# US Marines urinate on dead Taliban

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Captain Kremmen, Jan 12, 2012.

1. ### spidergoatLiddle' Dick TaterValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,966
Shame on you Fraggle, we didn't kill all those people. Most of them died at the hands of other Iraqis.

3. ### CifoDay destroys the night,Registered Senior Member

Messages:
685
Arthur, you dodged this.

5. ### 786Searching for TruthValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,089
No, it had to do with lies.

Afghanistan didn't attack the US. Some people living there might have, but that means you do a covert operation and take them out like was the case how Osama was killed. Did we go on a full-scale war on Pakistan because Osama was there? Get real.

Do try to sort out: stupidity from wisdom. You don't declare war on a country because of a few people living there, that is insanity. We could have easily taken out Osama then without declare a full-blown war much earlier, the war only made him move and go underground further. You spent 8500 American lives + 40000+ Severely injured + $1 Trillion dollars to get that 1 man. Instead you end up killing him not on a battlefield where you might need 100000 Troops but in a house with a special team operation that probably cost less than$10 million.

War is not the only way to 'fight'. I don't see people taking out a bazooka to find and kill the hacker who sent a virus to your computer.

9/11 as much as it was a terrorist act was also American FAILURE in security and intelligence. The idea that you will go around the world killing everyone that hates you is rediculous. Russians probably still hate us (some of them?), we don't go kill them. We make sure we have a good DEFENSE so that nothing would happen, and 'haters' can keep hating (like in Cold War).

The moment you start a war you multiply your enemies, because there will be groups who legitemately fight to keep invading countries out, they just want their country. A policy that mulitiplies enemies, a policy of full-blown war instead of directed intelligence operations is insanity. Its like you live in the Roman times. Why would you 'send a campion' to fight their 'champion' when you got a sniper now and can kill him without risking yourself. When America sends so many troops and declares war on countries- 'Oh we gotta show we're strong' 'project Americas power', what I see being projected is American stupidity, arrogance, and lack of understanding how to deal with problems, their only solution is kill everyone 'WAR', just like how South Carolina booed the Golden Rule. Disgusting. Our Foreign Policy is being run by pyschopathic idiots. Whoever advised Bush to declare war on Afghanistan (politically a good move, people were upset with 9/11 wanted action) is the biggest idiot in the world.

Last edited: Jan 18, 2012

7. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
So, it's not supported by facts and it's not relevant.

8. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Nope.
Nope, the government, that was NOT recognized by the world as legitimate, allowed the KNOWN terrorists to operate openly in their country, which led directly to the 9/11 attacks.

And we didn't declare war on Afghanistan.
We declared war on the Taliban.
Indeed the country now, again, has it's own elected government.

Nope.
Not to get one man.
To bring an end to the growing problem that was Al Qaeda.
9/11 wasn't their first attack you know.

Yup, but sometimes it is the only thing that does work.

What BS is this?
It's our fault because we didn't stop Al Qaeda?

Thus the TSA.
Talk to Michael though, he doesn't quite get it.

Not really, which is why the Govt of Afghanistan is on our side.

Or consider Iraq.
We went there, we got rid of Saddam and the Sunni thugs that had kept the Shiites and Kurds oppressed, helped to rebuild the infrastructure that had run down during the sanctions and the ousting of Saddam and maintained secuity as the people of Iraq came together and wrote their own Constitution and elected their own leaders and trained their own police and security and then we left.

Not likely a plan to make people hate you is it?

9. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
Attack by who? Saudi Arabia?
Of course not. They are our Friends, aren't they?

9/11 was an attack generated by Bin Laden, a Saudi, using mainly Saudi operatives, against the US military presence in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. The home of Mecca.

Every Muslim in the world applauded his intent:
To drive the Infidel out of the Holy Land.

That's why, when Bin Laden was found, it was within spitting distance of a Military Camp in Pakistan.
Even though Pakistan did not approve of the 9/11 strike on America,
it supported the idea behind it.

The US is not wanted as an occupying force by any country in the Middle East, except those run by puppet leaders.
And, as Pakistan proved, even those profiting by US money don't really want you.

10. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
You don't hold Saudi responsible because the leader of Al Qaeda was an ex-pat Saudi.

The Taliban was allowing Al Qaeda to operate openly and under their protection.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf

You really believe that?

Muslims all over the world said they did not agree with Al Qaeda.

No it didn't.
No it doesn't.

And we aren't an occupying force in any country in the ME.

Indeed, in both Iraq and Afghanistan we have been there so the people could write their own Constitution and form their own government and build their own security forces.

Not something an occupying force would do.

11. ### 786Searching for TruthValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,089
All of the evidence was concocted. I believe that is called 'lies'

?

We helped the Taliban come to power. And why should it matter if the 'world considers' them as legitimate. We don't even consider Hamas legitimate even though they won Democratically. If the country considers them legitimate that is all that matters. External 'opinion' of legitimacy is irrelevant.

And its our duty to go around the world installing 'elected government'? Perhaps you didn't know that Taliban WERE working with the US to give up Osama bin Laden pre-9/11. The problem is America have an arrogance problem as they don't understand people and their culture. The only 'diplomatic solution' you know is 'put up or get bombed'.

Ya who numbered in 100's or few thousand pre-war. They have already killed more than they would have killed in years thanks for you going there.

And 9/11 wasn't our only failure.

I'd have to question your idea of 'work'.

No, its a recognition that there are people who want to harm US. So failed intelligencen and security ARE American faults. If US failed to develop nuclear bombs during that period, we really would have been screwed and that WOULD have been American fault.

Unnecessary knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps if pilots were allowed to have guns on board they could do something?

I'm not talking about puppet governments.

The Mahdi group? Multiplication of enemies.

And it was our duty to do that? Consider that now Shiites may be oppressing Sunnis, consider that the people will now think their government isn't really theirs but a puppet gov of the US. There are a lot of things to be considered. Consider that the people who lost their innocent family members now want to avenge their deaths.

Sanctions that we put on

Why did we go in

Perhaps you can urge Obama do go into Kashmir and free them from the Indians, but no. We only like helping people when we don't like their leadership. Very nice message to the world 'we're a bully'.

Yea it is, how many innocent people did we kill, consider some reaction to that, and just the perception its a puppet government, which IS corrupt means 'US put on a corrupt government', there are a lot of consequences that makes people 'hate us'.

12. ### CifoDay destroys the night,Registered Senior Member

Messages:
685
Arthur, you speak against trying not to provoke the enemy, so it is relevant — and it is most certainly supported by facts.

Bush said "Bring 'em on", and Bush himself later expressed regret for having used the phrase "bring 'em on" talking about America's adversaries in the War on Terror. Concerning this childish playground taunt of his, he said:
source

13. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829

Not the same as your claim.

14. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No, all the evidence wasn't concocted.
Saddam was an evil bastard and responsible for the deaths of a million or more people, the oppression of the Shiites, the war against Kuwait, the gassing of the Kurds, the supporting of suicide bombers against Israel, etc etc

We did not help the Taliban come to power and if they were legitimate then more than 3 other countries would have recognized them.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1097442.html

We didn't install anything.
The people of Afghanistan did.
Or are you against these people having a chance at running their own affairs?
And no, they weren't going to give up OBL prior to or after 9/11.

How do you know?
What seems a more realistic interpretation is we have marginalized them and vast numbers of the Muslim world has distanced themselves from the radical elements that Al Qaeda represented.

Yeah, living in a free counrty and also preventing terrorism are not easy jobs.
Doesn't mean we deserve it though.

Nah, it's obvious when it works and in this case it clearly has.

Total BS
We live by laws that allow a great deal of freedom.
With that comes risks.
Failure to stop 9/11 was not our fault any more than if attempts to build the nuclear bomb had not been successful.

Yeah, that's the ticket.
What does it do to stop a bomb from going off?

And they aren't puppet governments.
Hell we aren't even in Iraq any more and they obviously weren't our puppet before we left.

More unsubstantiated BS

No, they were UN sanctions.
And besides, you say don't go to war, and now you are saying no sanctions either, so what is your solution?

Oh, right, you have none.

15. ### spidergoatLiddle' Dick TaterValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,966
That does not mean that these lies constituted the only justification for the war.

16. ### quadraphonicsBloodthirsty BarbarianValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,391
Some people living, training, recruiting and organizing there, with the explicit permission and protection of the government of Afghanistan, who in turn refused to shut down said operations.

So you still violate their sovereignty and use deadly force, you just do it "covertly?"

Not sure what distinction you think you're drawing there, but it seems awfully weak.

We threatened to do exactly that if the government of Pakistan did not join our side against the Taliban (who were created and maintained by them). And we've been bombing Pakistan frequently for years, now.

Wasn't simply about killing one dude. He headed an entire organization that recruited and trained thousands of people. That whole network had to be shut down.

That would be 1750 American lives, 15,000+ injured, and about half a trillion dollars (so far), in order to shut down a terrorist organization with global reach and overthrow a brutal theocracy.

Which operation would not have been possible without the logistics and intelligence presence next door, introduced exactly by the war effort.

17. ### CifoDay destroys the night,Registered Senior Member

Messages:
685
This has been my claim
source

18. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Rest assured that the institution of the Marine Corps will not rest until the allegations and the events surrounding them have been resolved,” Amos said yesterday

Notice it sounded stern but he didn't say anything about anyone being punished.

Resolved could mean a week of KP

19. ### quadraphonicsBloodthirsty BarbarianValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,391
What "resolved" means, is that the USMC no longer has an image problem in the US and international press. That will involve some combination of investigation/sanctions and simply waiting out the news cycle.

20. ### parmaleeperipatetic artisanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,183
Are we to assume that back in '04 you were diligently jotting off reminders of this type to G.W. and company as well?

21. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
I presume that's exactly what it means.

22. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
That's not the way it was presented to us. We would not have encouraged the country to go to war merely to stop Saddam from developing WMDs. We already had a perfectly effective way of doing that, which we tested against Iran: let the Israeli air force go over and bomb the suspected facilities. No skin off our nose, everybody over there already hates Israel anyway.

The only reason we were so sanguine about attacking Iraq is that we were told it was very probable that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Nobody could quite explain what that "something" was, but we were so angry that we weren't looking for details.
Oh sorry. We overthrew the only secular, pro-Western government in the entire region and caused the country to descend into chaos, allowing long-festering rivalries to surface when there was nothing to stop them. The fact that amid this climate of anarchy, fear and hatred the people began killing each other is absolutely not our fault.

When's the last time we declared war on anybody? The Axis powers in World War II! Every orgy of military violence since then has been a "peace action" like Korea.
The Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The difference between declaring war on a nation and declaring war on its government is so tiny that I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending it.
A weak, corrupt, inept government respected by very few citizens, which has actual control over about 20% of the country.
The war has killed far more innocent people than the terrorists ever did. Our own country's military casualties now outnumber the deaths on 9/11. The stated purpose of this was to "prevent another 9/11." Another 9/11 would have caused less loss of life, less infrastructural damage, less political instability and less worldwide anti-American sentiment than this war has.

As I already mentioned, in the first decade of this millennium terrorists have killed almost exactly the same number of Americans as peanut allergies.
What alternate reality do you live in? Outside of the gated and guarded zones where diplomats and government officials live and work, Iraqis do not have reliable access to clean water, sanitation, medical care, police protection or electricity. Pick any population center in the country at random and its rate of violence makes the most frightening nighttime neighborhoods in New York or Washington look like Disneyland.
Yes indeed. Our buddy, the guy we happily armed and supported during his war against Iran. Apparently we weren't very displeased with the way he treated his citizens and his neighbors then. We left him with some great military hardware, well-trained generals, and a lot of tactical knowledge for more efficiently attacking his enemies.
You really don't know much about "ancient history," i.e., anything that happened more than about ten years ago.

In fact it was President Jimmy Carter who created the Taliban. The Russians (remember them?) wanted to extend their strategic region to include Afghanistan, and were training a bunch of ragtag militias to join into a fighting force that could take over the national government--eventually this group became known as the Norther Alliance. The CIA rounded up all the second-rate militias that were left over, and with superior American training and hardware they were able to keep the Northern Alliance at bay and they ended up taking over the government. This group eventually became known as the Taliban.

This was all part of that entertaining little chess game the Russians and Americans played for 40 years called the Cold War, in which we used the Middle East as our chessboard and the hapless people who lived there were our pawns.

We won the game, but the pawns haven't quite recovered yet.
We could start by not meddling in everybody else's business, making enemies every time we turn around. This goes all the way back to Mexico in the 1880s and 90s, when American business regarded it as a client state, and still does. NAFTA was our latest salvo, destroying Mexican farmers by allowing our own cheaper produce to compete with theirs.

Oh yeah, and now we have the cojones to yell and scream when the people who used to work on those farms come here to find the jobs that no longer exist there.

This is how the United States "makes friends."

Last edited: Jan 18, 2012
23. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
You weren't paying attention then.
It was clear to those who were.

In the 2003 SofTU speech he talked about both and didn't mix up the two issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html

NO WE WEREN'T

No they weren't.
They were recognized by 3 other Arab countries.

It wasn't their government.
We got rid of them and the people elected their own government and it wasn't the Taliban.

Far better than the Taliban.

You absolutely can't say that.
If we had left Al Qaeda alone for all these years, operating openly in Afghanistan, plotting against the West, there is no telling how much more damage they could have done.

That's the problem with the kind of warfare that Al Qaeda was engaged in, a \$500,000 plan costs hundreds of Billions of dollars in damange and 19 terrorists traded their lives for over 3,000.
You really can't let that continue.

Thanks to our intervention.
Maybe a better way to look at what they did is the cost per hour starting at 8:00 am Sept 9th 2001.

By noon, how much damage had they done?

A lot more than fucking peanuts.