|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 14, 2011 13:40:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by done on Oct 14, 2011 13:45:07 GMT -5
so how many wars are happening now?
|
|
mazz
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Mar 20, 2008 18:51:55 GMT -5
Posts: 326
|
Post by mazz on Oct 14, 2011 13:47:36 GMT -5
He sent a hundred troops, it's not like 10,000 are being deployed to Iran. I think the use of the word 'war' needs to be reevaluated. Not all military action should be constituted as war, and this is certainly not the first time we have sent soldiers to another country without being at 'war.' I sincerely doubt this will play out to be an earth-shattering event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Oct 14, 2011 13:48:35 GMT -5
Pretty sure there are more Soldiers in Germany or Japan or Mexico then in Central Africa. Im not too concerned over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 14, 2011 13:48:57 GMT -5
He sent a hundred troops, it's not like 10,000 are being deployed to Iran. I think the use of the word 'war' needs to be reevaluated. Not all military action should be constituted as war, and this is certainly not the first time we have sent soldiers to another country without being at 'war.' I sincerely doubt this will play out to be an earth-shattering event. Does it matter if it's 100 or 10,000? How is it justified that we send our men and women to fight in a place against a group of people who did nothing to harm us? Pretty sure there are more Soldiers in Germany or Japan or Mexico then in Central Africa. Im not too concerned over it. How many of our soldiers in those places are actively trying to shut down a fighting force? Not that I agree with our soldiers being there either. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 14, 2011 13:52:29 GMT -5
OH BOY.
Did Congress vote on this?
#fail
|
|
mazz
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Mar 20, 2008 18:51:55 GMT -5
Posts: 326
|
Post by mazz on Oct 14, 2011 13:53:06 GMT -5
He sent a hundred troops, it's not like 10,000 are being deployed to Iran. I think the use of the word 'war' needs to be reevaluated. Not all military action should be constituted as war, and this is certainly not the first time we have sent soldiers to another country without being at 'war.' I sincerely doubt this will play out to be an earth-shattering event. Does it matter if it's 100 or 10,000? How is it justified that we send our men and women to fight in a place against a group of people who did nothing to harm us? Not commenting on whether or not it is justified, just saying we should be more responsible before using the term 'war.' Would this have been described as a war 20 years ago? Does sensationalism play no part in confusing and dividing viewer opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 14, 2011 14:03:27 GMT -5
Does it matter if it's 100 or 10,000? How is it justified that we send our men and women to fight in a place against a group of people who did nothing to harm us? Not commenting on whether or not it is justified, just saying we should be more responsible before using the term 'war.' Would this have been described as a war 20 years ago? Does sensationalism play no part in confusing and dividing viewer opinion? We have the capability of destroying an entire city with like two of our people in a jet. Things have changed. Either way, it's ridiculous. |
|
mazz
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Mar 20, 2008 18:51:55 GMT -5
Posts: 326
|
Post by mazz on Oct 14, 2011 14:10:53 GMT -5
Not commenting on whether or not it is justified, just saying we should be more responsible before using the term 'war.' Would this have been described as a war 20 years ago? Does sensationalism play no part in confusing and dividing viewer opinion? We have the capability of destroying an entire city with like two of our people in a jet. Things have changed. Either way, it's ridiculous. Pretty sure we had those capabilities dating back to the A bomb droppings at the end of WWII. Thanks for answering my questions though, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 14, 2011 14:22:58 GMT -5
Pretty sure we had those capabilities dating back to the A bomb droppings at the end of WWII. Thanks for answering my questions though, I guess. Well obviously, but I'm not talking about an atomic bomb, as that would start WW3. We can simply destroy a city with smaller bombs and people would be much less butt-hurt about it. To answer your question, yes, it is some sensationalism... But the fact that we're sending anyone there is still completely unacceptable. |
|
eddie eddie
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 17, 2009 17:54:26 GMT -5
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by eddie eddie on Oct 14, 2011 14:24:04 GMT -5
THERES NOTHING THAT A HUNDRED MEN OR MORE CAN EVER DOOOO
|
|
|
|
Post by Thick Justice on Oct 14, 2011 14:33:55 GMT -5
How do we know we are at war? 100 people isn't that much. There is several places with troops not at war. They could easily be there to help train people in the event of a war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 14, 2011 14:39:15 GMT -5
Baw Gawd!!! It's a war out there!!!
|
|
BasedGod
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 26, 2005 7:24:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,600
|
Post by BasedGod on Oct 14, 2011 14:42:51 GMT -5
We've been sending troops to Africa for a while now. My dad was in the military and had to go there in 2006. Someones' gotta handle the guerilla warfare down there(assuming thats what they are going for). Although when my pops got deployed, their squadron was only down there to do some investigations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 14, 2011 14:47:03 GMT -5
What ever happened to using troops to defend our country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 14, 2011 14:58:20 GMT -5
Someones' gotta handle the guerilla warfare down there Why? Why is it OUR responsibility? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 14, 2011 15:16:56 GMT -5
What ever happened to using troops to defend our country? From who? Angry Canadians? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 14, 2011 15:40:07 GMT -5
Someones' gotta handle the guerilla warfare down there Why? Why is it OUR responsibility? Exactly what I'm trying to figure out. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 14, 2011 15:40:48 GMT -5
How do we know we are at war? 100 people isn't that much. There is several places with troops not at war. They could easily be there to help train people in the event of a war. They are combat troops not training troops, combat troops. We have hundreds of military bases around the world for no good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 14, 2011 15:42:26 GMT -5
How do we know we are at war? 100 people isn't that much. There is several places with troops not at war. They could easily be there to help train people in the event of a war. They are combat troops not training troops, combat troops. We have hundreds of military bases around the world for no good reason. In todays day and age we have interests in countries all over the world. Logically it makes some sense to protect those interests. |
|
