There are almost two million people in the military. It’s not a stretch to think that some of them might be bad apples that have slipped under the radar.
The SPLC found racists.
I’m sure Greenpeace could find some serial polluters and global-warming scoffers.
I’ll chime in here, since I was an army recruiter from 2001 to 2005. And yes, the job sucked ass.
When you apply for enlistment one of the questions is whether or not you have been in any kind of subversive organization. It doesn’t specifically name any, because its a broad question. Background checks are run, and any tattoos they may be gang related are noted. (If they are gang/nutjob organization related you’re gone.) Of course, that may have changed now. I know they’ve lessened some requirements in the effort to keep enlistments up.
Keep in mind though, that the Inspector General’s Office and Equal Opportunity will investigate any complaint. For instance, If i call them and say that SGT Joe is treating me badly because I’m not white, they’ll investigate whether or not its true. (and you will get in trouble for a false report) Its not a perfect system, but nothing is.
Funny, I keep hearing it trumpeted that yet again the dirty libruls are wrong and we’re exceeding recruiting goals.
So which is it?
-Joe
See post #19 in this thread.
Since when is the SPLC an especially reliable source?
And I agree with another posters sentiment: Put them in an ambush situation and they’ll embrace anyone as their brother. Might change their attitude a little.
Since always, AFAIK. Care to expand on that?
After reading this here and the actual Harpers article I’m a little skeptical.
Single issue groups tend to concern me particularly when they raise funds on the basis of that single issue.
I thought the Pentagon had a zero-tolerance policy against racist “bad apples”? Are they getting the boot, or just being conveniently overlooked to help prop up the front lines?
Possibly both or neither. It isn’t beyond possibility that a lot of them get booted, it also isn’t beyond possibility that some of them are being conveniently overlooked. The third possibility which you didn’t mention is, they could be in the service and remain undetected. Aside from tattoos (which not all of them wear) white supremacists aren’t readily identifiable just from their outward appearance.
Information on the number of extremists present in the general population is difficult to verify. Most extremist groups have an active interest in lying about their numbers to inflate their importance and power. While on the other hand, some of the groups have an active interest in hiding their existence entirely, based on what they are up to at the time.
I have been in the military. I can assure you that someone would be immediately removed from the service upon confirmation of white (or black) supremacist leanings. These types of people are a threat to good order and discipline.
It’s pretty much a liberal fantasy to believe that behavior like that is tolerated or encouraged.
Isn’t Martin Hyde a conservative?
You’ll have to ask him.
I used the qualifier “pretty much” because I didn’t want to speak in an absolute. I repeat my earlier statement. In an organization with hundreds of thousands of people, there are going to be people under the radar that don’t belong. When they are discovered, they are dealt with. I don’t share Martin’s assertion that any of them are being “convieniently overlooked”.
Evil military men are right up there with “rogue CIA officers” and “corporate robber barons” in liberal lore. That’s the point I was making.
Okay, this is gonna be a whole lot of ambivalent maybe so stuff, but here goes.
In 1966 I served on the same training facility as two separate elite military forces. (No, I was not a member of either.) The overwhelming majority of these men were honorable and decent people. Three of them, in fact are the only real heroes I ever met. I believe we should honor them for their service, and their sacrifice.
However, they were also training to kill and destroy specific enemies identified by culture, and to some extent race and religion. Hating your enemy is not easy to avoid in combat. People who already hated your enemy before they joined up are not easily dismissed as comrades. Very young men are very easily motivated by the men they serve under, and admire.
Military service does not magically bond men of different races, or political opinions. Combat service intensifies existing attitudes. Extreme competence at the art of war may engender a sense of entitlement in choosing ones enemies, and which rules are to be followed. You send out a hundred men, and expect them to kill a thousand other men. They are going to be killers, or they are going to be dead. They don’t need to be philosophical, and if they are racist, and authoritarian, and extremists, it doesn’t mean that they might not also be very good special operations soldiers.
And then they become part of the training cadre. I know for absolute certain that at least one member of a US Army elite training unit at that time tried to recruit white supremacists during the training he gave. He was not subtle. It was a long time ago, but it was not legal then, and I doubt that he (or his current brother in arms) could be stopped without serious personal consequences for the whistle blower, including possibly the very most serious. Killing people without being apprehended was the specific subject he taught.
Most civilians, and in fact a whole lot of military folks as well don’t appreciate just how violent war really is. We decided that killing a whole bunch of Iraqis was a good idea. If folks who didn’t need a good reason to want to help out came along, it should not come as a big surprise. If you are surprised, you are incompetent to operate a democracy. Sadly, that is not uncommon either.
Tris