I think it’s kind of absurd to expect occupying troops to be ‘nice’ to the locals - as long as the concept of occupation has existed, a component of that concept has been the rape, abuse, and murder of the indigenous population as a means of demoralizing them into increased submission/cooperativeness or as spoils of war. If you believe that the benefits of war outweigh these things, fine. But don’t imagine that it is safe to assume that soldiers won’t mistreat the race they just conquered. That’s just as naive as the strawman position you like to ridicule - that every conflict could have been avoided if there were unilateral understanding.

Is it ‘dishonoring’ someone to suggest that they acted in a natural, human fashion that was perfectly in accord with historical precedent? I mean this question to rhetorically suggest that the concept of honor is trivial when compared to issues like life, death, and deceit.

Regardless…. to remain with the original point. I believe some of these protests are in poor taste and is quite a disrespectful show of our nation’s support for our soldiers. My only point, which I’ve now heard from debate god is flawed, is that disrespect for our soldiers is not a partisan event. Disrespect comes in many different forms - in the case I was arguing that form was the republican role in failing to fully fund VA benefits.