Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Most mainstream media stations paint the US military in a better light than even you probably would, aside from Iran's Press tv, Russia Today, CCTV etc.,It take that as a good thing, perhaps you are starting to realize that I am not just some right-wing spokesman. I represent myself. My views are pretty centrist.Even those news sources do not represent an accurate picture, because there is a lot of filtering going on, either intentional or unintentional. Well, maybe not antithetical, but they they're pretty far apart, I can assure you. Left of center in the US and left of center in Europe are two very different things, and I'm not left of center.What are you, a European right-winger? {laughs}From the way I understand it, the entire US political spectrum fits on the European right.hyperbole implies extravagant exaggeration, I do not beleive I am guilty of this in most instances. My arguments cannot be characterised in that way.When you have the option to choose between two or more nearly synonymous terms you often choose the one with strong negative connotations. Even when a more objective term is available. Do you not see that you do this?You're completely neglecting the fact that you work for the US militaryI don't neglect it, I very much realize this. I am biased, I have never denied that. However it hasn't prevented me from being Critical of many events and actions actions relating to the U.S. Military and/or U.S. Government. I have openly Criticized the CIA-led Iran Coup, the Nicaraguan Coup, the Contras, the Iraq WMD myth, etc....if that wasn't the case I would have thought you'd leave your post or quitQuitting is not an option, I signed a contract. I have no control over these things, and leaving my post would only ruin the rest of my adult career. The only reason I would ever leave my post is if I was asked to do something immoral, but there are channels of appeal for that sort of thing. Needless to say I have not been asked to do anything immoral.I would have had to have posted something like: "This behaviour, and this kind of behaviour is institutional in the US army, of that I have very little doubt."No you wouldn't. It is implied. Nothing is more like the behavior than the behavior itself. That you conflate disrespectful behavior with things like torture, is incredibly disingenuous.You're unbeleivable, you countries mililtary ruined Iraq, sent it back to the stone age, killed hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians in an illegal agressive invasion, broke God knows how many international laws, violated God knows how many UN resolutions or Articles of the Geneva convention.Well, hold on there Michael Bay....slow down for a minute. You've side-stepped my contention. The incident reports only show actions, not causality. Soldiers (and Marines) are just as capable of committing crimes as anyone else, until you can show that these crimes happened because they were either implicitly or explicitly commanded to do so, you cannot claim that they are institutionalized. 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.they show a hell of lot that isn't supposed to happen when one country invades another.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.I'm not tarnishing individuals here, I have no doubt there are many fine upstanding men and women in the US miiltary, over all though, I beleive the institution to be corruptEvery institution that wields power will have some level of corruption.Yes, the SS and Gestapo were soldiers as well, they also killed people, and illegal invaded sovereign territories in order to further their nations hegemony, just like the USSo the US is kinda like Nazi Germany then, eh? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about before. please explain the moral difference between what they did, and what your honourable force doesWell, for one thing we aren't committing genocide.I think you supported him (Saddam) when he illegal invaded KuwaitNot 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.Civilian casualities are a part of any intervention, i am well aware of that, but when the law is followed they are normally minimised, however when countries decide all on their own that they want to invade another, and the majority of the world disagree's, but they do it anyway in order to secure their own strategic interests.This is pretty inconsistent. The two things you mention here INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT and STRATEGIC INTERESTS have nothing to do with the number of civilian casualties.The number of civilian casualties isn't going to magically increase simply because of low international support. This is a nonsense argument. The same is true of strategic interests. Neither of these has anything to do with the quantity of civ casualties. On the other hand what does affect that number is the weapons and military tactics used, as well as the accuracy of target identification. And on a side note, Iraq really wasn't all that strategically important to begin with.I have never seen anything that convinced me that this is not just PR defense, and I've seen quite lot that indicated that's exactly what it isProbably because you haven't looked. It's not simply a matter of PR, it's part of the overall strategy, and the reason why The U.S. has succeeded where Russia has failed. To allow actions which contribute to Resentment and Retaliation undermines our efforts. To prevent the creation of more insurgents, is essential to US Military strategy.We both know these things would never be officially encouragedThen how else are they encouraged and what evidence do you have to support it?I'm talking about the thousands of civilians indiscriminately murdered by your forcesEvidence?I tell you what show me how many marines are serving life sentences and lets see if it matches up with the number of civilians that were unlawfully executed by your militaryWell, of course the number of victims is going to be higher than the number of criminals. They weren't executed by the "military" they were executed by sick individuals in the military who were acting in clear defiance of the written letter of the law.When an intervention is illegal, not morally justifiable in any real tangible way, has relatively no international support, that is a war crimeThis is false. A war crime is something committed DURING a war, such as genocide or killing EPWs. A war does not become a war crime simply because you or other countries disagree with it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimeWell, the topic broadened, I began discussing the general behaviour of the US military, i don't really view your adventure's in Iraq and Afghanistan separatelyWell, you should. They are completely different wars, against different opponents, for different reasons. Geographically, culturally, and linguistically it is very different. The war in Afghanistan had greater public support. The war in Iraq was based on false precepts, the presence (or lack-thereof) of WMDs. The Afghan war was much more justifiable............more later.