• 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]

anyone who thinks its okee dokee to pose for photos next to the mangled bodies of their enemy, doesn't belong in the military. they lack the moral compass to make honorable & decent decisions in the battlefield.

You apparently don't understand what critical thinking is. You just keep posting your opinions. Try again.
 
anyone who thinks its okee dokee to pose for photos next to the mangled bodies of their enemy, doesn't belong in the military. they lack the moral compass to make honorable & decent decisions in the battlefield.

What do you think about this woman?

 
easily.

killing the enemy is often times necessary and a perfectly appropriate & legal act.

posing next to his dismembered body for a photo, isn't.

we ARE the good guys....right?

we are the ones with the correct & proper valus....right?

they hate us for who we are and what we represent....right?

I mean, that was Bush's whole ****ing justification for going to war in the first place.

Killing the enemy is always necessary. We just fool ourselves into thinking that we are supposed to tolerate their belligerance until it costs more in blood and treaure in the end. But murder is only appropriate and legal because we as a "civilized" people have applied manners to the act. And the position of being the good guy comes from doing bad things. Winning and being the last man standing after the Age of Ideology has a way of placing history in our favor.

Posing next to a dead body is historical. It happened all the time during the World War. Happened in Korea and Vietnam. The difference is that people in that day were far less connected to the experience of war through television and Internet. Unlike many troops in the Vietnam War, nobody today walks around with an ear necklace. So what are we really upset about? Bad manners, in accordance to how we seem to see the world?
 
anyone who thinks its okee dokee to pose for photos next to the mangled bodies of their enemy, doesn't belong in the military. they lack the moral compass to make honorable & decent decisions in the battlefield.

It's not a matter of it being "okee dokee." It's about placing it into proper perspective and not exaggerating it to the point where we give our enemies a false stage. It's really only people in the West that care anyway.
 
Last edited:
Killing the enemy is always necessary. We just fool ourselves into thinking that we are supposed to tolerate their belligerance until it costs more in blood and treaure in the end. But murder is only appropriate and legal because we as a "civilized" people have applied manners to the act. And the position of being the good guy comes from doing bad things. Winning and being the last man standing after the Age of Ideology has a way of placing history in our favor.

Posing next to a dead body is historical. It happened all the time during the World War. Happened in Korea and Vietnam. The difference is that people in that day were far less connected to the experience of war through television and Internet. Unlike many troops in the Vietnam War, nobody today walks around with an ear necklace. So what are we really upset about? Bad manners, in accordance to how we seem to see the world?


hear hear....
 
not to Godwin the thread, but this is the exact order Hitler gave his submariners.

Take NO prisoners. NO POWs. All enemy must be killed.

Well, Hitler had a problem deciding who his enemy even was. So not a good comparison. His biggest mistake was deciding that Russia had to go. But he learned from the First World War that bringing America into it was not desirable. He didn't call for our ships to be attacked. In fact, it took Roosevelt years to convince Americans that the important piece of this World War was in Europe. Up to us declaring war on Germany, we conducted business with them while bank rolling the Allied war and providing over 90 percent of the oil. We were conflicted between business partners and Germany knew it.

But we do like to simply compare ourselves to Nazi Germany these days don't we? Ever since a couple Democrats tried to compare GITMO to the Gulags or to Nazi Germany, we have lost our sense of history and what those places truly were. Millions of murdered Jews would be insulted to know that a few embarrased Muslims at Abu Ghraib and a few waterboarded cases at GITMO compares to their experience.
 
Last edited:
We are the USA.

we take prisoners if the enemy surrenders.

no, we do not KILL all of the enemy regardless.
 
We are the USA.

we take prisoners if the enemy surrenders.

no, we do not KILL all of the enemy regardless.

You do not know certain uncomfortable aspects of American history. Marines in the Pacific took an extreme few amount of prisoners. The Japanese were fond of concealing grenades on their person when surrendering because they did not surrender. All it took was Guadalcanal for Marines to learn to take no prisoners. On the way to Baghdad there were a few cases where Iraqi soldiers concealed grenades or used a surrenderer to intice Marines out into the open for ambush. A surrendering enemy is not always without threat and acts of war go beyond a Hollywood movie. When in doubt, you kill and come home. Dying for someone's idea of manners far away in combat is not acceptable. The most decisive wars in history were won because there was no more enemy to fight or to later destroy the peace.

Thinking that we can get away with winning wars without killing is precisely why we have had trouble with every war since World War II (rediculous Gulf War being the exception). With the creation of the United Nations and coming off of the manner instructions of the Geneva Convention, we have deluded ourselves into believing that all the world thinks as we do. Nations like Iran hope that we maintain our ideas of the world until they achieve their nuclear goal. Men like Saddam Hussein hoped that we would keep convincing ourselves that we could just keep starving out his people and look the other way. There's no such thing as an unconditional surrender anymore because we fail to devistate our enemies and offer them condolensces and respirators instead.

We are the USA. And this absolutely means that we need to maintain a sense of decency and proper conduct at all times, but too many Americans have a self deluded idea of what that means, which is why too many of our trained troops have to die needlessly. After all, when it comes down to it, who in the world has dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian populated cities? We wouldn't do this today. No, today we would ensure further blood shed to pretend an idea of oursleves and prolong the conflict to whatever end (or no end in many cases).

Of course, one of the reasons the world convicts of our imperfections constantly is that they need us to be perfect in the absence of their own government's immoralities. By living up to this extremely high standard, we sacrifice our men constantly. And for what?
 
Last edited:
still waiting for you to back up this bull**** & baseless claim against me.

I don't know your prior argument (too lazy to check it out), but it seems to me that your argument hinges on the definition of proffesionalism and decency?
 
In your world you disrespect the dead and praise the war criminals. His is preferable.

ICC Elements of Crimes
With reference to the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, the 2000 ICC Elements of Crimes specifies that Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute also applies to dead persons


Too bad for your argument that we do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, as it pertains to the United States.

j-mac
 
Last edited:
Too bad for your argument that we do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, as it pertains to the United States.

Shhh, don't confuse him with facts, they'll get in the way of his baseless opinions.
 
You do not know certain uncomfortable aspects of American history. Marines in the Pacific took an extreme few amount of prisoners. The Japanese were fond of concealing grenades on their person when surrendering because they did not surrender. All it took was Guadalcanal for Marines to learn to take no prisoners. On the way to Baghdad there were a few cases where Iraqi soldiers concealed grenades or used a surrenderer to intice Marines out into the open for ambush. A surrendering enemy is not always without threat and acts of war go beyond a Hollywood movie. When in doubt, you kill and come home. Dying for someone's idea of manners far away in combat is not acceptable. The most decisive wars in history were won because there was no more enemy to fight or to later destroy the peace.

Thinking that we can get away with winning wars without killing is precisely why we have had trouble with every war since World War II (rediculous Gulf War being the exception). With the creation of the United Nations and coming off of the manner instructions of the Geneva Convention, we have deluded ourselves into believing that all the world thinks as we do. Nations like Iran hope that we maintain our ideas of the world until they achieve their nuclear goal. Men like Saddam Hussein hoped that we would keep convincing ourselves that we could just keep starving out his people and look the other way. There's no such thing as an unconditional surrender anymore because we fail to devistate our enemies and offer them condolensces and respirators instead.

We are the USA. And this absolutely means that we need to maintain a sense of decency and proper conduct at all times, but too many Americans have a self deluded idea of what that means, which is why too many of our trained troops have to die needlessly. After all, when it comes down to it, who in the world has dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian populated cities? We wouldn't do this today. No, today we would ensure further blood shed to pretend an idea of oursleves and prolong the conflict to whatever end (or no end in many cases).

Of course, one of the reasons the world convicts of our imperfections constantly is that they need us to be perfect in the absence of their own government's immoralities. By living up to this extremely high standard, we sacrifice our men constantly. And for what?

Exactly. War is not a game. War is about killing the enemy until they give up the fight. It is not humanitarian, not about winning hearts and minds, not about spreading democracy. War is bloody, it is about killing. Had the US not dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more of our troops would have died, no doubt about it.

The history of mankind is the history of warfare, with the history books being written by the victors. There are no good guys in white hats, only winners and losers.

Maybe one day we'll get beyond war and learn to share this little fragile planet. That one day hasn't come yet. As long as there are civilizations who are sure that the rest of the world needs to adopt their way of life or else, we'll never get beyond war.

Which is why the US needs to have a strong military, only use it when there is no other choice, and then go all out to win when we do use it. No touchy feely wars in which the goal is anything but total victory.
 
Exactly. War is not a game. War is about killing the enemy until they give up the fight. It is not humanitarian, not about winning hearts and minds, not about spreading democracy. War is bloody, it is about killing. Had the US not dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more of our troops would have died, no doubt about it.

Actually war is not about death. Its about the minds of the parties in play. In many ways it is a game of chess.
 
Last edited:
Actually war is not about death. Its about the minds of the parties in play. In many ways it is a game of chess.

War is about winning most of the time. Of course, lots of countries would love to be invaded by the U.S. and lose, just to get all of the freebies that we hand out at taxpayer expense to "rebuild" them, almost always to a level far above where they started out.
 
Actually war is not about death. Its about the minds of the parties in play. In many ways it is a game of chess.

War with rules is by definition... a sport. Many don't play that ****.


I really don't give a **** about the strategic implications of anything other than identifying their replacements for the next strike. They are combatants - that should be a picture of a smoking hole.
 
War with rules is by definition... a sport. Many don't play that ****.

I really don't give a **** about the strategic implications of anything other than identifying their replacements for the next strike. They are combatants - that should be a picture of a smoking hole.

Agreed. I never understood rules with warfare. You're out shooting the enemy, but you have to follow these rules too? Seems rather absurd. If you're out trying to be humane, stop shooting the other side! Otherwise, just let one side rack up the body count until the other side gives up. This isn't some contest, it's war.
 
War is about winning most of the time. Of course, lots of countries would love to be invaded by the U.S. and lose, just to get all of the freebies that we hand out at taxpayer expense to "rebuild" them, almost always to a level far above where they started out.

Like usual you miss the point. You can't win a war with nothing in mind except winning unless you have massive power and resources. You have to put up a strategy that can win the war as quickly as possible and this involves that the goal of your strategy is making you opponent think they can't win and give up. War is a mental exercise, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
We are the USA.

we take prisoners if the enemy surrenders.

no, we do not KILL all of the enemy regardless.



You are entitled to your point of view, however wrong it may be.

There is no such thing as a legal mercy killing with a gun. Terrorist should bleed out
 
Agreed. I never understood rules with warfare. You're out shooting the enemy, but you have to follow these rules too? Seems rather absurd. If you're out trying to be humane, stop shooting the other side! Otherwise, just let one side rack up the body count until the other side gives up. This isn't some contest, it's war.

If I recall my history correctly, which may or may not be the case, then one of the reasons the British colonies in America won that little war was that the British wanted to play by rules that they had agreed upon, but the colonials didn't.

Something about marching across a field in plain view vs. hiding behind trees and waiting until the enemy got close enough to shoot.

Could it be that "rules of warfare" is an oxymoron?

or maybe just a bad idea.
 
If I recall my history correctly, which may or may not be the case, then one of the reasons the British colonies in America won that little war was that the British wanted to play by rules that they had agreed upon, but the colonials didn't.

Something about marching across a field in plain view vs. hiding behind trees and waiting until the enemy got close enough to shoot.

Could it be that "rules of warfare" is an oxymoron?

or maybe just a bad idea.

Rules of war has always been a stupid idea.
 
Like usual you miss the point. You can't win a war with nothing in mind except winning unless you have massive power and resources. You have to put up a strategy that can win the war as quickly as possible and this involves that the goal of your strategy is making you opponent think they can't win and give up. War is a mental exercise, pure and simple.

Nah, it involves the strong beating up on the weak. You know, like the U.S. does. We never attack anyone who actually might be able to hurt us.
 
If I recall my history correctly, which may or may not be the case, then one of the reasons the British colonies in America won that little war was that the British wanted to play by rules that they had agreed upon, but the colonials didn't.

Something about marching across a field in plain view vs. hiding behind trees and waiting until the enemy got close enough to shoot.

Could it be that "rules of warfare" is an oxymoron?

or maybe just a bad idea.

I'm not arguing that British stupidity played a good part in the American victory, but seriously, if you were a British soldier at that time, would you just stand there and get gunned down because that's "how it's supposed to be done"? I know I wouldn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom