Anyone Who Joins The Army...

agree or disagree?

i would agree, since i keep coming across stories like this year after year:

TOKYO (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine pleaded guilty on Thursday to charges of raping a woman on Japan's southern island of Okinawa, a U.S. forces spokesman said, in a case that stirred fresh resentment against the U.S. military presence there.

Lance Corporal Jose W. Torres, 21, was arrested by Okinawan police in June on suspicion of raping a 19-year-old Japanese woman after punching her in the face in the early hours of May 25 in an entertainment area near a U.S. base.

He was later indicted by prosecutors in Okinawa.

In the first court session of his trial in the Okinawan capital Naha, Torres pleaded guilty to charges of rape and assault, said Colonel Victor Warzinski, U.S. Forces Japan director of public affairs.

"I'm able to confirm that Lance Corporal Torres did in fact plead guilty... The charges as I understand it are rape and assault," Warzinski said.

An official at the Naha District Court said the next court session for Torres has been set for August 13.

Okinawa is home to about half the U.S. military presence in Japan and incidents such as the 1995 rape of a 12-year-old Japanese girl by three American servicemen have prompted calls to shift the U.S. troops away or reduce their numbers.

Not everyone. A lot of patriotic and brave people join armies.

Unfortunately, they don't make the papers as often as the assholes who abuse their postion.

I reckon that first question could be considered trolling

I don't agree with the top statement, although it is true that the army does attract a number of violent individuals for obvious reasons.
I could easily counter with something just as inflammatory:

I think these people are the lowest of the low:

Quote:

---

From The New York Times

A few weeks ago I wrote about Zafran Bibi who was convicted of adultery by a Pakistani court and sentenced to death by stoning. The New York Times' Seth Mydans recently wrote an in-depth look at Zafran's fate as well as the status of the sharia law in Pakistan.

Zafran claims that while her husband was serving a jail term for murder, her brother-in-law repeatedly raped her, eventually resulting in a pregnancy. When Zafran reported the rape, she was charged with adultery. All charges against her alleged rapist were dropped due to insufficient evidence, whereas Zafran was tried and convicted of adultery.

Mydans offers a relatively thorough look at Pakistan's hudood laws that resulted in this result. For example, under the 23-year old set of laws, whether or not Zafran was raped is irrelevant to her own adultery charge. Mydans reports that the laws formally ban "all forms of adultery, whether the offense is committed with or without the consent of the parties."

So a woman who claims she was raped is by definition admitting that she is guilty of adultery, with the lack of consent being a mere side issue.

Under those same hudood laws, however, it is almost impossible for Zafran or any other woman to make a rape charge against a man stick. The law only allows a charge of rape to proceed against a man if four Muslim men testify to having witnessed the rape. Mydans quotes Rukhshanda Naz who heads up a branch of a women's rights group known as Aurat as saying,

    The proof is totally impossible. If a woman brings a charge of rape, she puts herself in grave danger.

Mydans reports that as many as half of women who report rapes are later charged with committing adultery. As a result, few women make rape accusations. In addition, the laws about rape kick in as soon as a woman hits puberty, leading to girls as young as 12 or 13 being imprisoned for reporting being raped.

---

Disagree.

That would be the same reasoning as reading a story about a mother who had abused a child and then saying 'becoming a Mother is the lowest of the low.'

The one soldier convicted is the lowest of the low. He alone is responsible for his own actions, wouldn't you agree?.

I alone am responsible for my actions. (that is responsibility enough, sometimes!!!!) :-)

Neverose

Another example of idiotic reasoning.

hypoluxa3k

Who then, would you ask to protect your freedom?

The people you so easily dismiss are willing to give their lives in order to protect those incapable or unwilling.

you also forget those who use the military as a lifeline and a real route out of poverty. The training available can give people successful careers after they have done their time in.

Unless your prepared to get a gun and fight for your country then you have no cause attacking such bravery for the faults of a few.

Neil.

so ilw? you're saying asians like me are lowest of the low?
if you wanted to post that, do it in your own post instead of this one.

and to the others, fair points, all i wanted to know was if you agree or disagree (sheesh! :rolleyes: )

and neil, who are the army going to protect my freedom from?
wake up, there is no threat to a tiny little island like the UK, unless our PM sticks his nose into business that does not concern him. oh wait...

rapists and paedophiles are the lowest of the low
[followed by orthodontists, conservative politicians and newspaper owners]

too many people have been in the military to make such a claim

it is a bit strange that there is a profession which pays one to become a professional murderer [or accomplice/accessory to murder]

depending on when, where and who you murder you get a medal or a prison sentence [or your own murder in lots of US states]

hypoluxa3k :: where does Neil__ hassle you on account of being asian? [i had no idea what colour you were until you mentioned it]

hypoluxa3k

I think it obvious I disagree.

I assume from your retort that you are in faviour of unilateral disarmament in the U.K.

do you believe that without a military we still wouldn't be at threat?

Well you have more faith in human nature than I.

Or is it you expect others to protect us?

Neil.
Edit

Quote:

---

hypoluxa3k :: where does Neil__ hassle you on account of being asian? [i had no idea what colour you were until you mentioned it]

---

Echidna, you got the wrong man, But thanks all the same.

Neil

I never said asians and i don't think anyone could ever construe that i meant asians. I just pointed out that I thought there were a lot lower people than american soldiers and gave the example of people, who think that the aspect of sharia law I mentioned, is fair. The comment was supposed to be inflammatory because u seem to be very proud of the islamic faith (which i am guessing u r a member of).

i was in the military so why you want to call me the lowest of the low? might want to check the forum rules, dumbass