Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Check out my response on Joe Cavalry's debate"I represent myself."As do I."My views are pretty centrist.....What are you, a European right-winger? {laughs}"I don't place myself anywhere on the left/right spectrum, I simply don't like the labels, although i admit nearly anything in this world can be distilled down to left or right, but if someone put a gun to my head I'd have to tell him I was standing at the very end of the far left side and clumsily (parheps willingly, who knows) fell off it."Even those news sources do not represent an accurate picture, because there is a lot of filtering going on, either intentional or unintentional. "Firstly I get a lot news from principled intellectually honest people whose opinions I trust, but I don't rely on anyone, I see the difference in coverage between all the stations, even the ones that are relatively close in their views. If you can read between the lines, recognise what governmental policies (or agenda) a given station is following, you can get a reasonably accurate picture of what is going on."From the way I understand it, the entire US political spectrum fits on the European right."The entire mainstream political spectrum, the people that call themselves leftists are either on the centre, or right of centre on most crucial issues."When you have the option to choose between two or more nearly synonymous terms you often choose the one with strong negative connotations."Ok, I will admit this is the case, but in I think many of those particular instances warrant the use of such words."Even when a more objective term is available. Do you not see that you do this?"Yes I do, but as I said, I think I could justify many of them, but I openly admit that a significant percentage may be too strongly worded, this is partly due to my own passion for the subject taking hold."I have openly Criticized the CIA-led Iran Coup, the Nicaraguan Coup, the Contras, the Iraq WMD myth, etc...."You have criticised them as failed policies."No you wouldn't. It is implied. Nothing is more like the behavior than the behavior itself."I know it is implied, along with a whole range of disrespectful behaviours. I just don't think you've really grasped my opinion. I beleive the US military to be a corrupt force, inhabited by many corrupt individuals, but even among the fine morally upright individuals (of which I am sure you are one), when you enagae in imperialistic policies, in my mind at least, you automatically forfeit your virtue, belief in your own superior virtue always leads to greater depravity against the (perceived) enemies you beleive to be less virtuous."That you conflate disrespectful behaviour with things like torture, is incredibly disingenuous."I don't think it's disingenuous at all actually, I was wasn't referencing the severity of those actions, in that case they cannot be considered equal."Even if they were, such a command would be illegal according official policy, and thus not institutionalized. You are making a claim that is unsubstantiated."I have openly admitted that official policy contradicts my stance on this issue, but I don't beleive it has to be imbued in the official policy to be an institutionalised mode of behaviour in the military."Supposed to, but does. Civilian casualties aren't supposed to happen but they do. Especially in the kind of war that we are fighting against enemies without uniforms."You are fighting a fictitious war against an enemy that represents no real threat to you, let me quote from a book I am currently reading on power by Bertrand Russell, page 20:"But the leader is hardly likely to be successful unless he enjoys his power over his followers. He will therefore be led to a preference for the kind of situation, and the kind of mob, that makes his success easy. The best situation is one in which there is a danger sufficiently serious to make men feel brave in combating it, but not so terrifying as to make fear predominant - such a situation, for example, as the outbreak of war against an enemy who is thought formidable but invincible. A skillful orator, when he wishes to stimulate war like feeling, produces in his audience two laers of belief: a superficial layer, in which the power of the enemy is magnified so as to make great courage seem necessary, and a deeper layer, in which there is a firm conviction of victor. Both are embodied in the slogan "right will prevail over might". The kind of mob that creator will desire is one more given to emotion than to reflection, one filled with fears and consequent hatreds, one impatient of slow and gradual methods, and at once exasperated and hopeful. The orator of his is not a complete cynic (like me) will acquire a set of beliefs that justify his activities.""So the US is kinda like Nazi Germany then, eh?"Please explain the qualtitative difference between the Iraq invasion and Hitler's invasion of Poland."Well, for one thing we aren't committing genocide."I think the deaths of hundreds of thousand can be considered genocide, but i was really talking about motives, but fair enough, I see your point, the Nazis had a much more despicable ideology, and thus committed more more despicable crimes."Not to be rude, but are you ignorant of history? US forces led the coalition Against the Iraq Invasion. This is pretty well established as a historical fact."I know, this was an obvious mistake, I meant to say: you didn't supported him when he illegal invaded Kuwait, so why did you support your own country when they illegal invaded Iraq?*"The number of civilian casualties isn't going to magically increase simply because of low international support.This is a nonsense argument"I beg to differ, when a multicoloured coalition intervenes, innocent deaths are lower because those countries keep themselves in check, this I think is more true when there is an international consensus, and rival countries are involved, they won't want to provide one another with poltical ammunition, adn thus the rules will be adhered to more rigidly.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMore later.