U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

Bodi · Mar 14, 2012

Grant said:
It's a bureaucratic effort to make it appear something is being done, and in a democratic manner.. Israel is far more effective and efficient with their airport security.

Oh... right. I agree with that. I wasn't looking at the bigger picture.

It's about time Muslims in other countries began doing something about the problems in "the Muslim world', as Barrack Obama calls it, and Americans should look after themselves.

Agreed. Long overdue...

Catawba · Mar 14, 2012

Stormageddon said:
Again your articles do not state who the perpetrators were. :roll:

Who invaded and occupied Iraq? The violent death count is above the background number of violent deaths before our war on Iraq.

Why the **** do you think they wanted our ass out of there so bad?

It was exactly like in Vietnam, even the people we were there supposedly "helping" decided we were worse than their former oppressors.

Grant · Mar 14, 2012

Catawba said:
Who invaded and occupied Iraq? The violent death count is above the background number of violent deaths before our war on Iraq.

You're not the first leftist to support a dictatorship, even as one as murderous and dangerous as Saddam Hussein, and won't be the last. But even given that the Coalition invaded Iraq, can you explain why Muslims should be murdering other Muslims in response?

Why the **** do you think they wanted our ass out of there so bad?

perhaps you can explain why there are Muslims who are so dead set against democracy that they would murder their own people to get rid of it.

It was exactly like in Vietnam, even the people we were there supposedly "helping" decided we were worse than their former oppressors.

You apparently know little of Iraq. It's not a good time to spread your wings for Vietnam.

You've not heard of the Boat People either, I suppose.

Catawba · Mar 14, 2012

Grant said:
You're not the first leftist to support a dictatorship, even as one as murderous and dangerous as Saddam Hussein, and won't be the last. But even given that the Coalition invaded Iraq, can you explain why Muslims should be murdering other Muslims in response?

perhaps you can explain why there are Muslims who are so dead set against democracy that they would murder their own people to get rid of it.

Most of the suicide bombers were Saudi, just like the ones that attacked us on 9/11.

I don't support dictatorships, but Ronnie Reagan sure did. If fact he and Rumsfeld supported Saddam when he was at his murderous worst. He even got Iraq removed from the Terrorists Nations listing.

You apparently know little of Iraq. It's not a good time to spread your wings for Vietnam.

"Apparently" I know more than you.

You've not heard of the Boat People either, I suppose.

Yes I have, and I am also aware that we killed somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million people in Vietnam, and to what ends? We have been trading partners with communist Vietnam now for decades?

Bodi · Mar 14, 2012

Catawba said:
It was exactly like in Vietnam, even the people we were there supposedly "helping" decided we were worse than their former oppressors.

That is obviously ridiculous. We never had firm rule in either country... That Japanese and Germans certainly liked the rule of law that we established in their nations after we destroyed them. The problem is Political Correctness and how we fight wars and not how well we get along with the people. You never cease to amaze me.

Catawba · Mar 14, 2012

Bodhisattva said:
That is obviously ridiculous. We never had firm rule in either country... That Japanese and Germans certainly liked the rule of law that we established in their nations after we destroyed them. The problem is Political Correctness and how we fight wars and not how well we get along with the people. You never cease to amaze me.

Evidently, its not necessary for us to have "firm rule" to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Japan actually attacked us and Germany was invading other countries, not the case with Iraq following the Persian Gulf war.

If you treat the people like ****, bomb their countryside and kill their civilians then you end up like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the people we are supposedly "helping" decide we are worse than what they had before, and therefore we lose their support and must pack our bags and leave with tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and a huge national debt. You would have thought we would have learned this by now.

ecofarm · Mar 15, 2012

Catawba said:
It matters little to a dead civilian or his family if he was targeted or killed inadvertently to establish US hegemony.

Actually, I think it does matter. It makes a difference if the child is accidentally killed in an operation to kill someone who would otherwise torture and kill hundreds, or if the child was targeted by ones own government. Afghans and Iraqis are not imbeciles. They understand why and how things happen, perhaps more so than you. I find it odd that you routinely presume that people in the mideast are totally incapable of understanding context... like they're some kind of morons and cannot distinguish between collateral damage and being genocided by their own government.

Comparing the US support operations (you compared it to S. Vietnam) in Iraq to a genocidal dictator is absurd. Let's ask the Kurds or March Arabs who was worse.

That country went from a most backwards hellhole of UN sanctions to an internationally supported democracy. In 20 years when it's on the brink of the developed world, you will still be claiming that the war was a mistake and Saddam would have made Iraq a superpower by then.

What the point? You have an entrenched (and I think delusional, in avoiding counter-evidence) viewpoint about most US wars. It seems you have no problem with other militaristic violence, but when it comes to the US acting so - it is most often 100% bad bad bad worst horrible. You refuse to recognize any positive results from the war, and even claim that the US support was worse than genocidal dictatorship. There's really no where for us to go.

Back on topic, do you still support a dishonorable discharge for these marines?

Grant · Mar 15, 2012

Catawba said:
Most of the suicide bombers were Saudi, just like the ones that attacked us on 9/11.

Most of them were Saudis but all of them were Muslims.

I don't support dictatorships, but Ronnie Reagan sure did.

Unless you were for the invasion of Iraq you certainly do.

If fact he and Rumsfeld supported Saddam when he was at his murderous worst. He even got Iraq removed from the Terrorists Nations listing.

It was a choice of Iran or Iraq at time and Saddam was the better of the two then. Familiarize yourself with the history.

Yes I have, and I am also aware that we killed somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million people in Vietnam, and to what ends?

You are not aware of any numbers because they were often inflated for propaganda purposes. You also seem unaware of "the first casualty of war" and will believe anything you're told, so long as it is anti American, of course.

TheNextEra · Mar 15, 2012

Grant said:
It was a choice of Iran or Iraq at time and Saddam was the better of the two then. Familiarize yourself with the history.

Those were the ONLY choices? I think not, how bout not supporting EITHER of them?

Amazing your hero worship of Reagan for supporting a dictator. I forgot the Conservative rule, though shall not speak ill of Reagan in ANY manner.

BTW, the independent label isn't fooling anyone. We know you're no Independent, you're just embarrased to call yourself a conservative.

Grant · Mar 15, 2012

TheNextEra said:
Those were the ONLY choices? I think not, how bout not supporting EITHER of them?

That was quite impossible during the Cold War and a war in the Middle East as well. Ignoring these situations have been tried but without much success.

Amazing your hero worship of Reagan for supporting a dictator.

Hero worship of Reagan? Where did you see that? You know the rules.. Leftsits must always use quotes.

I forgot the Conservative rule, though shall not speak ill of Reagan in ANY manner.

Why tell me this? Do you think I care?

BTW, the independent label isn't fooling anyone. We know you're no Independent, you're just embarrased to call yourself a conservative.

Can you stick to the topic at hand rather than running all over the place?

TheNextEra · Mar 15, 2012

Grant said:
That was quite impossible during the Cold War and a war in the Middle East as well. Ignoring these situations have been tried but without much success.

So your solution is to support dictators. Got it. Thank you for clearing that up.

Grant said:
Hero worship of Reagan? Where did you see that? You know the rules.. Leftsits must always use quotes.

Oh it's quite obvious because you are supporting the fact the U.S. supports dictators like your hero Reagan did.

Grant said:
Why tell me this? Do you think I care?

Because you are a conservative and Reagan is your hero.

Grant said:
Can you stick to the topic at hand rather than running all over the place?

Sorry I forgot, you are only able to concentrate on one thing at a time. I have got to remember that when talking to conservatives.

ecofarm · Mar 15, 2012

"Slightly Liberal"? That post appears to be whole-hog, in the pit, conservative hating extremism. Just sayin'

Catawba · Mar 15, 2012

ecofarm said:
Actually, I think it does matter. It makes a difference if the child is accidentally killed in an operation to kill someone who would otherwise torture and kill hundreds, or if the child was targeted by ones own government. Afghans and Iraqis are not imbeciles. They understand why and how things happen, perhaps more so than you. I find it odd that you routinely presume that people in the mideast are totally incapable of understanding context... like they're some kind of morons and cannot distinguish between collateral damage and being genocided by their own government.

No one on the planet kills more innocent civilians in modern history than the US. You have been barking up the wrong tree!

Comparing the US support operations (you compared it to S. Vietnam) in Iraq to a genocidal dictator is absurd. Let's ask the Kurds or March Arabs who was worse.

The Iraqis made it quite clear when they kicked our ass out of their country that they didn't want us there.

That country went from a most backwards hellhole of UN sanctions to an internationally supported democracy. In 20 years when it's on the brink of the developed world, you will still be claiming that the war was a mistake and Saddam would have made Iraq a superpower by then.

I simply must get me a pair of your industrhial strength rose colored glasses that enable you to see the new corrupt government as better than the old corrupt government.

Back on topic, do you still support a dishonorable discharge for these marines?

Yes, as much public humiliation as possible for their shameful deeds.

Catawba · Mar 15, 2012

Grant said:
Most of them were Saudis but all of them were Muslims.

When have we attacked Saudi Arabia???? I must have missed that war.

Unless you were for the invasion of Iraq you certainly do.

I don't support going around the world and telling other countries they should run their countries like we do, at the end of a gun.

We need to get our own house in order.

It was a choice of Iran or Iraq at time and Saddam was the better of the two then. Familiarize yourself with the history.

Neither were a military threat to the US, you evidently place way more value on middle east oil than you do on US lives.

I don't!

Grant · Mar 15, 2012

Catawba said:
When have we attacked Saudi Arabia???? I must have missed that war.

And this is in reference to what??? Are you certain you're responding to the right post?

I don't support going around the world and telling other countries they should run their countries like we do, at the end of a gun.

It doesn't matter what you support. Dictatorships, and theocracies, must be stopped from murdering their own people, or their neighbors. Luckily for the rest of the free world the Americans have been doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't blame them for wanting to change all of this.

We need to get our own house in order.

Sure, the debt and border and drug problems must be dealt with seriously or those hoped for entitlements will be jeopardized.

Neither were a military threat to the US, you evidently place way more value on middle east oil than you do on US lives.

I don't!

They were certainly a threat to American Allies, and Americans had been attacked several times as well. If the dictatorships can stick together then it makes some sense for the democracies to do the same. I never mentioned Middle East oil. You're confusing your posts again.

Catawba · Mar 15, 2012

Grant said:
And this is in reference to what??? Are you certain you're responding to the right post?

This:

Originally Posted by Grant
Most of them were Saudis but all of them were Muslims.

It doesn't matter what you support. Dictatorships, and theocracies, must be stopped from murdering their own people, or their neighbors.

Than why were we supporting them under Reagan, when they were at their murderous worst?

Luckily for the rest of the free world the Americans have been doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't blame them for wanting to change all of this.

Unless you plan on bankrupting the country, we can no longer afford our military hegemony of the world.

Sure, the debt and border and drug problems must be dealt with seriously or those hoped for entitlements will be jeopardized.

Our consider our people to be our most valuable resource.

They were certainly a threat to American Allies, and Americans had been attacked several times as well. If the dictatorships can stick together then it makes some sense for the democracies to do the same. I never mentioned Middle East oil. You're confusing your posts again.

The Iraq war was about changing the oil law in Iraq. Iraq after the Persian Gulf war was of no military threat to the US or its neighbors.

Grant · Mar 15, 2012

Catawba said:
This:

And from that you got "When have we attacked Saudi Arabia???? I must have missed that war"??

I never even mentioned Saudi Arabia! Never mentioned attacked it.

You seem to be living in some alternative reality.

Bodi · Mar 15, 2012

Catawba said:
Evidently, its not necessary for us to have "firm rule" to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Japan actually attacked us and Germany was invading other countries, not the case with Iraq following the Persian Gulf war.

If you treat the people like ****, bomb their countryside and kill their civilians then you end up like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the people we are supposedly "helping" decide we are worse than what they had before, and therefore we lose their support and must pack our bags and leave with tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and a huge national debt. You would have thought we would have learned this by now.

The point is not who attacked who but when and why we go to war. We could have sat back and done nothing in WWII as well as Korea, Vietnam and Iraq but we did. We did and we won. We won because we utterly destroyed them. After that we built them up and are friends and trading partners. Political Correctness has ruined our militaries chances for true success and it ultimately allows people to sit bac, play arm chair quarterback and bitch about American foreign policy.

ecofarm · Mar 16, 2012

Catawba said:
No one on the planet kills more innocent civilians in modern history than the US. You have been barking up the wrong tree!

You don't seem to get the point. Equating collateral damage and terrorism is stupid. It's not about how many, but why. Terrorism, extremism and totalitarianism are responsible for killing (and oppressing) more than anyone.

The Iraqis made it quite clear when they kicked our ass out of their country that they didn't want us there.

Oh, please. We still have units and personel there. They wanted control of their own internal security, and it seems they were ready to do so. We were only too happy to give them the driver's seat. From the beginning, the plan was to hand over security as soon as the new (democratic) government could handle it. You act like this was some out-of-the-blue condemnation of the US. Your perspective is delusional.

I simply must get me a pair of your industrhial strength rose colored glasses that enable you to see the new corrupt government as better than the old corrupt government.

You think the new government is the same as genocidal dictatorship? Well, let's look at things that are no longer legal in Iraq (as a result of the new government): Note: All of these were State-Sanctioned: genocide, mass torture, FGM, honor killings, rape rooms, mass murder, violation of UNSC resolutions, mass child starvation from selling oil-for-food, the use of chemical weapons against civilians, women being denied voting and education rights... The list goes on and on, but you just keep on pretending that a new democracy is the same thing as genocidal dictatorship.

Yes, as much public humiliation as possible for their shameful deeds.

A dishonorable and maximum public humiliation for pissing on a couple corpses? That is disconnected. What would other dishonorables even mean if we handed them out for school-yard BS. Your method would basically make a dishonorable the same as a general, since any (harmless!) dumb crap could result in one.

Seriously, Cata, you don't see the difference between collateral damage and terrorism - or the difference between democracy and genocidal dictatorship. I'm starting to think there's no point in bothering with such insanity.

I'd like to ask, are you Muslim? I find it strange that you support violence by Hamas but condemn US liberation.

Catawba · Mar 16, 2012

Grant said:
And from that you got "When have we attacked Saudi Arabia???? I must have missed that war"??

Originally Posted by Grant
Most of them were Saudis but all of them were Muslims.

What does that mean then? You are not interested in the Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 911 and were the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq.

You are just interested in the non-Saudi terrorists???

Catawba · Mar 16, 2012

Bodhisattva said:
The point is not who attacked who but when and why we go to war.

You favor going to war with countries that are of no military threat to us and don't have the capability to attack their neighbors???

We could have sat back and done nothing in WWII as well as Korea, Vietnam and Iraq but we did. We did and we won.

What did we win in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq?

We won because we utterly destroyed them.

LOL? So you think we defeated communism in Asia do you!!! And how long do you think it will be before the Iraqis topple the corrupt house of cards we built in Iraq??? :lamo

Catawba · Mar 16, 2012

ecofarm said:
You don't seem to get the point. Equating collateral damage and terrorism is stupid.

I consider collateral damage in a war for world hegemony to be terrorism, we just kill from further away with more sophisticated weapons.
To me, sacrificing human lives for oil to be more morally reprehensible than killing for revenge, or in defending your country from foreign invaders.

It's not about how many, but why. Terrorism, extremism and totalitarianism are responsible for killing (and oppressing) more than anyone.

You prefer killing for hegemony?

Oh, please. We still have units and personel there.

There are no US troops in Iraq. I know McCain want troops stationed there indefinitely like in Korea and Japan. That's why we elected the other guy.

You think the new government is the same as genocidal dictatorship? Well, let's look at things that are no longer legal in Iraq (as a result of the new government): Note: All of these were State-Sanctioned: genocide, mass torture, FGM, honor killings, rape rooms, mass murder, violation of UNSC resolutions, mass child starvation from selling oil-for-food, the use of chemical weapons against civilians, women being denied voting and education rights... The list goes on and on, but you just keep on pretending that a new democracy is the same thing as genocidal dictatorship.

You list the things that Iraq was doing when we were their ally. Hell, our companies even provided the precursor Saddam needed to make the mustard gas he used not only on Iran but on his own people. When we invaded, Saddam was little more than a fat old man with a shotgun.

And look what we replaced him with: Iraqi democracy crippled by widespread corruption

A dishonorable and maximum public humiliation for pissing on a couple corpses? That is disconnected. What would other dishonorables even mean if we handed them out for school-yard BS. Your method would basically make a dishonorable the same as a general, since any (harmless!) dumb crap could result in one.

Damn straight, especially for the non-commissioned officer that was one of the perps.

Seriously, Cata, you don't see the difference between collateral damage and terrorism - or the difference between democracy and genocidal dictatorship. I'm starting to think there's no point in bothering with such insanity.

Seriously Ecof, you think sacrificing civilians to make Iraq free for big oil's return is not immoral???

I'd like to ask, are you Muslim? I find it strange that you support violence by Hamas but condemn US liberation.

I'd like to ask if you are lacking morals? I have never condoned killing civilians. no matter what flag its done under, and don't understand those that draw a distinction that its ok for one side but not the other side.

"Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore!" - John Prine

ecofarm · Mar 16, 2012

Catawba said:
You are just interested in the non-Saudi terrorists???

Yes. I'm sure that's it. He's only interested in terrorists that are NOT Saudi.

It's like you never try to figure anything out.

don't understand those that draw a distinction that its ok for one side but not the other side.

It's not about the side, but everything contextual. You need to stop thinking in sides and start thinking critically. It's really pretty fkd up that you can't see the difference between collateral damage and terrorism.

And I've seen you like a post that claims "only by exercising military options" can Hamas bring Israel to the peace table, so spare me the consistency BS.

Catawba · Mar 16, 2012

ecofarm said:
Yes. I'm sure that's it. He's only interested in terrorists that are NOT Saudi.

It's like you never try to figure anything out.

How did you figure out Saudi terrorists are cool?

It's not about the side, but everything contextual. You need to stop thinking in sides and start thinking critically. It's really pretty fkd up that you can't see the difference between collateral damage and terrorism.

Tens of thousands of civilians killed for middle east oil hegemony is terrorism to those with morals.

Y

Bodi · Mar 18, 2012

Catawba said:
You favor going to war with countries that are of no military threat to us and don't have the capability to attack their neighbors???

I don't favor the wars in Vietnam or Iraq. The rest? Yes. And PC thugs have hindered our military...

LOL? So you think we defeated communism in Asia do you!!! And how long do you think it will be before the Iraqis topple the corrupt house of cards we built in Iraq??? :lamo

I didn't write that well... I meant we utterly destroyed them in WWII.

U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

Just waiting for my set...

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Just waiting for my set...

Disappointed Evolutionist

global liberation

global liberation

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Just waiting for my set...

global liberation

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

global liberation

Disappointed Evolutionist

Just waiting for my set...