30% of female soilders in iraq are raped

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8005198.stm

Feel sorry for her. But some would argue that women have no role in the military [Front line action]. I know for sure women are not allowed to join the Royal Marines.

Also, this for me highlights the animals in everyone of us all. In a war environment, hormones runs high and all common sense especially when one haven't had sex for 6months or so will go out of the equation.

doesnt mean women shouldnt be in the army, but the men should find some other ways of having sex besides rape.

What is it with soldiers and rape anyway?

These ones that are raping their female colleagues- imagine what they'd do to helpless civilians.

ElRazur:

Feel sorry for her. But some would argue that women have no role in the military [Front line action]. I know for sure women are not allowed to join the Royal Marines.

Also, this for me highlights the animals in everyone of us all. In a war environment, hormones runs high and all common sense especially when one haven't had sex for 6months or so will go out of the equation.

female soldiers can actually be fiercer than the men. Its not for nothing that Ghadaffi has an elite all female bodyguard unit.

tpiah:



female soldiers can actually be fiercer than the men. Its not for nothing that Ghadaffi has an elite all female bodyguard unit.

Hmmm. I would think men are naturally more fiercer than ladies. It how nature have made us.

tpiah:

female soldiers can actually be fiercer than the men. Its not for nothing that Ghadaffi has an elite all female bodyguard unit.

Ghadaffi is a paranoid loon who abhors opposition of any form. I don't think the all female squad is simply down to feminine ferocity rather than fears of being compromised by corruptible men who want to usurp him.

Taking nothing away from the women though, amazons and the like have been known to be deadly warriors.

I don't believe women should be in the army if in this day and age such abuses continue. Either stamp out the abuses completely or take women out of these situations. 30% is a highly appalling figure.

I am all for equality and women being able to serve their country, but if under these harsh conditions they are continuously threatened and endangered by their own, then I would object strongly to their participation.

ElRazur:

Hmmm. I would think men are naturally more fiercer than ladies. It how nature have made us.

that's why female soldiers have to go the extra mile.

Compare a female police officer to a male one.

debosky:

Ghadaffi is a paranoid loon who abhors opposition of any form. I don't think the all female squad is simply down to feminine ferocity rather than fears of being compromised by corruptible men who want to usurp him.

Taking nothing away from the women though, amazons and the like have been known to be deadly warriors.

I don't believe women should be in the army if in this day and age such abuses continue. Either stamp out the abuses completely or take women out of these situations. 30% is a highly appalling figure.

I am all for equality and women being able to serve their country, but if under these harsh conditions they are continuously threatened and endangered by their own, then I would object strongly to their participation.

I dont think the rapists should go scot free. Rape is wrong even if its female soldiers involved.

Prosecuting the rapist soldiers will send a message to others of like mind.

tpiah:


that's why female soldiers have to go the extra mile.

Compare a female police officer to a male one.

I see your point, however going that extra mile do not mean they are readily more fiercer than men.

What do you want me to compare? A female officer definitely looks well fit and sexier than a male officer in my eyes.

tpiah:



I dont think the rapists should go scot free. Rape is wrong even if its female soldiers involved.

Prosecuting the rapist soldiers will send a message to others of like mind.

There are certain unwritten rules of every organisation. Telling on your mates is one of them in the army. It would also be almost impossible to prove a rape took place assuming most of these men want a piece of her kitten anyway.

A few soldiers got convicted for raping civilians though in the US army.

tpiah:

I dont think the rapists should go scot free. Rape is wrong even if its female soldiers involved.

Prosecuting the rapist soldiers will send a message to others of like mind.

I agree fully. Please don't mistake my opposition to females in the Army to mean I felt the offenders should not be punished. I just do not think that exposing them to harm continuously (even with prosecution) will be of benefit. The difficulties of prosecution and the general army culture against 'ratting' makes things even more complicated.

Nevertheless - these women should be courageous to report these offenders and the authorities should prosecute.

the armed forces have always had a cavalier attitude towards molesting women. remember tailhook?

even worse is the fact that its not exactly better members of society that are inducted as recruits(i'm not referring to officers here. . not that they are much better, but the less than savory characters that make up the grunt class in armed forces across the world.

oyb:

the armed forces have always had a cavalier attitude towards molesting women. remember tailhook?

even worse is the fact that its not exactly better members of society that are inducted as recruits(i'm not referring to officers here. . not that they are much better, but the less than savory characters that make up the grunt class in armed forces across the world.

this is true considering the US has relaxed the requirements for joining the army thereby allowing gang bangers and the likes to get in.

bawomolo:

this is true considering the US has relaxed the requirements for joining the army thereby allowing gang bangers and the likes to get in.

One of the prices of fighting wars on several fronts. The army standards begins to drop, as the rules are re-written to allow more people eligible.

oyb:

the armed forces have always had a cavalier attitude towards molesting women. remember tailhook?

even worse is the fact that its not exactly better members of society that are inducted as recruits(i'm not referring to officers here. . not that they are much better, but the less than savory characters that make up the grunt class in armed forces across the world.

This is a long discredited canard. The average US army recruit, compared to young people within the same age bracket, is better educated.

Won't be surprised if a majority of Nigerian women have also faced sexual violence as well. The significant thing here is not the existence of sexual violence but a growing willingness to confront it.

debosky:

Ghadaffi is a paranoid loon who abhors opposition of any form. I don't think the all female squad is simply down to feminine ferocity rather than fears of being compromised by corruptible men who want to usurp him.

Taking nothing away from the women though, amazons and the like have been known to be deadly warriors.

I don't believe women should be in the army if in this day and age such abuses continue. Either stamp out the abuses completely or take women out of these situations. 30% is a highly appalling figure.

I am all for equality and women being able to serve their country, but if under these harsh conditions they are continuously threatened and endangered by their own, then I would object strongly to their participation.

OT:
There is no factual evidence of the existence of the mythical Amazons, but there have been evidence of all female regiments in ancient armies.

4 Play:

This is a long discredited canard. The average US army recruit, compared to young people within the same age bracket, is better educated.

Won't be surprised if a majority of Nigerian women have also faced sexual violence as well. The significant thing here is not the existence of sexual violence but a growing willingness to confront it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706118,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889152,00.html

To accept that ''rape - sexual violence'' has the sole reason why women shouldn't be in the army simply equates to embracing a defeatist attitude. Where then lies the tenacity to withstand and bear all odds to which the army supposedly instills on either gender?

The women should be soldiers but should be kept as KP ( Kitchen Police ) & there Platoon commandos' should be strict on any one who tempers with the females.

Pataki:

To accept that ''rape - sexual violence'' has the sole reason why women shouldn't be in the army simply equates to embracing a defeatist attitude. Where then lies the tenacity to withstand and bear all odds to which the army supposedly instills on either gender?

All odds yes, but sexual frustration no. Regardless of the 'aspirations', war is a harsh and military life is no cakewalk. This is not about a defeatist attitude, it's more a case of prevention - soldiers in war time are extremely sexually deprived so putting women in that situation is not ideal nor is it beneficial if 30% of them get attacked.

biina:

OT:
There is no factual evidence of the existence of the mythical Amazons, but there have been evidence of all female regiments in ancient armies.

Accepted biina, I see you have joined our eminent league of pedants. You are welcome!

debosky:

All odds yes, but sexual frustration no. Regardless of the 'aspirations', war is a harsh and military life is no cakewalk. This is not about a defeatist attitude, it's more a case of prevention - soldiers in war time are extremely sexually deprived so putting women in that situation is not ideal nor is it beneficial if 30% of them get attacked.

Prevention? What exactly are you preventing? Is it:

a) That women would no longer be raped/sexually assaulted in the army?

[center]OR[/center]

b) That non-inclusion of women would cut down drastically the libido of men in the army?

Furthermore are you trying to imply that sexual frustration is not an odd, which is quite glaring to women who have enlisted in the army?

If the premise of the argument in this topic had been based on research conducted to prove that inclusion of women has never brought any form of development both intellectually and physically to any army, then I would deem it beneficial that women should not be included in the army. If a problem such as rape - sexual violence is present in the army, the ''prevention'' you proffer is not the solution. As prevention is undertaken before [/i]the problem arises or [i]after the problem has been dealt with.

The army is equipped to battle whatever forces/vices rages against it. This should be the best stance in respect to this situation.

Pataki:

Prevention? What exactly are you preventing? Is it:

a) That women would no longer be raped/sexually assaulted in the army?

[center]OR[/center]

b) That non-inclusion of women would cut down drastically the libido of men in the army?

What I am preventing is very simple - remove women from active/war front duties and they cannot be raped because they are not there.

As prevention is undertaken before [/i]the problem arises or [i]after the problem has been dealt with.

I don't want to get tangled in semantics here but prevention is simply stopping something from happening - you can 'deal' with the cause or completely remove the possibility of it happening. I clearly support the latter.

The army is equipped to battle whatever forces/vices rages against it. This should be the best stance in respect to this situation.

I don't agree - if in 2009 we still have a 30% stat among the most 'enlightened' and 'professional' military force in the world, I don't want to imagine the stat for other less regulated armies.

Women of course bring a benefit to the army, but I do not think this benefit is worth being exposed to rape by your OWN colleagues.

the military is not taking it lightly since those 2006 cases . . . several changes have been made.
right now no dating is even allowed. if you date, you will be sent home  to face the military law.
the one thing am trying to understand is during war, men have been carrying out sexual relationships among themselves   (you are in trouble if you are caught)
i agree with Debosky, sexual deprivation  . i wonder why some can hold on while others just can't  
they are cutting down deployments time. for those serving more over 12 months, they are allow to go home for some weeks midway.

women will continue to serve . . . that i prefer.

Semper Fi

@ *Hauwa*

Are you in the army?

oyb:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706118,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889152,00.html

Mr Copy and Paste, what does the above link have to do with how the average enlistee compares to his peers in the general population?

Take your average 18 year old recruit and compare him to the average 18 year old Yank, he's better educated and has a better criminal record or more aptly 'non-record'. Recruiting standards may have been relaxed briefly, but that tells us more abut the average recruit in a particular year compared to the average recruit in another year which the link deals with.

The idea that recruits are drawn from the ''less savory'' members of society is BS when the contrary is clearly the case.

mr dubious assertations . . .

we would appreciate it if you could kindly provide more than your less than savory opinions, thank you very much.

the idea that recruits are drawn from the 'more savory ' members of society is BS when the contrary is clearly the case.   

see, anyone can do that. i do not consider you to be all knowing, so kindly back up your arguments with more than hot air.

this is the article in its entirety-

Even as the U.S. Army seems to be enjoying increasing success in Iraq, the war itself seems to be driving down the quality of the fresh recruits the U.S. military needs to continue the campaign. A new analysis of Pentagon data shows that only 71% of Army recruits in 2007 earned high-school diplomas, extending a downward trend that began in 2004, the first full year of the Iraq war, and well below the Army's goal of 90%.

The slide continues despite hefty signing bonuses being paid out to enlistees. The situation is likely to only grow worse as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, and as the Army presses on with its plan to add 65,000 troops by 2010 to a total of 547,000. The figures are part of an analysis released by the National Priorities Project, a Massachusetts-based research group that assesses federal spending. The NPP, which is opposed to the war, generated the data from material it obtained from the U.S. Army Recruiting Command under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The report says that there is not just a qualitative factor involved in the educational level of the recruits but consequences in terms of cost and expense. While all recruits must have a high-school diploma or a general equivalency degree (GED), Army studies show that about 80% of those with diplomas complete their first term of enlistment — usually three years — compared to only half of those with a GED. The higher dropout rate means those missing soldiers must be replaced, which drives up military spending because of the need to spend money recruiting, outfitting and training new troops; the cost of getting a new recruit — before he or she even arrives at basic training — has risen from $15,000 to $21,000 over the past five years. The share of new recruits — those without military prior service — with high-school diplomas was 83.5% in 2005 and 73.1% in 2006.

The share of new recruits labeled "high quality" by the Army — those with at least a high-school diploma and who rank in the top half of the military's qualification test — has also dropped markedly since the Iraq war began, from 56.2% in 2005 to 44.6% last year. Recruits from families with annual incomes below $60,000 are over-represented in uniform, the study says, while those from families earning more are under-represented. The higher-income, better-educated recruits are especially prized by the Army because they have the skills needed to master the increasingly complex equipment that now accompanies a military force onto the battlefield. Army officials have acknowledged the steady slide in recruit quality, but insist that no unqualified soldiers are being sent into combat.

roughly 30% of recruits do not have a high school diploma - is that your average yank? 30% of yanks are high school drop outs? and note that the i highlighted' 'downward trend' , indicating that it has not stopped. maybe if you read through the second article about the pressures on recruiting officers , you wouldn't be spouting BS on recruiting standards being 'relaxed briefly.'

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/apr/22/news/chi-military-felonsapr22

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24243460/

bite on that

WASHINGTON - Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Data released by a congressional committee shows the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines with felonies rose from 208 to 350.

Those numbers represent a fraction of the more than 180,000 recruits brought in by the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines during fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. But they highlight a trend that has raised concerns both within the military and on Capitol Hill.

The bulk of the crimes involved were burglaries, other thefts, and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including incidents involving weapons.

Struggling to find recruits
Both the Army and Marine Corps have been struggling to increase their numbers as part of a broader effort to meet the combat needs of a military fighting wars on two fronts. As a result, the number of recruits needing waivers for crimes or other bad conduct has grown in recent years, as well as those needing medical or aptitude waivers.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who released the data, noted that there may be valid reasons for granting the waivers and giving individuals a second chance.

But he added, "Concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness."

The services use a waiver process to let in recruits with felony convictions, and many of the crimes were committed when the service members were juveniles.

"Waivers are used judiciously and granted only after a thorough review," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said.

He added that "low unemployment, a protracted war on terror, a decline in propensity to serve," and the growing reluctance of parents, teachers and other adults to recommend young people go into the military, has made recruiting a challenge.

According to the Army, 18 percent of the recruits needed conduct waivers in fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007, compared to 15 percent in the 12-month period ending in Sept. 30, 2006.

"We are growing the Army fast and there are some waivers; we know that," said Army Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, deputy chief of staff for operations. "It hasn't alarmed us yet."

He added that "the better part of making soldiers is about leadership. Somebody invested in me, you know. That's the beauty of the United States Army. It's about leadership ,  You've got to give people an opportunity to serve."

Late last fall, the Pentagon quietly began looking for ways to make it easier for people with minor criminal records to join the military. The goal of that review is to make cumbersome waiver requirements consistent across the services — the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force — and reduce the number of petty crimes that now trigger the process.

According to the data released Monday, a bit more than half of the Army's 511 convictions in 2007 were for various types of thefts, ranging from burglaries to bad checks and stolen cars. Another 130 were for drug offenses.

The remainder, however, included two in 2007 for manslaughter, compared to one in 2006; five for sexual crimes (which can include rape, incest or sexual assaults) compared to two in 2006; and three for negligent or vehicular homicide, compared to two in 2006. Two received waivers for terrorist threats including bomb threats in 2007, compared to one in 2006.

now mr derailer, can we return to the topic at hand? feeding trolls is bothersome.

oyb:

mr dubious assertations . . .

we would appreciate it if you could kindly provide more than your less than savory opinions, thank you very much.
see, anyone can do that. i do not consider you to be all knowing, so kindly back up your arguments with more than hot air.

Look at this rabid copy and paste ignoramus. If you really wanted to learn the truth, you can easily find it. Let's see an article that compares the average US recruit to the average American:

In the early 1990s, DoD set a goal that at least 90 percent of enlisted recruits without prior service should have a high school diploma. (By comparison, 80 percent of the civilian youth population earned high school diplomas in 2006.) DoD has been able to meet that goal every year since it was established (see Figure 3). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the military was reduced in size and the number of new personnel who were needed fell significantly, the services were able to increase the proportion of recruits with high school diplomas, peaking at almost 98 percent in 1992. That number declined somewhat through the 1990s, in part because of improved job opportunities in the civilian sector (as evidenced by lower civilian unemployment rates for young people).

During the current decade, the share of recruits who are high school graduates has remained between 90 percent and 93 percent for the military as a whole, although it hasvaried by service. For example, the Navy has increased its figure in recent years as it once again shrinks its enlisted force, whereas the Army has fallen below DoD’s 90 percent goal. The proportion of new Army recruits with high school diplomas dropped to 87 percent in 2005 and 81 percent in 2006—the lowest levels in at least 20 years.51 The Army’s difficulties in meeting its numerical goals for recruiting in those years may partly explain the drop in education levels.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8313/07-19-MilitaryVol.pdf

Last year, 83 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates.

[url]http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/02/12/16846-army-recruiting-on-track-despite-challenges/
[/url]

What this hare brained faux scholar has done is repeatedly quote an article about a particular year - 2007 - where standards plummeted. However, this will buttress his claim that US soldiers are drawn from the dregs of society if virtually all US soldiers had been recruited in 2007.

He talks of a downward trend because of the dating of the article - 71% in '07 and 83% in '08. This is what happens when people try to bridge the chasm in their knowledge through the University of Google. 

90% of current servicemen and women have at least a high school diploma. You need a link for that? That's better than the average American. So much for less savoury characters, such consummate ignorance.

There is no factual evidence of the existence of the mythical Amazons, but there have been evidence of all female regiments in ancient armies.

female regiments of the dahomey kingdom are not all that ancient.

female fighters in Sierra-Leone were pretty vicious too.

Look at this rabid copy and paste ignoramus. If you really wanted to learn the truth, you can easily find it. Let's see an article that compares the average US recruit to the average American

see pot calling kettle black , or are you learning the fine art of copy and paste from me?

thank you for confirming  what most of us would have preferred not to believe - that the rapes are by savoury characters, people from middle class backgrounds , high school diplomas, etc. it would have been preferable if they had been, as i assumed by unsavoury characters . means there are a lot of potential rapists out there, hiding behind clean cut, high school diploma, and savory exteriors. women, watch out!

i would have preffered to believe that the measly number of felons may have been responsible for instigating those rapes. rather, it seems i was wrong. thanks .while previous generations of soldiers relieved sexual tension by the time honored military tradition of jacking off, the current generation clearly lacks such control, they'd rather rape those who have shed blood beside them in combat. thats the long and short of your argument. i shudder to think of what the 'unsavory' folks would be getting up to, if this is what the high school diploma ones are doing.   

perhaps this makes you feel better, considering how nairaland 'americans' keep knocking you brits over your wild and unsavory kids.

Taking nothing away from the women though, amazons and the like have been known to be deadly warriors.

Does Osun Amazon count?