Piece of **** muslim convert kills young soldier and wounds another

Sure, because our military was mostly a myth up until that point in history. It's not like we were in the middle of blowing another country to smithereens when we invaded Iraq...

This paragraph makes very little sense, both gramatically and with regards to the previous comment. At any rate, if I'm an enemy of the US, I see a time when their military is over-extened as a great opportunity to act up.

I think I speak for a lot of TF members when I say that I was afraid that this place was becoming entirely too civil. Posts constantly lacking in pejoratives and degrading tones just really got old.

 

It's a game called "Chicken". Naivete is a dangerous characteristic in foreign relations.

 

If only our leaders would wake up and realize that empire is not a dirty word, we could do a little more aggregate good in the world. Alas, we've become pansy-arse apologists who are afraid to live up to the role the world so dearly needs us to fill.

We'll pay for our reluctance to lead in the long run (50 years) - 100 times more than the shadowy "costs" of liberating Iraq.

 

forget the UN. we are committed to what we say, not what the UN says. we could have invaded iraq in 1991. we didnt, because we agreed to a cease fire. when the terms were not met, and i think you agree they were not, then the war resumes.

if we make some sort of statement or declaration, it is enforceable because we say it is. if the UN happens to be on board that is not relevant because what they say is meaningless.

why are you arguing with yourself? you said you agreed that the cease fire terms were not met.

 

get back with me when you learn to write.

 

yes. we are like the roman empire right before the collapse. you only have to read history to see it. we are collapsing under the weight of our colonies.

 

Wars are fought to impose will, not prove a point. And warfare spans a broad spectrum of agents, weapons and effects - not all of them lethal, and conversely many of them downright nasty. But all of it happens so that entity A can impose (or resist the imposition of) will.

Using military force to "prove a point" is a fool's errand. To my knowledge, the US has not engaged in this kind of errand to any serious and prolonged degree. I.e. I'm not talking about single mission events like Eldorado Canyon.

Every war we've fought has been with the aim of imposing our will on another country/entity or resisting the imposition of someone else's will on America or it's allies.

 

i am aware of that. i am pointing out that describing the war in iraq as a goofy effort just to "prove a point" is silly and i can similarly apply that phrase to wars that are clearly justified.

keeping your credibility, following through, this is important. even if you call it "proving a point".

 

so I just saw an interview with the guy's dad ... his dad said his son was brainwashed and its basically not his fault ... "When I see my son I will tell him I am sorry that this happened to you" ... If this mofo gets off b/c of some damn brainwashing bit ... I'll keep my comments