And yes, since those country's people suffered from lack of basic medicines... how you figure that we were not responsible? Were not talking "military" medicine but basic vaccinesand supplies that are used buy everyone.

Now, can you not wrap your brain around how cutting them off from medical supplies would (no @!$%#!) lead to deaths from illnesses that those medicines would have prevented or cured? Are you aware how high the infant mortality shot up because of those actions? Come on!

Now I am sure you are well aware that the stated purpose was to make the Iraqi people rise up in revolt. Boy what a bad joke that was when Saddam slaughtered them, because we told them we would support them and, once again we did not.

And yes, since those country's people suffered from lack of basic medicines... how you figure that we were not responsible? Were not talking "military" medicine but basic vaccinesand supplies that are used buy everyone.

That they had the FUNDS for.....which they instead used for WEAPONS SYSTEMS.

Hi again Dr. Etienne Ledbetter from Paris. Why do you continue to set up NV accounts only to delete them hours later O_o? You said in your last email that you were done with "the cesspool that is NV". Apparently not.

May the spirits continue to watch over you, and all that you do. Blessings, HD

As for the article...very moving, cowboygrandpa. Thank you for your service, and your willingness to fight for all of us. I admire you, and am humbled by your article. May your nightmares never return, and your sleep be peaceful and untroubled.

I also agree 100% with Grisham that the "first boots on the ground should be those who order the war and the rich who gain from it"; but I would also add "and their children over age 18, as well."

Brightest Blessings to you, HD

What is really unrealisitic is to expect them to know friend from foe, just like in Nam, we didn't who was our friend or enemy. They dressed alike and looked alike. Likely the same farmer who waved at ya during the day was the sapper trying to kill ya at night.

Yep. My son said one of their interpreters actually ended up being one of the bad guys. He was on their FOB every day as a friend and then attacked them. Insane. We need to get out of there.

Dr. Truth With all due respect, I made a point involving this on another seed about the incident. But my point was that I'm not sure the blame lies on the soldiers. My parents have told me of the actions of German soldiers during WWII. The soldiers (not just the Schultzstaffel, but the rank and file, as well) were taught to dehumanize the enemy. This made them "better" soldiers for Hitler's war machine.
So my point is, when you have involved your military in an unjust war, extreme dehumanization (torture, degradation, pissing on the dead, etc.) of the enemy may be needed to get your troops "riled up" enough to kill another person they would otherwise see as another human being, and possibly have sympathy and even empathy for.
In an unjust (such as a preemptive) war, maybe the behavior of the soldiers is a coping mechanism or an outcome of being placed in such a situation. This behavior then feeds upon itself...the soldiers become more brazen in their mistreatment of the enemy (whether captured as a POW or rendered a corpse), and the enemy's hatred for the soldiers intensifies, further fueling their hatred, will to fight, and urge to dehumanize the soldiers, in return.
So I have a hard time placing the the blame on our soldiers...and a much easier time placing the blame on our leaders, who put our soldiers in this horrific position to begin with. As I have never been in a situation like this, I can only guess as to how I would feel or what I would do.
Let's just get them the hell home.
Blessings, HD

Here is another thing that might have some bearing on this. I do not know if this is, in fact, the cause but it sure seemed that way.

A few years ago, I was given a fairly decent amount of sea rations (heater meals) that were left overs from somewhere. I proceeded to eat them for a few days. After about the 3rd night of eating these rations, I had this dream that I was 'Queen PonGoad' with razor finger nails approximately 6 inches long, standing on a pedestal dressed in this purple and white multi-layered, sensual gown and was daring anyone around me to come and fight. I was even reaching out and attempting to swipe with my razor nails. I have never had a dream where I was threatening people before. I stopped eating the rations and the dreams stopped. I tried them again about a month later. The same thing happened, not the same dreams, but in all of my dreams I was trying to pick a fight with anyone around me and I was starting to feel the same way while I was awake. This scared me so much I threw the rest of the sea rations out. I have not had dreams or feelings like that before or since eating that food.

Right, but just killing them in the first place is perfectly okay. /sarc

HD,

You are right. Leaders do play a role in the behavior of soldiers. It doesn't take a PhD to see the similarities between Abu Ghraib and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Military leaders should have seen that potential for this to occur. Then, we have the 2002 Presidential Memo stating that we do not need to follow the Geneva Convention rules. Leaders condone behavior, and bad leaders condone atrocities like urinating on corpses. And, let us be honest, the person who took the video and posted it on YouTube should suffer consequences. However, there would have been nothing to post if the soldiers had acted differently. I still think we must hold the soldiers responsible, as they acted out of free will and chose to behave in this way. There will one day come a time that these men will return home. To condone this behavior in a war zone might give the impression that bad behavior always can have a justification.

PonGoad,

Wow! I don't know if it was the sea rations or what that caused the behavior. However, don't worry about the hallucinations. There is at least one older woman running around the Vine pretending her hallucinations are real. She is a washed up has been that never really was. Heck, she cannot even get her age right (but it varies between 55 and 56 on any given posting). I think her stories are more in-line with mental illness, and not sea rations. Be careful, she might start in with her fantasy fairy tales any moment. Knowing her, I expect fully that she will start a "Back when I was in Vietnam" fairy tale next. Or is it Oregon, or Washington, or Philadelphia?

I hear you, Dr. Truth. And I see your point. The problem is, how do we hold them responsible? America sent them into war, screwed their heads up, and at some point they'll be home. What do you think of a mandatory inpatient-psychiatric stay, with intense counselling, lasting anywhere from 6 months to a year? You have far more education in this than I...what is your opinion?

As to your response to PonGoad...I really should not read your posts with with a mouthful of coffee. But, after I regained my composure, I cleaned off the screen and laughing my rear off is no longer a danger to my Tosh. (Although it is making it more difficult to type.)

"Back when I was in Vietnam"

On my freakin' Goddess. If she starts with that; man I am just speechless. But we can count on one thing...she will have experienced it better and with more emotional and mental devastation than anyone else on the Vine.
She really will put the Donner party to shame...
ROTFLMAO!!!
I swear your post; I considered writing something along those lines (nowhere nearly as well as what you have written) so I decided not to go there. But you WENT THERE...I am so in awe of you!!!
Vine masterpiece.
I'm still laughing...
:)))))) HD

There is at least one older woman running around the Vine pretending her hallucinations are real. She is a washed up has been that never really was. Heck, she cannot even get her age right (but it varies between 55 and 56 on any given posting). I think her stories are more in-line with mental illness, and not sea rations. Be careful, she might start in with her fantasy fairy tales any moment. Knowing her, I expect fully that she will start a "Back when I was in Vietnam" fairy tale next. Or is it Oregon, or Washington, or Philadelphia?

Enough. I am 55 and never said otherwise, neither did I say anything that was either impossible, improbable, or espeically unlikely unless you've lived a totally "Leave it to Beaver" existence. (I did say I was born in 1956, which if you can add makes sense as I have not yet had a birthday. this year. I gues that was enough to confuse a genius like yourself.) Never been in the military, never would be. In fact I mean no disrespect but I'd be sick if one of my kids ever joined. My Dad was a WWII vet who ended up working for the Pentagon, and my in-laws were military doctors, but my husband and I would never have anything to do with any of this. I have actually been going to anti-war rallies my whole life, have never lied on the Vine, and I am getting bloody well sick of your personal attacks and lies.

I have lived in the several states. not so unusual for a Dept. of Defemse brat, let alone an adult who used to like to move until I found a home in Pittsburgh, PA, was born in Ohio, and grew up outside Washington, DC, in northern VA which is scarcely unusual when your father worked for the Pentagon. (The others are NY, MD, DC, IA, IL, CO, and WV.) Yes I know DC isn't actually a state, but they have long wanted to be, deserve to be, and I will continue to think of them as if they were. Yes, I ran a rooming house, and yes, because it was just outside DC, the people were as I described, not boring WASP types. If you think any of this unlikey, you are an idiot. What's really unlikely is that you are a college professor, because I've attended several colleges and never met one like you. Just stop it. I mean it, I will report your continual harrassment, of which I have been keeping a record.

BTW, if you could add, you would also realize it would be impossible for a 55 year old to have been in Vietnam. We removed our troops in 1973, remember? Well, of course, you don't since you are actually a kid using mom's computer, but look it up. Saigon fell close to my 19th birthday; we were long out of it by then. There was some concern that my older brother might be drafted, but I'm way too young to have even enlisted. And after Vietnam, there was a general revulsion toward the military among many of us boomers.

Cowboygrandpa, I was personally attacked in a thinly veiled way. Everyone knew she meant me. How do I report her? If I knew, I would have done so months ago. Seriously. I grew up way before the Internet existed and I'm not sophisticated about these things.

cowboygrandpa, It was not my intention to attack anyone. As you can see, I was merely pointing out to pongoad that there are others with that similar problem of hallucinations. Pon attributes their experience with sea rations. I was merely saying that others live in that condition daily and it is called mental instability. If anyone assumed I was talking about them, then it is merely their assumption and possibly their conscience telling them to let go of the irrational stories. It does speak to a guilty conscience that someone would respond. I would never violate CoH on ANY of your seeds. I do think that it is absolutely fascinating that someone who would assume that I am this mean person that would attack them is voluntarily seek out to post under a thread I started. Most logical and rational individuals would avoid it at all costs, and then to assume and run into a tirade certainly speaks to a victim mentality.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, before we were so rudely thrown off topic. What did you think of my comparison between Abu Ghraib and the Stanford Prison Experiment? Did you know about the Presidential Memo of February 2002 that told our soldiers they did not need to follow the Geneva Convention rules? It seems the problem started top down, and, while these soldiers did something wrong, the fault equally lies at those who set up a system designed for them to act in such a manner.

You're doing it again, Dr. "Truth". Prove I ever halluncinated anything. I'm 55, I've lived in several places, and I ran a rooming house that catered to foreigners and DC blacks back in the 1980s. That is absolutely true, not even unlikely since thousands of others did the same, and I am heartily sick of your evil accusations. I'm sorry you've never been out of your small town, but there is a whole world out there that you have obviously never dreamed of. Where do you imagine immigrants and foreign students in expensive cities like DC live, if not by renting rooms from people like me? They cannot afford an apartment at those prices. I had an adorable landlord who liked me and was tolerant of whatever I wanted to do, because he planned to have the house torn down eventually. (It and the other two houses next door eventually sold for three quarters of a milllion dollars, and were replaced by condominiums. You probably tell your students that's a form of birth control.)

You are no more a "professor" than I am. Maybe you teach sex ed in some small town middle school. That makes you are a professional all right, and I don't need say what kind or which profession is in fact the world's oldest.

It bears repeating:

. If anyone assumed I was talking about them, then it is merely their assumption and possibly their conscience telling them to let go of the irrational stories. It does speak to a guilty conscience that someone would respond.

Oom, everything isn't about YOU.
Sheesh!
:) HD

You made it incredibly obvious. Please grow up. I'm the only person who continually points out that I'm 55 and whom you call a liar just because I've done things that are beyond your narrow suburban imagination. If it wasn't about me, then woman up and tell me who it WAS about?

I use names, I get suspended.

narrow suburban imagination.

You have no idea what a compliment that is; that you see me that way. I didn't start out where I am now. I was born right after my parents came to America. My German, Pagan parents weren't exactly enjoying the luxuries of suburbia. I have my own stories; I share them with my close friends, not publicly on the Vine.
As you probably know from my other posts, my family of origin, and all of my relatives, are now back in Germany for good. They feel I am choosing to remain (and keep my children and husbands in) a "dying country". When my parents pressure me to move to Germany, I look around at the life I have built for myself and my family and I don't want to lose that. My relatives are certainly not poor; but what I have here, in America, is something I have built.

I don't want to get too detailed about my life, here on the Vine. There are three Viners I exchange emails with, and I have been more open about my life with them. (Yes, one of them is Dr. Truth; that is why I can tell you that she is indeed a Professor, and yes, she is for real.)
But sometimes I think you assume too much...both about other people and the meanings of other people's posts.
I think we should just let this topic pass now, as cowboygrandpa asked. Again, YOU are not the topic here.
Blessings, HD

And you have zero memories of those times as you were a baby. Babies don't know from poverty as long as they are warm and well fed and given plenty of affection. My oldest was born in poverty but everybody in our rooming house gave him lots of affection, so he doesn't have a problem. He hasn't kept in touch with the little Arab boy born a few weeks later, but what with facebook and all, I'm sure he will. He used to have a buddy from Russia, because kdis these days have so many opportunitis we never dreamed of.

I'm glad you chose this country and you can enjoy the love of your German kin even though you live here. But then, I also have relatives and in-laws from all over the world, and I accept them as such. I'm sure my mother-in-law is sad that her oldest decided to live in Japan, but I'm glad she realizes that he did it to help his Japanese in-laws, which means she raised him with kind and loving values.

HD, are you actually Dr. Truth? It is getting very suspecious how your own posts always have one approval rating right after you make them, even when they were made in the middle of the night when the only peiople awake are you, me, and the Almighty. Or how you keep insisting you know all about her, which would be impossible unless you WERE her.

Oom I am on many "watchlists" and some of those people live in other countries. We are not the only two people awake! While I am honored you think I am Dr. Truth, alas, I am not. Send emails to Tyler and Sally and they can verify this for you, if you don't believe me. I am really amused...this is hilarious! Probably the weirdest, yet funniest response I have ever gotten!!!
Blessings to you, HD

And btw, we are way off topic here so and cowboygrandpa asked that this not happen. If you have any other questions, just email me, okay?

No problem, cowboygrandpa. I'm embarrassed it went this far. Please accept my apologies!
Blessings, HD

Thanks cowboygrandpa! I want this to be about the topic as well. Hence my questions about the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib.

cowboygrandpa, the Stanford Prison Experiment is worth looking into when Wiki comes back online. Basically, a bunch of healthy university students, (screened for psychological problems, as well) were randomly selected to be either "prisoners" or "guards" in a fake "prison" to see what would happen. It was supposed to last either one or two weeks; I can't remember. But the power granted the "guard" students, combined with the "helplessness" of the "prisoner" students, quickly caused a dangerous situation, and the experiment had to be called off for ethical and safety reasons. The worst of our human nature raised it's ugly head...rather quickly. The results were comparable, in many ways, to the "obedience experiment" carried out by Stanley Milgram, (an experiment with such awful results that singer/songwriter Peter Gabriel wrote a song about it called "We Do What We're Told (Milgram's 37)" released in 1986 on his album "So".) (I like Gabriel's music; I bought the album when it came out, and have a copy on my Nano.)
Blessings and Peace to you, HD

Good job Grasshopper! A very good summary of the experiment. With Milgrim's experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment would have one GREAT result. It would cause the rules to change on how we dealt humanely with human subjects. A good reading on this would be found at http://www.prisonexp.org/ . Many of us who work in sociology noticed the similarity right away. Philip published this comparison several weeks afterward.

We are fed so many lies that it is hard to decipher the truth. Until I understand that truth I will not raise an arm to anyone. If 9/11 was perpetrated by our own gov we are only killing in the interest of the ones in power. We to date do not have a clear idea of who or what was behind 9/11. Most terrorists our gov claims were Saudis yet we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a relationship with the Saudis that is based upon oil and "other interests." The war was to "protect our interests abroad"...let me rephrase that more towards reality...it was to protect the interests of a few in this country and the money they invested abroad. We have a relationship with China as if they will act in our best interests...Same with Russia.

Wall Street hits record highs as our economy is in the tank and people don't see the connection to that? We as a whole don't look at it but in fragments. We have been placing temporary fixes on everything. I can guarantee raising taxes is not going to get us out of debt. We are too far in debt with a bad economy and in bad relationships with countries that are not our friends but neither are we theirs. What's left? Fighting for resources is what is left...not to mention it is very profitable for those in power and the company they keep.

The catch phrases don't work for me anymore...you know like "freedom isn't free" since we have less freedom in everything from doing business, travel, owning property, etc. How much more freedom is there left? Well I guess we have not been chipped yet just our pets...all in the name of security. NONE of it has prevented bad things from happening.

"I must wait until he returns for me."

Or it could have meant that he is waiting for satan to return and get him off the cross. To show some empathy for what has been created by the separation of peoples by hate? That we have created enemies of each other when in reality we are all one. Isn't satan a fallen angel in the Christian belief?