- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I don't favor the wars in Vietnam or Iraq.
We are in agreement there.
I don't favor the wars in Vietnam or Iraq.
I consider collateral damage in a war for world hegemony to be terrorism, we just kill from further away with more sophisticated weapons.
To me, sacrificing human lives for oil to be more morally reprehensible than killing for revenge, or in defending your country from foreign invaders.
Well, for me, this invalidates your opinion about war and even foreign policy. You think the US is the same as Hamas and Taliban, except we are more tech advanced. You think the US is more morally reprehensible than terrorists, since they only kill for revenge and to defend themselves while the US kills for oil. You completely ignore that Saddam was a genocidal dictator with government rape rooms. FGM, honor killings and the rest being legal... you don't care. You only care about one thing, and that's the US being worse than terrorists. Your foreign policy understanding should be relegated to the CT section.
To label your position as sympathizing with terrorists would be an understatement.
terrorism, we just kill from further away with more sophisticated weapons... To me, sacrificing human lives for oil to be more morally reprehensible
It's exactly what you wrote. Read the bold parts again and think about it critically. You claimed that the US did the same as terrorists, just from farther away; even better, you went further - that killing for revenge and 'defending ones country' is morally superior to war for oil... That is very clearly claiming moral superiority for the terrorists.
You flat-out wrote that collateral damage is terrorism, but worse.
That's clear. Perhaps you are a strawman, but you should own your words.
Yeah, yeah... I get it. The US is in a war for world hegemony and sacrificing lives for oil. Your worldview is clear.
Do you consider the victims of terrorism to be collateral damage in a war for world hegemony?
Is the US worse than terrorists, because the US does it for oil, whereas terrorists do it for "revenge" and nationalism?
Why do you leave out ideology as a vector, while including revenge/blowback and nationalism?
This thread is STILL going on!? SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTT!
Two U.S. Marines were referred to trial by court martial over their alleged involvement in a video showing troops urinating on dead Taliban fighters and posing for pictures with casualties.
The U.S. Marine Corps announced the criminal charges Monday. The incident allegedly occurred in July 2011 in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.
The charges are against Staff Sgt. Joseph W. Chamblin and Staff Sgt. Edward W. Deptola, both based at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
The two also were charged with other misconduct on the same day as the urination incident. That includes dereliction of duty by failing to properly supervise junior Marines and failing to stop and report misconduct of junior Marines.
Three other Marines were given administrative punishments last month for their role in the urination incident.
Read more: 2 Marines to be court-martialed over video showing troops urinating on corpses | Fox News
Update:
Sure took 'em long enough . . .
You can chop their heads off, but oh no! Don't you dare piss on'em!
This is rediculous political bull****.
So you support actions like the urinating on others?
So you support actions like the urinating on others?
So you support actions like the urinating on others?
Yeah, yeah... I get it. The US is in a war for world hegemony and sacrificing lives for oil. Your worldview is clear. Just to be sure:
Do you consider the victims of terrorism to be collateral damage in a war for world hegemony?
Is the US worse than terrorists, because the US does it for oil, whereas terrorists do it for "revenge" and nationalism?
Why do you leave out ideology as a vector, while including revenge/blowback and nationalism?
[SUB][/SUB]
I sure as hell don't support ruining the lives of a few people who are brave enough to serve thir country on a foreign battlefield, over nothing.
A little mental antagonism towards someone recently trying to kill you is completely reasonable. I don't think this issue should ever be tried. "Under duress" certainly applies here and you might still be a little hostile after your enemy is dead. This overt hostility is good in a war zone. All our soldiers are not priests/scholars/lawyers and will do stupid things on occasion. "Boys will be boys" fits here. Not court martial the bastards. I'm no different. I remember shooting a woodchuck when I was about 11 years old and taking a piss on the dead critter. What's the difference.
And in committing rash and outright stupid acts like these they place in danger their fellow American soldiers and do a great disservice to their nation, its people and their service. Perhaps making some pay for their outright stupidity and foolishness will save the lives of Americans in the future by preventing these sorts of macho displays of juvenille stupidity.
My father served in World War II in eastern europe. He even spent parts of two years in a german prisoner of war camp. The damn Nazi's were not only trying to kill him - they were trying to destroy our very nation. He had more reasons than these current combatants to hate the enemy.
I asked him if he knew of any incidents of American troops urinating upon the enemy dead when he served and se said he never heard of such a thing.
My father served in World War II in eastern europe. He even spent parts of two years in a german prisoner of war camp. The damn Nazi's were not only trying to kill him - they were trying to destroy our very nation. He had more reasons than these current combatants to hate the enemy.
I asked him if he knew of any incidents of American troops urinating upon the enemy dead when he served and se said he never heard of such a thing.
Your dad didn't hear of it, but it happened.
They didn't put anyone in danger. That talking point is as idiotic as these criminal charges.