Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Then you're not using the word correctly. Sorry.
|
You don't need to apologize. I forgive you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
Like I said, the US can't act unilaterally. Some countries will back us regardless of whether they agree with us or even if it's in their best interest. That means that the word "unilateral" is meaningless when speaking of the US. It has to shift to compensate.
BTW, I just looked up "unilateralism" and it said:
n.
A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.
Do you really think the US consulted Poland or Romania before invading Iraq? We made the determination, THEN the coalition formed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
I expected better of you. I explained this just fine. You're welcome to look up "troops" to verify. The point was that it was the US didn't consult any of our allies and didn't get any of their support. So it actually fits my point quite well.