Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

1. Saddam Hussein was ceasing selling oil in dollars, that was setting a bad precedent, as we both know how important it is that oil remains in How is this strategic?2. Iraq has a lot of oil, and you can be sure the invasion has made many rich elites even richer.So you think the U.S. invaded for oil, I could go through the math and show you why that's implausible, but since you're the one making the claim, I would like to see what evidence you have to support this claim.3. Saddam Hussein was a potential danger to the US (and Israel), but not in the way he was portrayed, he represented (like Iran do now) threat to your supremacy.A threat to our supremacy......um....okay......you have anything a little more vague?You haven't succeeded where Russia failed, you will be driven out of Afghanistan, it's only a matter of time.Of course we'll leave eventually, we don't plan on being there indefinitely. Our goal was never to conquer it. Afghanistan the 51st U.S. state isn't going to happen. We've already overthrown the Taliban from the seat of power, and captured or killed most of the Taliban leadership. The relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban has effectively been severed as a result. Basically right now we're just nation-building, building up the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and training their police and military to take our place when we leave. How is that not a success?Then why were 7 children blown into tiny piece just last week?Is this what you're talking about?http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/02/afghanistan-seven-children-and-one-18-year-old-murdered-by-french-troops/ Oh yes, because I'm sure the French Military just intentionally bombs children for sport. Not sure what that has to do with US military strategic policy anyway. Red herring.Hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and no accountabilityCan you please be more vague, because that's the one thing your argument is missing; Not enough Vagueness.if the US really played by the rules as it say it does...Stop side-stepping my question. How else are they encouraged and what evidence do you have to support it?Fair enough, why don't we take Fallujah, what was done there throughout the war:http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21131  Your link is blank. It's just an empty page.No, there simply isn't any accountability, at least, no real accountabilityI will agree with that. We need more accountability.desperately to keep the wikileaks documents from coming outWell, that and the fact that it contains classified information including strategic information, diplomacy cables, names of informants and so forth....Iraq was a war crime from the moment the US and British forces invadedYou can't call something a war crime simply because you don't like it. There is a precise criteria for what constitutes a war crime and what doesn't.I looked through your link and a read your excerpt and I could not find a single specific war crime.Precision bombs not always hitting their intended targets does not constitute a war crime. Depleted Uranium armor, and depleted Uranium shells are if anything a violation of environmental law, but a war crime it is not. You're desperately grasping at straws. Hell, in the Iran-Iraq war both nations launched scud missiles into towns, and Iraq used chemical weapons, how come I've never heard you complain about that? Compare the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan with the U.S.invasion, and you will find there is no comparison.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Afghanistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR7xwzjkxbY Whether you admit it or not you hold the U.S. military to a much higher standard.