You've never been to war. You're a poseur.

We have been lucky enough to win every war and have owned the courts.

Plus the argumentation could have been interesting:
- What precisely Iran is doing wrong with his ballistic program and is it justified ?

But Ghot massacred it with his pre-conceived ideas and delirious deflections.
Today you are punished Ghot, no donuts for you.



you means "wars" with countries 50 times smaller ?

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Mar 6 2018 05:46am

I wonder why? :/
Probably because the US understands that there are people in this world that like the results of war, but they just don't want to actually go to war. Too much time on their hands, so they toss around accusations.

Maybe it's the term war crimes I have trouble with. To me war crimes means seriously bent things.

Things like trying to take over the world.
Like genocide.
Let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition. That wasn't even war, that was just politics.

Like I said in my original response, compared to the rest of the world, the US is nothing but angels.





Which, like Nam, where we HAD to go cause the French went first and got their asses kicked?


/e The problem these days is the better technology of war. Sometimes, ya just have to be preemptive.

Is the US picking on NK?
Is the US picking on Iran?


Which reality are you folks from?

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 6 2018 05:50am

Angels don't exist.

Why are you pulling up all these other obvious atrocities? Nobody is denying any of these took place. Nobody is even arguing the USA is the worst perpetrator of war crimes in history. Obviously, it is not. You've only existed for a relatively short period of time.

Is it really so hard for you to admit (edit) that the USA also did some terrible shit? Not the most, not the worst, but definitely some.

This post was edited by BrendanSchaub on Mar 6 2018 05:51am

I'm not denying we did any of those things. I'm upset with the terminology. I think we need a new term...something like war misdemeanors.



Thank you.
No one likes war, except those that ARE trying to take over the world. The US is not one of those. We aren't trying to over take anyone. We would much rather sit at home, have a drink maybe some bar-b-que, and go for a drive in the Chevy.

If that's all we DID, I don't think many folk (from all over the world) would be happy with the state of the world.
No, I don't think falling into the shitty job of being the world's police force...kind of...is a good thing.
I DO think if we just looked the other way and said: "It's not our problem", whipped out the michael jackson eating popcorn meme, and didn't help out where we could, we wouldn't be worth a crap.

Last of all, like I've said before, if some folks in other countries don't like the way we do things...I can guarantee that we would stay home, and get on with the drinks and BBQ. ^^
Those that don't like the way we do things can always do it themselves. The US tries to work with the world, not for it.

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 6 2018 06:01am

Killing 20000 civilians is a misdemeanor?

He's from the Vietnam generation where they use terms like megadeths to intellectualize all the horrible s*** going on so it wasn't as personal on the television.

This post was edited by Skinned on Mar 6 2018 06:11am

Like I've said before. Is a country's army, ONLY their soldiers? Maybe it's also the civilians that provide the food, to the factory workers who supply the army.
Considering Germany had most of Europe already, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

When a country goes to war, the whole country is involved. You can't just draw arbitrary lines.


It's always easy to become supremely judgemental, after the war is all over.

You sound like a suicide bomber.

So you think it's morally justified to kill civilians en masse during war? Because it seems like you do.