One of the indicted Russians backing mercanies fignting U.S forces in Syria. (legal, border)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The military hasn't defended this country in over 200 years, since the War of 1812. Every war since has been a war of aggression.
If Russia had troops in Mexico, the government of Mexico asked for our help, and we sent troops there, I would be 100% opposed. But what if U.S. troops attacked and killed Russian troops in Mexico--whose side would you take? Because that is the EXACT same situation that is going on right now. We're interlopers in Syria, just like the Russians would be in Mexico.
Think. It's not that difficult.
If we had no military do you think we would be a country anymore? Their mere presence defends us.
And comparing Mexico and Syria that way? You do know Syria and Russia do not share a border...right?
They didn't argue that we should have no military.
They argued that the military had not defended our county since over 200 years ago. My response indicates that the mere existence of our military defends us. I suppose I should have broken that part out in a quote, but im being a little lazy today
If we had no military do you think we would be a country anymore? Their mere presence defends us.
And comparing Mexico and Syria that way? You do know Syria and Russia do not share a border...right?
Think. Its not that difficult.
Of course we would still be a country. You don't need a military to be a country. Other than the Coast Guard the military does virtually nothing to protect this country--practically everyone else is overseas. We could either have citizen militias (what the Founders wanted), or we could have my preference, competing private sector security forces. Due to the inherent nature of the free market, they would provide a FAR better service/product as they would have paying clients. Not only would it be a better service, but it would be FAR cheaper. No more $500 toilet seats.
I understand they don't share a border. I was just using Mexico as an example. I should have said Costa Rica (who doesn't have a military).
U.S. soldiers shouldn't be trespassing in a sovereign country anyway. So they are asking for anything that happens to them.
Interesting theory. Do you feel the same about the Russian troops who invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine, killed thousands of civilians, destroyed as much infrastructure as they could, and stole Crimea?
Of course we would still be a country. You don't need a military to be a country. Other than the Coast Guard the military does virtually nothing to protect this country--practically everyone else is overseas. We could either have citizen militias (what the Founders wanted), or we could have my preference, competing private sector security forces. Due to the inherent nature of the free market, they would provide a FAR better service/product as they would have paying clients. Not only would it be a better service, but it would be FAR cheaper. No more $500 toilet seats.
I understand they don't share a border. I was just using Mexico as an example. I should have said Costa Rica (who doesn't have a military).
LOL. OK im done. If you think we would exist as a country without a military, you really don't share a common point of reference with me. WW2 for example would have ended entirely differently, and I assure you, they would not have just ignored us in the end.
your goal here is VERY obvious. you do not want the topic discussed. Russia ordered a attack on a US military base. A act of war. Which Trump is choosing to ignore. We should be responding, not ignoring such a attack.
The military hasn't defended this country in over 200 years, since the War of 1812. Every war since has been a war of aggression.
If Russia had troops in Mexico, the government of Mexico asked for our help, and we sent troops there, I would be 100% opposed. But what if U.S. troops attacked and killed Russian troops in Mexico--whose side would you take? Because that is the EXACT same situation that is going on right now. We're interlopers in Syria, just like the Russians would be in Mexico.
Interesting theory. Do you feel the same about the Russian troops who invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine, killed thousands of civilians, destroyed as much infrastructure as they could, and stole Crimea?
I honestly don't care. I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian (contrary to what a lot of people here seem to think), so it's not my business. From what I've read, Crimea asked for Russia to come in, but I could be wrong. If they violated sovereignty, then sure, they asked for it.
LOL. OK im done. If you think we would exist as a country without a military, you really don't share a common point of reference with me. WW2 for example would have ended entirely differently, and I assure you, they would not have just ignored us in the end.
your goal here is VERY obvious. you do not want the topic discussed. Russia ordered a attack on a US military base. A act of war. Which Trump is choosing to ignore. We should be responding, not ignoring such a attack.
An illegal US military base. Why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTRY has a military base within U.S. borders, but we seem to be able to justify 150 around the world?
Seems like you want nuclear war, or at least for thousands of Americans to be killed.
I argued for citizen militias (like Switzerland) or market-based private security forces, neither of which require a State monopoly.
Oh, and countries can exist without a State military:
An illegal US military base. Why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTRY has a military base within U.S. borders, but we seem to be able to justify 150 around the world?
Seems like you want nuclear war, or at least for thousands of Americans to be killed.
I argued for citizen militias (like Switzerland) or market-based private security forces, neither of which require a State monopoly.
Oh, and countries can exist without a State military:
Look here is reality. If you arent willing to stand up for yourself as a country, other countries are going to roll over you. Do I want nuclear war? Absolutely not. BUT-that doesnt mean that I think we should ignore another country trying to kill our military.
You want to make up excuses, and throw out all these accusations, and congratulations on those countries who can make it without a military. Once you get to a certain size thats just unrealistic.
Bottom line is-you keep trying to make excuses for Russia trying to attack us. Im not.
BTW the reason foreign countries dont have a base in the US is that we are literally the most powerful military in the world. We do not need foreign bases here. This is not a complex subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
