Jump to content

Another USA warning to NATO members.....


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

We are treaty bound to respond with the US to any attack on them, and this certainly qualified.

There is a difference between defending, and taking offensive actions. Jumping too quick to offensive actions leads to massive global destabilization, as history in this and many other cases has proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

There is a difference between defending, and taking offensive actions. Jumping too quick to offensive actions leads to massive global destabilization, as history in this and many other cases has proven.

Not sure where you are going with this, are you saying that Afghanistan was stable, or lets broaden it up a little, and add the entire middle east was it stable at the time. I have to ask what is the right response to a group that kills up to 3000 people with a single terrorist attack. is it a diplomatic response, or is it a threat of violence.....If you were President what would have you done ? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure where you are going with this, are you saying that Afghanistan was stable, or lets broaden it up a little, and add the entire middle east was it stable at the time. 

 

Stability has zero to do with it. Countries cannot under international law invade sovereign nations. That would be Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Stability HAD zero to do with it. It was an invasion based on lies, of the most transparent variety

 

Quote

I have to ask what is the right response to a group that kills up to 3000 people with a single terrorist attack.

There's the lie right there. Volumes of them.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

There is a difference between defending, and taking offensive actions.

 

Such as? Are you taking a micro or macro point of view? 

 

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Jumping too quick to offensive actions leads to massive global destabilization, as history in this and many other cases has proven.

 

That makes no sense........The US not responding to 9/11 would have lead to even greater destabilization globally.......but to prove your point, can you cite an example from history in which a nation was attacked, of the same scope as 9/11, and didn't react?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

.....but to prove your point, can you cite an example from history in which a nation was attacked, of the same scope as 9/11, and didn't react?

There are many examples with a much much bigger scope. 

Vietnam, estimates of 3 million killed.

Cambodia, estimates of 3/4 to a million killed. 

Korea, estimates of 3 million killed. 

Guatemala, ... .

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There are many examples with a much much bigger scope. 

Vietnam, estimates of 3 million killed.

Cambodia, estimates of 3/4 to a million killed. 

Korea, estimates of 3 million killed. 

Guatemala, ... .

 

These examples are in no way comparable to 9/11.

For example: how did the Korean War start?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

There is nothing to say that the 100`s of thousands killed is the reason there has not been another 9/11 style terror attack.

 

Huh? I would feel far safer in New York city then parts of the Middle East........that to me would indicate an effective response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I know that they "are in no way comparable to 9/11". Korea was attacked and Korea has not ever attacked the US in "revenge".

Same for Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Libya, Syria, ... . 

 

Uh...North Korea started the Korean War.

North Viet-Nam started the Viet-Nam War

Guatemala/Nicaragua...Sandinista and Contras...both sadistic Central American groups.

Arab Spring ignited Syria and Libya.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ?Impact said:

That is a very limited view of history. You are aware that Synmgann Rhee, the brutal CIA sponsored dictator of south Korea, had plans to invade north Korea.

Alt-History: South Korea had no proper army. Just a glorified police force. No heavy weapons.

North Korea invaded the South with superpower assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Stability has zero to do with it. Countries cannot under international law invade sovereign nations. That would be Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is no question that the U.S. had legal justification to attack Afghanistan. We often overlook the fact, but when people use country A as a base of operations to attack country B, or when country A provides any kind of support to a group which attacks country B, those are acts of war, and country B is fully within its right to respond with an attack on country A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Alt-History: South Korea had no proper army. Just a glorified police force. No heavy weapons.

No armor and no aircraft either. Even the US army in SKorea was pathetically incapable of defending itself, much less launching an attack on North Korea. It was poorly equipped, poorly led, and poorly trained.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

No armor and no aircraft either.

Agreed. South Korea and US/UN forces rushed in from Japan were squeezed into the Pusan Perimeter by the massive Communist onslaught. It took MacArthur at Inchon to remedy the situation...but he took it a bit far as we both know.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Agreed. South Korea and US/UN forces rushed in from Japan were squeezed into the Pusan Perimeter by the massive Communist onslaught. It took MacArthur at Inchon to remedy the situation...but he took it a bit far as we both know.

A lot of people blame McArthur. His troops, not just in South Korea, which he was responsible for, but in Japan, were poorly trained and equipped, and he didn't sniff out even a single clue that the North was going to attack. Later, he didn't have a single clue the Chinese were going to come in. He was a man with a great deal of arrogance who ignored whatever he didn't want to believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no question that the U.S. had legal justification to attack Afghanistan. We often overlook the fact, but when people use country A as a base of operations to attack country B, or when country A provides any kind of support to a group which attacks country B, those are acts of war, and country B is fully within its right to respond with an attack on country A.

There was no response from the US for all those years before 911 when OBL supposedly lived in Afghanistan. And when various and sundry attacks had taken place against the US. Why not response?

There was no response from the US until the day of 911, when the US government and the US media immediately knew who had done it. How is that possible? What would any rational investigator say about that jumping to conclusions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

There was no response from the US for all those years before 911 when OBL supposedly lived in Afghanistan. And when various and sundry attacks had taken place against the US. Why not response?

Because they didn't want to get involved in an expensive war, of course. Until they couldn't avoid one.

Israel similarly has every legal right to attack Iran given Iran's continual funding of and provision of weapons to groups which attack Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

A lot of people blame MacArthur. His troops, not just in South Korea, which he was responsible for, but in Japan, were poorly trained and equipped, and he didn't sniff out even a single clue that the North was going to attack. Later, he didn't have a single clue the Chinese were going to come in. He was a man with a great deal of arrogance who ignored whatever he didn't want to believe in.

Kind of why he faded away into history rather than attempt at being President. His time was over...no more big fleets hunting carriers. New weapons that his type shouldn't possess...etc. LeMay and McNamara's time was coming.

Canada was there, of course. Kapyong and such...100-1 kill ratios.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Stability has zero to do with it. Countries cannot under international law invade sovereign nations. That would be Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Oh yes they can....Canada and NATO did it to Serbia in 1999... no UN permission required.  That would be the Kosovo War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...