Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
"Unilateral" changes when dealing with the US because we've got worshipers. If the US declared war on Mars tomorrow, the UK and Australia (maybe even Spain) would have our backs. Why? Well it has jack to do with Mars, I'll tell you that.
What this means is that "unilateral" for the US means something different. And it's okay to admit that while the dictionary says one thing, reality demonstrates otherwise. Unilateral for the US means that the UN and most of our allies have told us to shut up and sit back down but we and our religious followers aren't listening.
|
Then you're not using the word correctly. Sorry. Vietnam was the closest we got to unilateral action. The word "unilateral" means what it means. I've pointed you to the definition. If you want me to budge on the point at all, you need to chose another term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Seeing as you're so dictionary-happy tonight, I'm surprised you didn't bother to look up "troops" before throwing it at me.
–noun
1. an assemblage of persons or things; company; band.
2. a great number or multitude: A whole troop of children swarmed through the museum.
3. Military. an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.
4. troops, a body of soldiers, police, etc.: Mounted troops quelled the riot.
5. a unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts usually having a maximum of 32 members under the guidance of an adult leader.
6. a herd, flock, or swarm.
1 out of 6 definitions refers to military. I was using #4, in case you were wondering.
|
Zero, will. The answer is zero US military personnel. No troops, truck drivers, cooks, tank mechanics or quartermasters. Oh, I suppose you can count BOTH CIA operatives (yes, there were two Americans on the ground, but neither was in the military) in place at the time, but this was an invasion of Cuba by Cubans. The closest you're going to get to your point is an invasion by proxy, which really doesn't fit your point at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Someone "about to attack us" was how we got into Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised people still haven't learned from this. Imminent threat has been used as pretense to be the aggressor in war for thousands of years. It will stop being effective the second people see it for what it really is. But they likely won't.
|
So how does this change the fact that you're accusing Obama of something he didn't say? I suppose you'd just be happier if a future President, upon learning of an eminent Canadian invasion, would deny it and arrest those making the reports, like Stalin.