Thai military commanders don't want provocatively-clad young women gyrating around their tanks, because it's hard to look mean and menacing while some floozy in short shorts is shaking her moneymaker.
The U.S. military has a bigger problem: it seems that some of the come-hither wildcats attracted to its weaponry aren't easy-going civilian girls, but, um, active members of the National Guard.
The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that women in a Kentucky National Guard unit posed nude for pictures with their M-16s and other military equipment, and if so, whether they should be sanctioned for bringing discredit to the military, officials said. ... The [Louisville Courier-Journal] had been independently provided a compact disc containing 232 photographs of at least a half-dozen nude and seminude women in various poses, including kissing one another, posing suggestively with military rifles, and covering their breasts with American flag decals.
Clever way to give recruiting a bust boost.
I know about this incident. It got around to a lot of other units. A few other units had pictures of those girls. This is not just a rumor, it is true.
This does bring discredit to the Armed Forces. Think about it, our military is supposed to be full of trained professionals, both inside and outside of the military bases. How can we even think to call these soldiers professionals if they act without regard to how this looks?
Posted by: JackTS | Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 03:46 AM
Yeah, naked women hugely "discredit" our military. Instead, they should have been taking photos of naked prisoners and making videos of funny stuff like killing puppies. Then, at least, they be defended by Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: Hermes Ten | Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 05:12 PM
You know, isolated incidents of units enacted war crimes and your blatent misconception of what the military is just proves that you are of the ignorant class of America and have never served a day in the military in your life.
Professionalism is supposed to be part of the creed for all of the military, yet these women chose to take provacative photos and many of these photos circulated to other units. This is a disgrace. We are supposed to uphold an image as the most professional military in the world, yet we have this kind of undermining throughout our own nation.
How can you even bring up things that have nothing to do with the article as an answer or even an opinion? Learn to stay on topic if you are going to post anything.
Posted by: JackTS | Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 01:08 AM
"..you are of the ignorant class of America and have never served a day in the military in your life."
Wow, you must be like a God to know this, since you don't know who I am or anything about me. Not that it matters, but I have honorable discharges from two different branches of the US military --and served for five years as an officer.
Your "bad apples" and "isolated incidents" narrative is complete bullshit. Stripping and humiliating prisoners is SOP for certain classes of prisoners, on orders from the top. The humiliation of prisoners was, and so far as we know, still is, POLICY. The fact that a few enlisted people carrying out orders were scapegoated doesn't change the essential nature of what happened.
There are all kinds of videos out there of the troops killing and torturing animals for the sheer fun of it --I saw five of them just yesterday. These videos were shot by the troops themselves, celebrating their cruelty. It's funny how people like you are so concerned about "professionalism" when it comes to adult women soldiers choosing to pose naked, but are full of excuses and dismissive chittering about "isolated incidents" when the troops are yukking it up humiliating prisoners and killing defenseless animals.
Logic dictates that if your real concern is "professionalism" you'd either be condemning all this other far more unprofessional behavior with equal vehemence, or you'd be defending these women in the Kentucky Guard as participating in an "isolated incident." And in fact, this incident of posing nude seems to be far more "isolated" than the incidents you are so quick to pass off as isolated.
Admit it: you don't give a fuck about "professionalism," you have a completely different agenda --you just can't stand the idea of adult women being able to pose naked for photographs. I sense you're one of those people who can sit in front of the TV all day watching people shot, stabbed, blown-up, murdered, beaten, and humiliated, but spew your cola in sanctimonious outrage at the slightest flash of a woman's nipple or a bare breast. Tell us, are you one of the violence is great but sex is "immoral" Christian fundamentalists?
Posted by: Hermes Ten | Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Where do you get off even thinking to act so high and mighty to anyone? You "may" have been an officer, but that does not mean you are intelligent in the least. Your attitude toward the normal enlisted is far from appropriate.
The SOP as you say for the humiliation of prisoners is total BS. You haven't a clue. I was a prison guard in Iraq you arrogant, ignorant, pig-headed, prick. How can you even preach about what you do not know? I know the SOP for prisoners since I just got back last year. I have read, reviewed, and helped create SOPs while I served in Iraq. I guarded every kind of prisoner you can think of.
For the record, my religious preference is Christian Non-Demoninational. I do not shun a naked woman and I do not like violence. I would prefer to solve problems differently, but I am not in charge and many people in this world choose to ignore non-violent persuasion.
As you should know, being an officer and all, an intelligence discussion should not involve the slander of religion or another, but you have caused this debate to degenerate into nothing more than an argument that completely defeats the original purpose of this posting.
You think that the nude photos of women serving in the military is more isolated than the violent videos? How naive can you possibly be?! The public server of certain areas in Iraq were loaded with this stuff. I was in charge of helping deleat these pictures from the servers and keeping them off. You just seem to have no idea and only a bigotted opinion of anything. Get some help or at least get an informed opinion before ranting about anything that requires an intelligent response.
Posted by: JackTS | Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 10:27 PM
"Where do you get off even thinking to act so high and mighty to anyone? You "may" have been an officer, but that does not mean you are intelligent in the least."
This is funny. I especially love your outraged indignancy. You reply to my original post by saying...".you are of the ignorant class of America and have never served a day in the military in your life"...and then get all huffy when I call you on it and insult you in return. This kind of hypocrisy usually signals: "Christian."
"I know the SOP for prisoners since I just got back last year. I have read, reviewed, and helped create SOPs while I served in Iraq. I guarded every kind of prisoner you can think of."
So you say. I shudder to think that someone who is so obviously driven by his emotions is a prison guard, but really, what else should we expect? What kind of a person chooses to be a prison guard --but generally powerless people who get off on having power over even more powerless people? Sadly, perhaps, the best soldiers and the best cops are not assigned to guard prisoners. In civilian law enforcement, prison guard is just one step above rent-a-cop.
"The SOP as you say for the humiliation of prisoners is total BS."
I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but it seems indicate a failure to grasp what I actually said. This is probably due to your narrow interpretation of the term "SOP" as it relates to your own limited personal experience. I say again: the humiliation of "certain classes" of prisoners is official US policy. Because you personally haven't been party to such treatment (not that I believe your claims), doesn't mean such treatment hasn't occurred. Maybe you should channel some of your overwrought emotional energy into the study of logic.
You seem to have some fundamental inability to construct an argument or even form a coherent thought. You're the one who said it was "unprofessional" for these adult women to pose naked for photos. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to upset you nearly as much --or at all, actually-- when the entire world sees videos and photos, taken by the troops themselves, depicting acts like humiliating prisoners, and blowing up sheep and killing puppies for the sheer fun of it. I have never heard one of your ilk condemn these things as "unprofessional," or do anything but make excuses for such conduct. Yet some adult women show their booty and you get your panties in a snit.
Now what reflects more poorly on the US military: attractive young females posing nude with a machine gun; or soldiers making videos of themselves yukking it up killing puppies and taunting Iraqi children with water bottles? Yet your outrage is directed at the purely consensual acts of adult women that harm no one but themselves. You get apoplectic and red faced at the idea that someone is seeing female soldiers in the altogether. Naturally, good Christian that you no doubt are, it's the uncontrolled sexuality of adult females that really gives you fits.
Posted by: Hermes Ten | Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I am actually enjoying this little discussion. This is rather fun.
You know, I didn't choose to be a prison guard. I was forced to do a reclass training just for the mission. Why would I want power over anyone but myself? You're the officer, what greater power than to lead troops? I don't truly even have aspirations to be in charge of anyone or thing. I prefer to just have to worry about my own actions.
Just so you do not get the wrong idea, I am not condoning the actions of military members who commit those horrible acts, but this post was not originally intended to comment about those things. Had I come across a blog for those actions, I would have commented. This post is about the actions of the women in the Kentucky National Guard posing nude. I do my best to stay on the original topic, but people like you who like to add something else for the spice of the conversation just ruin the experience for others to post opinions because you lack the ability for linear thinking to stay on topic.
Oh, about the whole "this usually signals 'Christian'" thing, I may be a Christian, but I don't have a problem with the female body. I only have a problem when one representing our Nation chooses to expose themselves without regard to the image they are supposed to uphold when in service to their country.
For your peace of mind, I find the atrocities committed by the military when it comes to torture and unnecessary violence and death to be horrible acts of sadistic pleasure that have no place in this world. I believe all living beings have the right to respect and life; this includes animals and plants. I would not have anything tortured for any reason.
I do hope you have a fun time with your reply. I do apologize for insulting you, I got a little carried away on the last couple of posts. I hope this is deemed more civil. I would like to continue this discussion, but I ask the both of us try to keep it civil.
Posted by: JackTS | Monday, March 10, 2008 at 02:53 AM
"I find the atrocities committed by the military when it comes to torture and unnecessary violence and death to be horrible acts of sadistic pleasure that have no place in this world. I believe all living beings have the right to respect and life; this includes animals and plants."
Glad to hear it. And yes, you started off with an insult so I said deliberately insulting things in return to tweak you. And you might want to reread your last post if you think you've ditched the insults in preference of civility.
However, in the interest of accuracy, I "was" an officer; now I'm a civilian.
I have two problems with your concern about "image": 1) the implied notion that the military has, or should have, complete control over the private lives of individual members; and 2) the judgment that by posing, as described, these women "harmed" the image of the US military.
As to the first, the fact that these women are accused of using military equipment as part of their posing removes their act from the realm of private conduct, and I think, provides a legitimate basis upon which the military can impose punishment. I think these women have the right to pose nude if they want to, on their own time, but they don't necessarily have the right to use military property in the process.
As to the second, I simply disagree that these women posing nude, or even in this case, posing with military equipment, damages the "image" of the US military, or, in this context, is "unprofessional." If they did it "on duty," then, yes, it would be "unprofessional." Drinking alcohol on duty is also unprofessional, but the military doesn't punish people for drinking off duty, in fact, the military often provides a place for it in the form of enlisted and officer's clubs.
Though I have no intention of taking the time to make it here, I think the case can be made that posing nude, as these women did, actually improves the image of the US military. The Israelis have a whole public relations campaign going that exploits the appearance of female soldiers --with plenty of male fans around the world-- though "officially" their soldiers aren't posing nude.
Posted by: Hermes Ten | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 09:36 AM
I again apologize for the insults.
They did take those photos on duty. I was in the same Mobilization Camp as them at the time and knew a couple of the soldiers.
Yes, they do have the right for nude posing in their private lives and off duty. I agree because neither the military nor any other organization should be able to completely control anybody.
I tend to get a little over zealous sometimes when expressing my opinions. A few days of therapy later, and I tend to relax a bit.
About those females, did they send the disk to a newspaper for publicity for the National Guard or did someone involved send it? I wonder if even someone who just received those pictures sent the disk.
Some of my unit found those pictures on unclassified computer servers. Those of us with access had to go in and clear the public files, but I'm not too sure we got rid of them for good. Someone had to have had a hard copy to keep putting them on the computer.
What's your take on how the press got the photos?
Posted by: JackTS | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 01:45 AM
I actually didn't read the original article and it appears to be no longer available. I went beyond what was stated here and just assumed that these women posed nude for publication in a magazine of some kind, or on the internet. In other words, I assumed that these women intended for these photos to be made public.
By your comments and what is posted here, it would appear that they did not intend for these photos to be "public" --or at least not "public" outside the military. I'd guess that someone who wanted to cause problems for them, for whatever reason, sent the photos to the paper.
If so, whoever sent the photos chose to make them public, and by so doing, put his, or her, private animosities above the good of the service (unless, perhaps, it was a case of going public because the responsible officers refused to take the appropriate disciplinary measures in-house).
It's also possible that someone pissed by the perception that these women were getting preferential treatment made the photos public --or a spurned lover. But that leads to a complex and far ranging discussion about women in the military. Certainly, when some women do things like prostituting themselves on remote bases, it breeds resentment and makes things difficult for everyone, but especially other women. Without the monetary aspect, just a sort of "selective promiscuity" can breed tremendous resentment. It sounds to me like some dynamic outside mere unprofessional nude posing may be at work here.
Posted by: Hermes Ten | Friday, March 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I have to agree with that. I don't believe the photos were to be made public becuase they were taken in their barracks.
The idea of an someone not wanting to take appropriate action doesn't seem very far fetched. I've seen those with authority do things to avoid having to deal with situations themselves.
I don't know the intent behind publicizing the photos, but if they were never publicized, these investigations wouldn't happen. I do believe in handling things in house. The incident never should have even left their company, yet someone just had to send them to the press.
If the females wanted to just take the photos for their significant others or whatever, all fine and dandy; but letting this thing get out of their company is just terrible.
I like the idea about something outside of the norm is going on. A lot of stuff is made public to hide other, more serious, matters from the public eye. Makes one wonder what is going on.
Posted by: JackTS | Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 05:14 AM
I was there in September of 2006. Great pictures. Some just posing, but as you go through the series, you will see the nudity and kissing. Lots of the guys had copies of the pictures.
Posted by: Taji Soldier | Sunday, July 19, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Dude chicks send pics to their lovers and they break up or some times not even but the guys pass them on to their buddies. The cycle begis. Its completely innocent. I guarantee every girl in America has sent a naughty pic to someone thinking it was between them and only them.
Posted by: not tellingmyname | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 09:05 PM
You "guarantee" it? Bullshit, dude, bullshit.
Posted by: Glassjaw | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I was involved in the incident and the deal with taking the pictures was that no one seen them. They were taken for the purpose of just having them or just sending them home to our boyfriends/husbands. One dumbass girl decided to put all the pics on a disk and that was how everything got started. Yes we made a bad choice as does everyone at some point in their life.
Posted by: Anonymous | Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 02:57 PM