• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

A question I posed earlier, that to my knowledge has not been answered, was if your mother was fighting in Afghan and died, would you be ok with them posing her dead body and taking pictures to show it off for their buddies amusement?
 
Undefined enemies? Our troops are fighting insurgents, whether a part of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. If our soldiers aren't fighting enemy combatants, what are they doing there?
You have family members there, and you don't know what their mission is? It is to defeat AQ. How many AQ are left in Afghanistan? Less than 100...supposedly.

But that's all irrelevant to the point. Our soldiers are fighting people who kill, torture, and dismember them. I can understand and sympathize with those soldiers who decide to have justice for their fallen comrades, regardless of what the higher-ups in clean suits think. War is hell, and bad things happen.
It is irrelevant what the objective is? Is that really what you think? The point is that we have lost sight of what the objective is. We cannot stop the Taliban, I doubt the Afghan forces can defend themselves, and this quagmire has become a pointless exercise. If you think the troops are justified in sinking to this level of undisciplined conduct, then you don't have really any rationale for supporting this continuing folly.
 
Last edited:
You believe their goal was to kill themselves? You do not understand the enemy.

Dude, you missed the context so badly, your only purpose is to spout your rhetoric. You are falling into the same hole as others here, you want our rules of war to recede to the level of the enemy.

Try figuring out what I was talking about if you really want a debate with me.

Lets go.....lets see what you have

We nuked 150,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Burned them all to ****. All, without an apology.
 
Yet you seem to refuse to clarify your "troubles."

That's pretty unclear.

I am an American, who believes strongly in American values.....which does NOT include taking happy pictures next to the dismembered bodies of our enemies.

clear enuff for ya?
 
Lets go.....lets see what you have

We nuked 150,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Burned them all to ****. All, without an apology.
Yeah, I remember that same rhetoric from 2001. Not only do you not understand the deployment of enemy forces, you don't understand the concept of "war crimes".

But hey, again....you got to go totally off context and used it to once again display your messed up rhetoric. You probably consider that a good job.
 
You have family members there, and you don't know what their mission is? It is to defeat AQ. How many AQ are left in Afghanistan? Less than 100...supposedly.

It is irrelevant what the objective is? Is that really what you think? The point is that we have lost sight of what the objective is. We cannot stop the Taliban, I doubt the Afghan forces can defend themselves, and this quagmire has become a pointless exercise. If you think the troops are justified in sinking to this level of undisciplined conduct, then you don't have really any rationale for supporting this continuing folly.

That is a bit different from what I said. You stated this was an undefined war with undefined enemies, and that we aren't even fighting enemy combatants. So, if we're not even fighting enemy combatants, and we supposedly don't even know why we're there, then why are we there? Shouldn't we know who the enemy is when our soldiers go to fight in another land?

I'm not talking about the objective, but the fact that our soldiers are fighting insurgents connected to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If you look closely at my posts, you'd know I haven't said they're justified, or right in doing what they did. Merely, it's understandable, and I can sympathize with their reasoning.
 
Yeah, I remember that same rhetoric from 2001. Not only do you not understand the deployment of enemy forces, you don't understand the concept of "war crimes".

But hey, again....you got to go totally off context and used it to once again display your messed up rhetoric. You probably consider that a good job.

Show me what you have....

Desecration of bodies...is that your bull**** argument?
 
A question I posed earlier, that to my knowledge has not been answered, was if your mother was fighting in Afghan and died, would you be ok with them posing her dead body and taking pictures to show it off for their buddies amusement?

You confuse right, wrong...immoral, moral....

Tell me, what law is being broken there exactly? Posing with limbs of some dead mother
 
Wrong.arrogance leads to blindness.

If you would clarify your UN statements and show exactly how it relates to this topic, it'd undoubtedly be appreciated.
 
You confuse right, wrong...immoral, moral....

Tell me, what law is being broken there exactly? Posing with limbs of some dead mother

The question is for those who are ok with US military members doing it. I want to know if they would be ok with the opposition doing it to our dead, especially if they dead was one of their family members.

I am not sure what laws are being broken but some clearly are if these guys are facing charges.
 
That is a bit different from what I said. You stated this was an undefined war with undefined enemies, and that we aren't even fighting enemy combatants. So, if we're not even fighting enemy combatants, and we supposedly don't even know why we're there, then why are we there? Shouldn't we know who the enemy is when our soldiers go to fight in another land?
I just told you what the official mission is, to defeat AQ. Again, how many AQ are left in Afghanistan?

I'm not talking about the objective, but the fact that our soldiers are fighting insurgents connected to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If you look closely at my posts, you'd know I haven't said they're justified, or right in doing what they did. Merely, it's understandable, and I can sympathize with their reasoning.
It is not reasoning, it is an irrational reaction to an increasingly undefined mission. It is a symptom of undisciplined leadership as the report shows.
 
don't be coy, what are you REALLY trying to say?
Coy?assuming u know what I think it's arrogance.in war propaganda is employed by both sides to a very high level.the united nations is one of those sides. what they put out as info is propaganda .research.
 
The question is for those who are ok with US military members doing it. I want to know if they would be ok with the opposition doing it to our dead, especially if they dead was one of their family members.

I am not sure what laws are being broken but some clearly are if these guys are facing charges.

Taliban begins killing EMT/medics, we can now begin killing their bearded toweled medics...Is that ok?
 
In my view, the U.S. Military needs to take much tougher action against those who engage in such conduct. Such unprofessional conduct has broad ramifications for the national interest (U.S. reputation, foreign relations, etc.). The firmness of the response should be consistent with the damage such conduct causes to the nation as a whole. In an age of intensive and almost instantaneous access to information, these incidents have far more opportunity to cause damage to the national interest than in the past when fewer people would gain access to information concerning what happened.

Right now, I suspect that the measures taken against the individuals responsible for such conduct are overly accommodating. Hence, episodes of such behavior have occurred on repeated occasions, not to the point where such behavior is commonplace but beyond the point where it can be described as isolated or rare. A good starting point might be immediate dishonorable discharge and loss of any pension/health benefits that one might otherwise have accrued from one's military service if one is found to have engaged in such conduct.

Clearly, a counterargument would be that the soldiers are young, they were acting impulsively without thinking, etc. Unfortunately, the nature of their job requires professional conduct at all times. Their unprofessional behavior inflicts or has the potential to inflict serious damage to the national interest, not to mention the reputation of the U.S. Military and its personnel, the overwhelming majority of whome are highly professional. In the broader context, soldiers serve to safeguard the national interest, not to damage it. The national interest takes priority. Therefore, it should take priority when it comes to disciplinary considerations.
 
Last edited:
Taliban begins killing EMT/medics, we can now begin killing their bearded toweled medics...Is that ok?

Just because others commit war crimes does not mean that the U.S. should engage in the commission of war crimes, otherwise the U.S. would lose the ability to distinguish itself from those who actively commit or rationalize the commission of war crimes.
 
You are right. Or perhaps you are not as liberal as you think ;)

I USED to state "slightly conservative" in my lean. But that was before the "conservatives" on this board started acting bat**** crazy and became to embarassing to stand with. The whacko liberals here aren't too much different.
 
You don't have the authority to judge these men. Only a courts martial, convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice has that authority. They will be judged by a jury of their peers...which you are light years from being. :rofl

You keep this **** up and I might start to like you.
 
Indeed, I thought we had more honor & decency than the terrorists & murderers.

We could be crapping on the remains and stilll have more decency and honor than the terrorists.
 
obviously. his son has been serving in that military for almost twenty years [/s]

what some find objectionable is that he dares voice criticism where criticism is very much due. such as that photograph

did we learn nothing from that tragedy called vietnam? we won every major battle - but lost the war. we do not win the hearts and minds of a people when we perpetrate a my lai upon them. neither do we win their support when we exhibit disrespect as is found in that photo

those actions did nothing to quell the prospect that yet another resident will come to feel so ardently opposed to us that they would willingly give their life to take ours away. how does that outcome make us safer? how does motivating future suicide bombers advance our mission?

I have no problem with him finding it objectionable. I find it objectionable. What I have a problem with is his hope for a maximum punishment for what amounts to hijinks.
 
Back
Top Bottom