Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

When does defending america become attacking another country? Congress seems to think that even the slightest hint of an attack gives due cause to wage war. But what do you think.

Defense is only to prevent something.
If you throw a nuke at me and I deflect it, I have defended. If you invade my country and I repel your forces, I have defended.
But if I attack another country or retaliate against the country for something they did, then that's offence.

example: if Iran throws a stink bomb at us and we throw one back, that's offense. If we deflect the bomb with a bat.... I guess that's still offence. But if we eat it, then its defense.

Ok how about this for a definition: defense can't inflict damage on someone else unless they hit your defense. A wall can only hurt someone who throws a punch at it.
yeah.

so attacking anyone is offense.

It's quite simple. Attacking is offense. Keeping to yourself and protecting your own shit in your own place is defense.

At 2/22/06 06:15 PM, Elfer wrote: It's quite simple. Attacking is offense. Keeping to yourself and protecting your own shit in your own place is defense.

Assuming that is true, then how can america say that attacking iraq was an act of defense? And say you come up to me and punch me then take a step back: if i were to walk up to you with a can of pepper spray and blind you, wouldnt that be defense? I have moved, and inflicted harm yet wouldnt it still be defense?

At 2/22/06 06:22 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Assuming that is true, then how can america say that attacking iraq was an act of defense?

It's not, it was considered a preemptive strike, which is, technically speaking, an offensive strategy. It's a first strike doctrine.

FYI, we are not in a war. Congress has only approved military action, not war. We haven't done that since WW2

At 2/22/06 06:27 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: FYI, we are not in a war. Congress has only approved military action, not war. We haven't done that since WW2

Not true. We are at war(technically) arguably you could say that we are trying to restore peace. What has not happened since world war 2 is that the president has not approved a war before congress passed it.

PS: Its called the "WAR in Iraq" not the "MILITARY ACTION in Iraq"

At 2/22/06 06:34 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Its called the "WAR in Iraq" not the "MILITARY ACTION in Iraq"

lol This kid believes everything people tell him.

Sheep.

The best defence is a good offense.

At 2/22/06 06:36 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 2/22/06 06:34 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Its called the "WAR in Iraq" not the "MILITARY ACTION in Iraq"

lol This kid believes everything people tell him.

Sheep.

Led to slaughter? Dont think so. Called--WHAT ITS CALLED. Try to argue that. And for the record it is a war-- Look it up.

Isn't the point of every war to subdue the enemy militarily and politically? Seems to me like that's been accomplished so far.

I think you need enough offense so that your enemy dosn't attack again
IF you just keep defending then they'll keep attacking

At 2/22/06 07:40 PM, Cant wrote: I think you need enough offense so that your enemy dosn't attack again
IF you just keep defending then they'll keep attacking

How about not giving your enemy a reason to attack you?

At 2/22/06 07:34 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote: Isn't the point of every war to subdue the enemy militarily and politically? Seems to me like that's been accomplished so far.

The point of war is to obtain the goals set at the start of the war. Key points: Get saddam out of power CHECK-- Overpower military CHECK-- Rebuild no check-- Maintain peace no check

The point of this war could not be to subdue the enemy militarily and politically, they had hardly any military, and almost zero government.

At 2/22/06 07:43 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: How about not giving your enemy a reason to attack you?

That can't be avioded, no matter what someone is going to disagree with you, or just not like you

At 2/22/06 07:49 PM, Cant wrote:

At 2/22/06 07:43 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: How about not giving your enemy a reason to attack you?

That can't be avioded, no matter what someone is going to disagree with you, or just not like you

Disagree with you enough to attack? I don't think so

At 2/22/06 07:49 PM, Cant wrote:

At 2/22/06 07:43 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: How about not giving your enemy a reason to attack you?

That can't be avioded, no matter what someone is going to disagree with you, or just not like you

Yeah, trying to do that would be like trying to get world peace. Might as well just start telling our mommies about what other countries are doing to us and say "stop it meanie!"

At 2/22/06 07:51 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: Disagree with you enough to attack? I don't think so

there always extremists.the worst part is that people agree with them, thats how they get these mass armies

At 2/22/06 07:56 PM, Cant wrote:

At 2/22/06 07:51 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: Disagree with you enough to attack? I don't think so

there always extremists.the worst part is that people agree with them, thats how they get these mass armies

But what he meant is that can there be a country insane enough to attack someone just because they disagree with them.

At 2/22/06 06:22 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Assuming that is true, then how can america say that attacking iraq was an act of defense?

Uhh, to improve public relations? Dur.

And say you come up to me and punch me then take a step back: if i were to walk up to you with a can of pepper spray and blind you, wouldnt that be defense? I have moved, and inflicted harm yet wouldnt it still be defense?

Well, depends on the situation. Does it look like I'm getting ready to hit you again? If I'm just running away after hitting you, macing me would be retribution, not defense.

oh, i dont think whole country would agree with that, like i said some people would disagree.

At 2/22/06 08:12 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/22/06 06:22 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Assuming that is true, then how can america say that attacking iraq was an act of defense?

Uhh, to improve public relations? Dur.

And say you come up to me and punch me then take a step back: if i were to walk up to you with a can of pepper spray and blind you, wouldnt that be defense? I have moved, and inflicted harm yet wouldnt it still be defense?

Well, depends on the situation. Does it look like I'm getting ready to hit you again? If I'm just running away after hitting you, macing me would be retribution, not defense.

Let me make it bigger. Lets say your country bombs mine from 30,000 miles away. Then sits there. I bomb your bomb factory. Defense? All i did before was pepper your eyes and make it so you couldnt hit me again, and all im doing now is bombing you and making sure you cant bomb me again.

Pre-Emptive attacks are offensive moves.

At 2/22/06 08:39 PM, ratrat10 wrote: Pre-Emptive attacks are offensive moves.

did you read above^^? cause if so, then read again. If not then give more info on why you believe that.

im trying to see it like most of you, but im a firm believer in revenge.
I think if they atack you they shouldent get away with it. there should be some effort to show that these kind of things won't go unopposed

I agree, but I also say that we must also take preventative action.

At 2/22/06 08:58 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: I agree, but I also say that we must also take preventative action.

it depend on the ocasion, we shouldent attack because we "think" somthing is going on

like weopons of mass destruction

At 2/22/06 09:00 PM, Cant wrote:

At 2/22/06 08:58 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: I agree, but I also say that we must also take preventative action.

it depend on the ocasion, we shouldent attack because we "think" somthing is going on

like weopons of mass destruction

Im not saying iraq nessessarily, i mean in general. If we KNEW that there were plans to attack us.

The best Defense is a good offense.

At 2/22/06 09:10 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: The best Defense is a good offense.

Thats a policy that relies on fear. Couldnt you also say the best offense is a good defense?