Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
Oh yeah I forgot, we certainly had no reason to invade Afghanistan, I mean afterall, it was nothing more than the HQ for the very people that blew up a few f*cking skyscrappers and threatened to do it again and again... What we did was obviously unjustified.
|
Well, we did invade a pretty big country. Now that I think about it, it seems like overkill taking over a whole nation to get a bunch of guys but I guess its just as much hassle to invade
a bit of a country for the same reason. Anyway, I think the main disagreement is that we were arguing with reference to different meanings.
Quote:
|
I use the term agressive as in being focused on "Offense" rather than "Defense"...
|
By my original use of the word 'aggressive', I was definitely right. If I use you definition, then the definition of US and UK as aggressive military forces can still be appropriate. It depends on whether you count a little man mouthing off or nutters living in caves within a certain country as attack or possible attack by that country itself.
In my mind, if your country attacks another country - one that hasn't physically attacked you - then you are the aggressor. Maybe this attack is right, maybe its wrong. If its in a country's own interest to perform the attack then it might be smart for them to do so.