More and more reports are surfacing about US troops raping and torturing women in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is nothing racist about these rapes – US soldiers are “equal opportunity rapists” – they even rape their own fellow women soldiers in what US Congresswoman called a “jaw dropping” raping spree by US servicemen. US mercenaries also rape and again, they even rape their own colleagues as the case of Jamie Leight Jones showed, but then – this kind of behavior is something one would expect from mercenaries; but soldiers? Some cannot even wait to get overseas to begin their rapes as the cases of women raped by US military recruiters illustrates.
Just as was the case with the widespread use of torture by US soldiers and intelligence officials, this constant flow of rape reports is not the manifestation of a “few bad apples”: it is the expression of a corporate culture, if not a national one: an incredible one in six women and one in thirty three men in the USA will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
Now, in all fairness I have to admit that rapes probably occur in many other armed forces (it would be enough to recall here the endless list of rape and sexual abuse of children by various UN “peacekeeping” forces around the world). But, as Hegel taught us, quantitative differences eventually result in qualitative ones. Furthermore, the case of the US military is made even more unique by another feature: we are talking about the most advertised, propagandized and acclaimed army on the planet (can you imagine a bumper sticker in France with “nous supportons nos forces armees”?!). That, and the fact more money is spent on the US military than on all the other armed forces on earth combined. It is the combination which makes this orgy of rapes so uniquely obscene.
Something to think about this next time you see a “we support our troops” sticker.
Some cannot even wait to get overseas to begin their rapes as the cases of women raped by US military recruiters illustrates.
And a quote from the marked source:
“This should never be allowed to happen,” said one 18-year-old victim. “The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He had my future. I trusted him.“
Dear Saker,
Are you that naive or what?
Every army “have been raping” through all the times of human history.
What about naivetty of the stupid women – “I trusted him”?
First of all what the hell the women do in the army or any army of the world?
Did you soak up the socialist propaganda to see a woman in an army as something “normal”?! Why do you want a man to behave against his nature!? Living under stress it envokes sexual lust. And sexual intercourse is one of the best ways to relieve to that situation. So that’s why during any wars there are so many rapes. YOU should know that. “Peaceful” times are not exempted from that scheme.
It is not the women’s problem. Or men’s, or states’ or the Armies’. It is all the f****g (not only American) “culture” problem. All the world has become screwed up in its foundations allowing women to wear army suites.
Gawgh.
Correction.
Not gawgh but hawgh
“I said” in American Indians vernacular found in Karol May’s books on an Appache called Vinnetou. ;)
@p202: First, I served in a military with women, none of which got raped. Second, when you write Why do you want a man to behave against his nature!? I fundamentally disagree with the implication that men are rapists by nature. Third, I am getting might fed up with you using the word “socialism” as some kind of intellectual hammer to hit at whatever you don’t like.
You write Did you soak up the socialist propaganda to see a woman in an army as something “normal”?!.
I can only say that in my experience women not only make excellent soliders, but in fact their presence often makes men better soldiers too. And if you wanna call this “socialist propaganda” be my guest – I am sick and tired of everything factual or logical being called “socialist”. Folks like you have turned the word “socialist” into the highest form or praise!
Oh, and by the way, you ever heard about the women in the Tamil Tigers or in the PKK? They are among the best soldiers in the WORLD and, by the way, they don’t get constantly raped.
I have a basic and simple question for you: have you served in a military with women?
Mostly correct but controversial since its not all happy stories in PKK… But vineyard does have a point on the bravery and courage of the females, u can even relate to the animal kingdom as well.
Well, VS, you see, the problem is that p2o2 is defending an army of barbarians. This is the way they behave by their very nature. They make no effort to evolve and become civilized.
I have never heard of peşmerge behaving like this either, and that after 40 years of fighting.
As for our people’s hope, the PKK, you can’t find anyone who wants to come on to their turf and fight them. Not peşmerge and not barbarian American forces. And the only ones in TSK who want to come on to PKK turf and fight are the paşas . . . but then, they’re not the ones who do the actual fighting, are they?
These days, of course, they’re too busy playing golf.
TSK, NATO’s second-largest army, has come into the Medya Defense Zones several times. Each time, it has left with its tail between its legs and its children in body bags.
Of course, in PKK, there is cooperation between HPG and YJA-STAR, and there is an ideology that is taught to new recruits before military skills are taught. Under this ideology, men are truly men because they are easily in control of their “nature”, something obviously not seen in barbarian armies.
Anonymous your suggestion of “not all happy stories” among the comrades rings true only as regards şehitlerimiz. Otherwise, you probably haven’t been around our comrades very much.
Hi,
Perhaps I expressed myself not clear enough.
1. First, I served in a military with women, none of which got raped.
First, you are up to it that you do not see the problem. You, “the warrier of the first class”, didn’t even see the wrong side of the situation. Well, well,…
Did you become “girly men” or the women had more balls than you, “civilized soldiers”?
2. men are rapists by nature
It is in their genes to “disseminate life”. I didn’t say they are “rapist by nature”, I said it is “strong pressure” from nature.
3. I am getting might fed up with you using the word “socialism” as some kind of intellectual hammer to hit at whatever you don’t like.
Your intellectual “games” are boring. Read the “socialism” as feminism, and other isms which led up to women in military.
Your example of PKK and Tamil Tigers is pathetic in the whole picture here. Did you here of Ghadafi body guards? I bet you do. What is it that is to prove what? You really do not understand that woman is NOT a soldier from definition, it is against her nature.
@mizgin
Well, VS, you see, the problem is that p2o2 is defending an army of barbarians. This is the way they behave by their very nature. They make no effort to evolve and become civilized.
The war is barbarious. You are a looney, a dreamer, or someone who want to see things they are not, or maybe you would like to create new man – barbarious to his foes and gallant to his comrade females – a new man sort of comrade Stalin wanted to make?
Every army is barbarious in nature. If they were not they would not fight!
You together with the Saker want to see what fits your views of the world. Drafting women to army however volontarily proves that your, my, and other nations lost their civility.
Have you ever heard about anti-civilization we live in today?
@to all readers
The Saker, intellectual giant accepts only intellectual reasons. OK.
One of the basic tenet of civil life is not to steal, rob, etc. Some say people are good but seduced by Satan. Others say man is bad and he needs a leader/master/mentor in his life. There are also voices expressing that a man is neither good nor bad. And it is up to him (free will) what path in his life he will select.
A socielty created a law to deal with those who steals. Did you ever eliminate the stealings? Will you ever achieve that? Why?
Let’s go to corruption then. Whatever was or will be said about it, it has only one foundation – state ingeration into economic processes. You will NOT erase the mechanism until you cut the bonds between state influence on economy. Create a market as free as possible (wholly free market is utopian in nature) and you will get rid of corruption (assuming 1% to 5% corruption is “acceptable” or “normal”).
The same mechanism can be applied to men and women in military uniforms. Stop enlisting women to the army and “the rapes” will stop. What will go among men be “a secret of them”. At last they knew what they could expect from such “harsh” society like “an army of men”.
And of course we should differ the two cases – a rape against civil population done by regular army and a rape against “female soldier”. Both are disgusting but one of them can be eliminated.
For me “female soldier” is oxymoron.
Regards
P.S. Let’s say I was not in military at all.
@p202: Did you become “girly men” or the women had more balls than you, “civilized soldiers”?
Well, you know, as any other socialist I am an effeminate impotent sissy with no balls at all other than the one my mother gave me to play with when I was a good obedient boy :-)
maybe you would like to create new man – barbarious to his foes and gallant to his comrade females
Not a man. A *solider*. There are plenty of tools out there (discipline, chain of command, military justice, etc. etc. etc.) which are all designed to make sure that fighting men and women are disciplined and professional soldiers and not a bunch of looting, raping murdering barbarians. BTW – most crimes during war are committed by poorly trained and poorly commanded units.
The fact that American soldiers are behaving like rampaging Mongols is not a reflection of the nature of war, but a sad reminder that the sexist violence permeating all of American society is also permeating its armed forces.
For me “female soldier” is oxymoron
Exactly. For *you*. And that makes any further discussion futile.
@p2o2: “Every army “have been raping” through all the times of human history”
I agree with that. The whole point of every soldier was to go to war, make money, get as much goodies as you allowed by your rank and get as many women as you can.
Except for the time when you fight on your own territory.
In that case the point is – to kill as many invaders as possible… then go into their own territory and then get their goodies and their women…
And yes – you have to keep killing…
Americans changed the concept of war.
When armies used to invade other countries it had been for a purpose – to get their land, money, goodies, women… So all that “kill robe and rape” thing was natural, suffering countries had expected this and tried to fight back and hopefully eventualy move into the invaders territory…
what happens now is different.
Americans invade countries not to steal and rape but to actualy help the locals.
Take for example Vietnam, or Iraq… or whatever country they’ve been to… even Japan.
The US didn’t want anything from them… not a thing. They never stole Japanese treasures or Iraqi’s oil. They even spent their own money to help these countries. The Americans just wanted these people to have better live style.
And that’s what pissing people off when they learn that some of these soldiers came in these countries with some hidden agenda…
Sure, there are just a few of the bad guys among the U.S troops.
Sure – most of them bring people peace and happyness.
But those few bastards…
And personally – I agree with p2o2 on the thought that women shouldn’t be in army… well, they look sexy in the uniform have to agree with that. But a women on the front line? With a mashinegun?
With her guts cut open? Killing mashine?
No wander they get raped. They not being taken for a woman anymore.
@p2o2: ” …would like to create new man – barbarious to his foes and gallant to his comrade females – a new man sort of comrade Stalin wanted to make?”
I’ve never heard that comrade Stalin wanted to make that sort of a soldier. Where did you learned that?
@alibi
Some over there over “Western front” want to make a “new soldier”, just like dyedushka Stalin wanted to make new Soviet Man.
Stalin failed so will do the “civilized” idiots on the West.
Thanks everybody for comments.
Best regards
“When armies used to invade other countries it had been for a purpose – to get their land, money, goodies, women… So all that “kill robe and rape” thing was natural, suffering countries had expected this and tried to fight back and hopefully eventualy move into the invaders territory…
what happens now is different.
Americans invade countries not to steal and rape but to actualy help the locals.”
alibi, I really didn’t understand your post, perhaps you are being ironic, but I will suppose you really meant it.
The US is an empire, and like all empires it invades countries for its own interest, not to “help the locals”. That is the reason you don’t see any Russian, French or Chinese oil company operating in Iraq, and that is the reason the US is pressing hard the Iraqi authorities to allow them to have permanent military bases.
But, to be sincere, the US is a quite benevolent empire. Sometimes it even helped build stable and prosperous societies, like Western Europe and Japan after WWII. But many times it just attacked, destructed and imposed dictatorships, like in Vietnam, Central America and now in Iraq.
@EVERYBODY: combat basics 101:
One of the main reasons why abuses of anyone and, in particular civilians, are absolutely crucial to avoid for any combat force is that such actions fundamentally change the dynamics within the combat force. Simply put, as soon as soldiers begin acting like crazed animals the unit discipline goes down the tubes and, even more relevantly, the relationship between the commanded and the commander changes into one of *accomplices*
Not only that, but soldiers in combat *ABSOLUTELY NEED* a sense of self-restraint and discipline to cope with the actions they are committing under orders: killing, maiming, shooting or burning other human beings. Combat always generates stress inside the combatant and unless soldiers can psychologically lean on the fact that he is acting within civilized ROE (rules of engagement) his morale begins to shatter. That, in turn, leads to the heavy use of alcohol and drugs – the last thing you want if you are commanding a unit.
To sum up: while civilized societies have developed a complex and comprehensive system which defines what is acceptable in war and what is not, the individual commander in the field will always enforce a very strict discipline upon his soldiers not so much because international law, the law of war or international humanitarian law compels him to, but because being a smart commander he realizes that the performance of his unit is at stake here.
You can have rampaging brutes, or you can have professional soldiers, but you cannot have both at the same time.
The Saker
to Carlo
Yes, I was trying to be ironic. As always it was a pathetic attempt.
you said: “Sometimes it even helped build stable and prosperous societies, like Western Europe and Japan after WWII”
That’s exactly what I meant by saying that American soldiers bring to the countries they invade peace and happiness. Look at the Japanese people. How happier they are now than they had been before August 1945.
I’m being ironic again. Another pathetic attempt.
@carlo and alibi:
Well, the real motives of the USA in WWII are far from the noble nonsense the propaganda claims they were. Here are the real objectives, I think:
1) to let the USSR do all the real fighting
2) to prevent the USSR to take over too much of Europe
3) to create a market for the USA in Europe and Asia
4) to make darn sure that Europe remains under US control (hence NATO)
5) to kick-start the US economy
I think that for the rest, the US was neither benevolent nor malevolent. It was just acting in its own interests. Look at the US war in the Philippines if you want to look at some truly amazing horrors…
Saker, I agree with you. Like I said, “The US is an empire, and like all empires it invades countries for its own interest, not to “help the locals””. But in this particular case the US interest was beneficial for Europe, at least at that time. By boosting Western Europe’s economy and helping these countries to have stable and prosperous societies, the US gained strong and rich allies in the competition against the Soviet Union. So, in some way it was good for both sides.
But since the end of the Cold War, we see that the US and European interests are divorcing: while Europe has the unique chance in its entire history of having a completely stable and peaceful continent and would benefit with a bigger cooperation with Russia, the US is interested in isolating and provoking Russia, even if this may destabilize the continent.
I really need to quit trying to sound ironic.
To Saker: I have no illusions about the U.S intensions neither during WWII, nor at present time.
I read your combat basics 101.
It’s good.
And it’s pointless for the majority of military forces in the world.
Because it’s for invaders.
There is no reason to believe that soldiers fighting on their own land will face such a problem that their I quote: “…morale begins to shatter. That, in turn, leads to the heavy use of alcohol and drugs – the last thing you want if you are commanding a unit”
Or, for instance this quote:
“One of the main reasons why abuses of anyone and, in particular civilians, are absolutely crucial to avoid for any combat force is that such actions”
I don’t see a soldier raping his own country girl when defending his own land.
I would be surprised to learn that say Dutch army would have to go through this Basics in their training. Or, any other army unless they plan to bring peace and happiness to their neibours.
During the Cold War the two empires had different military doctrines. Whilst the USSR had been taking territories around itself, it’s reason had been – to make a buffer zone so the country would be able to fend off INVADERS.
And Russia had it’s share of them.
The USSR had never had substantial means to invade the U.S. Neither by sea not by air. And in fact it never attemped to do anything to change that.
There was Never any reason for the USA to believe that the USSR was planning or was able to invade America.
If you will try to compare that to what the USA had in hand and what it’s doctrine was you may even call the USA “born invaders”
And invaders for sure have to watch their army morale.
I guess we can say that rape is an issue in an invaders army. Maybe if the States will change their military doctrine thei may forget about combat basic 101.
alibi, “combat basics 101” (as quoted by Saker) applies not only to invaders. Look at the First Chechen War (1994-1996): the Russians had a good reason for that war (keep the territorial integrity of their country and fight terrorism, lawlessness and fanatism in the Caucasus), and nevertheless, due to a very bad command (in fact, almost inexistent), there were a lot of abuses, executions, rapes and lootings.
The Second Chechen War, as far as I know, was much different, and the Russian army was much more efficient. The South Ossetian war was even cleaner, and Georgian claims of lootings and mass-murders by the Russian army can be surely dismissed as propaganda. At last the Russian army turned from unprepared conscripts who sinked in crimes and alcohol into a functional force.
To Carlo
Russian army WAS an army of invaders in Chechnya.
I want to make it clear though – I support Putin’s position and action on the problem at that time.
It’s a really deep and complicated problem to touch it in this post.
But the point I want to make – the Russians were and behaived like invaders in Chechnya.
@carlo and alibi: I don’t think that issue of discipline is specific to invading or defending countries. First and foremost a combat unit is a tool which is designed to achieve a specific purpose. The chain of command and discipline inside this tool are ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL for this tool to be able to function.
Military units range from hordes of pissed off and stressed conscripts to highly professional units in which at least two college degrees are required as a prerequisite before an application to join such a unit is even considered. Now, on the broad spectrum you can find all sorts of nuances but by and large history has shown that the number of crimes and atrocities committed by a unit is inversely proportional to its effectiveness *except* when such crimes and atrocities are committed under orders (which, as we all know, happens).
Even an invading force which allows rapes, murders and tortures to take place will suffer from a gradual collapse of discipline and, therefore, of combat readiness.
This does not mean that rampaging brutes cannot eventually win. They can. But they will win by their sheer numbers or technological superiority and not by their combat skills.
In other words, unless you have a huge superiority over your enemy you are better of maintaining the harshest discipline in your own forces as this discipline is main thing differentiating a real military unit from an armed mob.
One more thing about the issue of women. An armed mob of thugs with guns might think that women don’t belong to the military and have ideas about raping them. A professional solider might ALSO think that women have no business being in the military, but being the professional solider that he is he is not going to let these feelings get in the way of him doing his job properly.
A guy who feels compelled to rape “kuz war is war, men are men, and women have no business in the military” is just a dumb brute who belongs in some construction battalion (maybe) but not somebody you want to send into combat. A real soldier cares about his mission and his comrades (male or female) above and beyond anything else and he prides himself on his sense of honor and professionalism.
Saker – I like your last post. And I kind of even like the soldiers that you’ve described. These are good soldiers. And your’s is a good army. Can you tell us where can a nation get an army like that?
udachy.
Well, there is at least one practical reason to leave women at home when a nation goes to war: repopulation. What would have happened to Russia or Germany if 10 million child-bearing age Russian or German women were casualties? These countries would be mere shells of their former selves.
@alibi: Can you tell us where can a nation get an army like that?
I think that you will find that most elite forces are already like that. Now, by “elite” I don’t mean guys eating snakes with big knives, bandannas and big guns, I mean the kind of guys for whose training the state has spend plenty of money and who are called in for high value operations. But fundamentally, this is a cultural thing, a matter of social acceptance. In some societies soldiers (and cops) are just one of the bigger gangs out there, while in other they are highly respected and honored. The so-called “prestige of the uniform” is not earned by rape and pillage, I think.
@anonymous: “What would have happened to Russia or Germany if 10 million child-bearing age Russian or German women were casualties? These countries would be mere shells of their former selves”
Well, to be honest I don’t know how many out of 20 000 000 Russian CIVILIANS killed by the Germans were women of a child bearing age.
Saker. What if we all had lawers who would be interested in justice? Or, say – polititians who would be HONESTLY interested in their countries’ best interests… Or, say – cops who would be… well – serving and protecting.
Armies are just reflections of what’s happening in societies.
Elite forces are not armies.
Elites are not what the nations are.
Tey are ELITES.
Armies are drafted out of nations.
Nations consist out of people.
People are not elite.
@alibi: pragmatically you are absolutely right. I concede that. However, I would think that any military worth its monies would at least *aim* at being as close to what we, in this conversation, are calling “elites”.
Also, as I said in my original post, quantitative differences eventually turn into qualitative ones. The orgy of abuse and rapes of the US military is truly mind boggling and without comparison.
Take a look at this article:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/04/10786
In particular, note these two absolutely incredible figures:
1) Lt. Gen. Rochelle, the Army chief of personnel, reported the little known statistic that 12 percent of reported rapes in the military are of male military personnel.
2) young men find out that one in 10 men is raped while in the military
This is not even about women anymore, this is about MEN!!!
(so much for p202’s argument that the problem is the nature of real macho men, their drives and women in uniforms).
Can you imagine such figures in any other major miltiary? This all makes the Soviet dedovshchina look like a fairly civilized way of dealing with recruits, does it not, considering in particular that the US military is 100% PROFESSIONAL (at least in terms of salary, if not in terms of professionalism).
Look – the USA is one badly fucked-up society which generates a badly fucked-up military.
My admittedly subjective opinion.
And when I see the idiotic “we support our troops” sticker I always want to ask these guys a simple question: “why?”
@Saker: “Lt. Gen. Rochelle, the Army chief of personnel, reported the little known statistic that 12 percent of reported rapes in the military are of male military personnelI”
I really think that there are two different worlds there…
But I don’t get it. You can’t call a boy a soldier when a boy gets raped… and not even by the enemes… but by his own mates…
You can’t even call a boy a boy… I guess.
I don’t know… I just don’t get it. I guess – it’s bad for America and is good for the rest of the world.
There is no way the army where the male soldiers get raped by their mates on a regular basis can be a threat to anybody. And that’s a good news.
I guess.
@I really think that there are two different worlds there
Exactly. this is mind boggling and this is a different world indeed.
There is no way the army where the male soldiers get raped by their mates on a regular basis can be a threat to anybody
Except to civilians and prisoners, alas.
[P2O2] “You really do not understand that woman is NOT a soldier from definition, it is against her nature.”
“In May 1942, Lieutenant Pavlichenko was cited by the Southern Army Council for killing 257 German soldiers. Her total confirmed kills during World War II was 309, including 36 enemy snipers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
Soviet military records from World War II contain evidence that women can be as effective front-line soldiers as men, reports Anna Krylova, assistant professor of history at Duke University, Durham, N.C. […] Krylova, who grew up in Moscow, declares that 800,000 women served in the Soviet military during WWII, 350,000 of them in combat. According to USSR records and memoirs written by men and women, females between the ages of 17-27 turned out to be quick learners in the martial arts and became effective as bomber and fighter pilots, snipers, machine-gunners, anti-aircraft fighters, and combat engineers, as well as platoon and company commanders.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_/ai_n27094641
Women in the USSR’s airforce, WW2:
http://mysite.pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm
N Vietnamese female engineer:
[note] “VN:I don’t ask this to embarrass you, but were the female soldiers bothered by the male soldiers? Phuong:No. We had very strict army rules about that, so I was very safe in the group.”
http://www.historynet.com/interviews-with-a-top-north-vietnam-army-general-and-two-former-soldiers.htm/3
“Israeli female soldiers performed better than male soldiers in the evacuation of settlers from the Gaza Strip in August, according to a study carried out by the army.”
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137334441.html
… in other words, evidently P2O2 really does not understand what women are capable of, and his immense chauvanism is only matched by his immense ignorance of what women have accomplished in war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Bruno: “… in other words, evidently P2O2 really does not understand what women are capable of, and his immense chauvanism is only matched by his immense ignorance of what women have accomplished in war”
I, personally against women in the army. Even though I like the way they wear their uniform.
I have nothing against them being on a battlefield though.
Partly, because I realise what women are capable of. Partly, because of what their appearance on a battlefield can do to their comrades.
But, I don’t mind women on a front line when they do what to my understanding is natural for them -give care.
Of course it’s chauvinistic to think of women as doctors and nurses rather than as killing mashines. I understand that.
Of course – women are capable of killing. And like in every other department some of them are much better than some of men.
But, I don’t want them to be good at killing people. I, being a chauvinist, even don’t want them fight in a boxing ring, or weghtlift.
In case of the the Soviet women who were fighting the Germans – it was a war for their Fatherland. Actualy – it was a war for their very own existence. And for existence of everything what they cared about. At least – that was wat they thought. That was the time when – “it’s either you or them” I’m sure you know what the Germans brought with them. A war where army was used directly to kill civilians by millions.
The women just didn’t have a choice. They were FORCED to kill to survive. And, I have my doubts to think that they were very happy women.
And here, we’re talking about the armies where women VOLUNTARILY go to fight and kill.
[alibi] “In case of the the Soviet women who were fighting the Germans – it was a war for their Fatherland. “
Actually Russians refer to Russia as the Motherland, and Mother Russia. Our thoughts construct our reality … ;)
[alibi] “The women just didn’t have a choice. They were FORCED to kill to survive. And, I have my doubts to think that they were very happy women.”
I doubt anybody is very happy in war.
But the fact remains that woman can fight and often do fight as well as their male counterparts. Particularly nowadays when sheer physical strength isn’t that important anymore. Most women don’t realise the power they have; I wish they would. I’m tired of the patriarchal condescension that puts women (or men, btw) in a box and keeps them there.
P2O2 seems to be a prime example of this.
My 2 cents.
@Bruno: “Actually Russians refer to Russia as the Motherland, and Mother Russia. Our thoughts construct our reality … ;)”
Well, in Russia, when they say “Mother Russia” – that means that they are in a lyrical mood. But when they say “Fatherland” – that would mean pride, responsibility, defence…
“…But the fact remains that woman can fight and often do fight as well as their male counterparts…”
I agree, and that’s what saddens me.
@Bruno: I’m tired of the patriarchal condescension that puts women (or men, btw) in a box and keeps them there
Amen to that! I fully agree here.
As for what Russians say, there is a choice, really:
Родина: Motherland
Отчизна: Fatherland (feminine gender)
Матушка Россия/Русь: Mother Russia
Отечество: Fatherland (masculine gender)
Cheers!
VS
Thanks.
Have a look at these photos of Russian military women
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1907#comments