Are the types of horrors perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners a product of Janet Jackson?

The rape of Nanking? There was that one village in Vietnam… I can’t think of any more concrete examples, just things referenced. Not many soldiers will be willing to admit the terrible things they have done and I imagine a lot of stuff was just hushed up or covered over.

I think the reason we haven’t heard stories about American Soldiers committing horrible sexual acts in those wars is more to lack of media reporting and the information being available to the public rather than the lack of it happening. As flight pointed out, things of this nature have been happening for nearly all of human history.

It is my experience that sexually liberated people are less likely to engage in hostile sexual acts towards others than those who are sexually repressed, so I think your premise is false.

I think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality yet something terribly wrong with what happened in those prisons. Yet, if you were to ask my homophobic roommate or coworkers, they would tell you that they thought it was ‘no big deal’ what happened in the prisons.

There is a lot I could say on this subject, but I am deadly tired and I hope someone with better words to express what I feel will be along shortly.

This has nothing to do with rape. It has to do with the open, “there’s nothing wrong with it” type of pictures that were taken, with smiling “thumbs up” soldiers looking like they were asking someone to flash their tits at a Mardi Gras. It is the normalicy of the acts that is the question.

The Rape of Nanking had nothing to do with U.S. culture or soldiers. Likewise, from Vietnam, which did, I have no recollection of seeing any photos (although there were tons of media there along with soldiers with cameras) of smiling soldiers shoving glowsticks up the asses of Vietnamese men.

But hey, I would even make the argument that the increasing liberalization toward sexual attitudes had a partial effect on the way Vietnam was fought. I would stick to the current question, however, for the sake of debating it and not another topic.

Indeed, I think that this is born more out of the certainty that they are the Good Guys. They really can do no wrong, they are fighting for democracy, forchrissake. Those are the Bad Guys, see how we deal with trash like that.

That ,plus maybe a bit of the old ‘I’m in a stinkingGodforsakenplace where no one knows me and I am the one holding a gun, see the natives grovel before me.’

If Vietnam was the first rock’n roll war, it seems that Iraq is the first porn war.

But forcing someone to do something sexually is a form of rape. Inserting an object into someone else’s body is rape.

I don’t think anyone considers these acts to be normal except for the conservatives I have seen who say that these things are just like a hazing for Frat Boys.

You argue that liberals are responsible for this, but then why is it that most of the outrage is liberals while most of people who seem to view this as not being horrible are conservatives?

And you seem to think that because there were no photos, sexual abuse never happened. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that American soldiers in Vietnam raped civilians.

This site gives a few details about an article in the <i>Toldedo Blade</i> about rapes and murders committed by American Troops in Vietnam. Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the full report.

An overview of the My Lai Massacre where women were raped then killed.

The media did not take the pictures at that prison. The only reason we have those pictures is because the soldiers were stupid enough to take them themselves. What if the pictures had never been taken? Would the average public had believed what went on there? I don’t thik so.

Because generally, in the cases where there were mass rapes, there was a cover up. People did not do it openly, and they were rapes, not huge joke like pyramids and forced sexual acts between male prisoners. The people knew what they were doing was wrong; they weren’t taking snapshots of it in poses that for all the world look like some of the joke “priceless” spoofs you see on the internet.

Everyone’s response to this is, “Gee, there were rapes all the time in war.” No shit. These aren’t the same, and I do not believe people who can’t see that are being honest with themselves. These are different, they are not primal savage male-female rapes, but something different and stranger.

You are not responding to my argument. I did not say that because there were no photos, sexual abuse never happened. That has nothing to do with my point. I know sexual abuse happened, more particularly “vanilla” sexual abuse (although I would argue the scale on which even “vanilla” sexual abuse occurred was much larger in Vietnam than WWII/WWI/Civil War etc.).

I’ve already said my piece about Vietnam. First, I recall stories of vanilla rapes, in the classic sense that have occurred throughout history, not the type of thing that is going on in Iraq. Second, one could make the same argument regarding Vietnam, that it was the first war after the major change in sexual liberation and attitudes. I would argue that we have simply gone from hotpants and go-go dancing to every MTV video containing simulated copulation, and the worsening shows in the even more flagrant behavior in Iraq.

A serious examination of the Iraqi abuse and its connections to the aesthetics of pronography and sado-masochism

That’s an interesting article, and it gets closer to the OP, but it still speaks of WWII from the standpoint of “there were rapes,” which is not what the photos in Iraq depict (at least not in the sense that anyone in WWII would have thought of had you said “rape”).

Does anyone know exactly what laws the courts martials will take place, and what definition of rape would apply? There’s plenty of jurisdictions, American and otherwise, where any forced vaginal or anal penetration is considered rape. And there’s certainly been allegations of this. And many many allegations of threats of such treatment.

So… it’s not relevant that there were rapes and similar acts in other wars, it’s the fact that somebody took pictures that matters? Think for a minute and you’ll realize that individual soldiers probably didn’t HAVE small cameras with which to take pictures in previous wars. Otherwise who knows what might’ve happened. It was done to humiliate the prisoners (and, according to some of the accused, maybe as part of PsyOps), but I don’t think it demonstrates a degregation in our culture or anything of the sort.

Moderator’s Note: Duplicate threads have been merged.

*I believe that inference may be drawn from the catalog of permissible (which “by exclusion” defines the impermissible as previously ambiguous), altho it was not central to my post, which in its somewhat joycean (boy, there’s giving oneself some airs…) tone was meant to say this:

The search for, and elaboration of, means of coercive interrogation OTHER than physical, may reasonably have been at least accelerated by the conflict between embattled civilian populations at risk from random terror acts, and the values of western civ. as evolved over 2000 years, militating against torture.

I guess an early variant is the use of sodium pentathol, and by the way, how come there isn’t some kind of molecularly engineered super sodium p. that renders moot all of these other methodologies, but I digress (no surprise.)

Anyway, to the question, “who thought this shit up”, and especially the part about "who would know how it would twist a muslim’s kishkes into a square knot to have lynde england reach over and grab his dick. (Some guys have to pay good money for that, but I digress…)

my answer was, maybe our close allay who has been refining these questions for a while.

Also , there is formal colllaberation between IDF and US military on the surrpession of insurgency. viz, the now common tactic of wrapping a viillage in barbed wire, home demolition, what have you.

**I was (obliquely) wondering if it counts as torture to hook someone on heroin and then withold the fix as a tool of coercion.

It leaves no marks, and I have no personal basis for evaluating the moral crisis posed by the desire for smack and the avoidance of betraying ones cause, but I have had close friends who were addicted to heroin, and I can say with certainty that they would (did) sell out their mother…

Sodium pentathol doesn’t magically make people tell the truth, Alaric. Do intelligence agencies still use it?

well, duh.

I sort of figured that, viz the persistence of torture, altho there’s no accounting for the personal frolic of the interrogators…

I was posing a more modern neurochemical conundrum.

viz, can there be no way, via neurotransmitter modulation, virtual reality analogs, maybe some new drug (Yes, Huey–we NEED a new drug…) to extracty info without these messy contretemps?

(check out the mri lie detector, for instance…)

We can wait for a doctor or chemical engineer to post, but I’m inclined to doubt it.

so do I, mostly BECAUSE of these messy contretemps.

but I sure don’t understand it, unless ALL these clowns know nothing about drus.

for instance…

mmda was oringinaly developed as a drug for use in therapy to render patients less anxious about “telling the truth”

the range of ssri’s lower anxiegtgy, not to mention alpha blockers, and what have you.

if you coctail the right ingredients, add a bit of ergot for the tecnicolor effects, I’ll bet you can get anyone to talk his head off.

of course, returning to the thread topic, they wanted to flip these guys, not just get info. for that they needed the blackmaiil potential of tghe pix.

This is exactly what some are claiming: pornography and our hypersexualized caused the soldiers to do this:

Of course, that ignores the claims of the accused and the reports being leaked out of the Pentagon that, quite apart from our vile culture, it was orders and protocols that gave the soldiers the idea that they could and should do this, not any cultural mindcontrol. Things like stress positions (which are as painful as any other form of torture you can think of, but convieniently don’t leave obvious telltale marks for the Red Cross) and the most humilating possibilities for muslims are not things that ordinary people just invent out of the blue. Usually only military intelligence and CIA agents are taught about them (supposedly only so that they can understand how to resist them if captured).

It’s not necessary to invoke the name of any of the Jacksons. More straightforward explanations are readily available:

Off the toppa my head- Things That Caused The Roman Empire To Fall

-Poor use of resources and bad land management

-Too big to be managed properly. They tried to fix this by switching to the tetrarchy. It didn’t work.

-Too many cultures and languages within it.

-The plague of Justinian. Bubonic plague does tend to reduce your population, and cause the public to lose faith in your ability to keep them safe.

Do you have any cites proving that #1 The societal standards of the Roman emmpire were declining? And #2 That this was responsible for the fall of the empire?