The war in Iraq to save Kuwait was justified.
The second war (to remove Sadam Hussein) wasn't.

Korea was. South Korea was being invaded.

Vietnamese was- to an extent. We should have either decided to win quickly at the expense of few lives, or not invaded at all.

(Saying the North Vietnamese weren just innocent villagers protecting their family's is a bit idiotic though. They fought by doing things like forcing young children to act as suicide bombers. And after the war Ho Chih Mihn went on a death march killing two million people.)

Edited 7/9/2015 19:46:37

If you use this silly logic, then NATO needs to invade Ukraine for invading Donetsk and Luhansk.

And a whole bunch of countries right now need help from invasions but aren't really getting any.

Edited 7/9/2015 19:52:04

If you use this silly logic, then NATO needs to invade Ukraine for invading Donetsk and Luhansk.

That's odd. How can a country invade part of itself? Both those places are part of Ukraine.

No, they are part of Donetsk and Luhansk, some newer countries.

You're like Taiwan saying "Mongolia? No, the land you called Mongolia, we actually own as part of China."

No, they are part of Donetsk and Luhansk, some newer countries.'

Rebel groups do not count as countries. Donetsk and Luhansk have next to zero international recognition and are only surviving due to Russia propping them up. (In fact, not even Russia has officially recognized them as countries!)

You and your recognitions...the Levant is a country. Boko Haram is a country. Whether you like it or not.

But how about Gaza/Palestine? Shouldn't NATO be attacking Israel?

the Levant is a country. Boko Haram is a country. Whether you like it or not.

Do you have any grasp on the definition of a country? By your logic all I have to do is gather up a gang with some weapons, pull a coup on a few towns, and then I'd have my own country.

It doesn't work like that. A group of militants taking over a couple of cities does not a country make.

You and your recognitions

Yes, as it turns out there's actually requirements for being a country aside from having a rebellion,shooting some of your own people, and stealing some land. Actually being recognized by existing countries is one of those requirements.

If we went by your loose definition of a country the world would be balkanized very quickly.

The world is balkanised quite a bit, especially in places of war.

Oxford Dictionary was down while I was looking this up, so I went on Wiktionary.

The territory of a nation, especially an independent nation state or formerly independent nation; a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area.

This is a bit looser than I wanted, but point is, recognition is not a requirement for being a country. Not at all. Recognition is a requirement for being recognised and getting into many international organisations. If you gang up with some friends, pull a coup on a few towns and don't pay your taxes to your former country, then, congratulations, you do have a country; albeit a very small and insignificant one, and probably one that will not last more than three days.

Xpapy, your a moron

If you think you and a couple friends grabbing some guns and taking over some land is the same thing as a nation of South Korea... You need help.

Besides, you do realize your suggesting that we should've let North Korea, a nation that enslaves its own people, has concentration camps, and has let millions of its own citizens starve, take over South Korea

Your not only a moron, your a horrible excuse for a human being.

Also, as to Donesk and Lutensk... Well here's my view on it:
If a new nation can't raise its own support, but relies on another nation entirely for its existence, then its nation a nation; its a little puppet government without any real power or right.

That logic is flawed. America propped up Western Europe after WW2 to prevent it from falling to communist uprisings. So by that logic for a decade after WW2 there were no nations in western Europe that received US support.

People are upset over that image? Really? Lmao.

How about I explain?
-Great-Great Grandpa: US Marines, IWO-FUCKING-JIMA! Lost 2-3 fingers to Japanese weapons that day, and for what? This SHIT!

You're saying until today what they did achieved absolutely nothing, but now that the image has been made, that was their only achievement? Wow. I feel really sorry.
On a serious note, I'm certain this image in no way affected any of whatever military results your family might've achieved. It's an absolutely nonsensical argument you're putting forward there.

Now I'm done, and if I EVER see these men in the Gay Pride photo or see this photo being re-enacted, I WILL kill those men, and I WILL burn that flag, understand me?

Death threats over an image. I didn't expect to meet that crazy mentality outside some deranged islamists after some Muhammed drawings, but oh well, typical American national-egoism, what can you expect.

A joke should be funny, this isn't. This is using a very lame and bad comparison to try and equate the struggles of World War 2 to the "struggle" of LGBTs in the U.S.

The joke police has arrived? Ok I must say I like the colors of the right photo but it's not all that funny, but I find this really funny after people are trying to interpret the image in as many ways possible that they can find offensive. This really is priceless entertainment on this random Friday evening.

Tl;dr my stance on the right photo: 50% apathy, 2% excitement over the colors and 48% amusement over the angry reactions.

Edit:

Congress needs to pass a stircter law aginst fucking with the Military. No, you cant impersonate a US Soldier, but you shouldnt be able to fucking ruin a photo like this!

Fortunately your congress can't rule the entire world and maybe you can implement some censorship in USA, but I'd be curious how to write a bill that'd prevent an image like that in the vast majority of the world other than by simply censoring it out in USA Turkey-style. While you're at it make sure to make it mandatory to chant "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" at least 20 times a day.

Edited 7/10/2015 19:51:14

Who the f*** kills someone over two stupid photos? Jesus Christ these nationalistic idiots have been running around like they own the place in America. I can't stand these idiots, they stand for things that are down right "un-American" and act like people who oppose them are terrorists. Then when you say something against them they try and shut you up with "if you hate America why do you live here?" and act like you must love everything America has done to live here.

During World War II, in the theater of the Pacific Ocean, Americans (United States) soldiers headed back to their home country with Japanese heads as souvenirs and gifts to their wives.

Source : National Geographic.

True, hostile. But it was a condemned action and there have been efforts since the 40s to give proper burial.

Not to mention the fact that I don't think that any of their wives appreciated the gift.

+10 To Bla
+1 to Tupac


Couldn't have said it better myself. As a matter of fact, I said it worse XD.

I hate sweet potato pie.

American morals are corrupting and losing ground.

Maybe this isn't a recent trend and I've just started noticing it, but people on the internet seem to be LOOKING for reasons to get angry. Either they're that bored, or they want to advance some right-wing viewpoint or both, I don't know.

If you look at the URL of the image it's from foxnews.com

Who gives a shit if someone made a picture referencing an iconic event and posted it on the internet. "Floating around" yeah right, this is the first time I've seen it. Fox is just trying to rile up gullible people like OP and he fell right for it. Not only does he get riled up but he brags, IN CAPS LOCK, about family members in the military to the Warlight forums. Get over yourself.