This is cool

[Shadow]

While that may true, don't pretend that the US is welcome there (in many of the countries they are deployed), or that it is in the interest of the international community so much as your own.

[Shores of Tripoli]

 When were are talking about national security, I don't particularly care rather we are welcome or not. To me the only feelings that matter are American's feelings.

[Shadow]

Yes, that sums up rather nicely the problem that a lot of the non-American world has with Americans in general.

[Shores of Tripoli]

Yes, that sums up rather nicely the problem that a lot of the non-American world has with Americans in general.

Yea, I understand why they are disgruntled. I still don't really care. If they want me to care then they can emigrate to America.

[Shadow]

I understand. I am making the point that your stationing is not for international security, it is for national security, so don't attempt to justify interference from that perspective if your attitude is not actually one of caring for the security of others.

In other words, be honest about your motives when they are transparent, or you just look bad ^_^

[Shores of Tripoli]

 Ok fair enough.

[Gen. Volkov]

I didn't say self defense, I said defense (of country/civilians/others from an unprovoked aggressor). A SWAT team sent in on a police action is still in civilian defense, at least within the US, and police officers aren't used directly in military actions in other countries except in token roles within the military structure. For eg, anywhere in the middle east right now, the US is the aggressor at this point. Whether or not the soldier is fighting to defend himself at the time doesn't change this.

Again, horse[poop]. The US is only fighting in one place in the Middle East right now, and that's Afghanistan. We invaded that country in response to the 9/11 attacks, so we are defending ourselves from Al Qaeda's aggression. Furthermore, you are comparing two different things here. The police are acting on a local level, and even though they are acting in immediate defense, they could be defined as being on the offense at a higher organizational level, eg. a police department that assists in the War on Drugs. However, I think in either case they are acting in defense of their communities and the country. The same holds true for the Marines, who even when they are on the technical offense, are doing so because it will ultimately ensure the defense of the US from foreign aggressors.

If I attack someone and he defends himself, I can't kill him and claim I did it in self-defense.

What if your attack is in response to his earlier attack? Or what if you believe your life is in imminent danger from this person if you don't attack?

This is even assuming Gen was talking about that, you realise how many US troops are stationed in other countries? What business does the US have intervening in their affairs?

99% of the time, those other countries want us to be there. The countries that don't want us there, we generally leave. Japan, for example, has given up anything but a token military, in exchange for a guarantee of national defense from the US. Or South Korea, who we also have a defense agreement with. Hell, name a country and US troops are either stationed there as part of a defense agreement or as part of Peacekeeping/Observers force. We have become the world's policeman, history forced us into that role after WW2 and the end of the Cold War. In order to ensure our own security, we have to ensure world stability.

[Shadow]

I didn't say self defense, I said defense (of country/civilians/others from an unprovoked aggressor). A SWAT team sent in on a police action is still in civilian defense, at least within the US, and police officers aren't used directly in military actions in other countries except in token roles within the military structure. For eg, anywhere in the middle east right now, the US is the aggressor at this point. Whether or not the soldier is fighting to defend himself at the time doesn't change this.

Again, horse[poop]. The US is only fighting in one place in the Middle East right now, and that's Afghanistan. We invaded that country in response to the 9/11 attacks, so we are defending ourselves from Al Qaeda's aggression. Furthermore, you are comparing two different things here. The police are acting on a local level, and even though they are acting in immediate defense, they could be defined as being on the offense at a higher organizational level, eg. a police department that assists in the War on Drugs. However, I think in either case they are acting in defense of their communities and the country. The same holds true for the Marines, who even when they are on the technical offense, are doing so because it will ultimately ensure the defense of the US from foreign aggressors.

So pre-emptive strike = self-defense to you? Whatever helps you sleep I guess..

If I attack someone and he defends himself, I can't kill him and claim I did it in self-defense.

What if your attack is in response to his earlier attack? Or what if you believe your life is in imminent danger from this person if you don't attack?

Try that one in court: "I attacked him and killed him in revenge for him attacking me earlier", or "I was pretty sure he would try to kill me later, so I killed him first". Good luck.

This is even assuming Gen was talking about that, you realise how many US troops are stationed in other countries? What business does the US have intervening in their affairs?

99% of the time, those other countries want us to be there. The countries that don't want us there, we generally leave. Japan, for example, has given up anything but a token military, in exchange for a guarantee of national defense from the US. Or South Korea, who we also have a defense agreement with. Hell, name a country and US troops are either stationed there as part of a defense agreement or as part of Peacekeeping/Observers force. We have become the world's policeman, history forced us into that role after WW2 and the end of the Cold War. In order to ensure our own security, we have to ensure world stability.

[/quote]
99%, really? Of those 150 countries, 148 of them want you there? Might want to recount. As for the rest of it, as you would say, horse poo.

[Gen. Volkov]

So pre-emptive strike = self-defense to you? Whatever helps you sleep I guess..

AFGHANISTAN. How in the name of Dawkins do you see a response to an attack as "pre-emptive"?

Try that one in court: "I attacked him and killed him in revenge for him attacking me earlier", or "I was pretty sure he would try to kill me later, so I killed him first". Good luck.

I'd win on the second one. Indiana has a "stand your ground" law, which says that if you feel threatened, your justified in putting a bullet into someone. The first I might win, depending on the exact circumstances. Can't draw exact analogies, but if I got suckerpunched at a bar and then got up and beat the other guy to death, I doubt I'd be convicted of anything worse than assault and battery.

99%, really? Of those 150 countries, 148 of them want you there? Might want to recount. As for the rest of it, as you would say, horse [poop].

149 actually, Afghanistan doesn't want us there, but I don't have much sympathy there.

[Shadow]

AFGHANISTAN. How in the name of Dawkins do you see a response to an attack as "pre-emptive"?

IRAQ? You're not there anymore, technically, but you were, and the point remains.

But yes, in Afghanistan, you invaded a country over a fringe group. Many of the people killed in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attack.

I'd win on the second one. Indiana has a "stand your ground" law, which says that if you feel threatened, your justified in putting a bullet into someone. The first I might win, depending on the exact circumstances. Can't draw exact analogies, but if I got suckerpunched at a bar and then got up and beat the other guy to death, I doubt I'd be convicted of anything worse than assault and battery.

No, the first one involves an attack, then a period of non-aggression, then you attacking back. You wouldn't win that. Otherwise it is straight up self-defense and it would not apply. The second, well, if you really have such a ridiculous law then you deserve the results, frankly.

Anyway, you know you'd lose the first one outright, don't pull a volkov and argue this one because you feel like you have to for some reason.

149 actually, Afghanistan doesn't want us there, but I don't have much sympathy there.

... right lol

[Shores of Tripoli]

 Iraq was a mistake on a political level, the nation was lead to believe that Sudam had weapons of mass destruction and was threatening to use them on the west. We did cause harm their and that was wrong, but that blame is on the politicians who lied about the threat level of Iraq.

[Peace Alliance]

I stand corrected. But as you can see, the counties with the most troops are either allies, trade partners, or (rogue nations or countries with large amounts of terrorists)

That's pretty much the whole gambit then isn't it...

Your country is not innocent internationally. Sorry to brake it to you guys, but you're not exactly Earths best friend.

[Rakefur]

All right Peace. What's your perfect plan to replace all military "killing machines"? How would you go about it? Why on earth are you discouraging this guy from joining the marines?

Also: Take a look at this US Marine (i.e. killing machine)

[Shores of Tripoli]

 That's an actor.

here's a real Marine:

[Peace Alliance]

All right Peace. What's your perfect plan to replace all military "killing machines"? How would you go about it? Why on earth are you discouraging this guy from joining the marines?

Let's say I'm just pulling a Neo here, and I'm asking Trip to critically examine his choices. HE was the one who called them killing machines. 

Ultimately I am discouraging him because, and my probing questions have confirmed this, it sounds an awful lot like he's been swept up in patriotic propaganda.