• 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]

But they did waver for a time? I could look that up if you like.

Yeah, in the 80's....it went away far before 9/11. But you should look it up anyway. For the record...it's "waiver".
 
Refer back to what I told GMST. You're doing it again. :coffeepap

You can refer to whatever you like Boo, you're doing while claiming the high ground. Which is worse, in my book.
 
yes, but you still had to have a GED...whatever that is worth. that's the sad part, they were so desperate for numbers that they accepted people who had no business being in the military. and they have so pussified basic training that it no longer weeds out the undesirables and misfits. you don't even have to pass a PT test to get out of basic these days.

There was a loophole. You could join the reserves without either....then request to go active in boot camp. They closed that loophole, as well. And you do have to pass one to get out of Navy boot camp. Also, the pt standards are higher now in the navy then they were in the 80s.
 
Last edited:
You are not an Afghan, nor have you ever been....that is the critical fact that you cannot escape.

If an Afghan says that the treatment of a fellow Afghans' body, even if than Afghan is on the other side in civil war, is atrocious (appalling, horrifying), I will value his opinion over yours. It is his cultural view that has more subjective validity over yours.

That is in no way an ad hominem against you, it is simply a fact of LIFE.




you are being obtuse. "atrocity" has a specific meaning on the world stage, indicating "war crimes", do you consider burning the koran a "war crime?, taking pictures of dead terrorists, especially those you didn't kill's body parts, a "war crime"? By calling silly things "atrocities", you cheapen the real meaning of the word. Considering lopping off someones head in the same vein as burning a koran, makes lopping someone's head off, seem not so seriouz.


/facepalm
 
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.
 
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.



How is it an atrocity, it's inappropriate, it's wrong, it should be dealt with, however calling it an "atrocity". is silly hyperbole. The dead savages in this case, I believe blew themselves up building a bomb to attack, US troops. Sorry, if I don't care they posed with the body parts.

It's not an atrocity. To call it such, is the typical silly nonsense of haters trying to paint the US military as the other "taliban"
 
How is it an atrocity, it's inappropriate, it's wrong, it should be dealt with, however calling it an "atrocity". is silly hyperbole. The dead savages in this case, I believe blew themselves up building a bomb to attack, US troops. Sorry, if I don't care they posed with the body parts.

It's not an atrocity. To call it such, is the typical silly nonsense of haters trying to paint the US military as the other "taliban"

The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.
 
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity.


Well, given your sedentary and timid nature, I guess you wouldn't be able to see through the eyes of those willing to protect you. :shrug:


So the savages, are the guys posing with the body parts of the people who blew themselves up trying to kill them. but the dead savage scum, are, to you, not savages.

Interesting.


So when will you be joining Jihad?


Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.


U mad, bro?
 
Last edited:
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.

atrocity? no.

violation of their code of conduct? certainly.

these guys clearly need a psych. eval. and maybe a few weeks off, to regain their sense of purpose, mission, and decency.
 
Yeah, in the 80's....it went away far before 9/11. But you should look it up anyway. For the record...it's "waiver".

In reality, the Army is in the midst of a disturbing trend that threatens not only our immediate goals in the current conflicts, but, more importantly, the long term health of the organization. The fact is, while the Army has been lowering its entrance standards with regard to education, physical fitness, and crime since the end of the Cold War, that process has accelerated since the invasion of Iraq. And this is something that the incoming Army Secretary should address.

Reclaiming Army Standards

he longer the war continues, the harder it's proving to fill the U.S. Army's ranks. A strong economy also means there are easier jobs around.

So the Army is accepting a growing number of new recruits with everythging from health and weight issues to lower academic test scores to criminal records.

The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks - CBS News

Strained by the demands of a long war, the Army and the Marine Corps recruited significantly more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006, including people convicted of armed robbery, arson and burglary, according to data released Monday by a House committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html

Just so you know, I didn't say waiver, as in a waiver. I said waver:

wa·ver
1    [wey-ver] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to sway to and fro; flutter: Foliage wavers in the breeze.
2.
to flicker or quiver, as light: A distant beam wavered and then disappeared.
3.
become unsteady; begin to fail or give way: When she heard the news her courage wavered.

4.
to shake or tremble, as the hands or voice: Her voice wavered.
5.
to feel or show doubt, indecision, etc.; vacillate: He wavered in his determination.


Waver | Define Waver at Dictionary.com

I highlighted the definitions that apply to my meaning. So while I appreciate snarky replies, and am far from being above a typo in a rushed response (not something I care much about), I do want you to get the meaning of what is being said. I said the military wavered, became unsteady, fail to keep their standards. I hope that helps for clarity.
 
Juggling peoples' body parts is an atrocity. Even more so when those who commit the atrocity hypocritically claim some sort of higher morality while doing so.

Did the soldiers you say "juggled body parts" claim a moral high ground while doing it? Are medical students guilty of this "atrocity" when they goof around with body parts?
 
atrocity? no.

violation of their code of conduct? certainly.

these guys clearly need a psych. eval. and maybe a few weeks off, to regain their sense of purpose, mission, and decency.

Can you define the Code of Conduct?
 
Did the soldiers you say "juggled body parts" claim a moral high ground while doing it? Are medical students guilty of this "atrocity" when they goof around with body parts?


I came up with "juggling body parts", so the timid and the squimish, might see the sillyness of calling it an "atrocity".
 
I'm not gonna address your silly red herring.

Oh it's no red herring. You claimed they violated the Code of Conduct, yet you have no idea what it is.
 
In reality, the Army is in the midst of a disturbing trend that threatens not only our immediate goals in the current conflicts, but, more importantly, the long term health of the organization. The fact is, while the Army has been lowering its entrance standards with regard to education, physical fitness, and crime since the end of the Cold War, that process has accelerated since the invasion of Iraq. And this is something that the incoming Army Secretary should address.

Reclaiming Army Standards

he longer the war continues, the harder it's proving to fill the U.S. Army's ranks. A strong economy also means there are easier jobs around.

So the Army is accepting a growing number of new recruits with everythging from health and weight issues to lower academic test scores to criminal records.

The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks - CBS News

Strained by the demands of a long war, the Army and the Marine Corps recruited significantly more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006, including people convicted of armed robbery, arson and burglary, according to data released Monday by a House committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html

The standards for granting enlistment waivers for minor offenses has not changed, much less lowered. There are roughly 75k more personnel in the Army now than in 1997 (which your article uses as comparison). The Army would not need to lower it's standards for there to be more people currently enlisted with "moral waivers". However, if you read in that article it mentions a Pvt. Green. You should read about him...that is an atrocity....just so you know what one is.

Just so you know, I didn't say waiver, as in a waiver. I said waver:

wa·ver
1    [wey-ver] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to sway to and fro; flutter: Foliage wavers in the breeze.
2.
to flicker or quiver, as light: A distant beam wavered and then disappeared.
3.
become unsteady; begin to fail or give way: When she heard the news her courage wavered.

4.
to shake or tremble, as the hands or voice: Her voice wavered.
5.
to feel or show doubt, indecision, etc.; vacillate: He wavered in his determination.


Waver | Define Waver at Dictionary.com

I highlighted the definitions that apply to my meaning. So while I appreciate snarky replies, and am far from being above a typo in a rushed response (not something I care much about), I do want you to get the meaning of what is being said. I said the military wavered, became unsteady, fail to keep their standards. I hope that helps for clarity.

Waivers are what we are talking about, nice backpeddle though.
 
Last edited:
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.

Don't you like...live in the whitest, most anglo country in the world?
 
Anglos? In England? Never heard of such a thing.

Why the non sequiter?

Well, hell, let me help you out, then.

Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles, England, the English people, or the English language, such as in the term Anglo-Saxon. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to people of British Isles descent in The Americas, Australia and Southern Africa. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins.

Anglo is a Late Latin prefix used to denote English- in conjunction with another toponym or demonym. The word is derived from Anglia, the Latin name for England, and still the modern name of its eastern region. Anglia and England both mean Land of the Angles, a Germanic people originating in the north German peninsula of Angeln.

Anglo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The standards for granting enlistment waivers for minor offenses has not changed, much less lowered. There are roughly 75k more personnel in the Army now than in 1997 (which your article uses as comparison). The Army would not need to lower it's standards for there to be more people currently enlisted with "moral waivers". However, if you read in that article it mentions a Pvt. Green. You should read about him...that is an atrocity....just so you know what one is.

I have linked evidence to the contrary. Sorry. :coffeepap


Waivers are what we are talking about, nice backpeddle though.

No, in that sentence, I was not. Don't call your inability to comprehend a back peddle.
 
The savages are photographing themselves in action for posterity. Only the cretinous jingoists would fail to see this.

One of the worst things about this repulsive act is that it gives the equally cretinous anti-Americans an opportunity to show they are no different than the jingoists they decry when it comes to rigid attitudes and partisanship.
 
Back
Top Bottom