Once again: Aren't we supposed to be "the good guy?" Aren't we supposed to be better than they are?
Of course. However, that objective should be tempered with a realistic assessment of the relative import of pissing off (or on! hahah, I slay me!) people we're currently at war with. In a vacuum, sure. Our soldiers should not be behaving in that manner. But in the grand scheme of things I'm far more concerned about our government overspending on so-called "economic recovery", imposing draconian mandates on our own people in the pursuit of socialized medicine, screwing with the free market in an attempt to make us all go "green", and deliberately running an ATF gun selling operation apparently designed primarily to pad the stats on illegally sold guns in order to more easily impose stricter gun control laws. Forgive me if I save my outrage for things that really are more important than whether a group of soldiers in a war zone peed on some people they'd already killed.
Is your point "They do it, so it's ok if we do it to?" Are you in the second grade?
No. My point is that it's helpful to put things in perspective rather than treat everything like an absolute case study in morality. For example (and this might just blow your mind), you do realize that those soldiers killed those Afghans first
, right? While I get the whole "adding insult to injury" bit, do you really think the families of those killed would not be angry anyway?
Forgive me if I reserve my outrage for things that actually have a large delta of effect. The difference between "dead" and "dead and peed on" isn't really that huge if you step back and think about it objectively. Edited, Jan 24th 2012 3:13pm by gbaji