• 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!

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

I'll apologize I'm being a jerk. I take back some of what I said. I havent studied enough to know much about how trade would be in the world without the United States Military. I'll be getting on that in the next semester or so.
 
All who place world opinion over loyalty to those who actually bleed for them.

You are not doing well lately Gunny. First, the people of the US are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. Secondly, and most importantly, those who disagree with you on issues are not enemies. It's people who are so short sighted as to see the world as your way or wrong who are the biggest threat to this country.

I have served my country, and proudly. I think that this is the greatest country in the world, and by no small measure. I am proud of my country, and love it deeply. That does not mean we should not consider and value the opinion of the rest of the world. It does not mean I think we should put world opinion over what we need to do as a country, we have, and will again, need to act in unpopular ways. But we do also have to consider, and react to world opinion. That is not disloyalty to our troops, and trying to paint it as such is both vile and small minded.
 
You are not doing well lately Gunny. First, the people of the US are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. Secondly, and most importantly, those who disagree with you on issues are not enemies. It's people who are so short sighted as to see the world as your way or wrong who are the biggest threat to this country.

I have served my country, and proudly. I think that this is the greatest country in the world, and by no small measure. I am proud of my country, and love it deeply. That does not mean we should not consider and value the opinion of the rest of the world. It does not mean I think we should put world opinion over what we need to do as a country, we have, and will again, need to act in unpopular ways. But we do also have to consider, and react to world opinion. That is not disloyalty to our troops, and trying to paint it as such is both vile and small minded.



Its to bad that most Liberals don't believe as you do Redress.......
 
I just finished looking at every news-story and blog-article listed at Google News concerning this. They basically all say what was reported in this thread OP. According to the US military, three Navy Seal commando's have been officially charged with “abusing a detainee” and “falsifying official documents”. The initial charge stems from an abuse complaint filed by the terrorist himself. The secondary charge is a consequence of the initial abuse charge.

People can only go by what the military itself has stated. Either the military is witholding pertinint information on this case, or the military is engaged in a ridiculous and petty application of political correctness as reported.

Neither scenario is very comforting.

So what else is new?.... Ft. Hood, same cause.
 
I'm still here my man. :shrug:




so what did you do in "special operations" what unit were you with?


Fake vets have no honor. I'd hate to think you were trying to live off the glory of others.

You are going to be sadly disappointed…. This is a 12 year old stealing time on mommy’s computer.
 
No soldier has ever bled for me.
My freedom has never been at risk from a foreign power since we were warring with england.

Not that I was alive then...
And chances are most of our families hadnt immigrated at that point.

I take it then that you were born post 1990?
 
You are not doing well lately Gunny. First, the people of the US are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. Secondly, and most importantly, those who disagree with you on issues are not enemies. It's people who are so short sighted as to see the world as your way or wrong who are the biggest threat to this country.

I have served my country, and proudly. I think that this is the greatest country in the world, and by no small measure. I am proud of my country, and love it deeply. That does not mean we should not consider and value the opinion of the rest of the world. It does not mean I think we should put world opinion over what we need to do as a country, we have, and will again, need to act in unpopular ways. But we do also have to consider, and react to world opinion. That is not disloyalty to our troops, and trying to paint it as such is both vile and small minded.


I know you were addressing Gunny, but if I may Red, where is that fine line crossed between our interests, and world opinion with liberals then?


j-mac
 
No one said that actual crimes committed by any soldier should be excused, but this isn't one of those crimes.


j-mac

Depends, if they are charged for giving him a bloody lip, which seems unlucky, then you are right. If the charges stem from them falsifying their report or something similar, then they have to be punished, tough hopefully not in a way that permanently ruins their careers. People are still jumping to conclusions on this. Note that there are multiple charges.
 
I know you were addressing Gunny, but if I may Red, where is that fine line crossed between our interests, and world opinion with liberals then?


j-mac

I never referred to a "fine line".
 
You are not doing well lately Gunny.

I'm doing just fine, thanks.


First, the people of the US are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. Secondly, and most importantly, those who disagree with you on issues are not enemies.

Once again, you miss the boat...

First - An American media that salivates over the oportunity to print state secrets is an enemy. An American media that seeks to exploit government and military attempts to do its job just to earn a buck is an enemy. Politicians who seek to earn politicial points at the expense of the military is an enemy. A bloated Defense Industry that focuses primarily on the next toy rather than what the "soldier" actually needs to fight today's wars may as well be an enemy. And those who would sacrifice our military personel to the alter of world opinion is no friend. Did the "Greatest Generation" have to deal with such obstacles from their own people?

Second - I said nothing about disagreement or opinions being a prescription of an enemy.
 
I'll apologize I'm being a jerk. I take back some of what I said. I havent studied enough to know much about how trade would be in the world without the United States Military. I'll be getting on that in the next semester or so.

It seems to me that from your posts you don't know a lot. Perhaps applying your classroom environment to the real world may open your eyes a bit.

1) In the early 1800s, the Mediterranean Sea was full of Barbary Pirates. All of Europe was paying ransoms and protection money for safe passage of goods. The new America couldn't afford this so the U.S. Navy with U.S. Marines, conducted a series of wars called the Barbary Pirates Wars along the coast of Africa. This campaign was broken up briefly to deal with the British in the War of 1812, but resumed directly after. In the end, the Mediterranean was freed of piracy and the import/export shipping lanes opened up. And the rest of Europe? Without a thankyou, they benefitted.

Fast forward.

2) Today's world is ruled by those industrialized naitons who harnessed the power of oil. Part of the reason Nazi Germany couldn't maintain military power at the end of WWII was because their oil import was all but shattered and blocked by American and British forces in the Middle East. In fact, did you know that the majority of the oil used by the Allies came from American shipping? The Cold War influence race in the Middle East that followed? An exercise which was more about denying the Soviets access to the military maker called oil. Take a look around your house. Any plastics? Your daddy drive to work to earn money for your lifestyle in a vehicle largely made from oil while consuming gasoline? Are you even aware of just how much of this world is oil based?

History repeats.

3) Heard about those pirates off the coast of Somalia? The ones causing some trouble with merchant ships of all nations in an extremely vital part of the ocean? Left to their freedoms they could easily build in strength and completely disrupt the goods you see in your home. And guess what? Someone other than you will bleed for your pampered life. They've been doing it for centuries.



From the beginning of our nation's birth to present day the American way of life has been preserved time and time again. The Suez Canal, The Panama Canal, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, and so many other bodies of water have been threatened periodically throughout our history. Capitalism, industrialization, invention, technology...all are products of a deployed military guarding the interests of our country. When people like me tell you that your lifestyle wouldn't be what it is were it not for the blood of others protecting and maintaining it you should listen. Because you do not know what you are talking about.
 
Once again, you miss the boat...

First - An American media that salivates over the oportunity to print state secrets is an enemy. An American media that seeks to exploit government and military attempts to do its job just to earn a buck is an enemy. Politicians who seek to earn politicial points at the expense of the military is an enemy. A bloated Defense Industry that focuses primarily on the next toy rather than what the "soldier" actually needs to fight today's wars may as well be an enemy. And those who would sacrifice our military personel to the alter of world opinion is no friend. Did the "Greatest Generation" have to deal with such obstacles from their own people?

Second - I said nothing about disagreement or opinions being a prescription of an enemy.

Oh Bull****! You are talking in talking points, and every single one of them is wrong. You point those you disagree with in the most negative possible light, exaggerating at every step. How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously. What is truly sad is you are better than this. You are a smart guy, you can think more accurately.

The media considers itself a watchdog, and it also considers itself a business. It prints what will make it money, and what it thinks important. it is not out there doing anything improper, and it is not some monolith. "The media" is a favorite target of the slow witted who need an excuse for things being reported that they do not want reported. "The media" is a key part of democracy, and do function to a certain degree as a watchdog. They do "exploit" events that they consider newsworthy for profit, but this is little different than a farmer, who "exploits" peoples need for food for profit. It is capitalism. Sorry, but no, the media is not an enemy, that is just exaggeration and hyperbole.

Politicians, even when we disagree with them, still for the most part are trying to do what they think is best for the country. Just because you do not agree does not make them the enemy. If a politician criticizes the military, it does not mean they are trying to score political points, in fact that is a poor way to score points. It usually means the military has done something they do not approve of, and since they are the bosses of you in the military, they have every right to do so. The military is not above criticism, and politicians can and should look for things the military is not doing right, and work to change those. No, politicians are not the enemy, not republicans, not democrats, not independents. To say they are is just exaggeration and hyperbole.

The defense industry is a capitalistic enterprise. Their primary goal is to make money, not win wars. Unless you want to socialize the defense industry, that is the way it is. We have to reward those companies that do well, and not reward those who sell overpriced junk. There are very few companies in any industry that, when offered the chance to sell overpriced underperformed items, won't jump at that chance. The problems is in ignorance of what the military needs among those who buy, and corruption. The former needs to be remedied with education and better processes, and ignorance does not an enemy make. the latter needs to be rooted out, and the offenders jailed. Corruption does not make an enemy either, it makes a criminal. Calling the defense industry an enemy is just exaggeration and hyperbole.

The military's job is to serve the country, and if the country is served by improving foreign relations, then it is the military's job to support that. Don't like it, then it is time to get out, but that is the reality of the situation, and has been since long before you or I enlisted.

You hit the populist points pretty hard Gunny, but you failed to think your arguments through. Further, all this has exactly nothing to do with the case in hand, where you, like too many others, are jumping to the convenient conclusion that gives you a handy chance to express your outrage. I do not know the whole story with why these soldiers have been tried, and I am willing to bet neither do you. I am pretty sure that if you stepped back, reread the information available, you would quickly come to the conclusion that things do not add up right based on that information, and that would lead you as well to suspect there is things going on we do not know. Outrage in the absence of facts serves no purpose.
 
I never referred to a "fine line".


You are right, you didn't, but I interpreted this to mean that some type of line has America's interests at heart, and the other must cede to world opinion:

That does not mean we should not consider and value the opinion of the rest of the world. It does not mean I think we should put world opinion over what we need to do as a country

I am just wondering when that line turns from valuing world opinion, to acting in the best interests of the United States?


j-mac
 
could this be a ploy to show Obama won't stand for another abu gharib?


it seems odd that this is happening at all.

What makes you think Obama is directly involved at all? I'm sure he has better things to do than fret over every little move the military justice system makes.
 
Oh Bull****!

Perhaps a little less telling me who you think I am and a bit more seeing through the clouded "bull****" that covers the truth may help you see things clearer. You see, I am not interested in the warm and fuzzy. 18 years of this has a way of creating clarity.

1) The military serves individuals. Not our country. Or have you been receiving phone calls from the White House and Pentagon over the last two decades? Rumsfeld, who couldn't find himself humble enough to listen to the battle hardened generals and tacticians who tried to advise him, have you or any other citizen on speed dial? I wasn't consulted. The only way our politicians have your interests at heart is if it coincides with their personal political agendas.

a. An inexperienced Clinton completely bought into the Washington sentiments of the post-Cold War. The idea that "our wars were over" saturated our bureaucracies. He found no shame in continuing the stripping down of the military, while riding the backs of it to suit his needs to be the "humanitarian" president. We were dropped into situations we were ill prepared for and under trained for. In the mean time, he funded ridiculous theories of non-lethal warfare along with the RMA (and the Rumsfeld clan). It would take him most of his presidency to figure out how to work the military and how to fit it towards his views of the world...not America's.

b. Bush put all of his faith into non-experienced jack asses who were more inclined to test their theories of warfare rather than conduct warfare in according to the warfighter's advice. Gulf War bombings were supposed to relate to unconditional surrenders later via Shock-and-Awe tactics in Iraq. The bare minimum of troop strength was all that was needed in our future wars because technology alone was our ultimate tool. These are theories not meant to serve America, but the agenda of individuals seeking to validate their retarded visions. Was the military serving America's needs or a few buffoons in the first half of Iraq? Certainly the military spent the latter half serving our own needs rather than the average American who merely criticized us throughout the first half.

Few politicians know what they are doing and they are out numbered by the idiots. The only difference between the tribes of Washington and the tribes of the Middle East is a lack of will to start murdering each other. Exhausting the military with broken toys all over creation was just fine by the Democrats as long as Clinton pushed the buttons. Exhausting the military with an abundance of toys it can't use was just fine by Republicans as long as Bush was pushing the buttons. These may as well be enemies.


2) The media is no more interested in truth than it is about taking responsibility for it's destructive spins and tales. Making money is all it is interested in and this is why they often jump to conclusions before they realize complete story. Notice how quickly the media moves on from covering the deeds of our enemies. Notice how long and exhaustingly "thorough" it is when it comes to shoving our own into the spotlight. Hanging Americans from a bridge and a beheaded soldier a few days coverage, but Abu-Ghraib? After almost a year of intensive spotlighting and coverage, who's to say how much harder they made it for the troop on the ground who had to deal with locals who were continually enraged over a never ending display of photographs (most of which was the same old photographs). And any Nazi/Gulag/torturous story about GITMO was surely worthy of the media's intense focus (as long as Bush was in the White House). How many died because Middle Eastern non-players picked up the latest news paper and decided that this weeks printing was the straw that broke the camel's back? How many witnessed our own politicians remarking exaggeratingly about GITMO for the sake of politicial points earned the death of Americans in the war zone? Did Americans get bombarded with tales and stories of how badly the Germans were being treated by our soldiers in WWII Europe? Or how the Japanese were being denied the comforts of home while imprisoned? Did reporters shove discretion aside as haphazardly as they do today while seeking the latest military scandal to splash out into the world? I wonder how Americans would have taken to a reporter drawing out military plans regarding Normandy in 1944 on international TV. Back then, our media was responsibile. Reporters understood that they were American citizens first. Today, our media rush to expose every nasty detail of combat so that the American people can demand a cease fire. A great example was Fallujah. The media won Fallujah I and offerred our enemy a reprieve. Fallujah II was the result of a military racing to beat the news cameras. Another example is Najaaf. Al-Sadr would have been killed in 2004 were it not for the media wolves (your "watchdogs"). He was spared and he went on to engineer the developments of a Shia militia that would slaughter Sunni and Kurds while we watched and the irresponsible media labeled it a "civil war." We would go on to be criticized as genocidal maniacs by the global masses because they slaughtered each other.

The media gets to wash their hands because people insist that they are merely impartial "watchdogs" reporting the truth to the people. It doesn't matter that they don't even understand what they are printing. It doesn't matter that inexperienced civilians get to dictate their opinions in mass over things they don't understand. It doesn't matter how much harder this makes it on our troops to do their jobs. You stated it yourself...."world opinion matters." The media's behaviors and the reaction of civilians to it have caused more death and destruction that Rumsfeld. The day may come that we have to start considering the news cameras as combatants in the war zone.




You see, I do think about these things. Maybe you should start. But you really don't have to do you? You can afford to exist within the confines of the warm and fuzzy.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think Obama is directly involved at all? I'm sure he has better things to do than fret over every little move the military justice system makes.

The same thing that made people demand that Bush was personally involved in everything. Partisan slavery.
 
I am just wondering when that line turns from valuing world opinion, to acting in the best interests of the United States?

It's already happened. Fallujah I morphed into Fallujah II. For the sake of world opinion, more had to die later. This is what happens when civilian non-players dictate military tactics to the military players. With today's media and the global shock of what war is, it would have taken American forces an extra two years to reach Berlin.
 
Perhaps a little less telling me who you think I am and a bit more seeing through the clouded "bull****" that covers the truth may help you see things clearer. You see, I am not interested in the warm and fuzzy. 18 years of this has a way of creating clarity.

1) The military serves individuals. Not our country. Or have you been receiving phone calls from the White House and Pentagon over the last two decades? Rumsfeld, who couldn't find himself humble enough to listen to the battle hardened generals and tacticians who tried to advise him, have you or any other citizen on speed dial? I wasn't consulted. The only way our politicians have your interests at heart is if it coincides with their personal political agendas.

I would not think I would have to explain basic high school civics to you, but you seem to have missed the explanation of our government. We elect our leaders to serve us. When they do so poorly, we remove them and install new ones. No, we do not make the individual decisions, which would be impossible for practice reasons, we choose those who do, with the hope they will do the best they can and represent our wishes. The military directly serves the government, and through the government, the people. I and every one of the citizens in this country is, indirectly, your boss. Cutesy expressions about not having every citizen on speed dial do not change the fact that you do, in fact, work for us(and in a way, for yourself).

a. An inexperienced Clinton completely bought into the Washington sentiments of the post-Cold War. The idea that "our wars were over" saturated our bureaucracies. He found no shame in continuing the stripping down of the military, while riding the backs of it to suit his needs to be the "humanitarian" president. We were dropped into situations we were ill prepared for and under trained for. In the mean time, he funded ridiculous theories of non-lethal warfare along with the RMA (and the Rumsfeld clan). It would take him most of his presidency to figure out how to work the military and how to fit it towards his views of the world...not America's.

I am not going to defend Clinton's handling of the military, beyond quickly saying that he was following the lead of an experienced military veteran(Bush the elder), which is not an excuse. However, once again, we chose Clinton to serve us as President, and we chose him to return to that job. If there is a blame, it is with us, the people. Are you going to declare the electorate of the US "the enemy" now?

b. Bush put all of his faith into non-experienced jack asses who were more inclined to test their theories of warfare rather than conduct warfare in according to the warfighter's advice. Gulf War bombings were supposed to relate to unconditional surrenders later via Shock-and-Awe tactics in Iraq. The bare minimum of troop strength was all that was needed in our future wars because technology alone was our ultimate tool. These are theories not meant to serve America, but the agenda of individuals seeking to validate their retarded visions. Was the military serving America's needs or a few buffoons in the first half of Iraq? Certainly the military spent the latter half serving our own needs rather than the average American who merely criticized us throughout the first half. {/quote]

Again, I am not going to defend Bush, but he was the chosen representative of the people. We chose him not once, but twice. AS a liberal I many not like that, but I cannot deny it. Bush is no more "the enemy" than Clinton was.

Few politicians know what they are doing and they are out numbered by the idiots. The only difference between the tribes of Washington and the tribes of the Middle East is a lack of will to start murdering each other. Exhausting the military with broken toys all over creation was just fine by the Democrats as long as Clinton pushed the buttons. Exhausting the military with an abundance of toys it can't use was just fine by Republicans as long as Bush was pushing the buttons. These may as well be enemies.

You do love your exaggeration and hyperbole. If you really believe that is the only difference, you are so clearly blinded by your odd world view that shapes how you view everything. Our government is far from ideal, but it is still worlds better than any of those found in the middle east, and there are any number of differences, not just in how the leaders get to power, but what they have to do to keep it, and how they choose to serve, and the limitations on them.


2) The media is no more interested in truth than it is about taking responsibility for it's destructive spins and tales. Making money is all it is interested in and this is why they often jump to conclusions before they realize complete story. Notice how quickly the media moves on from covering the deeds of our enemies. Notice how long and exhaustingly "thorough" it is when it comes to shoving our own into the spotlight. Hanging Americans from a bridge and a beheaded soldier a few days coverage, but Abu-Ghraib? After almost a year of intensive spotlighting and coverage, who's to say how much harder they made it for the troop on the ground who had to deal with locals who were continually enraged over a never ending display of photographs (most of which was the same old photographs). And any Nazi/Gulag/torturous story about GITMO was surely worthy of the media's intense focus (as long as Bush was in the White House). How many died because Middle Eastern non-players picked up the latest news paper and decided that this weeks printing was the straw that broke the camel's back? How many witnessed our own politicians remarking exaggeratingly about GITMO for the sake of politicial points earned the death of Americans in the war zone? Did Americans get bombarded with tales and stories of how badly the Germans were being treated by our soldiers in WWII Europe? Or how the Japanese were being denied the comforts of home while imprisoned? Did reporters shove discretion aside as haphazardly as they do today while seeking the latest military scandal to splash out into the world? I wonder how Americans would have taken to a reporter drawing out military plans regarding Normandy in 1944 on international TV. Back then, our media was responsibile. Reporters understood that they were American citizens first. Today, our media rush to expose every nasty detail of combat so that the American people can demand a cease fire. A great example was Fallujah. The media won Fallujah I and offerred our enemy a reprieve. Fallujah II was the result of a military racing to beat the news cameras. Another example is Najaaf. Al-Sadr would have been killed in 2004 were it not for the media wolves (your "watchdogs"). He was spared and he went on to engineer the developments of a Shia militia that would slaughter Sunni and Kurds while we watched and the irresponsible media labeled it a "civil war." We would go on to be criticized as genocidal maniacs by the global masses because they slaughtered each other.

The media gets to wash their hands because people insist that they are merely impartial "watchdogs" reporting the truth to the people. It doesn't matter that they don't even understand what they are printing. It doesn't matter that inexperienced civilians get to dictate their opinions in mass over things they don't understand. It doesn't matter how much harder this makes it on our troops to do their jobs. You stated it yourself...."world opinion matters." The media's behaviors and the reaction of civilians to it have caused more death and destruction that Rumsfeld. The day may come that we have to start considering the news cameras as combatants in the war zone.

Covering the actions of our troops is not a bad thing, and if our troops do wrong(as at Abu Graibh), then that should be covered too. Being a soldier is not a free pass. It's very fashionable among a certain element to blame everything on the media, and you certainly seem to be in that camp, but there is a simple question to ask: would this country be better off without a news media, or with a government controlled news media, or with the free press we have now? Personally, I would choose the latter, despite it's faults. It's easy to sit back and bitch, not so easy to find improvements. You seem to choose the easy way out here.

You see, I do think about these things. Maybe you should start. But you really don't have to do you? You can afford to exist within the confines of the warm and fuzzy.

I am not seeing much effort in thought. You talk in sound bites, repeating the same hawkish sentiments I have heard all my life, with nothing new to add. Your ego and your preconceived notions seem to be inhibiting your ability to think clearly.
 
You are right, you didn't, but I interpreted this to mean that some type of line has America's interests at heart, and the other must cede to world opinion:



I am just wondering when that line turns from valuing world opinion, to acting in the best interests of the United States?


j-mac

You are making desperate attempts to twist my words. We are a sovereign country, and we will always work for our best interests. Sometimes that interest includes having good relations with the rest of the world.
 
It's easy to sit back and bitch, not so easy to find improvements.

The military is continually improving. It does not need a bunch of civilians reminding our enemy of our mistakes 12 months later so as to make our job that much harder. It does not need the 100th same photo splashed across international news. And it certainly doesn't need people rejoicing and defending the media for just "doing their jobs." I see that you choose to ignore the responsible journalism of our grandfathers when defending the depravity that reports today. I guess as long as that cash cow isn't squeezed dry thay are honorouble journalists no matter how many more American get to die for the constant reminders.

"Sitting back and bitching?" I still serve. I hardly sit back. Perhaps it's the media that needs to be held accountable for a change. Perhaps it's the average American who needs to check his position and shake himself up a bit.....or do the job for himself to appreciate the crap the regular troop has to endure from his own people. Maybe instead of relying on the media to deliver them what our troops go through while they demand impractical conclusions they could enlist and experience for themselves. And maybe those who served briefly in the past would support troops better by not cheering for those who make things harder than they have to.

I'll choose the practical reality every time.

Redress said:
Covering the actions of our troops is not a bad thing, and if our troops do wrong(as at Abu Graibh), then that should be covered too.and if our troops do wrong(as at Abu Graibh)...

Covered like anything else? You do realize that two weeks before Abu-Ghraib broke, two soldiers were taken prisoner and had their heads cut off. You do realize that this story took center stage for the world, thanks to our own American media, for the better part of a year and completely dismissed those two soldiers as soon as the media swarm began? Don't pretend that you stand for some noble sense of media coverage as if the military is asking for a hand out. Covering the actions of our troops is hardly all they do. They seek imjperfection and ride it until enough troops are dead over it and until the last penny can be squeezed.

By the way, let's not pretend that Abu-Graib wasn't about a bunch of civilians playing soldier. And let's not pretend that 2 years after the event every Muslim in the region had to be reminded.

Just think...if we just drop a couple atomic bombs in the Middle East we could be called "great" like our grandfathers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom