• 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]

So you believe life was better for them under the Taliban?


j-mac

Why would what he believes matter? What happens to any country is and should be up to the people of that country. Remember, true believers of communism argue much as our true believers do. I prefer to leave it up to the people of those countries.
 
So you believe life was better for them under the Taliban?

It doesn't matter what I think or what you think, it matters what the Afghan's think. Too bad we didn't learn that lesson in Vietnam or Iraq.
 
Which country has shucked Democracy and returned to dictatorship? Why can't you just answer a question?

Edit: btw, Vietnam, South Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan are all democracies.

Which of those ever had a functioning democracy in the first place? You have not made that case.

Here's another question: When was the last time that two Democratic countries went to war with each other?


The US, a democracy, is the most war mongering country in recent history. We go to war to establish world hegemony. When is the last time we fought a war to defend against invaders, the 1800's?
 
In all of our recent wars, we have attacked dictatorships only when ultimately forced to do so.

You have a short memory, who forced us to invade Iraq?
 
Anytime I hear something like this I just shrug. I know people that have been over there that have done far worse. Like burn a old womans house down while she was still in it and shoot her in the knees when she came running out worse.
 
You have a short memory, who forced us to invade Iraq?

Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.

Hussein had previously possessed and used chemical and biological weapons.

He kicked out inspectors and refused to allow the UN to complete their inspections and verify that his NBC program and materials had been destroyed.

British and Russian intelligence services, in addition to American all stated that without a doubt, he possessed chemical, biological and nuclear materials in violation of 17 separate UN declarations.

Saddam was a large supporter of international terrorism. He funded terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories and paid (I think the number was $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber).

He hated the US and had even tried to hire the assassination of President Bush's father, the former President.

After 9/11, I believe that President Bush correctly concluded that based upon his past programs, his refusal to verify that his NBC program had been dismantled and the danger those materials would present in the hands of terrorists.

Yup, Iraq was an imminent threat and needed to be made safe.
 
Anytime I hear something like this I just shrug. I know people that have been over there that have done far worse. Like burn a old womans house down while she was still in it and shoot her in the knees when she came running out worse.

Smells like gossip....

Again - these people are unlawful combatants. The laws of war do not apply to them. They are criminals with guns and bombs - our objective is not in the first place to capture them. Our objective is to kill them. Get it?
 
Actually, Iraq was a very clear threat. Political posturing has hidden a lot of facts.

Where are these mystery facts?

Hussein had previously possessed and used chemical and biological weapons.

The Mustard gas that the US supplied the precursor for back during the war with Iran? We have used WMD as well. And Iraq no longer had that capability.



He kicked out inspectors and refused to allow the UN to complete their inspections and verify that his NBC program and materials had been destroyed.

The inspectors made 700 inspections and never found any threat to the US.

British and Russian intelligence services, in addition to American all stated that without a doubt, he possessed chemical, biological and nuclear materials in violation of 17 separate UN declarations.

The UN did not think war against Iraq was necessary.

Saddam was a large supporter of international terrorism. He funded terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories and paid (I think the number was $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber).

We provided much more support for Israel who bombed Iraq.

He hated the US and had even tried to hire the assassination of President Bush's father, the former President.

A fat old man with a shotgun hated Bush? That's what you were skeered of? Regardless, he was of no threat to the US.

After 9/11, I believe that President Bush correctly concluded that based upon his past programs, his refusal to verify that his NBC program had been dismantled and the danger those materials would present in the hands of terrorists.

Well, you are in the minority then. Even the Pentagon and the CIA could not verify any links between Saddam and al Qaeda, nor could they find any evidence of WMD that could have been a threat to us or Iraq's neighbors.


Yup, Iraq was an imminent threat and needed to be made safe.

The only threat Iraq represented was to stable world oil prices, as spelled out in Cheney's task force report two years before the 9/11 attack by the Saudis. There is no other feasible explanation of why the world's most powerful country would attack and occupy, for almost a decade, one of the weakest countries on the planet.
 
Smells like gossip....

Again - these people are unlawful combatants. The laws of war do not apply to them. They are criminals with guns and bombs - our objective is not in the first place to capture them. Our objective is to kill them. Get it?

Killing old women that may or may not have been harboring a son that may or may not have been part of Al Qaeda? That elderly woman was an unlawful combatant? Honestly, how many people do you think die in these wars that are the actual enemy? Women? Children?

You also have to understand that in Afghanistan and Iraqi, "friend" or "foe" these people do not give a **** about us. They do not give a **** if the US troops live or die. The majority of them by way of lack of education and media don't even know what 9/11 is, so there is wide confusion despite military efforts to tell them why, why we are actually there.

I assure you, any horror stories people tell me about either of those countries are 100% true.
 
Where are these mystery facts?



The Mustard gas that the US supplied the precursor for back during the war with Iran? We have used WMD as well. And Iraq no longer had that capability.

The inspectors made 700 inspections and never found any threat to the US.

The UN did not think war against Iraq was necessary.
We provided much more support for Israel who bombed Iraq.
A fat old man with a shotgun hated Bush? That's what you were skeered of? Regardless, he was of no threat to the US.
Well, you are in the minority then. Even the Pentagon and the CIA could not verify any links between Saddam and al Qaeda, nor could they find any evidence of WMD that could have been a threat to us or Iraq's neighbors.

The only threat Iraq represented was to stable world oil prices, as spelled out in Cheney's task force report two years before the 9/11 attack by the Saudis. There is no other feasible explanation of why the world's most powerful country would attack and occupy, for almost a decade, one of the weakest countries on the planet.

Do you know how stupid it is to Monday morning quarterback a decision?

Whatever is known about Iraqi WMDs now, at the time the best intelligence we had available said that Saddam had chemical weapons, he was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, he was supporting terrorists even if there was no strong connection with Al Quaeda, and that if he supplied those weapons to a terrorist organization, not just Al Quaeda, the results could be devastating. 9-11 showed that we couldn't afford to just react to a terrorist attack, we had to be proactive and go after them before the attack. Hence the global war on terror, not a global war on Al Quaeda. AQ may be the most visible terrorist organization, but they are certainly not the only one and they are not the only one that hates the US and has the capability to mount attacks against Americans

After the fact, it was determined that there were flaws in the intell, but everything up till then said it was good
 
Do you know how stupid it is to Monday morning quarterback a decision?

Whatever is known about Iraqi WMDs now, at the time the best intelligence we had available said that Saddam had chemical weapons, he was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, he was supporting terrorists even if there was no strong connection with Al Quaeda, and that if he supplied those weapons to a terrorist organization, not just Al Quaeda, the results could be devastating. 9-11 showed that we couldn't afford to just react to a terrorist attack, we had to be proactive and go after them before the attack. Hence the global war on terror, not a global war on Al Quaeda. AQ may be the most visible terrorist organization, but they are certainly not the only one and they are not the only one that hates the US and has the capability to mount attacks against Americans

After the fact, it was determined that there were flaws in the intell, but everything up till then said it was good



I'm not into self delusion, sorry! Even a majority of post 9/11 Vets said the war with Iraq was not worth it.
 
Killing old women that may or may not have been harboring a son that may or may not have been part of Al Qaeda? That elderly woman was an unlawful combatant? Honestly, how many people do you think die in these wars that are the actual enemy? Women? Children?

You also have to understand that in Afghanistan and Iraqi, "friend" or "foe" these people do not give a **** about us. They do not give a **** if the US troops live or die. The majority of them by way of lack of education and media don't even know what 9/11 is, so there is wide confusion despite military efforts to tell them why, why we are actually there.

I assure you, any horror stories people tell me about either of those countries are 100% true.

The justification is that these individuals are a danger to civilization, and that danger needs to be removed. This is not that complicated, ya know.

Is it lawful to kill unlawful combatants? Well, yes, since they are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

And BTW, these people hardly qualify as human beings after what they've done. They're ****ing animals, and if you don't see that, then there's pretty much no hope for you.

My mother in law would gladly double tap one of the ****ers in front of a TV crew. Doubt she'll ever get the chance, but you never know. I'm sure people like you would be scrambling to bring her up on UCMJ and throw her ass to the dogs of the world court, but she wouldn't give a **** - that would be one less ****head who will go around lopping innocent people's heads off.
 
The justification is that these individuals are a danger to civilization, and that danger needs to be removed. This is not that complicated, ya know.

Is it lawful to kill unlawful combatants? Well, yes, since they are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

And BTW, these people hardly qualify as human beings after what they've done. They're ****ing animals, and if you don't see that, then there's pretty much no hope for you.

My mother in law would gladly double tap one of the ****ers in front of a TV crew. Doubt she'll ever get the chance, but you never know. I'm sure people like you would be scrambling to bring her up on UCMJ and throw her ass to the dogs of the world court, but she wouldn't give a **** - that would be one less ****head who will go around lopping innocent people's heads off.

Why couldn't you have just responded with, "There is no point responding to me."? So as I said, an old woman, and children are unlawful combatants? Tell me, how is an old woman and some school children in some God forsaken pit a threat to you? Honestly, I could care less about them as well, but at least I understand they aren't the ones we are after. You seem to believe that all of the people there are fair game.
 
Anytime I hear something like this I just shrug. I know people that have been over there that have done far worse. Like burn a old womans house down while she was still in it and shoot her in the knees when she came running out worse.



Sure you do. :roll:
 
There's no need for anyone to join the patriots repelling the invaders when crusaders such as your countrymen are such excellent recruiters.



Yes, let others fight Jihad while you sit on your couch and whine about the big bad Americanos.... Have another ring ding my friend, leave the fighting to the willing. :lol:
 
Excellent rebuttal. Maybe you would like the one about shooting kids with bean bags? Either way the media hides a lot or just gets to see the war from afar more than they let on.


Unlike you, I've served. I spend a good amount of time with the Wounded Warrior project, and shoot the **** with my brothers and sisters down at the VFW, both old timers and new guys, You know what I don't hear?

Bull**** stories like yours. :prof
 
...Is it lawful to kill unlawful combatants? Well, yes, since they are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

And BTW, these people hardly qualify as human beings after what they've done. They're ****ing animals, and if you don't see that, then there's pretty much no hope for you.....

and who gets to declare someone as an unlawful combatant and therefore undeserving of any human rights?


you?
 
Why would what he believes matter? What happens to any country is and should be up to the people of that country. Remember, true believers of communism argue much as our true believers do. I prefer to leave it up to the people of those countries.

So, you beleive then that the Afghans are responsible for the actions of the Taliban and share in the repsonsibility for the attacks on 9/11?
 
Which of those ever had a functioning democracy in the first place? You have not made that case.

Which one are you talking about now?

The US, a democracy, is the most war mongering country in recent history. We go to war to establish world hegemony. When is the last time we fought a war to defend against invaders, the 1800's?

Which democracies have the US "war mongered" on?
 
So you were making an asinine irrelevant point. One that paints the military in a lesser light.

You have no evidence the soldiers in question were waiivered so I fail to see the point or relevance other than attempting to insult todays military.

Perhaps you care to explain yourself, brother.



It's a funny thing, Boo (seeing you skipped over this post), I did a search and I can't find you making these same irrellevent statements about "lowering the standards" et al, in threads on bradley manning, etc...

why do you feel it's important to this thread to make these statements, that makes it not important in other threads? Do you have any evidence these soldiers entered through the waiver system?
 
Back
Top Bottom