How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

[gobiggergoredder]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

Oof. That's more like a book than a message board post but I will try. It will be extremely abbreviated. Sorry.

The U.S. and Japan were warring economically prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor turned the war of words and sanctions into a shooting war. Japan's invasions in Manchuria and the Pacific islands threatened the U.S. economically and militarily. The well known island campaigns and naval battles followed. (The battles I've studied most closely are the big naval battles at Midway and Leyte . . . love the "crossing of the T" in Leyte Gulf . . . and Guadalcanal/Iwo/Okinawa.) After the U.S. was within airstrike range of mainland Japan the decision was made to apply enough pressure to the people and economy of Japan to make a surrender by the ruling regime palatable. No one really wanted to have to invade Japan. This was the alternative. The pressure worked. Japan surrendered. I have little doubt that if we could have obtained the same result (the end of the ruling regime and the removal of Japan's military threat) with killing fewer Japanese citizens we would have done so.

If you're interested in my opinion, I think the ends did justify the means (firebombing and nuclear weapons). The Japanese government initiated the shooting war and seemed quite willing to continue it through a land invasion. That would have been enormously costly in US lives and money. In this type of war I am more comfortable with the enemy paying that price.

Anyways, are you arguing that the goal of the war in the Pacific was to kill as many Japanese people as possible . . . just for the sake of killing them?

Wasn't the estimate at something like a million us troops, for the invasion? I'm merely guessing, but I think that sounds about right.

I'm glad they chose the route they did, becuase my grandfather and uncle were sitting in ETO waiting to ship out for the Pacific.

A million+, but I think it is unlikely you will get a response. The bombs saved countless American lives. This was a culture that was teaching it's women how to kill in an invasion via suicide.

Carlfense picks out 1 word, doesn't answer any questions, then poses another. NOWHERE in anything did I say that there is that the objective in war is to crush a country. I did say we could crush Afganistan, or any enemy for that matter, if our hands weren't tied.

We would rather spare one Afghan goat herder than an American soldier. If that is the situation we are going to put our men in, then get them out.

edit: Carlfense will turn that into that I want to kill innocent civilians.

 

[carlfense]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

Oof. That's more like a book than a message board post but I will try. It will be extremely abbreviated. Sorry.

The U.S. and Japan were warring economically prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor turned the war of words and sanctions into a shooting war. Japan's invasions in Manchuria and the Pacific islands threatened the U.S. economically and militarily. The well known island campaigns and naval battles followed. (The battles I've studied most closely are the big naval battles at Midway and Leyte . . . love the "crossing of the T" in Leyte Gulf . . . and Guadalcanal/Iwo/Okinawa.) After the U.S. was within airstrike range of mainland Japan the decision was made to apply enough pressure to the people and economy of Japan to make a surrender by the ruling regime palatable. No one really wanted to have to invade Japan. This was the alternative. The pressure worked. Japan surrendered. I have little doubt that if we could have obtained the same result (the end of the ruling regime and the removal of Japan's military threat) with killing fewer Japanese citizens we would have done so.

If you're interested in my opinion, I think the ends did justify the means (firebombing and nuclear weapons). The Japanese government initiated the shooting war and seemed quite willing to continue it through a land invasion. That would have been enormously costly in US lives and money. In this type of war I am more comfortable with the enemy paying that price.

Anyways, are you arguing that the goal of the war in the Pacific was to kill as many Japanese people as possible . . . just for the sake of killing them?

Wasn't the estimate at something like a million us troops, for the invasion? I'm merely guessing, but I think that sounds about right.

I'm glad they chose the route they did, becuase my grandfather and uncle were sitting in ETO waiting to ship out for the Pacific.

A million+, but I think it is unlikely you will get a response. The bombs saved countless American lives. This was a culture that was teaching it's women how to kill in an invasion via suicide.

Carlfense picks out 1 word, doesn't answer any questions, then poses another. NOWHERE in anything did I say that there is that the objective in war is to crush a country. I did say we could crush Afganistan, or any enemy for that matter, if our hands weren't tied.

We would rather spare one Afghan goat herder than an American soldier. If that is the situation we are going to put our men in, then get them out.

edit: Carlfense will turn that into that I want to kill innocent civilians.

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

Whining? Classy.

 

[carlfense]

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

Whining? Classy.

Does that mean that you can't answer the question?

 

[gobiggergoredder]

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

Whining? Classy.

Does that mean that you can't answer the question?

I've responded to your rable all day long and you keep asking questions. You never answer any questions....laughable. I'm done with you for...at least for today.

You're really good at it. Posting a link or graph and then standing back waiting to pounce. Rarely do you ever explain your stance. It's much easier to needledick holes what someone else writes. You question the sources of information that people post from, but the same criteria doesn't apply to you. You hold others to standards that you don't even hold yourself to. It's a skill....good for you.

You really seem like a pretty smart guy. I'm guessing you are fairly young and have no children.

 

[carlfense]

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

Whining? Classy.

Does that mean that you can't answer the question?

I've responded to your rable all day long and you keep asking questions. You never answer any questions....laughable. I'm done with you for...at least for today.

I hope that eventually you can substantiate your claims.

It would be a shame if it turned out that it was all bluster with no foundation in reality.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

What on earth? walksalone, yourself, and I are in agreement about the firebombs and a-bombs. What exactly are you reading? A million + was the estimate at the time. No one is disputing that except in your imagination.

Could you back up your assertion about "we would rather spare one Afghan goat heder than an American soldier?" A specific example would suffice.

Why exactly are you whining about how we could crush Afghanistan if not for our policies . . . if you don't believe that our goal is (or should be) to crush Afghanistan? You can't have it both ways.

Whining? Classy.

Does that mean that you can't answer the question?

I've responded to your rable all day long and you keep asking questions. You never answer any questions....laughable. I'm done with you for...at least for today.

I hope that eventually you can substantiate your claims.

It would be a shame if it turned out that it was all bluster with no foundation in reality.

sorry...i edited.

 

[strigori]

The problem sith Afganistan is this is not really a 'war' in the classic and real sense. It is more what gets refered to as a 'police action.' A soldier's existance is not to win the people over, its to defeat the enemy. The concepts of 'non-combatants' and only fighting the guy in the other uniform are not part of real wars.

Until that part of the world decides to throw off its 14th century cultural aspects the 'west' will never truely get along with them. There is no 'winning' what we are doing there.

 

[rawhide]

I think I need to post a picture of a tree and see who can urinate the highest

GBR

by the way; don't want to imply that that is a excusable act; punishable but not a life altering event Art. 15 or sumthin', don't need a DD or anything

 

[carlfense]

I've responded to your rable all day long and you keep asking questions. You never answer any questions....laughable. I'm done with you for...at least for today.

You're really good at it. Posting a link or graph and then standing back waiting to pounce. Rarely do you ever explain your stance. It's much easier to needledick holes what someone else writes. You question the sources of information that people post from, but the same criteria doesn't apply to you. You hold others to standards that you don't even hold yourself to. It's a skill....good for you.

You really seem like a pretty smart guy. I'm guessing you are fairly young and have no children.

Actually, I've answered quite a few questions in this thread alone. If there are more questions in this thread that you would like me to answer I would be happy to take a stab at them. Fire away.

Also, I think I've explained and defended my opinion several times in this thread alone. In fact, if I am reading this correctly we share opinions on a few historical questions. I'm not sure where you are reading that I think that the rules don't apply to me. They do.

Regarding the last: I suppose it depends on your definition of fairly young. I'm sure college kids think that I'm old. 50 year olds probably think that I'm still a child. No children yet that I'm aware of (knock on wood ) but a wife. As far as being smart . . . every day I become more aware of how little I know. Every. Single. Day.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

I've responded to your rable all day long and you keep asking questions. You never answer any questions....laughable. I'm done with you for...at least for today.

You're really good at it. Posting a link or graph and then standing back waiting to pounce. Rarely do you ever explain your stance. It's much easier to needledick holes what someone else writes. You question the sources of information that people post from, but the same criteria doesn't apply to you. You hold others to standards that you don't even hold yourself to. It's a skill....good for you.

You really seem like a pretty smart guy. I'm guessing you are fairly young and have no children.

Actually, I've answered quite a few questions in this thread alone. If there are more questions in this thread that you would like me to answer I would be happy to take a stab at them. Fire away.

Also, I think I've explained and defended my opinion several times in this thread alone. In fact, if I am reading this correctly we share opinions on a few historical questions. I'm not sure where you are reading that I think that the rules don't apply to me. They do.

Regarding the last: I suppose it depends on your definition of fairly young. I'm sure college kids think that I'm old. 50 year olds probably think that I'm still a child. No children yet that I'm aware of (knock on wood ) but a wife.

We're actually about the same age....I think. Just different life experiences. Please don't take the life experiences thing as a negative because it isn't meant to be. I use to share similar views to most on this in this politics/religion forum. Things change though. Might actually be an interesting thread....'What event(s) shaped your Social/Political views.

I'm done with this thread for today though. You are like arguing with my wife. I'm right (in my head), and there is no way I will ever win.

 

[walksalone]

I think I need to post a picture of a tree and see who can urinate the highest

GBR

by the way; don't want to imply that that is a excusable act; punishable but not a life altering event Art. 15 or sumthin', don't need a DD or anything

yeah, thats a 14 and 14

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Anyways, thanks for the explanation cf, I was more curious than questioning because there is a fascinating dichotomy between our stance in Europe and our stance in the Pacific. In Europe, we strategically planned where we were going to drop our bombs in Germany so that we would minimize civilian death. So why, when we turn to the Pacific theater do we "carelessly" [for lack of a better word] drop atomic bombs on cities, without as so much regard to civilian lives?

You'll get no disagreement from me about the necessity of dropping the first atomic bomb. I think the second one is a little different story. But we weren't going to do well trying to land invade Japan.

But back to the point and the OP, I don't think the Marines pissing on the Afghanis is going to upset or rile up those who we are fighting against. It's how other nations view that act and how that affects our military that I think is most concerning. Chances are, nothing will happen, those Marines will be dishonorably discharged [or not] and that will be that.

It's really a minute incident now that I think about it in more depth.

 

[Sub-Husker]

ehhh, maybe not the best idea. But this has happened in every war since the beginning of wars. The biggest harm I see is that these images will be used to incite terrorists into retaliating. But then we'll kill them and piss on their corpses.

How would Americans react if Afghanis were urinating on dead American soldiers?

How would Americans react if the French defaced the graves of dead American WW-II soldiers?

 

[Cactusboy]

I kinda look at it like as if they were NU players getting an MIP or DUI..or in a fight on O street after others had recently gotten in trouble for stupid things. They are yound adults/kids and do stupid things, BUT at this point they should eff'n know better and I'd disapline the hell out of them if I were the coach. They put shame to the country/program that they represent.

BTW - we know they were shooting/trying to kill our guys? Is that like we know all those that are or have been in GITMO are quilty too?