Eturnalshift wrote:
When I was 16? Good defense for the 'mature' comment...?
Guess you're only 2 years older than me. Oh well.
Eturnalshift wrote:
We were attacked by the British. We fought back.
We were attacked by our own neighbors. We fought back.
We were attacked by the Japanese. We fought back.
We were attacked by radical Islam. We're fighting back.
If the first of these refers to the War for Independence, technically we attacked them, and we weren't "we" yet. If it's the War of 1812, you get to keep it.
If the second is referring to the Mexican-American war, that's also really US-instigated since we annexed a shit-kicker country with every intent of causing the war we knew would result (it was the Mexican ultimatum, after all). Why we chose to side with traitors instead of letting the Mexicans roll in and kill them all is confusing by American standards. Again, if
this one means the War of 1812, you get to keep it. It did take the Canadians burning down the White House for us to do any meaningful fighting, though.
The third goes without saying, though you guys were pretty big pussies for 3 years before that.
The problem with "radical Islam" is it's not a targetable country. We can't go to war with every nation that houses radicals, because first off it's incalculable, and second off if we hold all host countries (and I mean
all of them) strictly liable, we'll get our shit pushed in. Going to war with a concept not defined by national borders has been a problem in the past; look at what a failure the war on drugs is.
I don't defend any aspect of radical Islam (or regular Islam, or any religion that has a god) because for reasons most people with a functional brain can agree on, their rules are stupid. I just don't think war with a subset of a religion is rational and at all possible to carry out with even the slightest hope for success.
If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl Slaad Shrpk Breizh
