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.