|Opinion||It's possible for a modern, wealthy country like the United States to protect its interests in a small, carefully targeted manner without having to go to war.|
– Lee J Haywood, 2009-12-17 at 21:03:25 (5 comments)
|On 2009-12-17 at 21:06:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
For example, if you wanted to go after terrorists you could infiltrate their cells with a small group of trained specialists rather than sending an entire army after them. Alternatively, if you want to topple a dictatorship you could use assassins to remove the heads of state whilst destabilising the government, rather than invading the entire country and hoping to find its president along the way.
|On 2009-12-22 at 05:10:35, BorgClown wrote...
|On 2009-12-22 at 10:19:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Oh, well that's not such a bad idea. They could have zapped the Iraq presidential palace, which would be an act of war but what's Iraq going to do about it? It's not like they'd be able to send a couple of guys over to knock down a building in the US... oh, wait.
|On 2009-12-22 at 21:20:54, BorgClown wrote...
It would be an act of preemptive measure. Rumor says that war declaration needs congress backup, but euphemisms do not.
|On 2009-12-23 at 09:33:23, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I see the US military like a gun - if you own some firepower lying around, it increases the temptation of using it. Somehow having a really big military budget seemed like a good idea, and now it's bleeding the economy dry in order to make money for a few.