| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Smee wrote: |
The US is far too enamored with the militarism in its society to bring its troops home.
The romanticism with which popular culture here treats the military is pretty disgusting, though the hero-worship of trained killers insures there will always be new recruits for whatever country they decide to invade next. |
Just. Wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
^^^^ There is a reason you are teaching English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake_Kim
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
Now that we have killed OBL, why exactly would we invade Pakistan? Invading a country with over 150 million people isn't exactly smart, plus as others have noted, thre is that whole nuke issue. |
Hmm... so, in other words, as far as the main culprit has been taken down, accessories to mass murder can walk. And Americans will just sit around sucking their thumbs the moment terrorists manage to get hold of a nuke or more, even though the same deeply-indebted Americans had no problem pounding them down at limitless costs for justice when they didn't have nukes.
No wonder why that old swine in Pyongyang desperately wants/wanted nukes and its delivery system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
Now that we have killed OBL, why exactly would we invade Pakistan? Invading a country with over 150 million people isn't exactly smart, plus as others have noted, thre is that whole nuke issue. |
Hmm... so, in other words, as far as the main culprit has been taken down, accessories to mass murder can walk. And Americans will just sit around sucking their thumbs the moment terrorists manage to get hold of a nuke or more, even though the same deeply-indebted Americans had no problem pounding them down at limitless costs for justice when they didn't have nukes.
No wonder why that old swine in Pyongyang desperately wants/wanted nukes and its delivery system. |
Who said anything about letting people walk? As illusterated by this event and the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we don't need to invade a country in order to capture terrorists. I don't believe anyone on this thread has said we should shut down all our operations. If anything, this event proves that intelligence work is more effective than invading a country to capture a small group of people.
Also, if North Korea were to launch an attack against the USA in any shape or form, do you really think the USA would do nothing about it? No.
Invade Pakistan. Right. That makes a LOT of sense. Good luck finding ANYONE in the Departments of Defense or State supporting that idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkjedidave
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai/Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
^^^^ There is a reason you are teaching English. |
Im not a teacher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
Thems were baby bombs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Smee wrote: |
The US is far too enamored with the militarism in its society to bring its troops home.
The romanticism with which popular culture here treats the military is pretty disgusting, though the hero-worship of trained killers insures there will always be new recruits for whatever country they decide to invade next. |
Just. Wrong. |
No, it's not wrong to say the military is romanticized and worshipped in the US. In many parts, at least. Pennsylvania (where I live) happens to be one of those parts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope those that want to sign the petition realize that if the troops (and that would also assume all other foreign troops) were brought home some if not most of Afghanistan would fall under the control of the Taliban its almost a back to square one proposition?
I'm not saying don't bring them home but doing so WILL result in the Taliban having control of southern Afghanistan at the very least.
Unless one believes that the present government in Afganistan is strong enough to fight the Taliban on their own.
As far as invading Pakistan, its a non starter. I'd love to read any links from ANY military expert who believes that can be done successfully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
why would america said the troops home? you seem to not know the real reason why USA is in that region. they will never come home!
only in body bags or tour of duty finished.
the US army never leaves. look at all the other countries they are in.
they never leave. World domination brother.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Smee wrote: |
The US is far too enamored with the militarism in its society to bring its troops home.
The romanticism with which popular culture here treats the military is pretty disgusting, though the hero-worship of trained killers insures there will always be new recruits for whatever country they decide to invade next. |
Just. Wrong. |
No, it's not wrong to say the military is romanticized and worshipped in the US. In many parts, at least. Pennsylvania (where I live) happens to be one of those parts. |
The US is a very large country. My experience (to descend to the crass anecdotal) in the East Coast and New England and even here in the Midwest is families want their husbands and fathers to come home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
