(04-15-2018, 06:57 PM)JackCity Wrote:

(04-15-2018, 06:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: 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.

We already have had two large wars kick started by American misinformation.  

Second part of the question, do you have any problem with Russia interfering with the democratic affairs of other countries,  killing civilians abroad, selling guns to terrorists and having an aggressive foreign policy?  

I believe if you scroll up a few comments you'll see where I told you what I disagree with. No foreign policy doesn't have to be non existent, just less aggressive, less damaging on the rest of the world and less playing god around the globe. You'd think they would be universally held opinions by any objective human looking at the USAs current foreign policy.

And those were?

I know you like to think US Foreign policy is equal to that of Communist regimes, so to understand I’m going to need these paralleled examples of atrocities and aggressiveness.

Once again, what gives you this idea? I wonder how aware you are that most operations are through invite from host countries and actually subsidized. There are obvious exceptions but a very large portion fit the previously mentioned category. Once again, what examples are you locked onto to give the perception that you have that the U.S. has a blood thirsty foreign policy?

---