If armed mercenaries invaded your country, that you have never attacked, would you fight back too?

[kpete]

i thought so....
:large

[polly7]

1. Absolutely.

I remember the first time I heard Iraqi civilians described as insurgents and terrorists ..... it made me sick.

[Orsino]

2. Wolverines! n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. The US military are not mercenaries.

Also, the fact the US has invaded doesn't mean that the people shooting at them (eg the Taliban) aren't extremists.

[polly7]

5. If 'ANY' foreign armed group invaded your country would you fight back?

And would you automatically be an extremist/insurgent/terrorist for doing so?

[BeanMusical]

122. :crickets:

[mwrguy]

7. Reenlistment bonuses sound pretty mercenary to me

[geek tragedy]

8. that's because you don't understand what 'mercenary' means nt

The fact that soldiers are paid does not make them mercenaries. Mercenaries are soldiers who fight for pay on behalf of foreign governments.

2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces

[uppityperson]

30. I love it when formatting goes wrong

[geek tragedy]

31. the perils of cut and paste nt

[uppityperson]

46. And in this case it seems appropriate. nt

[leveymg]

59. and, g) mercenaries don't cry, unless they don't get paid on time.

[geek tragedy]

68. everybody cries when they don't get paid on time.

Nonetheless, part of the very definition of a mercenary is that they operate outside of the law and outside the command of their own country's armed forces.

So referring to US troops as mercenaries is egregiously incorrect, and defamatory to boot.

[leveymg]

96. Charlie didn't get much USO.

And he probably wasn't paid on a regular basis. He was motivated by something else. Which is a good indication of why he eventually won and after several decades, 50,000 or so American dead, and billions of dollars of waste, we packed up and took off in the direction of the South China Sea.

I'm afraid we may be facing an enemy kind of like that again. Some of them, anyway. But, 80 percent or more of the foreign militias operating under the Black Flag in Syria are little more than mercenaries, who I suspect would pack it in and head home within a couple months if the money were cut off from the gleaming towers of Jeddah and Doha. That much we can do, but it's the very thing we refuse to do to break up ISIS.

[geek tragedy]

97. Not quite so sure we can cut off all the funding for ISIS.

That money flows outside of the banking system and isn't tracked by computers so NSA can't see it.

Charlie won, in part, because the US didn't ever have a meaningful path to victory. South Vietnamese were never going to get the job done, so we were treading water there (while blowing the entire place up), until we started sinking.

[leveymg]

99. We know who's sending the care packages.

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who could do something about it just don't have the authorization to interdict them, yet.

[Jamastiene]

106. Blackwater, and others who were heavily involved, were though.

Did you forget all the contractors like Blackwater that were heavily involved in the various wars over there?

[geek tragedy]

111. Blackwater didn't do the invading, and isn't featured in the photo. nt

[tblue37]

124. Blackwater/Xe certainly were, though. nt

[djean111]

4. We were assured that the locals would only throw flowers!!!!! What went wrong??????

Maybe the MIC forgot to budget for flowers! yeah, that's the ticket!

[madokie]

6. You damn right I would

and most people here in America would also
Why do we expect the people of other countries to not is the 64 dollar question

[Fumesucker]

9. Interesting how no one says they wouldn't fight

But they sure can nitpick on the semantics...

[dumbcat]

15. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion

when the discussionists ( ) do not use a common vocabulary and definitions.

[randys1]

53. GOOD ONE LOL discussionists. you got that right

[geek tragedy]

27. the idea of the US being invaded is so alien to reality that it's hard to take seriously.

Certainly if my area were run by ISIS or the Taliban, and the US invaded and occupied, I'd view that as an upgrade.

[Fumesucker]

32. Yes, those forces are in Iraq now

They weren't there before the US invaded Iraq.

Funny how that works, innit?

[geek tragedy]

35. The legacy of Bush-Cheney. Just about on par with Kissinger's nt

[randys1]

55. Spoken like a true American who thinks it is up to him or her to decide what people

in other countries should do, how they should live, and above all, be accepting of everything and anything we tell them to do.


Your response actually is the definition of why so much of the planet fears or hates or both, USA...

[geek tragedy]

61. feel better about yourself now? nt

[randys1]

63. Notice you didnt try and refute my statement.

Will people who think like you ever change?



You are not John Wayne...none of our solders are Rambo.

[geek tragedy]

65. Your statement was a bunch of substance-free personal attacks combined

with trite "woe the worlds hates us" stuff found on the anti-American left.

I didn't say anything remotely approaching John Wayne/Rambo.

There is zero prospect of anyone invading the United States. Only psychotically paranoid militia types believe there is.

[randys1]

67. Opposite of substance free, you are the one who said others will be better off if we invade them

right?

[geek tragedy]

71. No, you should read more carefully.

I was saying, from my perspective, I would rather live with US troops calling the shots as opposed to the Taliban or ISIL.

You're free to disagree. But mine is not an indefensible position (unless you think the case for being ruled by the Taliban or ISIL is obviously superior).

[randys1]

72. No, I was right, you are saying they are better off if we invade them. Dont shy away from that

language, it is that language and belief that has us in this mess.

I am not trying to be obnoxious or pick a fight, I am hoping at some point you might say

"you know, you are right, let me think about this some more"


i dont want to argue with someone who has healthcare.gov on their sig, cuz I assume it means we have much in common

[geek tragedy]

82. I am only saying what my opinion is, if I had to choose. I am not saying that people who

are fundamentalist Muslims (as most people in rural Afghanistan are) would agree, or that we should invade to improve their lives, etc.

I am just saying, as someone who abhors theocracy, I would prefer the US military over religious fanatics.

[randys1]

85. Fine, but for much worse reasons rightwingers are agreeing with you and they arent

doing that because of your reason, their reasons are sick and twisted and it is our job as liberals to see the gray...

[geek tragedy]

87. It is our job to see things in gray, not just the polar opposite of how the wingnuts

see them.

The Iraq war was the worst US policy action since Vietnam.

[onecaliberal]

127. Even if they are killing all your people? A lot of innocents were killed. A lot!

[Jamastiene]

108. And your personal attacks are any better?

You say only "psychotically paranoid militia types" believe there is a chance of anyone invading the US. How is that not a personal attack against people who are not so sure America will never be invaded? You are wrong, by the way. America could be invaded.

[geek tragedy]

109. LOL. Look at a map.

There are two countries that can invade the United States:

1) Canada.
2) Mexico.

The "Mexican invasion" crowd reside on the extremes of the rightwing movement. The Pat Buchanan, militia types.

Those who think Canada could invade the United States are crazy.

Maybe in 2000 years things will be different. But not in our lifetimes.

[Jamastiene]

107. You are so wrong to think that.

America could very well be invaded. You should never think that cannot ever be a reality. If you do, you are lying to yourself.

[geek tragedy]

110. "America could very well be invaded."

Ok, I'm dying to know, who could invade us?

How would it possibly happen?

Some statistics:

Canada military (including reserves): 119,000 personnel, zero nukes
Mexican military (including reserves): 280,000 personnel, zero nukes

US military: (including reserves): 2,200,000 personnel, 1,920 deployable nukes

Please tell us how Mexico or Canada could invade the United States.

[hughee99]

10. Well said. I understand why the Germans fought the US in both world wars.

We declared war and invaded their country without having been attacked by them. We did that in Korea and Vietnam as well.

[brush]

13. Ahhh . . . Germany invaded several others countries in WWll before . . .

the US, as part of the Allies, sent troops to Europe.

What's up with your post? Your history is a little off.

[hughee99]

19. I believe the post was saying something about invading a country that didn't attack you

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

My comment is within those parameters. If you don't like that, how about Bosnia or Kosovo?

[Kaleva]

14. Germany declared war on the US.

[hughee99]

21. Yes, December 11th 1941, but they hadn't really attacked us.

They declared war as a result of the alliance, as did we.

[uponit7771]

75. Germany sunk TONS into the Atlantic while the conservatives of the day were swearing

... up and down that Germanys UBoat actions weren't "really" causes for war...

[hughee99]

86. Yes, and none of those sinkings resulted in a declaration of war.

The US went to war with Germany, and vice versa, not because of anything one side did to the other, but because of alliances.

[Maedhros]

100. Germany was the aggressor nation, having attacked Poland, Norway, Denmark, France,

Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Greece, Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Russia by the time the United States entered the war.

Do your apologetics for killing people in Middle Eastern countries that have not threatened our country have a point? Trying to justify our undeclared, aggressive wars in Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere by comparing them to Germany is, frankly, laughably stupid.

[hughee99]

104. You listed a lot of countries Germany attacked... The US wasn't on your list, though

The OP asked what we'd do if a country we didn't attack invaded us. Based on this list and the OP's template, one could argue that the US did this to Germany. Say what you want, but that template (which was created by the OP, not me) fits Germany fairly well. While the OP wants to make this all seem very simple to understand, I'm suggesting that maybe it's not as simple as "if they don't attack you, you shouldn't invade them".

If you don't like Germany, how about Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Korea or Vietnam, just to name a few.

[jwirr]

16. I think Germany was attacking other countries long before we got into the either war. They

understood perfectly well that allies of those countries would join in. That is not what the post is asking. It is looking at all the wars we have fought since WWII in the name of ideology. Korea, Vietnam, and the wars in the ME. We were not attacked by these nations nor were they attacking our allies. I am glad that I did not have to fight in any of these wars.

[hughee99]

22. Bosnia or Kosovo as well.

The US bombed and sent troops, yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone suggest the same thing about those countries.

[uponit7771]

74. We were attacked by Germany BEFORE Pearl Harbor and Germany Declared war on us first...

... those are facts that aren't in dispute

[hughee99]

88. Some of our shipping had been sunk for a few years before the war started

NONE of which resulted in a declaration of war. Although we hadn't attacked Germany, they declared war on us. If you don't like my example of Germany, how about Bosnia or Kosovo. It's a much clearer example.

[jwirr]

11. Excellent point. That is why we need to let the people of the ME do most of the fighting themselves.

By going in we only encourage more hatred and give them more of an excuse for the violence.

[Bonx]

12. Would you post videos of yourself brutally executing civilians ?

including women and children.

[Maedhros]

101. The United States routinely "brutally executes" civilians, but we do it by remote control

and classify any images of the carnage so nobody sees. For every suspected "militant" killed via drone strike, 30-50 civilians are killed. We know this, yet we continue to launch drone strikes anyway.

Why is that less brutal than what ISIS does? Because of how it looks? I doubt the surviving relatives of the victims of our brutality see much difference.

[Bonx]

112. I'm sorry, but you seem to have responded to someone else's question.

[Maedhros]

118. Um, no.

Reply #12

Would you post videos of yourself brutally executing civilians ?
including women and children.

That's you.

[Bonx]

120. Ah, yes. So, would you post videos of yourself brutally executing civilians ?

I didn't see an answer.

[Maedhros]

123. No. What is your point?

We don't release photos of our brutality in the U.S. because we like to pretend we don't engage in it. We prefer to point at The Other and obsess over their violence, and pretend it's worse that what we inflict.

You strike me as just another war apologist. Bye.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. If someone invaded your home do you plan on decapitating and immolating your neighbors? nt

[polly7]

20. So destroying Iraq, making millions homeless, dead, maimed, tortured

was like having your home invaded? And the only reason ISIS is running around decapitating and immolating people now is because of that invasion, so you're really not even addressing the OP's question.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. The OP's question doesn't speak to what AQI and ISIS are doing.

It's one thing to reject the excuses offered for the wrong-headed invasion of Iraq. It's another matter entirely to pretend AQI and ISIS are in any way a legitimate resistance.

[polly7]

25. Nobody said they were.

(But they are a direct result of what the OP asked about.)

Would you defend your country from foreign armed groups, and would you be an extremist for doing so?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. "Nobody said they were."

The entire point of the OP is to dismiss the notion that AQI and ISIS are extremists. The point of the OP is to claim that those fighting the US were NOT extremists. Seeing as AQI was fighting the US the question then becomes, "Is AQI a legitimate resistance?"

Seeing as they and their ISIS counterparts are engaged in wholesale murder, rape and mayhem the answer is a thunderous, "NO!"

Would you defend your country from foreign armed groups, and would you be an extremist for doing so?

I'm an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms. And you?

But in the course of that defense I would NOT bomb civilian markets, decapitate journalists, incinerate prisoners or turn a blind eye to rape.

[polly7]

29. I'd defend mine in a heartbeat. There's really nothing else to say. nt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Would you defend your home in the manner of AQI and ISIS?

[polly7]

36. I'd defend it with whatever it took. Period. nt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. So, in other words: Yes.

Civilian bombings, beheadings, immolating prisoners. It's all on the table, eh?

[polly7]

38. Nah.

I would defend only against the people trying to kill, torture, kidnap, maim, rape my family, neighbours and ... country. Decapitation, torture, horrific ways to kill aren't my thing, so ............ no.

Don't put words in my mouth. It makes me think that's what you might do. eh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. You said, "I'd defend it with whatever it took."

You didn't qualify that statement and seeing as the discussion revolves around the tactics of AQI and ISIS what else could an unqualified statement mean?

Of course I'd be perfectly happy to put you down in the category of those who think bombing civilians, murder, rape and burning prisoners moves a group from being a resistance to extremists.

[polly7]

45. Whatever it took - you obviously don't know me or that I would find it very difficult

to kill a human being, but if under attack, I probably could make myself, so you just threw that out there - that I'd be a decapitating monster and kill civilians. If it helps you to not answer a really simple question yourself, you failed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "you obviously don't know me"

so you just threw that out there - that I'd be a decapitating monster and kill civilians.

No, I don't know you. All I now is the topic of this sub-thread and your responses within it. If I erred thinking you were outside the context of the posts it is because no additional context provided.

The OP is attempting to say that it is no act of extremism to resist an invasion. It is a ridiculous statement because the statement is not qualified considering the acts of those who resisted the US. AQI and ISIS are vicious monsters. They ARE extremists. They are not a legitimate resistance. The OP is wrong.

You jumped into my sub-thread (and you are free to do so) and attempted to argue the right to resist. Period. Stop. End of discussion.

I affirm the right to resist an invasion but the manner in which it is conducted is material to the discussion. Bombing civilian markets, mass executions, immolating prisoners, kidnapping schoolgirls, beheading captives, etc. delegitimize those who claim to resist an invasion and reduces them to nothing but extremists, contrary to the assertion of the OP.

Is that so hard to accept?

[polly7]

49. I asked if you would fight a foreign, armed invasion. You can't even answer. nt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I did answer. The answer is Yes BUT not like AQI and ISIS. That would delegitimaize any resistance.

Don't you agree?

[polly7]

51. I think most people agree with that. But it wasn't the question. nt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. "But it wasn't the question."

Unqualified questions designed to gain unqualified answers that can be later be taken out of context are not my thing. The disingenuous make great sport out of such tactics; I prefer defined terms that provide defined answers.

[polly7]

54. Yeah whatever. nt.

[TheKentuckian]

113. Fuck no, they still invaded our country. Civilians my ass, all part of the occupation

If you want to be a civilian you might not show up with the invading forces.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. What are you talking about? Seriously.

[evirus]

34. If we started abducting and murdering civilians

Yes we would be

[uponit7771]

77. Of course not but if folk from Canada started doing that crap I'd fight them too

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. AQI had no legitimate claim to Iraq.

On top of that they spent as much time, if not more, terrorizing the Iraqis as they did fighting the US.

ISIS started its fight in Syria and migrated to Iraq. They too re not legitimate and they employ terror tactics against the civilian populace.

Contra the OP, both groups are extremists and not merely resistance movements.

[Albertoo]

18. If armed GIs invaded Nazi Germany, that never attacked the US, would it make Hitler a nice guy?

I assumed being a Democrat meant caring about people in need.

Women held behind burqas, or girls like Malala, belong to countries that never attacked the US.

Does it mean nobody should come to their rescue?

[Scuba]

39. Interesting, isn't it, how many oppressed women we send our military to rescue in this world and ...

... also interesting how they all live in countries with vast oil and mineral reserves.

[Albertoo]

40. Iraq was a F** up. Does it give a free pass to macho obscurantists?

GW was one of the worst US Presidents ever, and Iraq was stupidity beyond any wild dream.

Does it make it OK to let misogynist neanderthals enslave women?

Stop girls from getting an education? Teach kids in madrasas 'Kill the Jews'?

Let me know.

[randome]

42. No, it doesn't.

It also doesn't explain why ISIS & Company kill more Muslims than anyone else.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

57. Is that why we're after Boko Haram? Invading North Korea? Intervened in Rwanda?

Oh, wait. No oil, no vast mineral reserves, just oppressed people, so we let those atrocities continue.

If you think our military adventurisms are the result of moral-based urges to protect the oppressed you're naive beyond repair.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. Kosovo?

[Scuba]

70. What about Kosovo?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/politics-and-conflict/kosovo%E2%80%94-real-motives

The Trans-Balkan oil pipeline (which is coming up for approval) will transport Caspian Sea oil from the Black Sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. According to a paper by the U.S. Trade and Development agency, the pipeline will "provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor" and "facilitate rapid integration" of the "Balkans with western Europe". Monbiot says that there is "no question" that this featured prominently in Balkan war politics. The then U.S. energy secretary said: "This is about America's energy security… We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right." The pipeline does not pass through the former Yugoslavia, but as the Albanian president said: "no solution confined within Serbian borders will bring lasting peace". Monbiot adds that "the message could scarcely have been blunter: if you want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs". Subsequently, we can now fully understand the strategic need for "stability" in the Balkans.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-criminalization-of-the-state-independent-kosovo-a-territory-under-us-nato-military-rule/7996

The NATO occupation of Kosovo responds to US foreign policy objectives. It secures a heavily militarized US zone of influence in Southern Europe. It ensures the militarization of strategic pipeline routes and transport corridors which link Western Europe to the Black Sea. It also protects the multibillion dollar heroin trade, which uses Kosovo and Albania as transit locations for the transshipment of Afghan produced heroin into Western Europe.

[geek tragedy]

76. That's a bunch of claims from anti-American conspiracy theorists and Slobo-apologists

I mean, really, globalresearch.ca?

The US went to war in Kosovo over a pipeline that didn't even run through the territory of Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, or Croatia?

There is a certain segment that will contort itself into logical pretzels in order to find a menacing, evil, oil-driven agenda behind every US action. These people are generally fools who only get it right when they point out the obvious (e,g. Iraq)

[geek tragedy]

62. Please compare the mineral reserves of Boko Haram's turf (Nigeria) vs Kosovo's, nt

[Scuba]

73. Please see my post #70. Thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6243765

[geek tragedy]

80. Yes, the loons and Milosevic apologists offered up some extremely implausible claims

supported by rhetorical invective and no facts.

Do you really think citing the pro-Milosevic/Karadzic nutjobs at globalresearch.ca is going to convince rational people of anything regarding Kosovo?

You might as well have cited David Irving.

See globalresearch.ca's fine work on Srebrenica, for example. Any Neo-Nazi Holocaust denier would be quite at home on the website you cited for your silly theories.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=srebrenica+site%3Aglobalresearch.ca&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=srebrenica+site%3Aglobalresearch.ca&sc=8-31&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=c68ee1c7a3db4b6a8805689281668a25&adlt=strict

I like this title:

Media Disinformation Frenzy on Srebrenica: The Lynching of Ratko Mladic

They also claim the ICTY murdered Milosevic by poisoning him.

Nice source, as I said.

[Scuba]

89. Why is it your arguments are limited to "attack the source"?

The reason we spend $600 Billion annually on our military is to protect corporate interests, mostly oil. To suggest otherwise is incredibly naive, or dishonest.

[geek tragedy]

90. Because you cited the source as support for your argument. Since your source was toxic, rancid

bullshit, your argument is still nothing but a bunch of boilerplate anti-American invective and conjecture, without any facts to back it up.

The best you could do was some guy's claim, without any evidence, that the US started a war in the Balkans over a pipeline that didn't even run through the Balkans.

Which is just plain stupid.

[Scuba]

92. You've confused criticism of American actions with being "anti-American." That's pretty ...

... typical of right-wing apologists. Disappointing to see such lame arguments and tactics here on DU.

[geek tragedy]

94. Knee-jerk assumptions of the worst about the US government in all cases, despite the weight of the

evidence, is pretty much a standard mark of anti-American conspiracy theorists.

It's the old "the US is always doing evil, never good" bias present on both the extreme left and the extreme right, as well as amongst the old school group who were affiliated with Moscow during the cold war who stay true to their school.

The fact that you had to dumpster-dive in the Slobo Fan Club to find people who agreed with you on Kosovo should have been a giant red flag that you were probably operating out of bias rather than empirically sound perception.

[niyad]

24. amazingly simple, is it not?

[polly7]

41. Yes, it really is.

[Throd]

48. For the simple-minded. n/t

[dissentient]

26. I thought we are always considered liberators and good guys

and so the locals will greet us with flowers and cries of joy.

I thought I heard that somewhere, can't remember who said it though.

[bigwillq]

43. Yes (nt)

[samsingh]

56. before we were in Afganistan

the taliban were executing women, children, moderates. they were destroying Budhist temples and statues that were centuries old.

saddam's regime were killing Kurds, Christians, anyone they wanted to.

we SHOULD NOT have invaded Iraq, but there were horible problems before our arrival.

[randys1]

60. Reading this thread it seems some think that if you kill with drones and planes

and tanks, you are cool

If you kill with beheading your enemy, you are not cool.


WEIRD


ISIL does these horrific things to scare people right here on this thread so they will demand their representatives exact some revenge.

If you were solely concerned with the defense of Americans on US soil, the last thing you would do is send in troops, giving ISIL exactly what they want, giving them the ability to recruits thousands to fight USA...

The best thing that ever happened to folks who now make up ISIL or ISIS was when Bush decided to invade so he could get political capital so he could destroy social security.

[geek tragedy]

64. so you consider the US military morally no better than ISIL? nt

[randys1]

79. LOL oh man, and to think that I just tried to reason with you in another post

You dont have enough time to hear about myself and my family and our history with the US Military...

But I see you support our military (has nothing to do with rank and file soldiers or sailors) no matter what we do...

[geek tragedy]

81. Nope, I don't support them no matter what.

But facts matter.

[randys1]

83. What facts? We invaded a country in the ME that we had no business invading

We did it so one person could get political power and another could make billions with his corp (Halliburton), one of the results of said war is ISIS.

ISIS is the extreme of what we created, yes, and they are horrific people who must be stopped.

But lets not pretend who is at the base of all these problems.

[geek tragedy]

84. I don't disagree with any of that. But, we are not occupying Iraq anymore.

And ISIL is not a resistance movement, but rather a movement seeking to enslave the people of the region.

[randome]

66. Sorry, but killing mass killers is something I am okay with.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

78. I think we're a couple of steps above the usefulness of ISIL

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. "the last thing you would do is send in troops, giving ISIL exactly what they want"

ISIS wants war. It only takes 1 side to start a war. They will not look upon a lack of US involvement and say, "Golly, I guess they aren't coming. I suppose we should just all go home now." They will keep pushing, particularly against states in the immediate area, i.e. Jordan and Lebanon.

[TheKentuckian]

115. If you want to go then I bet you can get a mercenary gig. We don't need to and shouldn't do shit.

[malaise]

69. Absolutely and that's why all this BS is just BS

Think about it - the Resistance Movement of WW2 would all be deemed 'terrorists' today.
It's fugging crazy.

Rec

[Maedhros]

102. The French Resistance WERE designated as "Terrorists" by the Nazis. [n/t]

[LanternWaste]

91. Sometimes it's for the best, other times it makes matters worse

Sometimes it's for the best (Glorious Revolution), other times it simply makes matters worse (The Battle of Pavia). That leads me to believe that no two conflicts are precisely the same, and each should all be looked at via historical context, relevant detail, will of the populace, goal, result, etc., rather than relying on the simplistic framework of Yes or No.

[Egnever]

95. I suppose that would depend on my relationship with the government of my country

If the government was beheading sisters for having sex outside of wedlock or jailing my family for speaking out against the government I would likely be quite happy to do whatever it took to have my government overthrown.

If however I was happy with my government or at least content I would probably join the ranks of the resistance.

[Go Vols]

98. How Iraq Was Turned into a Mercenary War

The US and British governments never appreciated the hatred with which Iraqis at all levels regarded foreign security contractors.

They were detested as freelance gunmen with licences to kill or maim Iraqis, safe in the knowledge that they had the same immunity from Iraqi law as US soldiers. They often appeared to view Iraqis as a hostile sub-species to be treated with suspicion.

....In the crowded streets of Baghdad Iraqi drivers would try to keep their distance from contractors’ convoys because the security men would nonchalantly fire into the engine blocks of vehicles they thought had got too close. Sometimes they would simply shoot the driver and his passengers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/21/how-iraq-was-turned-into-a-mercenary-war/

[uppityperson]

105. Like this...?

[Rex]

116. Of course, who would let mercs take over their country?

Nobody.

[Snow Leopard]

117. Probably not

If my country was run by a murderous dictator, who had failed to live up to the conditions of the cease fire, and a foreign army came in to liberate, I think I would do my fighting for them , rather than against them. Kind of like the French Resistance vs the Germans running their country in WW2.

[Dreamer Tatum]

119. Seriously pathetic logic fail. nt

[Bonobo]

126. No, it is a logical touchdown.

The brevity of your response speaks volumes more than your feeble protestation.

[Bonobo]

125. This question should have been raised every day for the last 13 years. nt