So what's the big deal with marines selling their stories?

Jumpingmedic · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:44

Ok We've had this debate for 2 odd weeks now and I've yet to see what all the fuss is about. From the minute I heard the marines would be allowed to sell their stories I supported that decision. And I was utterly mystified by the immediate backlash and subsequent political scandal that followed.

These people risked life and limb to do a job that most of us would never dare to do. They have suffered an experiance that is of considerable interest to the public, just as thousands of celebrities and civil rights leaders have before them. Such information is a commodity, and why should such a commodity not be sold? I thought capitalism was a cornerstone of democracy... am I wrong?

I can see no good reason to forbid such sales. All I get in response are meaningless aphorisms such as "The military shouldn't profit from their work" ... why the hell not? They do a braver job than most of us. I think the problem is that we as a culture have an inflated view of soldiers. We forget that they're normal people, albeit with extensive training. When they get kidnapped and are in a genuine fear of death then who amongst us has the authority to say how they should behave... I'll bet that's between 99.9 and 100% of this forum who don't know.

So can anyone give me any real reasons why these soldiers selling their stories is bad in anyway... or is it merely a matter of the public's delusions of soldiers being Kryptonion that is causing all this?

trojan698 · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:50

Breeds racial hatred?

tom_e · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:51

trojan698 said:
Breeds racial hatred?

please explain

Glaucus · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:51

I think the backlash is no other people are aloud to sale there stories, so why should these particulate marines be aloud?

You also can't open it upto everyone imagine the man power need to check and remove any sensitive material before releasing it to the press.

Jumpingmedic · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:58

AcidHell2 said:
I think the backlash is no other people are aloud to sale there stories, so why should these particulate marines be aloud?

You also can't open it upto everyone imagine the man power need to check and remove any sensitive material before releasing it to the press.

The backlash seemed to start well before Brownes' decision to disallow such sales. As for non-disclosure... aside from it being rather obvious to the soldiers involved it'd only take someone to read a report before it was sent to a journalist... hardly a Herculean effort. Nothing confidential was disclosed in this case, why should it have been.

Jumpingmedic · 16 Apr 2007 at 20:58

trojan698 said:
Breeds racial hatred?

Explanation? Maybe? Hmmm?

Glaucus · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:00

Jumpingmedic said:
The backlash seemed to start well before Brownes' decision to disallow such sales. As for non-disclosure... aside from it being rather obvious to the soldiers involved it'd only take someone to read a report before it was sent to a journalist... hardly a Herculean effort. Nothing confidential was disclosed in this case, why should it have been.

the sale has been disallowed in all arm forces for ever, that's why the back lash. Why did these marines get special dispensation? If they get special dispensation why can''t every other person in the armed forces, if that happened then there would be loads of documents need checking for any classified info.

Jumpingmedic · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:05

AcidHell2 said:
the sale has been disallowed in all arm forces for ever, that's why the back lash. Why did these marines get special dispensation? If they get special dispensation why can''t every other person in the armed forces, if that happened then there would be loads of documents need checking for any classified info.

Like everything else in the democratic system such requests would join a queue to be declassified, if apporopriate. Pretty simple. As for why these marines got special dispensation... well I can't say. But in my opinion it should have been granted many decades ago and I've yet to see an argument against that.

tom_e · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:14

the only reason i can see that they were treated as a special case was because of irans videos and statments about them being treated humainly and well which obviously blair and bush didnt like as its much more difficult to attack a country who seem to be so nice, therefore they wanted to get some stories out their to counter this. Personally i take any stories i see or hear from either side with a huge dose of salt because there are far to many reasons both sides would lie and create complete works of fiction.

Jumpingmedic · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:23

blitz2163 said:
the only reason i can see that they were treated as a special case was because of irans videos and statments about them being treated humainly and well which obviously blair and bush didnt like as its much more difficult to attack a country who seem to be so nice, therefore they wanted to get some stories out their to counter this. Personally i take any stories i see or hear from either side with a huge dose of salt because there are far to many reasons both sides would lie and create complete works of fiction.

I'm not arguing over the treatment of the prisioners or the inevitable propaganda issued by both sides. Both sides have ******** involved. I'm refering to the human element in this whole charade. I doubt many soldiers whould choose imprisonment or death when they were offered freedom in exchance for falsely confirming total guilt for the benefit of the Iranians.

I won't say England is blameless in this. I am saying that it's lame to expect superhuman modesty and resistance to money from ultra trained humans. Is there some reason you can think of that a man who saved 5 people in Iraq deserves less money than a dumass who appeared in big brother 6?

tom_e · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:29

Jumpingmedic said:
I'm not arguing over the treatment of the prisioners or the inevitable propaganda issued by both sides. Both sides have barstwerds involved. I'm refering to the human element in this whole charade. I doubt many soldiers whould choose imprisonment or death when they were offered freedom in exchance for falsely confirming total guilt for the benefit of the Iranians.

I completly agree with what your saying and i also agree that you would have to be very loyal and/or completly silly to choose death or imprisonment over a few pretty meaningless words.

I won't say England is blameless in this. I am saying that it's lame to expect superhuman modesty and resistance to money from ultra trained humans. Is there some reason you can think of that a man who saved 5 people in Iraq deserves less money than a dumass who appeared in big brother 6?

I also agree with this I in no way expect these people to be immune to the amounts of money being thrown around when they put their lives on the line for what is a pittiful amount of money, but then again you dont join the forces for the money.

porkrind · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:31

rank and serial thats all whats needed .

Al Vallario · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:33

Copied straight from the original thread about the marines being allowed to sell their stories. Not extensive by any means, but there are certainly plenty of reasons why it should not have been allowed:

Al Vallario said:
Utter rubbish. If they want to tell their stories and set the record straight, they can do it in a professional manner — at the press conference, for example, had Faye and the other eight notable by their absence bothered to turn up. They can do it without the waft of fresh banknotes twisting their recollection of events, too, or at least donate all the proceeds to a charitable cause.

I personally couldn't care less what ridiculous things were running through their minds whilst they were held by the Iranians. I don't care if they thought they were going to be executed, or they thought they were going to be raped, or they thought they were being measured up for coffins. What I do care about is the dignity and reputation of our armed forces, and this little propaganda campaign has done no good whatsoever to that end.

Goodness knows how the Iranians are going to "twist" this drivel. Playing the role of devil's advocate, it sure doesn't look good with our armed personnel blubbering all over television with unfounded accusations by the bucketload, whilst the Iranian authorities release yet more footage of them smiling, playing games whilst being held.

trojan698 · 16 Apr 2007 at 21:35

blitz2163 said:
please explain

Just a stab in the dark!

Jumpingmedic · 17 Apr 2007 at 20:02

Al Vallario said:
Copied straight from the original thread about the marines being allowed to sell their stories. Not extensive by any means, but there are certainly plenty of reasons why it should not have been allowed:

The problem with your quoted text is the same problem I've been getting all week. It suggests that the actions of the two marines who sold their story has delivered some tremendous slur to the army. But utterly fails to explain the reasoning behind it, as if it's something fundemental that doesn't need explaining. Well perhaps it is... but it's clearly something that I do need explaining to me.

My opinion of the armed forces hasn't been diminished in anyway, all it's done is confirm my prior belief that soldiers are human beings who have been trained to be, and promoted as machines. Finally the human element begins to show and suddenly it's chaos. "Oh noes human soldiers?!?!? my delusions are shattered!"

How does this story detract from the dignity of the armed forces? Why should the soldiers give their stories for free? I could give away all my old possesions instead of selling them on amazon/ebay... I don't do that because I'm human. I rather doubt you would give away something valuable for free either. So why should these soldiers give away valuable information and stories for free?

[TR]SweetSpotOz · 17 Apr 2007 at 20:46

Jumpingmedic · 17 Apr 2007 at 20:54

markyp23 said:
Why are their stories more important than other soldier's stories?

Simple... other soldiers stories are identicle to each other... we went, we killed we conquered. Booooooring. No market value whatsoever. Maybe the story of the first soldier who went into battle would have been worth something, but not anymore. Soldiers kidnapped and subjected to psychological extremes however is of interest to the comman man, and is therefore of value.

The experiances of British soldiers in Nazi concentration camps was financially viable... hence The Great Escape.

My opinion is that all this outrage is being caused be the pre-conception that soldiers are superhuman and immune to the lure of money. In fact people are so preoccupied by this misconception that to see a human side to soldiers shatters their delusions in an institution they have placed excessive faith in. But that's their fault, not the soldiers'.

MNuTz · 17 Apr 2007 at 20:58

Personally, i think that the sale of the stories was allowed as they armed forces/government knew how much backlash there would be over it. It would take the focus off other things like how they managed to get captured anyway and what where they doing in the enemy territory.

Jumpingmedic · 17 Apr 2007 at 21:06

MNuTz said:
Personally, i think that the sale of the stories was allowed as they armed forces/government knew how much backlash there would be over it. It would take the focus off other things like how they managed to get captured anyway and what where they doing in the enemy territory.

Heh, well I wouldn't put it past the government, but to be honest I think that's a far more damning statement against the public than the government. The government's been lying to and misdirecting us for years.. nothing new. The problem is the preoccupation with the most irrelevent facet of this whole sorry scenario. The important parts of this event are being overlooked simply because of a spectacular preoccupation with the soldier's selling their story. And that is exactly what I'm trying to understand.. I suppose that's a preoccuptation of my own. But I've just got to know why everyones so angry over something that I, personally consider utterly, utterly trivial and irrelevent.

[TR]SweetSpotOz · 17 Apr 2007 at 22:05