• 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!

U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

There are no varying degrees of desecration it is measured on intent because the bodies can't be harmed more than deceased. Though I'll agree the worse the acts of defilement the more visceral my reaction inside.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. But they cannot be allowed to think what they did was OK. They should know they put a stain on otherwise honorable work, and on those who served with them. It hurt not just them, but others who serve with more restraint and maturity.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Absolutely they are gone. You do not, ever, not ever, make bad publicity for your command/branch/country. You will get hung out to dry. Every single time. When we learned the 10 commandments, this was like number 2.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit tempted to make a poll with these sharply different opinions.
 
grip said:
There are no varying degrees of desecration it is measured on intent because the bodies can't be harmed more than deceased. Though I'll agree the worse the acts of defilement the more visceral my reaction inside.
Click to expand...
That sums up my view on it. Intellectually, I understand that desecrating a dead body is one way has no more impact than desecrating it another way since the person is dead regardless and disrespect is disrespect. However, my reaction to more violent types of desecration is certainly different.
 
Wake said:
I'm a bit tempted to make a poll with these sharply different opinions.
Click to expand...

Your poll would mostly get what people feel should be done, not what will most likely be done. If it was up to me, they would not get booted. I just know the reality, which is that they will. If they get lucky they might get an OTH RE4, but BCD is possible.
 
Redress said:
Your poll would mostly get what people feel should be done, not what will most likely be done. If it was up to me, they would not get booted. I just know the reality, which is that they will. If they get lucky they might get an OTH RE4, but BCD is possible.
Click to expand...

That in itself would make a pretty interesting discussion, I think. If you don't want to make the poll, I'll make one a little later on [probably tomorrow].
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So do you think every American citizen should walk in the President's Oxfords before they start shooting off at their pie hole?
Click to expand...

Well, not really, because the president works for me.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Am I the only one who hasn't seen anyone go "bat**** insane" over this? So many strawmen, so little time.
Click to expand...

When you take a single sentence out of a lengthy post, and totally ignore everything I said in order to toss out a completely irrelevant snide remark, it's clear you aren't looking for a thoughtful reply. You are simply... pardon the pun... pissing in the wind, and will be treated accordingly.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
When you take a single sentence out of a lengthy post, and totally ignore everything I said in order to toss out a completely irrelevant snide remark, it's clear you aren't looking for a thoughtful reply. You are simply... pardon the pun... pissing in the wind, and will be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...
Obviously not because you took the time to respond to me. Besides, half your post was spent addressing "bat**** insane" people. If you're going to spend half of your "lengthy post" addressing "insane" people, then you should be able to understand when someone questions your premise.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Um...who do you think that the military (a publicly funded institution) works for?
Click to expand...

You elected them to represent you? I wasn't aware of that. I thought they volunteered to defend the country from harm. Seems to me that since there are so many of you that won't, that you would stop complaining how those that will, do their job.

Just sayin...
 
US Marines grilled over abuse video

"14 Jan 2012 US investigators have identified the four Marines seen urinating on Afghan corpses in an inflammatory video and expect to bring charges against them soon, a senior military official told FOX News Channel today. The online video showed the US troops urinating on three bloodied corpses, and one of the men, apparently aware he was being filmed, saying: "Have a great day, buddy," referring to one of the dead.

All four are from a sniper unit in the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the official said, noting that the two who were questioned by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service are on active duty."
Citizens for Legitimate Government | CLG exposes and resists US imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
US Marines grilled over abuse video

"14 Jan 2012 US investigators have identified the four Marines seen urinating on Afghan corpses in an inflammatory video and expect to bring charges against them soon, a senior military official told FOX News Channel today. The online video showed the US troops urinating on three bloodied corpses, and one of the men, apparently aware he was being filmed, saying: "Have a great day, buddy," referring to one of the dead.

All four are from a sniper unit in the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the official said, noting that the two who were questioned by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service are on active duty."
Citizens for Legitimate Government | CLG exposes and resists US imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order
Click to expand...

That is just a wonderful website there....
 
Redress said:
Your poll would mostly get what people feel should be done, not what will most likely be done. If it was up to me, they would not get booted. I just know the reality, which is that they will. If they get lucky they might get an OTH RE4, but BCD is possible.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that they probably WILL get booted. Not because the punishment fits the crime, but because the government has an irrational need to appease everyone. Same reason politicians get fired for having affairs, and its same reason Don Imus got fired for calling some people Nappy Headed hoes. Was that appropriate? Of course not. But it offended people so he got the boot. Never mind the fact that liberals have radio shows that are FAR more graphic and inappropriate than that.
 
DiAnna said:
...the entire UN nuclear inspection team who knew there were no nukes in Iraq,
Click to expand...

They were not only looking for nukes, but compliance with the WMD disarmament agreement.

I respond as a peer and I don’t take the term lightly. I don’t look down on you and that’s no virtue of my own; if I could, I would. Anyway, in that spirit…

I’ve read the relevant IAEA reports, paying particular attention to the final report. If you would like to use IAEA reports in debate regarding Iraq, there are two angles. We’ll look at the weaker first: Iraq had allowed (off and on some years) some kind of inspections for over a decade. This argument doesn’t hold much water, but it exists. The stronger point within IAEA anti-war debate is that Saddam had recently increased (procedural) compliance within the last month. The inspectors felt that obstacles to inspection had recently been removed. These obstacles involved transportation, unannounced inspections, access to facilities and access to personnel among other problems with compliance. I’d counter that this represents a second in time regarding years of dodging compliance and really, after 17 UNSC C7s, it did not represent a significant development or change of circumstance because…

~”We don’t know, but compliance has improved in the past months”

That is what the report disclosed. The report did not conclude that the inspectors “knew” there were no WMDs. I don’t know where you acquired this fabrication or why you cling to it so tenaciously (I’ve corrected you before), but it’s a falsehood. See the ~quote above; that’s the final report. Stop it. Make the argument I made above, or read the reports again and come up with a new angle; however, “they knew” is flat-out crap (first because they were not only looking for nukes and second because compliance was not complete nor had it been - it was getting better) and the report is very clear on this.

Bush never claimed they had nukes; merely that he would pursue them given the opportunity, given his record of compliance.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
You elected them to represent you?
Click to expand...
You elected President Obama?

Hint: Obama doesn't work for you because he was elected. He works for you because he is employed by a public institution. The military is a public institution. Therefore, they work for the public, just like teachers who 'volunteer' work for the public.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You elected President Obama?

Hint: Obama doesn't work for you because he was elected. He works for you because he is employed by a public institution. The military is a public institution. Therefore, they work for the public, just like teachers who 'volunteer' work for the public.
Click to expand...

Semantics. It doesnt accomplish anything.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It seem any excuse is being sought for these scum. The "bad apples" lie will be next. It's the norm, these dullards were just too stupid or uncaring to consider the consequences of posting their triumphant victory on Youtube. Were the dead children really terrorists, or just fragged for fun like last years obscenity?
Click to expand...


Link to childeren "fragged for fun" please.
 
Dpetty said:
Semantics. It doesnt accomplish anything.
Click to expand...
Uh...what? Apdst claims that he can have valid criticisms Obama (even though he's never been president) because Obama works for him. However, he claims that non-military people can't have valid criticisms of the Marines in this story because we've never been in the military - however, the military also works for us. That's not semantics. That's called crushing an argument.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Uh...what? Apdst claims that he can have valid criticisms Obama (even though he's never been president) because Obama works for him. However, he claims that non-military people can't have valid criticisms of the Marines in this story because we've never been in the military - however, the military also works for us. That's not semantics. That's called crushing an argument.
Click to expand...

The old saying, "....until you've walked a mile in my mocassins," is more true than not. Anyone is entitled to an opinion on the conduct of these men, of course. As to their motivations, mindset and why they did it, these are best left to those who've walked the walk, in my opinion. To those who say, "I don't care why they did it," I would point out that our legal system does.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Uh...what? Apdst claims that he can have valid criticisms Obama (even though he's never been president) because Obama works for him. However, he claims that non-military people can't have valid criticisms of the Marines in this story because we've never been in the military - however, the military also works for us. That's not semantics. That's called crushing an argument.
Click to expand...

Crushing argument>? Wow, pat yourself on the back why dont ya.
There are some important differences however. The President is elected by the people. He is expected to to watch out for out best interests and take the country in the right direction. As such, he holds his position only at by the collective voice of the people. That makes him a public servant. He reports to us. And is supposed to hold himself accountable to us. Not only is it our right to criticize him, its our duty to call him on things that we dont agree with.

A soldier however is not in the same catagory at all. We do not vote for soldiers, and we have no say in what soldiers do. The military carries out the orders that come down the chain of command and they are only held responsible by those above them in that chain. We can rant and rave all day long but whatever eventual punishment is decided upon, will come from within the military. You can criticize them all you want, but what Apdst is saying is that until you are a soldier you will never understand them.
 
Dpetty said:
Crushing argument>? Wow, pat yourself on the back why dont ya.
There are some important differences however. The President is elected by the people. He is expected to to watch out for out best interests and take the country in the right direction. As such, he holds his position only at by the collective voice of the people. That makes him a public servant. He reports to us.
Click to expand...

Semantics again. Yes, the president is elected by the people. No, he doesn't report to us. Hell, he won't even take my phone calls. ;) The President of the United States reports to no one. He is held in check, if you will, by the U.S. Congress. Your line, "He holds his position only at the collective voice of the people," isn't right either. Unless the President commits an impeachable offense and is convicted by the U.S. House of Representatives, the collective voice of the people has nothing to do with his staying in office.
 
MaggieD said:
Semantics again. Yes, the president is elected by the people. No, he doesn't report to us. Hell, he won't even take my phone calls. ;) The President of the United States reports to no one. He is held in check, if you will, by the U.S. Congress. Your line, "He holds his position only at the collective voice of the people," isn't right either. Unless the President commits an impeachable offense and is convicted by the U.S. House of Representatives, the collective voice of the people has nothing to do with his staying in office.
Click to expand...

Semantics yet again. The president is supposed to report to us, and is supposed to be held accountable to us, whether he does that or not, is a different topic. The powers of the president are held in "check" by the other branches of government, but im not talking about balance of power, i am talking about who the president works for, and that is us. The American citizens. Last i checked we use an admittedly antiquated two party voting system to elect a President, hence he is in office by our collective voice. I didn’t say he maintained his position during a term, in the same way. And as we have seen with Clinton, impeachment doesn’t mean removal from office.
 
Dpetty said:
Semantics yet again. The president is supposed to report to us, and is supposed to be held accountable to us, whether he does that or not, is a different topic. The powers of the president are held in "check" by the other branches of government, but im not talking about balance of power, i am talking about who the president works for, and that is us. The American citizens. Last i checked we use an admittedly antiquated two party voting system to elect a President, hence he is in office by our collective voice. I didn’t say he maintained his position during a term, in the same way. And as we have seen with Clinton, impeachment doesn’t mean removal from office.
Click to expand...

Could you please be specific and tell us what it is you want the President to do regarding this reporting to the American people?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Uh...what? Apdst claims that he can have valid criticisms Obama (even though he's never been president) because Obama works for him. However, he claims that non-military people can't have valid criticisms of the Marines in this story because we've never been in the military - however, the military also works for us. That's not semantics. That's called crushing an argument.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent analysis. Intellectual consistency is not exactly a hallmark with some here. Reversals, flip flops, 180 degree spins - its all normal for some just like eating and breathing as long as it advances the ideology they believe in because they want to believe in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom