To Taisho: I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.
Is an insult still an insult when it's true (i.e. a fact)?
fool
noun
1.
a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.
In this case, my declaring that I have gathered enough evidence to prove you are in fact a fool, is directly related to the stance you take on the issue at hand. Why, you ask? Because you seem incapable of providing a sufficient rebuttal to any points brought up, diverting focus from the main point and squabbling over definitions. You also fail to provide facts for your claims.
The very ways you present your arguments are weak and half-assed and yet you expect others to treat you with some degree of recognition.
When a country supplies another country with weapons, ammunition and supplies necessary to sustain an army, it's directly involved in an invasion.
When a country sends advisers, it's directly involved.
When a country sends bombers, it's directly involved.
When a country has covert operations which are declassified 20-50 years later proving military involvement, it's directly involved.
Now, saying the US didn't start these wars. Well, to this day there are those who believe that US started the war with Japan by applying an economic embargo against the Empire of Japan.
http://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harborOne of many sources that show what I'm getting at.
America has done an excellent job in the past of making it look like the other guys "fired the first shot", but in all reality, the US was already neck deep with said countries long before it came to military conflict.
Let me reiterate, because people are again saying that I'm anti-US. I'm not. I even consider myself a patriot of sorts, but that doesn't stop me from openly criticizing the US government, military and economy for its unacceptable conduct in regards to the rest of the world.
Edited 3/27/2015 14:52:44