• 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]

Thunder said:
barely any nations recognized the Taliban as the legit. rulers of Afghanistan.

the USA certainly didn't and neither did the UN.

that's why we didn't attack Afghanistan, only the illegitimate Taiban govt.
Click to expand...

:doh

so the only thing we need to do to make sure that it's hunky dory for us to invade Iran would be for us to say "we no longer recognize the legitimacy of the Ayatollocracy"?


what utter crap. Whether or not we recognized the legitimacy of the ruling government is utterly irrelevant to whether or not what we did is classified as an attack.

That didn't stop us from invading & liberating France from Nazi & Vichy rule.
Click to expand...

yeah? not a few French soldiers seemed to not want to be 'liberated'.





however, I am enjoying your conversion to NeoConservatism. :)
 
Thunder said:
barely any nations recognized the Taliban as the legit. rulers of Afghanistan.

the USA certainly didn't and neither did the UN.

that's why we didn't attack Afghanistan, only the illegitimate Taiban govt.
Click to expand...

Recognizing a country is a diplomatic tool. It doesn't mean that that country doesn't exist. If the Taliban was not the govt of afghanistan, then who was?
 
cpwill said:
yeah? not a few French soldiers seemed to not want to be 'liberated'.
Click to expand...

Just like lots of Afghanis didn't want to be liberated. That's why the second we left to fight the pointless war in Iraq, the Taliban came back in. A good portion of the Afghanis *WANT* the Taliban! You cannot force democracy on anyone if they don't want it for themselves.
 
mac said:
Recognizing a country is a diplomatic tool. It doesn't mean that that country doesn't exist. If the Taliban was not the govt of afghanistan, then who was?
Click to expand...

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan, but their rule was illegal, illegitimate, and recognized by only three states.
 
cpwill said:
:doh

so the only thing we need to do to make sure that it's hunky dory for us to invade Iran would be for us to say "we no longer recognize the legitimacy of the Ayatollocracy"?


what utter crap....
Click to expand...

yes, your dishonest mischaracterization of my comments, is utter crap.
 
Thunder said:
The Taliban ruled Afghanistan, but their rule was illegal, illegitimate, and recognized by only three states.
Click to expand...

:) oh, well, alright then. Wow, even I am not as neoconservative as all that.

Saddam Hussein's rule was illegal, illegitimate, and therefore we didn't invade Iraq, we just attacked Saddam. Ditto for all the other non-democratic regimes: Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria.... hell, by this measure no one has ever attacked anyone. :)




:roll: whether or not we recognized their legitimacy has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not an invasion is an attack.
 
Boo Radley said:
As neither country asked us to invade, yeah. We invaded those countries, took control, and put in place different people who could not have said, "No! You people go away!"

That is reality. You seem to be trying to make an assertion that skips how we got here and what options were really available to the people of those countries.
Click to expand...
You simpky do not know what you are talking about. You should stop. Really.
 
cpwill said:
...Saddam Hussein's rule was illegal, illegitimate, and therefore we didn't invade Iraq, we just attacked Saddam.....
Click to expand...

wrong again buddy.

Saddam's rule was indeed legal & legitimate & recognized by much of the international community for decades.

hell, even the USA recognized his regime as okee dokee.

try again, bud.
 
MSgt said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are one smart sonofabitch! I am glad you are on our side.

Thank you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only the dead have seen an end to war -- G. Santayana
 
Henrin said:
I don't really understand where that question comes from. Explain please.
Click to expand...

**War on Terror** is an intentional PC mis-nomer. Terror is a tactic, you do not make war on tactics.

By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant.
 
ric27 said:
**War on Terror** is an intentional PC mis-nomer. Terror is a tactic, you do not make war on tactics....
Click to expand...

that's because you either totally misunderstand or willfully mischaracterize what the War on Terror actually is.
 
Thunder said:
wrong again buddy.

Saddam's rule was indeed legal & legitimate & recognized by much of the international community for decades.

hell, even the USA recognized his regime as okee dokee.

try again, bud.
Click to expand...

not at all, after all, we declared him illegitimate. ergo, for our purposes, he was. :)

khayembii communique said:
LOL wtf kind of argument is this?
Click to expand...

an amazingly foolish one. whether or not a military operation is an "attack" apparently is dependent on whether or not you think that you are legitimized in doing it. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
an amazingly foolish one. whether or not a military operation is an "attack" apparently is dependent on whether or not you think that you are legitimized in doing it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the entire point of a military attack that the offensive country doesn't consider the defending country legitimate? Isn't that like, the entire point of it?

BTW I'm shocked we agree on something for once, BRB gonna go cry in the shower.
 
Thunder said:
wrong again buddy.

Saddam's rule was indeed legal & legitimate & recognized by much of the international community for decades.

hell, even the USA recognized his regime as okee dokee.

try again, bud.
Click to expand...

Saddam "ran" unopposed in every election in Iraq held since he came to power. How was that legitimate?
 
Thunder said:
the fact is that the USA recognized Saddam's regime for quite some time.

if you deny this, you are 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

China doesn't recognize Taiwan....does that mean they are illegal and illegitimate?
 
Thunder said:
me neither.

however, terrorism is indeed a crime and most countries have stiff penalities for acts of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is not a crime. It is a tactic used in war by insurgents who are already at war, even though the target may not know it.
 
Thunder said:
still waiting for you to back up this bull**** & baseless claim against me.
Click to expand...



So then say. "These soldiers did not commit war crimes"



But lets review. You think we should "condemn" these soldiers, but respect the dead Taliban savages that tried to kill them.

Fact.
 
ric27 said:
Terrorism is not a crime. It is a tactic used in war by insurgents who are already at war, even though the target may not know it.
Click to expand...

no, terrorism is a crime. Every state in the Union lists it as an individual crime.....with its own set of punishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom