Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes an army and a navy to ward off an invasion, an attack is a one shot deal intended to damage but not defeat
9-11 does not justify the US spending 42 cents out of every defense dollar
good one leftard!! then according to your logic above what can normal people conclude about what you think should have been our response to Pearl Harbor??? that wasnt an invasion, it was a one-shot deal no leftard??
No one is saying that just because the Japanese didn't invade Pearl Harbor that the US response shouldn't have been war.
What people are saying is, that when someone says the US hasn't been invaded for 200 years, then people come and say "9/11 was clearly an invasion", that there's a problem, because someone is talking crap, and it's the latter person.
Do you understand that if I use the term "invasion", I mean "invasion", and if I use the term "attack", I mean the word attack. And that if I use the word "attack" this doesn't necessarily mean that someone has been invaded?
I mean, how does a debate, with supposedly educated (I'm assuming you graduated from primary school) adults ends up with people unable to use a word like "invade" properly.
you moron. if you're admitting that an attack can also be justification for a military response then you just addmitted your obsession over using the word invasion as opposed to attack IS A MOOT POINT
it isnt rocket science idiot
cant have it both ways
ok go cry
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes an army and a navy to ward off an invasion, an attack is a one shot deal intended to damage but not defeat
9-11 does not justify the US spending 42 cents out of every defense dollar
good one leftard!! then according to your logic above what can normal people conclude about what you think should have been our response to Pearl Harbor??? that wasnt an invasion, it was a one-shot deal no leftard??
No one is saying that just because the Japanese didn't invade Pearl Harbor that the US response shouldn't have been war.
What people are saying is, that when someone says the US hasn't been invaded for 200 years, then people come and say "9/11 was clearly an invasion", that there's a problem, because someone is talking crap, and it's the latter person.
Do you understand that if I use the term "invasion", I mean "invasion", and if I use the term "attack", I mean the word attack. And that if I use the word "attack" this doesn't necessarily mean that someone has been invaded?
I mean, how does a debate, with supposedly educated (I'm assuming you graduated from primary school) adults ends up with people unable to use a word like "invade" properly.
you moron. if you're admitting that an attack can also be justification for a military response then you just addmitted your obsession over using the word invasion as opposed to attack IS A MOOT POINT
it isnt rocket science idiot
cant have it both ways
ok go cry
Oh, it's not that important. However, you're insulting as a form of debate. How intelligent is that? Also squirming about making a mistake when you should have just said it was a mistake. Instead you fight your corner like an irish boxer. Not the smartest thing to do.
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes an army and a navy to ward off an invasion, an attack is a one shot deal intended to damage but not defeat
9-11 does not justify the US spending 42 cents out of every defense doll
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
Active Military...1,369,532
As of 2014 the army of the United States of America is one of the strongest armies in the world, if not the strongest – and that comes down to money. The yearly budget that the United States of America government has allocated to their army is more than six hundred and twelve BILLION dollars. Yes, you read that right: more than six hundred and twelve billion dollars. It is hard to match the global firepower of a country that spends that much on an army! This is probably because, despite not having a single battle on their own soil for tens if not hundreds of years, American troops are currently deployed in nearly one hundred and fifty countries.
Just curious......how would you feel if every time you went to do your grocery shopping there were troops there from a foreign country.....often armed. It seems that somewhere along the way Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about a military/industrial complex got lost in the fray:
Number of soldiers doesn't equal power. Didn't you see "300?"
Seriously...we have eleven aircraft carriers. Nearly all of the other military countries don't have one. We don't just lead by a little.
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
nobody is struggling with context but you. it was YOU that made the case that we werent invaded only attacked AND HERE IS WHERE YOU MADE IT:
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes an army and a navy to ward off an invasion, an attack is a one shot deal intended to damage but not defeat
9-11 does not justify the US spending 42 cents out of every defense doll
FURTHER MORE you reasoning for making the distinction in the first place was that you dont feel we need to have a military the size of what we have. LATER BOTH you idiots admitted it really didnt matter. if it didnt they why did YOU make a big deal when the other poster said invaded as opposed to attack???
no the problem isnt others not understanding context. the problem is you left-wing pussies want to say something without actually having to take responsibility for it; or, ironically explain what the "real" context was for it.
in other words you're just a bunch of crybaby left-wing losers trying to have it both ways; as usual.
when caught in your own bullshit you start crying that others dont understand you. of course neither of you cowards will say what the context you meant was if not exactly what it appeared to be. you want to say we dont need a military this big because we werrent actually invaded on 9-11; but dont want to make it appear you would have endorsed no military response at all to 9-11.
guess what losers? it's just another STRAW MAN ANYWAY. ...........................We already had a large military prior to 9-11
idiots and hypocrites
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
nobody is struggling with context but you. it was YOU that made the case that we werent invaded only attacked AND HERE IS WHERE YOU MADE IT:
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes an army and a navy to ward off an invasion, an attack is a one shot deal intended to damage but not defeat
9-11 does not justify the US spending 42 cents out of every defense doll
FURTHER MORE you reasoning for making the distinction in the first place was that you dont feel we need to have a military the size of what we have. LATER BOTH you idiots admitted it really didnt matter. if it didnt they why did YOU make a big deal when the other poster said invaded as opposed to attack???
no the problem isnt others not understanding context. the problem is you left-wing pussies want to say something without actually having to take responsibility for it; or, ironically explain what the "real" context was for it.
in other words you're just a bunch of crybaby left-wing losers trying to have it both ways; as usual.
when caught in your own bullshit you start crying that others dont understand you. of course neither of you cowards will say what the context you meant was if not exactly what it appeared to be. you want to say we dont need a military this big because we werrent actually invaded on 9-11; but dont want to make it appear you would have endorsed no military response at all to 9-11.
guess what losers? it's just another STRAW MAN ANYWAY. ...........................We already had a large military prior to 9-11
idiots and hypocrites
It is obvious that you still can't see the difference between an attack and an invasion
Otherwise you would not be trying to justify a military bigger than the next ten forces combined because we have been attacked twice in the last 75 years
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
in a discussion, a point, RAISED BY YOU, that the size of our military "isnt justified" by 9-11, YES it qualifies as an invasion SINCE YOU and the other idiot both agree a military responses was justified to 9-11, as a response to an actual INVASION would also be
idiot
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
Why do conservatives struggle so much with the english language and the context of a discussion?
I make a statement that the size of our military is not justified because we have not been invaded in 200 years
To which moron conservatives respond...What about 9-11?
Do these morons really think 9-11 qualifies as an invasion?
in a discussion, a point, RAISED BY YOU, that the size of our military "isnt justified" by 9-11, YES it qualifies as an invasion SINCE YOU and the other idiot both agree a military responses was justified to 9-11, as a response to an actual INVASION would also be
idiot
What is the problem with you guys? Are you totally incapable of reading what is posted?
How can an attack be an invasion if no forces are landed and there is no attempt to occupy US territory?
Conservative Logic 101: Since a military response can be made on an attack or an invasion, that means attacks and invasions are the same thing
Conservative Logic 101: Since a military response can be made on an attack or an invasion, that means attacks and invasions are the same thing
Good godConservative Logic 101: Since a military response can be made on an attack or an invasion, that means attacks and invasions are the same thing
in the CONTEXT of the argument YOU ARE MAKING; that is what does or doesnt justify a military response; yes loon they are the same thing
be a man for once
geesh what a loser
Good godConservative Logic 101: Since a military response can be made on an attack or an invasion, that means attacks and invasions are the same thing
in the CONTEXT of the argument YOU ARE MAKING; that is what does or doesnt justify a military response; yes loon they are the same thing
be a man for once
geesh what a loser
You guys are not only dumber than I thought but you seem to enjoy celebrating your stupidity
No, pal, an attack and an invasion are NOT the same thing
the US is not #1 in military spending as a percentage of GDP, NOT #2, OR #3. TRY 14TH
so much for your charts and graphs idiot
What does our GDP have to do with the potential threat against our country?
We spend 42 cents of every military dollar to defend a country that hasn't been invaded in 200 years
Hmmm, soooooooooooooo, 9/11/2001 was 200 years ago?
9/11 was an invasion?
what would you call it? an attack? a terrorist bombing? an act of war? or "bush did it" ?
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes a occupying force capturing territory
Pearl Harbor was an attack, not an invasion
What does our GDP have to do with the potential threat against our country?
We spend 42 cents of every military dollar to defend a country that hasn't been invaded in 200 years
Hmmm, soooooooooooooo, 9/11/2001 was 200 years ago?
9/11 was an invasion?
what would you call it? an attack? a terrorist bombing? an act of war? or "bush did it" ?
Do you understand what an invasion is?
It takes a occupying force capturing territory
Pearl Harbor was an attack, not an invasion
OK, fine. Attack. do you think our military only exists to prevent a physical invasion force?
Obama has been plunking off terrorists for seven years. Obama got bin LadenPutin has done more in two weeks than obozo did in two years. But you are correct about maintaining peace in that shithole.
Putin has been in the game for two weeks.....Guess who republicans worship?
Intel gathered during the Bush admin got OBL, obozo just reluctantly gave the go ahead for the hit.
as to ISIS, it did not exist until obama pulled out of Iraq and declared defeat.
Bush had seven years and his Intel got us into Iraq
As to ISIS, it never existed until the Bush doctrine upset the balance of power in the region
Look dude, the Iraq war was a mistake. But Bush did not do it on his own. Both parties voted to authrorize and fund that fiasco, including senator hillary clinton. And every one of them had the exact same flawed intel that Bush had.
But Bush is history, today's reality is the mess that obama has created both domestically and internationally.
Put your revisionist history where it belongs---------up your ass. concentrate on today, or would you like to go back and call Truman a war monger and murderer for killing millions of innocent japanese?
Then why did Bush and his cronies have to tell 935 documented lies? I mean....it's there in historical records and will not be erased.
Obama has been plunking off terrorists for seven years. Obama got bin Laden
Putin has been in the game for two weeks.....Guess who republicans worship?
Intel gathered during the Bush admin got OBL, obozo just reluctantly gave the go ahead for the hit.
as to ISIS, it did not exist until obama pulled out of Iraq and declared defeat.
Bush had seven years and his Intel got us into Iraq
As to ISIS, it never existed until the Bush doctrine upset the balance of power in the region
Look dude, the Iraq war was a mistake. But Bush did not do it on his own. Both parties voted to authrorize and fund that fiasco, including senator hillary clinton. And every one of them had the exact same flawed intel that Bush had.
But Bush is history, today's reality is the mess that obama has created both domestically and internationally.
Put your revisionist history where it belongs---------up your ass. concentrate on today, or would you like to go back and call Truman a war monger and murderer for killing millions of innocent japanese?
Then why did Bush and his cronies have to tell 935 documented lies? I mean....it's there in historical records and will not be erased.
repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying. Was the UN lying? it said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. How about both clintons? said the same thing based on the same intel.
If Bush was lying, then so was the UN and the US congress.
