Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force?
If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.
But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?
Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.
"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.
If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.
But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?
Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.
"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.