(04-15-2018, 09:19 AM)JackCity Wrote:

(04-15-2018, 08:16 AM)B2hibry Wrote: When your privy to information that most aren’t and understand the intricacies of how these types of mission are formulated you’d understand how naive and general your comments are. America isn’t perfect but when you have the resources and ability should you not take a from the front role? You act as though the military is just itching to go an attack someone regardless of life. We are human beings that just so happen to have a profession that is largely seen as the nations security. The piece you don’t see or hear about is that we are by and large global humanitarians first. We are all over the world providing healthcare, food, water, shelter, infrastructure, nation building, etc. 

I don’t NEED to stop anything. Must suck going through life looking at the negative and bad in everything, like someone is out to get you. If you can’t find the good and necessary in this action, perhaps you should reevaluate life choices and thoughts on humanity.

So just to clarify, the US has never spread misinformation to invent reasons to attack foreign territories?  

My issue is with US foreign policy and it's industrial-military complex. I'm sure there are tons of great soliders and I know a handful personally. I am also completely fine with the US military acting as humanitarians providing help like you outline. Let's not pretend that's the sole aim of US foreign policy though. For a more even debate I'd ask you what do you consider to be bad things the US does abroad, what events have you disagreed with? 

Please miss me on your appeal to humanity because on my critiques of the US foreign policy. It's as ironic as it is pathetic.

The US has utilized psych-ops for quite some time. Such ops are not utilized on the American populace or even in an international setting. They are pinpointed on a civilian populace to instill doubt or reinforce an objective against their leadership/goverment. Military information released to the public goes one of two ways...direct or very vague. This depends on current or future ops. Attacks on foreign territory have absolutely zero to do with public opinion. In fact, most operation go completely unknown to the public. Vietnam shows what happens when the military gets too politicized. That started to creep in during the Obama era. Look, we are a professional military that consists of mostly high thinking individuals that work at perfecting their craft on a daily basis until called upon. You’d be amazed at how often exercises take place, with painful feedback and lessons reporting that ensures any weaknesses or mistakes are identified and/or not repeated. It’s not perfect but anything that is not remotely close to perfect cost lives.

To address your debate question...The only events that I have questioned have to deal with lack of respectable action. For example when Iran took hostage of some sailors, I believed escalation was warranted. I also disagree with allowing the vacuum in Syria, left by 7 years of war and incompetent leadership, to be filled by a Russian and Iranian ideology that may be even worse not only for Syria but for the region.

I’m certainly not trying to appeal to your humanitarian side. It’s obvious you believe such crisis should be dealt with solely in country regardless of the turmoil. It’s also quite obvious you believe our military aren’t free thinking and want nothing but war. As far as policy, I have yet to see a coherent thought on foreign policy from you. Actually according to you, foreign policy should be non-existant as we sit on our hands at home. My mindset is that no action is pretty irresponsible for a nation like ours or any other capable one.

---