• 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

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.

I'm not going to say any more on this topic. It's a silly distinction. Re Clinton, he remained in office because, although he was impeached, he was not convicted.
 
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.
I agree with most of this, but I'll remember this in education threads when I read your posts about teachers.
 
Last edited:
Crushing argument>? Wow, pat yourself on the back why dont ya.
Already did.

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.
All public workers are public servants and stupid actions by the military can have drastic consequences for the rest of us so it's just as important that we criticize them or perhaps even more so. In any case, apdst said "the president works for me". The military works for citizens as well and no point that you try to make changes this.

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.
We don't vote for teachers either. They still work for us.

You can criticize them all you want, but what Apdst is saying is that until you are a soldier you will never understand them.
So you're saying that apdst used a strawman. Even better.
 
I'll remember this in education threads when I read your posts about teachers.

I don't postulate about the "why's, mindset and motivations" of teachers -- as I said in my post, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
 
All public workers are public servants and stupid actions by the military can have drastic consequences for the rest of us so it's just as important that we criticize them or perhaps even more so. In any case, apdst said "the president works for me". The military works for citizens as well and no point that you try to make changes this.
Like i said, the military doesnt work for you. It protects you. And as i also previously stated, you are more than free to criticize them.


We don't vote for teachers either. They still work for us.
And people still criticize the hell out of them.


So you're saying that apdst used a strawman. Even better.

Using the word "strawman" is the worst form of debate i have ever encountered. I see it on what seems like every other post i read on here. In debate, and especially in life, invalidating someones argument does not by default validate your own, so using it as your sole form of rebuttal defeats any point you were trying to make up to that. Its used here as an excuse for not having anything smarter to say.
 
Last edited:
Like i said, the military doesnt work for you. It protects you. And as i also previously stated, you are more than free to criticize them.
Actually it does. If the President works for me and teachers work for me, then the military sure as hell works for me. The military is not an altruistic organization. My tax dollars pay it to protect me. And I know I'm free to criticize them.

And people still criticize the hell out of them.
Exactly. Did you mean to prove my point for me?

Using the word "strawman" is the worst form of debate i have ever encountered. I see it on what seems like every other post i read on here. In debate, and especially in life, invalidating someones argument does not by default validate your own. Its used here as an excure for not having anything smarter to say.
You probably see it on every other post because it happens a lot here. That and the famed red herring. So if apdst is saying, "until you are a soldier you will never understand them," as you claim he is, it's a strawman aka a misrepresentation of people's actual arguments.
 
Actually it does. If the President works for me and teachers work for me, then the military sure as hell works for me. The military is not an altruistic organization. My tax dollars pay it to protect me. And I know I'm free to criticize them.

Why dont you give your local drill seargant a call and tell him to have 5 platoons report to your front yard in 10 minutes for drills and inspection. Whats he gonna say to you? Yes sir? Get lost? [/quote]

Exactly. Did you mean to prove my point for me?

If your point was that people can criticize others without understanding them, then yes.

You probably see it on every other post because it happens a lot here. That and the famed red herring. So if apdst is saying, "until you are a soldier you will never understand them," as you claim he is, it's a strawman aka a misrepresentation of people's actual arguments.

Its weak. Do you really think you can see things the way a soldier does if you havent experienced the things they have? That could be said about any group of people, not just soldiers.
 
Why dont you give your local drill seargant a call and tell him to have 5 platoons report to your front yard in 10 minutes for drills and inspection. Whats he gonna say to you? Yes sir? Get lost?



If your point was that people can criticize others without understanding them, then yes.



Its weak. Do you really think you can see things the way a soldier does if you havent experienced the things they have? That could be said about any group of people, not just soldiers.

Which is precisely his friggin' point. This includes cops, teachers, women who get abortions, and the President. All of whom have been criticized at one point or another on this forum.
 
Why dont you give your local drill seargant a call and tell him to have 5 platoons report to your front yard in 10 minutes for drills and inspection. Whats he gonna say to you? Yes sir? Get lost?
Why would I do that?

If your point was that people can criticize others without understanding them, then yes.
No, my point was that not voting for somebody does not mean they aren't a public worker that works for us.

Its weak. Do you really think you can see things the way a soldier does if you havent experienced the things they have? That could be said about any group of people, not just soldiers.
No, I don't think that which is why I said apdst's point was a strawman.
 
Which is precisely his friggin' point. This includes cops, teachers, women who get abortions, and the President. All of whom have been criticized at one point or another on this forum.

My point is that you dont have to BE a cop or a teacher or the President, or anyone else in order to criticize them, but you do have to BE them in order to understand things exactly the way they do. Particularly in the case of soldiers. So if you cant understand things from their point of view, you can still criticize them, you just cant really expect that criticism to mean as much.

As far as criticism goes, anyone is fair game. Meaningful criticism is a different story.
 
No, my point was that not voting for somebody does not mean they aren't a public worker that works for us.

Well thats slightly off topic then...
 
Well thats slightly off topic then...
No, it's actually a direct response to your claim that military workers are "different" because they we don't vote for them. I said that the President works for us. You responded, "but that's different because we vote for the president". I responded that we don't vote for teachers and yet they work for us. And now it's "off topic". This thread is a joke.
 
My point is that you dont have to BE a cop or a teacher or the President, or anyone else in order to criticize them, but you do have to BE them in order to understand things exactly the way they do. Particularly in the case of soldiers. So if you cant understand things from their point of view, you can still criticize them, you just cant really expect that criticism to mean as much.
Well then I have no idea why you entered the conversation between me and apdst because this was not the point of contention between us. Apdst argued that he can criticize the President because the president works for him, but that non-military people can't criticize the military because the military doesn't work for them. This claim is false.

As far as criticism goes, anyone is fair game. Meaningful criticism is a different story.
What is meaningful criticism? And do you think that non-military people can meaningfully criticize the actions described in the OP?
 
Urinating on someone is so offensive that I could never do it to anyone dead or alive, even those who defend the indefensible. I would not pee on them. I can safely say that even if they were on fire, I personally would not pee on them.
 
Last edited:
Opinions are fine, so long as they aren't mine.

:2bigcry:

Sorry, Mattillac. I'm pretty protective of the guys and gals who put their lives on the line for our country. Don't cry.
 
"All four Marines featured in the video have been identified and interviewed by investigators with the NCIS, the service said in a statement today. Officials are "still tracking down" whoever created and uploaded the video, the NCIS said.

The results of both the NCIS and the USMC investigations will be presented to Marine Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser who will determine further action, the USMC said in a statement.

If authentic, the video portrays potential violations of both the first Geneva Convention, which calls for the dead to be "honorably interred" and graves to be "respected," as well as the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice for allegedly bringing "discredit upon the armed forces."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the incident "inhuman."

"The Government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans," Karzai said in a statement Wednesday, referring to the Marines. "This act by American soldiers is simply inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms."
US Marines Soul Searching After 'Urinating' Video - ABC News

Two of the Marines are non-commissioned officers, which makes this even worse.
 
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.

Um...Obama was elected. He was elected to represent the American people.

This is the infantry's mission:

"The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."

I'm just not seeing anything in there that is remotely close to what the handwringers are claiming that their job is.
 
Last edited:
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.

I never said you can't. I've only said that your criticisms are uninformed.
 
I don't expect all our soldiers to be brilliant... but Scout Snipers video taping themselves? Seriously... how stupid is that?
 
What they did was wrong. Our government agrees it was wrong. Our government heads agree it was wrong. Most people think it was wrong. Those who did it will be punished in some form or another. Those men do not represent the USA or the military of the USA.

So with that said, the president of Afghanistan can shut his pie hole and quit waving his fists. WE KNOW ALREADY. It was WRONG. It's being taken care of! So STFU and pry the log out of your eye while whining about the stick in ours, ok? SHEESH.
Oh, and while you are stomping your feet, Mr. Afghan Prez, do try to keep YOUR denizens under control the next time they decide to behead someone and show it on tv, m'kay?

Arrrrgggg
 
I never said you can't. I've only said that your criticisms are uninformed.
That's weird because you responded to me when I made this comment:

So do you think every American citizen should walk in the President's Oxfords before they start shooting off at their pie hole?

in response to Captain America who claimed that those not in the military should not "shoot off at their pie hole" (aka criticize the military) when it comes to military concerns. You responded that the president is different because he works for you meaning that you did not object to the topic of conversation - that non-military people can't criticize the military.

In either case, you're still wrong about the military and the President being different in regards to working for the public. Both are paid by the public. Both work for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom