the US and war

[red dragon]

Why do Americans glorify war?

- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?

- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?

- is it because the US is geographically isolated from countries which they were engaged? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq?


- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

What are your thoughts?

[D-gin]

- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

What are your thoughts?

Well I could be wrong but I think there was a fair bit of that during the 60's and 70's......:|

And I think the last war we can say we "won" would be WWII.

[the_recruit]

Yes, Vietnam I'd say was a loss.


I dont think we glorify war, Im sure noone in thier right mind wants to fight a war. We glorify the brave men and women who sacrifice their time and lives to fight these wars and to protect our freedom. Im not joining the Marines in another year because im a war-hungry animal, I want to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of others and live my life as a decent human being with a sense of hard work and sacrifice.

[Smersh]

...I want to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of others and live my life as a decent human being with a sense of hard work and sacrifice.

Is that why you are willing to go fight in Iraq?

[fuzzyramirez]

We may not have lost a war, but we took a good licking in the Vietnam War. And Americans has faced poverty, instability and inflation: The Great Depression". Plus I think a lot of Americans take pride in the fact that the people who founded this country wanted independence so much that they waged a major war against England, and won.

[ex Strathcona]

funny that every one wants to hop on the "kick em when their down" band wagon. just remember that the Americans you are calling warmongers are usually the first on the scene with Aid and comfort when your country is hit with a natural disaster.
Also please recall that in the last century the 2 bloodiest conflicts of modern history were started by warmongering Europeans and the United States entered those wars only after being drawn into them by aggressive combatants.
Modern U.S. foreign policy is a result of 20th century European warmongering
in other words.. the Pot is calling the kettle black.

[fuzzyramirez]

funny that every one wants to hop on the "kick em when their down" band wagon. just remember that the Americans you are calling warmongers are usually the first on the scene with Aid and comfort when your country is hit with a natural disaster.
Also please recall that in the last century the 2 bloodiest conflicts of modern history were started by warmongering Europeans and the United States entered those wars only after being drawn into them by aggressive combatants.
Modern U.S. foreign policy is a result of 20th century European warmongering
in other words.. the Pot is calling the kettle black.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Smite18]

^x2 outstanding

[Kitsune]

Yeah. But you are wrong, you three. You are turning this into the usual "we Americans are completely nice guys." And, while that may be very convenient a point of view for an American, it is simply not true.

Take your WWI and WWII examples: the USA could easily have staid out of those. But even in WWII when the declaration of war came from Germany, you had massively and supported Britain and the Sovietunion before. In WWI it was worse, and back then the Americans were the ones that declared war. Or better yet. Consider the American-Mexican war of 1846-1848 or the American-Spanish War of 1898. Look it up!

The truth is this: America expanded as good as it could, and once you reached the Western coast and the classic US territory started to feel too small, you expanded outward. Westward over the Pacific. Southward into Mexico (plus making your presence felt all over Middle and South America). And eastward into Europe. And it may be a coincidence...but when the Sovietunion fell you promptly expanded into the Middle East and the Caucasus region. Then it may be no coincidence.

Or bluntly put: You Americans are aggressive, imperialist and greedy...in exactly the same way as Europeans. You may have inherited that from us, true. But that was done so from the start, when European settlers came to America's shore. They never laid off those traits, not even for a minute.

[Atlantic Friend]

Why do Americans glorify war?

I wouldn't say they glorify war. They certainly glorify war veterans (and it comes as a shock to the nation when they don't), and have a less apprehensive view of war as other nations.

I think this is partly because the United States emerged as a world power through three wars (Civil War, WW1, WW2), two of which were not fought on its soil and didn't cost the country as much as it cost the other parties to the conflict. Hence the concept of "war" is, I guess, much more palatable.

Add to that the present gap between the US military forces and any potential opponent's, and the fact any war will be fought on the opponent's territory, thus sanctuarizing the continental United States, and you have another factor that helps the American public have a more positive view of war as, say, the European or Asian public.

Another factor is probably that any war the United States is likely to fight will be able to be fought with its professionnal units (though the accumulation of small conflicts can lead to over-stretching), meaning that the administrations won't have to face pressure from the citizenry which will, by and large, remain entirely untouched (except emotionally) by the ongoing conflict.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Or bluntly put: You Americans are aggressive, imperialist and greedy...in exactly the same way as Europeans. You may have inherited that from us, true. But that was done so from the start, when European settlers came to America's shore. They never laid off those traits, not even for a minute.

If that's true, why hasn't Western Europe been flying under a US flag since 1945? Or Japan? Or Mexico? That's an important consideration, because that's what imperial powers do. And why did we need to be attacked before joining the aforementioned wars? If we were aggressive, wouldn't we would have started them? Seems to me that's an important distinction - the aggressor starts the war.

Since we have the capability to lay waste to most of the world, and have a military machine capable of defeating most nations - why haven't we? Canada is a nice place. And the Bahamas are pretty swell. Hey and tiny Venezuela has oil...you know how much we love that stuff. IMHO your statements are simply not borne out by the facts - not even close.

As to why we glorify war - I don't think we do. I think we glorify military service in defense of our interests. And that's because history has shown that it's occasionally necessary - if we expect our citizens to answer the call, they'd better be motivated to do so.

[AZRON]

We may not have lost a war, but we took a good licking in the Vietnam War. .

Which battles did we specificly take a licking in ?

During the Tet offensive , about a 5 month campaign we lost 4,500 or so the NVA and the VC lost 55,000. For all practical purposes the VC were destroyed and never a real factor again. The NVA were much more cautious and less bold until U.S. forces were significantly reduced.

We " Cut and ran" sound familiar ?

We negoiated a peace treaty. We met the obligations of pulling our troops out. Two years later congress cut all monies to support the SV gov't.
NV then invaded and conquered an abandoned SV.

What do many Dems in congress want to do today ?

[AZRON]

Or bluntly put: You Americans are aggressive, imperialist and greedy...in exactly the same way as Europeans. You may have inherited that from us, true. But that was done so from the start, when European settlers came to America's shore. They never laid off those traits, not even for a minute.


Yep !

Your right.

We still have those Germans , Japanese , S. Koreans and Thais under our boots , don't we. Those Philippinoes are bowing to us daily.

We are greedy no doubt but 3 of our 5 biggest oil companies doing business in the U.S. are foreign owned . So I guess the Dutch, Brits and Chavez aren't. DB controls Chysler . Our second largest beer distributor is SAB ( South African Beer) Miller.
German and Brit banks are major big players here. Rupert Murdoch an Aussie and Sony a Jap. company are major players in the U.S. economy.

Our greed has a healthy mix of free market non-monoply mix to it.
Our economic system more or less copied from the Dutch and is the best there is. Look what is going on in China and starting in Vietnam.
The system isn't perfect but works better than any other developed so far.

[Ratamacue]

Is that why you are willing to go fight in Iraq?Servicemembers don't get to pick and choose where they fight. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm not trying to join in order to go to Iraq. I'm also not going to pass up the opportunity to serve my country and its people just because there's an unpopular and arguably unjustified war going on.

[Kitsune]

@2Sheds_Jackson


If that's true, why hasn't Western Europe been flying under a US flag since 1945? Or Japan?

Is that a serious question? The US flag has flown in Western Europe and Japan all the time after 1945. And the US used their influence on all these countries. Often for its benefit.

Seriously, do you really think that the US is only in the game for love?

As far as the rest of your post is concerned (and Azron's)..I haven't said that the Japanese, British, Dutch, French, Germans etc aren't greedy. I was answering to a post whose gist was that Americans are only nice guys and everything evil comes only from Europe. Well, maybe it does. But if that is so then the earliest settlers from the Old World brought it with them.

I am not saying that everything bad is America's fault. But the opposite isn't true either.

[Jobu]

If anything, the USA of late is very anti-imperialist.

We demand an exit strategy for every venture.

[Weasel]

Yes, Vietnam I'd say was a loss.


I dont think we glorify war, Im sure noone in thier right mind wants to fight a war. We glorify the brave men and women who sacrifice their time and lives to fight these wars and to protect our freedom. Im not joining the Marines in another year because im a war-hungry animal, I want to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of others and live my life as a decent human being with a sense of hard work and sacrifice.

These are words you won´t here in Europe. Please, don´t take it personal but for my european ears these words are just a pathetic bubble. (no offense intended)

[AZRON]

A couple of things about the U.S.

We started out being considered radicals of the left. Dare to defy the nobility and the ruling church.

Europe has a history of swinging violently left, right , left , right and now tilting left but in the current world situation of radical Islam and free market economies some right ideas are being floated about.

The U.S. is nationalistic which depending on definition is either centrist, right or far right , you choose.

As to bringing bad habits from Europe we sure did but we tempered them with anti-nobility , religous tolerance and individual responsibility . But we kept a few including racial slavery but we worked that out in a most violent manner.

Our early immigrants were a range of Pacifist Germans , Welsh ,Swedes and English.

Moderate Dutch , Puritans and French Huguenots .Disenfranchised Jews and Catholics included.

To more aggressive Scotch-Irish and English Cavaliers.

Look at France since 1776 , far right , far left, far right , far left , center left , center , left center. It's hard to keep up with.

Our politics have moved towards the center while Europe bounces extreme left- extreme right , now left.

Our political makeup is 20% left, 30% right and 50% centrist( by U.S. standards). By Euro standards it's probably 20% centrist and 80% right.

[Weasel]

^^^
Where is the relation to "glorifying war"?

[Mastermind]

War is the ultimate human experience for any society...win-lose-or-draw. It makes a society humble, strong and proud...it is the special glue every human society needs to remain united....without a serious threat to their nation, people tend to become what the USA has become..lazy, fat, self indulgent, petty and fractured. People lose their fear of the dangerous reality of the world and quit striving to resist it. The longer they live in security and peace the more inward they become....peace and security bring unwarranted affluence and the people soon believe they have "too much to lose" if they go to war to defend their nation.....appeasemennt and clownish diplomacy replace the use of respect and fear to keep growing and bold enemies at bay. The longer peace lasts, the more dmaging the inevitable war will be and the more crushing the intitial defeat....aka the American experience at the hands of the Japanese.

America has in the last two decades, quit glorifying war...our disunity and confusion after the outrageous 9/11 attacks and our current confusion over how to to extricate ourselves from an infinetly inferior enemy on the battlefield tells everyone, we have lost the will to fight. Be have lost the meaning of survival. We have lost the concept of real war and seek "nation Building" for our enemies rather than "Nation Destroying".
History is well populated with lost civilizations that succumbed to the very thing the USA and Western Europe is now facing. We will not win a war because we noew hate war and have criminalized it at our own expense...we have even developed a strong segment of our society that actually wants to criminalize our soldiers. We have shoved the word "Patriotisim" to the bin labeled "Fascist". We support and re-elect politicians who have called our fighting men and women nazis and murderers. We now have politicans supporting laws protecting our sworn enemies within our own nation...and decrying the retention of enemy battlefield captives who were killing our own soldiers...

No..war is no longer glorified by the USA...and we will pay a terrible price because it is not.MM

[AZRON]

^^^
Where is the relation to "glorifying war"?

Glorifying war or glorifying those who fought our wars and the victories they won.

IMO , we don't glorify war as much as we glorify victory and heroism and sacrifice in war. A fine line for sure but there is a difference.
But it seems to be a trait among the English speaking peoples.
Much of the same comes out of Australia, Canada and the U.K.

Go to the ARSE site you'll see it. The wearing of the Red Poppy was a major topic on many of English speaking based sites especially in Canada two weeks ago. Seems to be a way among the nations with a Celtic strain running through their roots.

[Weasel]

Glorifying war or glorifying those who fought our wars and the victories they won.

IMO , we don't glorify war as much as we glorify victory and heroism and sacrifice in war. A fine line for sure but there is a difference.
But it seems to be a trait among the English speaking peoples.
Much of the same comes out of Australia, Canada and the U.K.

Go to the ARSE site you'll see it. The wearing of the Red Poppy was a major topic on many of English speaking based sites especially in Canada two weeks ago. Seems to be a way among the nations with a Celtic strain running through their roots.

Maybe someone needs to be a little bit misty-eyed to see it this way. I am too realistic and sceptical for "pride and glory". :)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

These are words you won´t here in Europe. Please, don´t take it personal but for my european ears these words are just a pathetic bubble. (no offense intended)

That is most likely why over the last 100 years or so, the free people of Europe have never been prepared for the catastrophies that were about to befall it.

[UDTWOLF]

Wow, is the first thing that comes to my mind when I read all of this! I can't believe the negative attitudes towards the United States. No one is perfect and we are surely not (Americans). We do however atleast try to aide those that are defenseless and that are in poverty.

Out of most wars that we have been in was it a personal conflict for us or us actually going to the aide of another? Ask yourself that! Last time I checked all of us were pretty much in this thing together Europeans and Americans in the fight on global terror and for you that have not been there in the regions of battle it is everywhere!! Instead of pointing the finger at someone or conversing on what each others countries have done wrong ( which people always concentrate on the negative) why not applaud each other and appreciate one another being the fact that we are all pawns in a huge game of chess (so to speak). All Americans are traced back to Europe and other regions we are your brothers and sisters so stop with the hatred.

As for winning wars, does anyone really win? Or is it that you suppress the movement of another? It's all controversial about winning or losing and that should not be the focus as much as the overall goal for the region or the world.

I have worked with them all from Italians, Irish, Dutch, Australians, Iraqis, Kuwait, South Koreans, Germans, Poland, Brits, Canadians etc. and they are all my brothers and sisters in arms and I will not say otherwise!

War mongers NO! Peace restoring YES! But with that comes great sacrifice and loss before the goal is achieved. Is it worth it, yes. I will do what I do until I no longer can to help improve the lifes of those that are going to be living well after I am gone.

-WOLF-

[Ergnkon]

If that's true, why hasn't Western Europe been flying under a US flag since 1945? Or Japan?

I may remember this wrong, but isn't Gemany and Japan still using the constitution written by the Americans after the WWII?

Again...I maybe wrong at this but at least they did for a long time...correct?

[Mastermind]

Wow, is the first thing that comes to my mind when I read all of this! I can't believe the negative attitudes towards the United States. No one is perfect and we are surely not (Americans). We do however atleast try to aide those that are defenseless and that are in poverty.

Out of most wars that we have been in was it a personal conflict for us or us actually going to the aide of another? Ask yourself that! Last time I checked all of us were pretty much in this thing together Europeans and Americans in the fight on global terror and for you that have not been there in the regions of battle it is everywhere!! Instead of pointing the finger at someone or conversing on what each others countries have done wrong ( which people always concentrate on the negative) why not applaud each other and appreciate one another being the fact that we are all pawns in a huge game of chess (so to speak). All Americans are traced back to Europe and other regions we are your brothers and sisters so stop with the hatred.

As for winning wars, does anyone really win? Or is it that you suppress the movement of another? It's all controversial about winning or losing and that should not be the focus as much as the overall goal for the region or the world.

I have worked with them all from Italians, Irish, Dutch, Australians, Iraqis, Kuwait, South Koreans, Germans, Poland, Brits, Canadians etc. and they are all my brothers and sisters in arms and I will not say otherwise!

War mongers NO! Peace restoring YES! But with that comes great sacrifice and loss before the goal is achieved. Is it worth it, yes. I will do what I do until I no longer can to help improve the lifes of those that are going to be living well after I am gone.

-WOLF-

Wolf is right on.....

Now you show how people are getting into Relativism..."Does anyone really 'win'" a war? Think of it this way...Does anyone really lose a war...that would put the shoe on the other foot, wouldn't it? Response to aggression and slavery in a war is damn well worth it. Suppressing the movemment of another is good when the "movememnt" of the other guy is to enslave you, your women and your kids.....there really are "good" things and "bad" things. But, our modern socialist terachers have scrambled the thought processaes of our new young adults to such a degree they can not bring themselves to make a decision on quality of another persons motives. Philosophers have wrung ther minds out over such contemplations..."If only we could all be good..." they muse. "Why must men be evil and do evil things?" These philosophers ponder these things right to the edge of the death pit as the evil men toss them in....they never consider the value of fighting like hell right to the last man woman and child to resist true evil. For me, to die fighting is much better than to live in slavery and oppression.

Idiotic Relativist philosophers should re-read Sir Winston Churchill...that usually sets a mind back to clarity. MM

[ex Strathcona]

Yeah. But you are wrong, you three. You are turning this into the usual "we Americans are completely nice guys." And, while that may be very convenient a point of view for an American, it is simply not true.

Take your WWI and WWII examples: the USA could easily have staid out of those. But even in WWII when the declaration of war came from Germany, you had massively and supported Britain and the Sovietunion before. In WWI it was worse, and back then the Americans were the ones that declared war. Or better yet. Consider the American-Mexican war of 1846-1848 or the American-Spanish War of 1898. Look it up!

The truth is this: America expanded as good as it could, and once you reached the Western coast and the classic US territory started to feel too small, you expanded outward. Westward over the Pacific. Southward into Mexico (plus making your presence felt all over Middle and South America). And eastward into Europe. And it may be a coincidence...but when the Sovietunion fell you promptly expanded into the Middle East and the Caucasus region. Then it may be no coincidence.

Or bluntly put: You Americans are aggressive, imperialist and greedy...in exactly the same way as Europeans. You may have inherited that from us, true. But that was done so from the start, when European settlers came to America's shore. They never laid off those traits, not even for a minute.

just to set the record straight, i am not American in case you didn't notice the flag on the shoulder of my avatar.

you were also incorrect about your WWI & WWII examples, the U.S. could not have stayed out of those wars. in WWI the Germans refused to stop unrestricted Submarine warfare and threatened U.S. passenger shipping. they were also discovered attempting to persuade Mexico to enter the war on the side of Germany against the U.S.
WWII well Pearl Harbour is obvious, but then Germany declared war on America thinking that Japan would declare on Russia. (big mistake on the part of Germany) the U.S. now found it's self fighting the entire Axis.

as for the other examples, they involve a period when the U.S. was being somewhat aggressive in settling its own territorial borders, but they are also too far in the past to truly affect modern foreign policy either.

[AK74]

If anything, the USA of late is very anti-imperialist.

We demand an exit strategy for every venture.

i woudnt say anti imperalist , more like efficient in making escapes.

the major problem is that :

SOME politicians make money with war.

Majority of the population still have "Ignorance is Bliss" etched in their heads one way or another.(like: I DONT GIVE A ****!, THATS THEIR PROBLEM!, WHO CARES?)

just my 2c.

[Kitsune]

Well Strathcona.

In both WWI and WWII the Americans supported Germanies enemies in a completely one-sided way. Take the "unrestricted submarine warfare" of WWI as an example. The British blocked any German harbours ("try to enter them, whoever you are, and we sink you"). America accepted this. In return the Germans had every right to block any British harbor as well. That they were no able to do this completely is of no concern. The name of the game would have been to say "try to enter and our submarines will TRY to sink you...if you evade them, lucky you"). But against this America protested - claiming they would be "neutral"...and the Germans for a long time accepted it.

But while in Germany people started to starve to death (700.000 over the course of WWI) the British received stuff of all kind from America. And since America was "neutral" those ships bringing it couldn't be attacked. Worse yet, even British ships started to hoist the American flag when nearing British ports. Sorry, Germany had every right to declare unrestricted submarine warfare. In fact, he British and Americans used even passenger ships to transport additional weapons... as was the case with the Lousitania. Actually, the Germans even warned to sink her if she left port in American newspapers. The warning was ignored.

And in WWII? Roosevelts governement started massive material support for both Britain and the Sovietunion long before any German declaration of war, long before Pearl Harbor. The British Navy was supplied with additonal American destroyers, and in the Atlantic the American government established a "Neutrality Zone" (about as aptly named as the "Ministry of Love" in Orwell's "1984") was established that covered most of the way to Britain in which the American Navy was allowed to attack any German vessel. And they did. For months German subs were strictly forbidden to even defend themselves. And this caused the German declaration of war in the end: yes Hitler hoped to motivate the Japanese. But he also thought (quite correctly) that America de facto was already in the war.

Conclusion: America could have staid out of both worldwars, at least as far as Europe is concerned. That it was "drawn into them" was the choice of its leadership (which of course told their people that they "had to defend themselves" - but you know, everyone one did it like that. Even Hitler.)
As far as WWI is concerned, I see no excuse for the American policy by the way. They should have staid out. Period. (In my opinion the world would be a better place if they had.)
For WWII, there is an excuse of course: Hitler. But while fighting to destroy Hitler may be a noble cause, fighting alongside Stalin is definitely not.

[ex Strathcona]

this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. do you sit back as your closest allies are fighting for their very existence? or do you try to help them by doing what you can by supplying aid while you are not involved in the battle?
now, depending on what country you are in, your history books put a spin on what transpired. From the American Point of View those attacks by German Submarines were an act of war, from the point of view of the source you are using it was an act of self defense against an aggressive neutral party.

one thing i will certainly refute though is the notion that the world would be a better place had the US stayed out of WWI and WWII. who knows what flag would be flying in both of our countries right now if that had been the case.

[IronFinn]

@2Sheds_Jackson



Is that a serious question? The US flag has flown in Western Europe and Japan all the time after 1945. And the US used their influence on all these countries. Often for its benefit.


As Kitsune says, US never left the countries it invaded during WW2 and is holding bases in key position all over Europe. Just look at the number of troops, for example, in Germany, Italy and Japan. This is a certain kind of imperialism. The old kind is just too obvious.

[ex Strathcona]

As Kitsune says, US never left the countries it invaded during WW2 and is holding bases in key position all over Europe. Just look at the number of troops, for example, in Germany, Italy and Japan. This is a certain kind of imperialism. The old kind is just too obvious.

well, when the cold war ended and you suddenly find yourself as the sole remaining super power, people expect you to solve the worlds problems. and having those bases (with the full consent of all the host countries except 1) gives the US the ability to deploy (relief aid or military power)anywhere in the world.

if that is Imperialism then i am comfortable with it.

[Friendly Fire]

funny that every one wants to hop on the "kick em when their down" band wagon. just remember that the Americans you are calling warmongers are usually the first on the scene with Aid and comfort when your country is hit with a natural disaster.
Also please recall that in the last century the 2 bloodiest conflicts of modern history were started by warmongering Europeans and the United States entered those wars only after being drawn into them by aggressive combatants.
Modern U.S. foreign policy is a result of 20th century European warmongering
in other words.. the Pot is calling the kettle black.


I 'll have to disagree...modern US policy is not the fruit of European Policies during the 20th century. The US foreign line has been remarkably the same from 1800 and so on. The americans I'm calling warmongerers attacked Spain in 1898 with blatant false pretexts over Cuba, they created a new Nation (Panama) just to avoid royalties over a certain Canal to Gran Columbia, lied about the Lusitania...etc etc etc.

Kettle, this is Pot recalling you your very nature!

[Mastermind]

Every country that told the USA to leave...we left. I cite the Phillipines and certain Japanese territories. Except in times of war, do we stay. In fact, Iraq has already addressed the question and the USA said we would comply if they asked us to leave. And, leave we would if the present Iraqi gvt told us to. We left France when France pulled out of NATO...we not only left, we left in such haste the French took possession of the bases we evacuated... from the looters! Turkey has addressed the question and our presence there was greatly reduced at their request. Also, notice the Panama Canal is now in full control of the Panamanians! And that was a major US concern. Unless our national interests are threatened, we leave ...We would have really liked to retain the bases in the Phillipines...we even offer the Phillipinos a huge offer for retention...that offer was rejected...we pulled the plug and took our billions and went home. Also, the South Koreans called a referendum on American troop presence...to tell the dirty American to go home...they quickly shut that nonsense up...same in Japan...they are saving billions not having to have huge military due to our presence... they put that saved dough into R&D and marketing and infrastructure and social programs and turn it to compete against our industry world wide....who's taking advantage of whom?

American Imperialism is not like any other "Imperialism" in the world...But, I notice most nations hold their hands out gladly for that filthy Yanqui dollar....and for some strange reason, we keep on handing them out while the poor "down trodden masses" keep spitting right in our faces. For me, as an American, I would gladly pull every "foreign bribe"..I mean "aid" dollar out and put it right here where it belongs...at home. Our troops could come home, too. Let the South Koreans and the Japs deal with little Kim....Let the Iraqi's take care of their own filthy business, too.MM

[dj_1911]

Every country that told the USA to leave...we left. I cite the Phillipines and certain Japanese territories. Except in times of war, do we stay. In fact, Iraq has already addressed the question and the USA said we would comply if they asked us to leave. And, leave we would if the present Iraqi gvt told us to. We left France when France pulled out of NATO...we not only left, we left in such haste the French took possession of the bases we evacuated... from the looters! Turkey has addressed the question and our presence there was greatly reduced at their request. Also, notice the Panama Canal is now in full control of the Panamanians! And that was a major US concern. Unless our national interests are threatened, we leave ...We would have really liked to retain the bases in the Phillipines...we even offer the Phillipinos a huge offer for retention...that offer was rejected...we pulled the plug and took our billions and went home. Also, the South Koreans called a referendum on American troop presence...to tell the dirty American to go home...they quickly shut that nonsense up...same in Japan...they are saving billions not having to have huge military due to our presence... they put that saved dough into R&D and marketing and infrastructure and social programs and turn it to compete against our industry world wide....who's taking advantage of whom?

American Imperialism is not like any other "Imperialism" in the world...But, I notice most nations hold their hands out gladly for that filthy Yanqui dollar....and for some strange reason, we keep on handing them out while the poor "down trodden masses" keep spitting right in our faces. For me, as an American, I would gladly pull every "foreign bribe"..I mean "aid" dollar out and put it right here where it belongs...at home. Our troops could come home, too. Let the South Koreans and the Japs deal with little Kim....Let the Iraqi's take care of their own filthy business, too.MM

Having spent twenty years of my life in countries other than the US I can say...

Quoted for truth.

[Kitsune]

@ex Strathcona:


In WWI, neither Britain nor France nor Russia were "the closest allies of the USA". As far as Britain was concerned, it had traditionally been more a rival of the US, with a war being quite a possibility. (In the American civil war, the British sympathies lay with the South, those of Prussia with the Union). Only in the 90ties of the 19th century, Britain and America had come to an agreement.
The reason for the sympathies in WWI were twofold: Woodrow Wilson was an staunch democrat and believed that intervention into the war would be chance to spread American values, democracy and make the world a better place. (An attitude that can be called "expansionism").
There were also economic reasons. American banks had lended large sums of money to Britain and France and were afraid not to get them back. And for the arms manufacturers a war is always a hoot. Even according to American commissions there was quite some influencement by the economy that played a role in the decision of America to go to war. Things like the Lousitania sinking or the Zimmermann telegram were not the real causes but the means with which the decision could be sold to the American people.

And in WWII? Considering the aftermath of America's intervention in 1917, (many American diplomates had retired out of protest against the Versailles treaty), the fact that the British and French handling of the victory had not turned the world into a better place at all (quite the opposite, dictatorships rose all over Europe in the twenties and early thirties) and, above all, the nature of Stalin's regime (which was the most totalitarian on Earth and definitely had been never a close ally to the US...and wouldn't be one after WWII), there was definitely the possibility to pass on an intervention this time. But Roosevelt was an even greater moral-expansionist than Wilson had been.


Or in other words: the USA makes their decisions in a very similiar way as Europeans. No large moral superiority there. Where are my interests? What do I get out of it? Will I gain money and influence and a chance to spread my gospel? The answer of these questions decide about war or peace. It is important to understand that the US were always quite ready to expand their influence. Isolationism is a strain in the American character, that is true. But it is only half the story, possibly less. Whenever there is an opening the urge to expand often dominates, whenever the US receive a bloody nose abroad, isolationism seems more attractive for a time. Europeans do it in a similiar way.

[Friendly Fire]

Every country that told the USA to leave...we left. I cite the Phillipines and certain Japanese territories. Except in times of war, do we stay. In fact, Iraq has already addressed the question and the USA said we would comply if they asked us to leave. And, leave we would if the present Iraqi gvt told us to. We left France when France pulled out of NATO...we not only left, we left in such haste the French took possession of the bases we evacuated... from the looters! Turkey has addressed the question and our presence there was greatly reduced at their request. Also, notice the Panama Canal is now in full control of the Panamanians! And that was a major US concern. Unless our national interests are threatened, we leave ...We would have really liked to retain the bases in the Phillipines...we even offer the Phillipinos a huge offer for retention...that offer was rejected...we pulled the plug and took our billions and went home. Also, the South Koreans called a referendum on American troop presence...to tell the dirty American to go home...they quickly shut that nonsense up...same in Japan...they are saving billions not having to have huge military due to our presence... they put that saved dough into R&D and marketing and infrastructure and social programs and turn it to compete against our industry world wide....who's taking advantage of whom?

American Imperialism is not like any other "Imperialism" in the world...But, I notice most nations hold their hands out gladly for that filthy Yanqui dollar....and for some strange reason, we keep on handing them out while the poor "down trodden masses" keep spitting right in our faces. For me, as an American, I would gladly pull every "foreign bribe"..I mean "aid" dollar out and put it right here where it belongs...at home. Our troops could come home, too. Let the South Koreans and the Japs deal with little Kim....Let the Iraqi's take care of their own filthy business, too.MM


I don't get this...you left any country that told you to? And...

On the USD I think you may recall the Chicken that is was an egg before being a chicken!:roll: Go ahead just keep your USD home!:hug:

[ex Strathcona]

@ex Strathcona:


In WWI, neither Britain nor France nor Russia were "the closest allies of the USA". As far as Britain was concerned, it had traditionally been more a rival of the US, with a war being quite a possibility. (In the American civil war, the British sympathies lay with the South, those of Prussia with the Union). Only in the 90ties of the 19th century, Britain and America had come to an agreement.
The reason for the sympathies in WWI were twofold: Woodrow Wilson was an staunch democrat and believed that intervention into the war would be chance to spread American values, democracy and make the world a better place. (An attitude that can be called "expansionism").
There were also economic reasons. American banks had lended large sums of money to Britain and France and were afraid not to get them back. And for the arms manufacturers a war is always a hoot. Even according to American commissions there was quite some influencement by the economy that played a role in the decision of America to go to war. Things like the Lousitania sinking or the Zimmermann telegram were not the real causes but the means with which the decision could be sold to the American people.

And in WWII? Considering the aftermath of America's intervention in 1917, (many American diplomates had retired out of protest against the Versailles treaty), the fact that the British and French handling of the victory had not turned the world into a better place at all (quite the opposite, dictatorships rose all over Europe in the twenties and early thirties) and, above all, the nature of Stalin's regime (which was the most totalitarian on Earth and definitely had been never a close ally to the US...and wouldn't be one after WWII), there was definitely the possibility to pass on an intervention this time. But Roosevelt was an even greater moral-expansionist than Wilson had been.


Or in other words: the USA makes their decisions in a very similiar way as Europeans. No large moral superiority there. Where are my interests? What do I get out of it? Will I gain money and influence and a chance to spread my gospel? The answer of these questions decide about war or peace. It is important to understand that the US were always quite ready to expand their influence. Isolationism is a strain in the American character, that is true. But it is only half the story, possibly less. Whenever there is an opening the urge to expand often dominates, whenever the US receive a bloody nose abroad, isolationism seems more attractive for a time. Europeans do it in a similiar way.

fair enough, from your stand point your arguments are sound. but they are still not showing me how the US is a warmongering nation, at least any more so than any of the great European powers. and that is of course the focus of the thread.

[IronFinn]

well, when the cold war ended and you suddenly find yourself as the sole remaining super power, people expect you to solve the worlds problems. and having those bases (with the full consent of all the host countries except 1) gives the US the ability to deploy (relief aid or military power)anywhere in the world.

if that is Imperialism then i am comfortable with it.

I´m not so sure about "people expecting you to solve the worlds problems" card. That is something which keeps popping out every turn. I don´t think thats the case.
Most of those base deals which were made in "full consent" are just remnants of the occupation. Of course there are bases which have appeared afterwards and are a result of real bargaining (more or less political pressure used).

I´m just wondering what would happen if Germany would ask all foreign troops to leave its soil.

[BenUSMC]

Which battles did we specificly take a licking in ?

During the Tet offensive , about a 5 month campaign we lost 4,500 or so the NVA and the VC lost 55,000. For all practical purposes the VC were destroyed and never a real factor again. The NVA were much more cautious and less bold until U.S. forces were significantly reduced.

We " Cut and ran" sound familiar ?

We negoiated a peace treaty. We met the obligations of pulling our troops out. Two years later congress cut all monies to support the SV gov't.
NV then invaded and conquered an abandoned SV.

What do many Dems in congress want to do today ?

So we killed more of them than they did of us. Our goal was to prevent south vietnam from becomming communist, the north wanted to unify the country.

We lost, they won. there's no "but but but, we killed more!" they met their objective, we didnt.

As the saying goes,

We may have won the battles, but they won the war.

[LaoSexMachine]

Why do Americans glorify war?


Elaborate.

- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?


So all those men and women dying(WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and so on) didn't mean anything?

- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?


Veterans day? Memorial day? Dec. 7th? 9/11?......................... Guess all those monuments around DC and America are huge paper weights.

- is it because the US is geographically isolated from countries which they were engaged? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq?



Realpolitick


- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?


How many major wars were we dragged in?




- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

US is not homogenous. Nationalism in Amerca is akin to racism. America has Patriotism

What are your thoughts?


You need to do your homework and read books. Guess living in suburbia has made you brain dead.


.................................

[AK74]

.................................

you just gave RD a nice cup of Shut The Fvck up! Good job!woot rofl

[sferrin]

American Imperialism is not like any other "Imperialism" in the world...But, I notice most nations hold their hands out gladly for that filthy Yanqui dollar....and for some strange reason, we keep on handing them out while the poor "down trodden masses" keep spitting right in our faces. For me, as an American, I would gladly pull every "foreign bribe"..I mean "aid" dollar out and put it right here where it belongs...at home. Our troops could come home, too. Let the South Koreans and the Japs deal with little Kim....Let the Iraqi's take care of their own filthy business, too.MM

Well said.

[sferrin]

I´m just wondering what would happen if Germany would ask all foreign troops to leave its soil.

Funny, if I were you I'd be wondering why they don't.

[AZRON]

So we killed more of them than they did of us. Our goal was to prevent south vietnam from becomming communist, the north wanted to unify the country.

We lost, they won. there's no "but but but, we killed more!" they met their objective, we didnt.

As the saying goes,

We may have won the battles, but they won the war.

Everyone has an opinion.

My question is do they know the chronology ? Yes or no ????

VN .. Ceasefire... 1/27/73 Paris Peace Accords .. everbody withdraws foreign troops including U.S. and N.V.

3/29/73 All U.S. troops gone save 50. But U.S. money supports RVN.

Fall of 1974. Congress drastically cuts U.S. money to RVN.

4/30/75 Saigon Falls , 25 months after U.S. troops leave , 27 months after Ceasefire agreement. Six months after congress cut funding.

Congressman Dennis Kicinich has the same game plan for Iraq and we will see how many others jump on board.

Call it what you want but be sure you understand the timeline and you'll know the origin of " Cut and Run".

[red dragon]

.................................

Why do Americans glorify war?

Elaborate.

The dictionary definition: Glorify: to cause to be or treat as being more splendid, excellent, etc., than would normally be considered. To honor with praise, admiration, or worship; extol.



- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?

So all those men and women dying(WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and so on) didn't mean anything?


Read it again: “…never a battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated?” What about the larger percentage of the population of families that have no one in the military? How does it become personal to them?


- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?

Veterans day? Memorial day? Dec. 7th? 9/11?......................... Guess all those monuments around DC and America are huge paper weights.

Government erected buildings and processions have little to do with personal ways of thinking, politics, etc. Every country has a day of remembrance. I am speaking about day to day life. If someone didn’t read the paper or watch the news or were not directly involved would they even know that the US is at war with Iraq? Or Somalia in 92 or Libya in 81 etc etc. That is disaffection no?



- is it because the US is geographically isolated from countries which they were engaged? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq?

Realpolitick

Do you even know what that means? Whimsically it means “real politics” in lieu of ideal politics but in truth it is a expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest. The US follows more of a Machtpolitik policy.

- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

How many major wars were we dragged in?

Does it matter who started a war? This does not answer the question in any way.



- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

US is not homogenous. Nationalism in Amerca is akin to racism. America has Patriotism

Patriotism is a very closely associated with nationalism, some would say they are even synonyms. Neither of which have anything to do with racism. But I will rephrase it for you; “is it because the US has more patriotic feelings than other countries?”



What are your thoughts?

You need to do your homework and read books. Guess living in suburbia has made you brain dead.

Do you know where my house is? Are you stalking me? How can you assume something like that? Does that mean I can assume that you are southern white trash? Maybe you should do your homework instead of assuming.

Thanks for answering my questions in a well thought out manner instead of letting them injure your pride and responding with retaliatory comments.

[red dragon]

@ex Strathcona:


In WWI, neither Britain nor France nor Russia were "the closest allies of the USA". As far as Britain was concerned, it had traditionally been more a rival of the US, with a war being quite a possibility. (In the American civil war, the British sympathies lay with the South, those of Prussia with the Union). Only in the 90ties of the 19th century, Britain and America had come to an agreement.
The reason for the sympathies in WWI were twofold: Woodrow Wilson was an staunch democrat and believed that intervention into the war would be chance to spread American values, democracy and make the world a better place. (An attitude that can be called "expansionism").
There were also economic reasons. American banks had lended large sums of money to Britain and France and were afraid not to get them back. And for the arms manufacturers a war is always a hoot. Even according to American commissions there was quite some influencement by the economy that played a role in the decision of America to go to war. Things like the Lousitania sinking or the Zimmermann telegram were not the real causes but the means with which the decision could be sold to the American people.

And in WWII? Considering the aftermath of America's intervention in 1917, (many American diplomates had retired out of protest against the Versailles treaty), the fact that the British and French handling of the victory had not turned the world into a better place at all (quite the opposite, dictatorships rose all over Europe in the twenties and early thirties) and, above all, the nature of Stalin's regime (which was the most totalitarian on Earth and definitely had been never a close ally to the US...and wouldn't be one after WWII), there was definitely the possibility to pass on an intervention this time. But Roosevelt was an even greater moral-expansionist than Wilson had been.


Or in other words: the USA makes their decisions in a very similiar way as Europeans. No large moral superiority there. Where are my interests? What do I get out of it? Will I gain money and influence and a chance to spread my gospel? The answer of these questions decide about war or peace. It is important to understand that the US were always quite ready to expand their influence. Isolationism is a strain in the American character, that is true. But it is only half the story, possibly less. Whenever there is an opening the urge to expand often dominates, whenever the US receive a bloody nose abroad, isolationism seems more attractive for a time. Europeans do it in a similiar way.

Very well thought out Kitsune, thanks for your insight. Do you think maybe the US is just more aggressive in going after its interests? More eager to spread its influence? Maybe the US feels less pressure from other nations’ dissuasion?

[Kilgor]

All major world powers get involved in wars for various reasons or another. The US is no different.

[the_recruit]

Is that why you are willing to go fight in Iraq?


Im willing to fight wherever Im sent to fight. My job will be to follow orders and I will because I trust my government is making desicions to benefit the nation. . . . . but first Im going to concentrate on getting through bootcamp.

[Dr. Mockelfish]

This topic shouldnt be about why Americans glorify war......it should be about why humans glorify war/violence.

[LaoSexMachine]

Why do Americans glorify war?

Elaborate.

The dictionary definition: Glorify: to cause to be or treat as being more splendid, excellent, etc., than would normally be considered. To honor with praise, admiration, or worship; extol.

Americans honors the men and women who went to war and their sacrifices and not the "Acted of War" in itself. America is not Sparta. There is no mentality of dying gloriously on the battlefields. People rather come home and go on with their lives



- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?

So all those men and women dying(WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and so on) didn't mean anything?


Read it again: “…never a battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated?” What about the larger percentage of the population of families that have no one in the military? How does it become personal to them?

America stopped the draft/conscripition in 73. People know someone or have a relative that served in war and peace time. You will have to come up with some facts here if you are going to say "larger percentage of families that have no one in the military."

Human being have sympathy. You don't have to have it hit home to feel the sacrifices. I lost friends in Iraq and A-stan. They weren't family members but were frinds at it hit as hard as they were family.


- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?

Veterans day? Memorial day? Dec. 7th? 9/11?......................... Guess all those monuments around DC and America are huge paper weights.

Government erected buildings and processions have little to do with personal ways of thinking, politics, etc. Every country has a day of remembrance. I am speaking about day to day life. If someone didn’t read the paper or watch the news or were not directly involved would they even know that the US is at war with Iraq? Or Somalia in 92 or Libya in 81 etc etc. That is disaffection no?

It would be hard to miss what's going on in the age of instant news. You will have to be a hermit and personally remove yourself from society not to be bombarded with what's going on. Operation Restore Hope was a huge thing in America. Libya in 81? Nothing. We didn't bomb Libya till 86 in retaliation for the Berlin night club bombing. Don't you mean disconnected?


- is it because the US is geographically isolated from countries which they were engaged? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq?

Realpolitick

Do you even know what that means? Whimsically it means “real politics” in lieu of ideal politics but in truth it is a expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest. The US follows more of a Machtpolitik policy.

Yes.
Every country protects it's own intrest. US just has more of the means. Expantionist? We only have 50 states. Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Britian, Canada, and the western world in not under some American empire. they have there own policies and do their own thing. When country have leverage they will use it. Does America forces countries into signing free trade deal?

- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

How many major wars were we dragged in?

Does it matter who started a war? This does not answer the question in any way.

Yes it does. You say America glorifys wars which means we LOVE IT and starts it. So my question stands.



- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

US is not homogenous. Nationalism in Amerca is akin to racism. America has Patriotism

Patriotism is a very closely associated with nationalism, some would say they are even synonyms. Neither of which have anything to do with racism. But I will rephrase it for you; “is it because the US has more patriotic feelings than other countries?”

So who runs America? What ethnicity is an American? Are we homogenous like Turkey? You should look into groups in America that are "nationalistic".

White nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

Black nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

Just two examples.

Is loving ones country wrong?



What are your thoughts?

You need to do your homework and read books. Guess living in suburbia has made you brain dead.

Do you know where my house is? Are you stalking me? How can you assume something like that? Does that mean I can assume that you are southern white trash? Maybe you should do your homework instead of assuming.

I'm an American from a Lao background. Are you an American? How long have you live in America?

Thanks for answering my questions in a well thought out manner instead of letting them injure your pride and responding with retaliatory comments.

Like I said keep doing your homework.



Your profile says you work as a DOD engineer. Why not ask the people you work with?

[California Joe]

Kitsune, I realize its monday morning quarterbacking but I guess it's a good thing we supported our not so close allies in both World Wars. Just sayin'. I mean personally I don't think Adolf had good intentions. Call me crazy. We may not be the best thing going and act out of national self interest like every other nation does to some extent but the alternatives are rather scary historically speaking....

As for glorifying war, I really don't believe that's true. Americans are far too diverse to be generalized about. On this board we have a lot of people interested in military issues and history. This cannot be said for the rest of the United States with any degree of certainty. During the 60's and 70's there was certainly no great love for the military in this country.

[fuzzyramirez]

Take your WWI and WWII examples: the USA could easily have staid out of those.

The one big reason we entered wwI is to suppport UK, because they were on the brink of collapse. We were pouring money into their economy to help them sustain the fight, but when that wasn't enough we sent troops.

[cetnik]

Ignorance is bliss.:roll:

[jango]

America's founding came through wars against britain and france so there is great feeling of pride in a flegeling nation having been born by fighting against the superpowers of that day and i think that that feeling has been past down from generation to generation. Right to the nausiating form it is in today.

[Sith]

Kitsune, when you talk about “American Commissions” emphasizing economic interests in America’s entry into WWI, I am assuming that you are referring to the Nye Committee.

Taken at face value the reports issued by the Nye Committee state exactly what you have expressed. However, there is a footnote to this. Senator Nye did not really believe this was true. He was more interested in keeping the U.S. out of future wars. By attacking the banks and munitions industry he hoped to attain that goal.

This is not to say that economics had no voice in the decision, there is truth in the committees findings. However, it was a little played up. With this in mind it appears that the larger driving force for war was Wilson’s idealism.

Thanks,
Sith

[Jobu]

Don't worry about it. Soon China will be the superpower and you can all complain about their nationalism and militarism.

If you think we're bad, you're gonna loooooove their way of handling things. rofl

[California Joe]

"I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords"

[Mastermind]

Joe, could you elaborate? I was wondering abut the quotes. MM

[California Joe]

I can't actually remember where it's from, I think it's from the Simpsons, Kent Brockman says it but substitute "Alien" for Chinese....:)

[ZaakM433]

If you guys spend any time on any geeky websites, such as http://slashdot.org you will see that "I for one welcome our [insert whatever] overlords" is the equivalent of "omg DELTA!" here. I guess CJ was just letting his geeky side out for a moment.

[Mastermind]

aH! Of course....I should have known. ThanksMM

[marek]

I was reading this thread trough, and i say one thing:
Those European countries, who in our days calling the US. warmongers,
and to politically and economically take a stand against the US. they forget,
even an american soldier to thank for theirs present prosperity.
I think onto Gen. George C. Marshall, and the "Marshall-aid plan", which sans
this countries after the destruction of the WW2 become an easy spoil to
the Soviet Union.

[Weasel]

After 60 years this argument gets really old.

[Basillicus]

After 60 years this argument gets really old.

Yeah, especially when the US leaders today were mostly born after WW2 and therefore have nothing to do with it. What kind of stupid argument is it saying "you can't critizise us since we helped you 60 years ago" when "we" means your (grand)parents. :roll:

[IronFinn]

As a side note, Finland didn´t recieve any Marshall aid after WW2.

[Friendly Fire]

I was reading this thread trough, and i say one thing:
Those European countries, who in our days calling the US. warmongers,
and to politically and economically take a stand against the US. they forget,
even an american soldier to thank for theirs present prosperity.
I think onto Gen. George C. Marshall, and the "Marshall-aid plan", which sans
this countries after the destruction of the WW2 become an easy spoil to
the Soviet Union.


**** and the US owns us it's very existence. The USSR forbade the Eastern Bloc countries to accept the USAID.:backhand:

[Mastermind]

AHHH,,okay...now this stuff..."How dare you think we owe the USA anything now 60 years later..." Hokay....not a problem. Think of it this way. Considering the condition today of the EU and it's complete failure to develop a consitution and wide acceptance throughout Europe...and considering the delimma Europe now seems helpless in front of...that is the Muslim invasion...who do you think is going to ultimately, in perhaps the not too distant future, "like" to have help from the other...the USA from Europe or Europe from the USA?

Think about it.

Because right now, reading some of the mundane posts above, I would be only too glad to join the political lobby supporting American legislation forbidding any US aid to European nations....EVER!

Now I regret that we ever got involved in Europe and their idiotic problems...Ever. If only we had known then what we know now about the short sighted Euro memories...

I don't know about any kind of US demands of Europe to kowtow to us...at all...all we ever asked was their friendship and alliance. The Berlin airlift, for example, was never once asked to be repaid...not in money, effort or lives....The billions...if not trillions...of US money (and quite a few lives, too)spent standing on the edge of the curtain, offering US lives as potential sacrifice, deterrring the Soviet Union from stepping all over the puny European nations, was never asked to be repaid...we just figured it was our duty to stand strong TOGETHER in the face of that dire threat.

Now, we are the currs...the maingey, wet dogs no one wants to walk with....even though, it is again our front, our effort, our sacrifice, our cash that is holding the line....and you can keep all that crapola about "The terrorists were never a threat until the US invaded innocent little Iraq..." because, in light of history, it just makes you look stupid.

Were it up to me, I would galdly pull every American out of all foregin conflicts...and be damned if I would let one stand the wall outside the USA. It might do the Europeans good...many of the less widely bless with intelligence, at least... to have to defend themselves alone for a while.

MM!

[kosse]

I think we need to teach arrogant americans a lesson. They are totally broke and already waging their wars with loaned money. Maybe we could declare them bankrupt and move to recovery proceedings. We finns could settle with Florida. It's so cold here in the winter.

[kinsella]

We finns could settle with Florida. It's so cold here in the winter.

ok, but youll have to take up the settlement offer with the latinos as far as the miami area goes.

[ex Strathcona]

ok, but youll have to take up the settlement offer with the latinos as far as the miami area goes.
and Canada has a huge settlement established there too. squatters rights!

[kosse]

ok, but youll have to take up the settlement offer with the latinos as far as the miami area goes.
But I want to go where the big **** women are.

[kinsella]

and Canada has a huge settlement established there too. squatters rights!

ya'll dont count. you talk to funny, ay.

(kidding of course)


But I want to go where the big **** women are.

thats South Beach. throw a rock and you'll hit 7 and then hit 3 more with the ricochet.

great tip: **** job coupons work like $1000 dollar bills on the strippers.

[Saranof]

AHHH,,okay...now this stuff..."How dare you think we owe the USA anything now 60 years later..." Hokay....not a problem. Think of it this way. Considering the condition today of the EU and it's complete failure to develop a consitution and wide acceptance throughout Europe...and considering the delimma Europe now seems helpless in front of...that is the Muslim invasion...who do you think is going to ultimately, in perhaps the not too distant future, "like" to have help from the other...the USA from Europe or Europe from the USA?

Think about it.

Because right now, reading some of the mundane posts above, I would be only too glad to join the political lobby supporting American legislation forbidding any US aid to European nations....EVER!

Now I regret that we ever got involved in Europe and their idiotic problems...Ever. If only we had known then what we know now about the short sighted Euro memories...

I don't know about any kind of US demands of Europe to kowtow to us...at all...all we ever asked was their friendship and alliance. The Berlin airlift, for example, was never once asked to be repaid...not in money, effort or lives....The billions...if not trillions...of US money (and quite a few lives, too)spent standing on the edge of the curtain, offering US lives as potential sacrifice, deterrring the Soviet Union from stepping all over the puny European nations, was never asked to be repaid...we just figured it was our duty to stand strong TOGETHER in the face of that dire threat.

Now, we are the currs...the maingey, wet dogs no one wants to walk with....even though, it is again our front, our effort, our sacrifice, our cash that is holding the line....and you can keep all that crapola about "The terrorists were never a threat until the US invaded innocent little Iraq..." because, in light of history, it just makes you look stupid.

Were it up to me, I would galdly pull every American out of all foregin conflicts...and be damned if I would let one stand the wall outside the USA. It might do the Europeans good...many of the less widely bless with intelligence, at least... to have to defend themselves alone for a while.

MM!



Aw boo-hoo, you know, because there is such a huge difference between americans and europeans! Oh, and don't forget that all europeans are the same, especially the english and the french, they always have the same views on everything.

And spare us the "all we ever wanted was your friendship" bollocks, noone goes for that anymore. I'm not going to get into a discussion about motives behinds aid to West Germany after WW2, but I can say that countries doing things out of the kindness of their hearts is very rare to say the least. Especially after a global war.

Stop calling everyone "europeans", we don't see ourselves as that. It'd be like calling everyone on the american continent "americans", and I'm sure you wouldn't like to be pared together with anything other than the US.

[Apathy]

Glorifying war? Jesus, my high school is more interested in Cruise and Holmes getting married than some war in the Middle East.

[charliepage]

Glorifying war? Jesus, my high school is more interested in Cruise and Holmes getting married than some war in the Middle East.

Forget high schools, most of the country is the same. :(

[California Joe]

I feel that America is a young nation, comparatively speaking. I think that we take great pride in our "winning" our independence. It is our "birth" as it were. It was born of war. We, as a nation are made up of you, every other country. Thus the constant referrences to our heritage, that also annoys the rest of you. I have always loved learning about my countries military history, my heroes were people that fought at Bunker Hill, the Alamo, Bastogne, Iwo Jima...I do not glorify war in my thoughts but the sacrifices of the men that fought them. I don't see that as being any different from the rest of the world and their rememberances of wars fought long ago and the heroic acts of their soldiers.

[red dragon]

I can't actually remember where it's from, I think it's from the Simpsons, Kent Brockman says it but substitute "Alien" for Chinese....:)

good episode

http://home.austin.rr.com/dulaneyhome/images/hailants.gif

[red dragon]

Your profile says you work as a DOD engineer. Why not ask the people you work with?

I am an American, I was born here, and I have lived here the majority of my life. For my work and leisure I travel to different countries. One thing I ask most everyone is what opinions do they have about the US, I am curious to know what people think who are not living in the US and to have multifaceted views about the same subject. It is akin to writing a paper, you can evaluate your own work but you get an entirely different perspective when someone else reviews it.

One Argentinean said that we “act black” in reference to the hip-hop culture I am sure. That sounds exceedingly absurd, but a general consensus from people I have spoke to from: Turkey, Argentina, England, France, Austria, Israel, and Japan is that Americans like war/glorify war.

We all know that is not the majority opinion of those entire nations but it still made me think about it. Since this, like everything else, is debatable, I wanted to throw it out there and have a discussion and get some opinions. You can insult my intelligence, tell me I am wrong without a reason, and whatever else you like, I will not argue with you. You seem too stubborn and narrow minded to identify or talk about potential troubles in the US.

The “Yeah the USA is the greatest! If you disagree with anything the US has done, are doing, and will do, you are a traitor/stupid/liberal/etc” attitude is a real problem. Like a kid thinking his mother can do no wrong, only not growing up to realize that it isn’t so.

[red dragon]

Oh, also I forgot to add that internet arguing is pointless

[ed316]

What are these potential problems in the US?

[LaoSexMachine]

I am an American, I was born here, and I have lived here the majority of my life. For my work and leisure I travel to different countries. One thing I ask most everyone is what opinions do they have about the US, I am curious to know what people think who are not living in the US and to have multifaceted views about the same subject. It is akin to writing a paper, you can evaluate your own work but you get an entirely different perspective when someone else reviews it.

One Argentinean said that we “act black” in reference to the hip-hop culture I am sure. That sounds exceedingly absurd, but a general consensus from people I have spoke to from: Turkey, Argentina, England, France, Austria, Israel, and Japan is that Americans like war/glorify war.

We all know that is not the majority opinion of those entire nations but it still made me think about it. Since this, like everything else, is debatable, I wanted to throw it out there and have a discussion and get some opinions. You can insult my intelligence, tell me I am wrong without a reason, and whatever else you like, I will not argue with you. You seem too stubborn and narrow minded to identify or talk about potential troubles in the US.

The “Yeah the USA is the greatest! If you disagree with anything the US has done, are doing, and will do, you are a traitor/stupid/liberal/etc” attitude is a real problem. Like a kid thinking his mother can do no wrong, only not growing up to realize that it isn’t so.


I'm narrow minded becuase I don't have the same view as you? America is great and you can have your opinion. I'm not the love it and if you hate it you are a traitor. Don't put words in my mouth. Patriotism does not equal blind obedience. Maybe you need some growing up to do. Waht potential troubles are you talking about? You statred a thread about US glorifying war and now have move on to trouble in America. So pick one.



Oh, also I forgot to add that internet arguing is pointless

Then why start a thread and ask for opinions? Don't ask questions if you aren't prepare to handle a differing view and somehow I'm the narrow minded one.:roll:

[red dragon]

I'm narrow minded becuase I don't have the same view as you? America is great and you can have your opinion. I'm not the love it and if you hate it you are a traitor. Don't put words in my mouth. Patriotism does not equal blind obedience. Maybe you need some growing up to do. Waht potential troubles are you talking about? You statred a thread about US glorifying war and now have move on to trouble in America. So pick one.

Then why start a thread and ask for opinions? Don't ask questions if you aren't prepare to handle a differing view and somehow I'm the narrow minded one.:roll:



:cantbeli:

There is a difference between arguing and stating different opinions. Arguing implies that one is trying to change another’s viewpoint. That is not what this is about.

I wanted to have a discussion, and everyone has been contributing their opinions all of which differ, but all you did was tell me I am wrong without giving any reasons or adding anything of value. I don’t care if you think I am wrong or have a different view, that was the point of me starting this post, to get different views. Do not misinterpret that as narrow mindedness. Just tell me why you think the way you do.


Have you ever had a debate with anyone? Usually the way you do it is you make a point, then back up your point with facts/figures.

You can tell me the US follows a realpolitik policy. You stated it as a one word answer. Well? Tell me why you think so.

Instead you gave me one word answers and the snide comments “grow up” and “do your homework.” If you have nothing to back your statements and are insulting me personally as a last option maybe it would be more understandable.

[Atlantic Friend]

America's founding came through wars against britain and france so there is great feeling of pride in a flegeling nation having been born by fighting against the superpowers of that day and i think that that feeling has been past down from generation to generation. Right to the nausiating form it is in today.

America was founded through a war against France ?? I know there was a period of tension before Napoleon sold Louisiana and Mississipi, but I don't know of any war between the two nations... Or is this a reference to the French & Indian War ?

[PrinzEugen]

We, as a nation are made up of you, every other country. Thus the constant referrences to our heritage, that also annoys the rest of you.

Good point, I have a cousin in Ohio who once told me the exact same thing.
He's 44, moved there with his family when he was 8. Not one ounce of swede left in him poor bastardp-)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't think it's unique to the US.

The West as a rule have been the most warlike people on the face of this earth. Always have been always will be.

Other cultures may appear to be more warlike. However with the exception of the Chinese/Japanese no other cultures faught wars in such a manner. You only have to look at how the West invented "Total War" in which the entire resources of the state were directed towards the war effort.

You also can look at the military institutions of Western Nations. Not only do places like West Point, Duntroon, Sandhurst ect (I can't think of the names of respective German/Austrian/Dutch/French schools) they also peform a vital social function in a nations elite.

Since WW2 the West has slowly been turning it's back on being percieved as being a militaristic society. However even with the social/political effects of WW2 the West will always be a militaristic society that glorifies war. Even in Germany we are slowly seing a return of Nationalism/Patriotism. (Recent World Cup is an example of this).

Basically the Western way of life is centrered on war. War is what spawned every single major invention either directly and or indirectly since the Greeks 1st defeated the Persians at Marathon.

War has also shaped the nations in the West today. German Unification, 100 years war between France and England, American Revolution, The Balkan Conflicts of the 19th and early 20th Century the list goes on.

[ed316]

Red Dragon, still haven't anwesered my question. Your doing the samething you are accusing Zeke of.

[AZRON]

I don't think it's unique to the US.

The West as a rule have been the most warlike people on the face of this earth. Always have been always will be.



Can't say I agree with you.

The Mongols , Huns , Turks and todays Afghanies are/were extremely warlike beyond the Western norm. As of this point in time I suggest the Arab Muslims are the most warlike. If only through the Koran being used to incite war through it being in Arabic so as to influence Paks., Afghans and numerous other groups. In todays world the Arab dominated followers of Islam are in conflict with Hindus, Buddists, tribal Africa and Orthodox based Russian culture none of which are Western.

However since about 1600 the West has been superior at waging war.

During the West's rise to superiority in warfare the English speaking nations have dominated .

[LaoSexMachine]

:cantbeli:

There is a difference between arguing and stating different opinions. Arguing implies that one is trying to change another’s viewpoint. That is not what this is about.

I wanted to have a discussion, and everyone has been contributing their opinions all of which differ, but all you did was tell me I am wrong without giving any reasons or adding anything of value. I don’t care if you think I am wrong or have a different view, that was the point of me starting this post, to get different views. Do not misinterpret that as narrow mindedness. Just tell me why you think the way you do.


Have you ever had a debate with anyone? Usually the way you do it is you make a point, then back up your point with facts/figures.

You can tell me the US follows a realpolitik policy. You stated it as a one word answer. Well? Tell me why you think so.

Instead you gave me one word answers and the snide comments “grow up” and “do your homework.” If you have nothing to back your statements and are insulting me personally as a last option maybe it would be more understandable.

The argument began when you replied in blue. I told you want I thought and it seems you did not like it. You claim that you are an American and have lived here almost all your life but yet can't anweser your own question. If you are what you say you are then your experience would tell you. Seems like you just want to hear the same opinion as you. Mine are opinions and not facts just like yours. If you think we glorify war go ahead it's a free country and you will not get arrested unlike a country in your avatar. If I offended you, tough ***** welcome to the real world.

[red dragon]

- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

How many major wars were we dragged in?

Does it matter who started a war? This does not answer the question in any way.

Yes it does. You say America glorifys wars which means we LOVE IT and starts it. So my question stands.


I guess you don’t like BJ’s unless you initiate them first.


- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

US is not homogenous. Nationalism in Amerca is akin to racism. America has Patriotism

Patriotism is a very closely associated with nationalism, some would say they are even synonyms. Neither of which have anything to do with racism. But I will rephrase it for you; “is it because the US has more patriotic feelings than other countries?”

So who runs America? What ethnicity is an American? Are we homogenous like Turkey? You should look into groups in America that are "nationalistic".

White nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

Black nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

why don’t you look at plain ol’ nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Can't say I agree with you.

The Mongols , Huns , Turks and todays Afghanies are/were extremely warlike beyond the Western norm. As of this point in time I suggest the Arab Muslims are the most warlike. If only through the Koran being used to incite war through it being in Arabic so as to influence Paks., Afghans and numerous other groups. In todays world the Arab dominated followers of Islam are in conflict with Hindus, Buddists, tribal Africa and Orthodox based Russian culture none of which are Western.

However since about 1600 the West has been superior at waging war.

During the West's rise to superiority in warfare the English speaking nations have dominated .

I disagree. It's because of different cultures that this bias exists. I recomend you read "The Cambridge History of War" edited by Geoffry Parker. I very good book on war and how it has evolved. Ever since the ancient Greeks western nations have faught wars for one sole objective. And that is the complete and utter destruction of the enemy.

Of course this did always happen with countries giving up when all is lost. but no other ethnic or cultural group outside the west has faught wars in such a way.

[Kastor]

This is pointless.Ever since the ancient times it is known that WAR IS THE FATHER OF EVERYTHING.I dont say that but HERODOTUS did (also known as the first historian and father of history).And i believe that he wasn`t meaning only military activities.CALIFORNIA JOE has a point there.And what about what the japs did in China and Korea during WWII.There are many examples (Timur the Mongol did unbelievible things like bilding towers from his enemy sculps).I haven`t read the "Cambridge history of war" but maybe we must understand and realise what is war about.It isn`t about gaining a victory on the field.It`s about forcing the enemy to stop fighting so we will be victorius. Right? In my point of view only fanatics (like nazis and religious wariors) are fighting with one thing in mind and that is to extinguish the enemy.Finaly i didn`t found anything about the "extinguish of the enemy" (after all that`s what about total war is) in all those books that have been wrote from the theoretics of war and i have a knowledge of.Of course i maybe mistaken .
Please be patience with my language.:oops:

[IronFinn]

Why do Americans glorify war?

- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?

- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?

- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?


Getting back to the topic, I personally think these are the reasons for possible "glorifying" effect, atleast for the one we see in the media.
Maybe if the boots of war would have stomped all over north Americas continent in the scale as they have, for example in Europe, and the homefront would have felt the agony of being bombed, shot, deported, raped and pillaged (no family stories from the horrors of war) then the population might have more "down to earth" view on the subject and war wouldn´t be something which happens over the seas and is allways victorious (to some level anyway).

[Hollis]

The sad fact of war it takes men with character and strength to stand up and defend their country. The week knee spineless hid at home or dodge the military because their basic flaw in their character.

When the Men of Character die, the % of week knee becomes greater, War bleeds a country of those strong men and soon that country is over runned by the week.

The new generation of men are raised and influenced by the older generation, and who is that?

Fortunately the US has not lost a large number of Men of Characters as with other areas. There are still people who believe in self sacrifice for the betterment of all of man kind something the week knee have no clue about.

This is no different than the Police going after criminals, the firefighter going into a burning building to save lives, the EMT saving the life of the stricken.... or the Solder defending his/her country.

Commitment and self sacrifice is not in the world of the week knee. The week knee use deception, PC correctness, governmental controls, and when people are needed they won't do it, but will employ another.

[Weasel]

The sad fact of war it takes men with character and strength to stand up and defend their country. The week knee spineless hid at home or dodge the military because their basic flaw in their character.

When the Men of Character die, the % of week knee becomes greater, War bleeds a country of those strong men and soon that country is over runned by the week.

The new generation of men are raised and influenced by the older generation, and who is that?

Fortunately the US has not lost a large number of Men of Characters as with other areas. There are still people who believe in self sacrifice for the betterment of all of man kind something the week knee have no clue about.

This is no different than the Police going after criminals, the firefighter going into a burning building to save lives, the EMT saving the life of the stricken.... or the Solder defending his/her country.

Commitment and self sacrifice is not in the world of the week knee. The week knee use deception, PC correctness, governmental controls, and when people are needed they won't do it, but will employ another.

It needs more character and strength to avoid war.

[Roids]

You remind me of Patton's speech to the 3rd Army, Hollis.


Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.

[Roids]

It needs more character and strength to avoid war.

Says who? Perhaps you can explain to me how shrugging off your duties to your nation so one can continue to have a life of leisure takes more courage? Cause right now to me it sounds like rhetorical garbage that has no merit.

[Friendly Fire]

The sad fact of war it takes men with character and strength to stand up and defend their country. The week knee spineless hid at home or dodge the military because their basic flaw in their character.

When the Men of Character die, the % of week knee becomes greater, War bleeds a country of those strong men and soon that country is over runned by the week.

The new generation of men are raised and influenced by the older generation, and who is that?

Fortunately the US has not lost a large number of Men of Characters as with other areas. There are still people who believe in self sacrifice for the betterment of all of man kind something the week knee have no clue about.

This is no different than the Police going after criminals, the firefighter going into a burning building to save lives, the EMT saving the life of the stricken.... or the Solder defending his/her country.

Commitment and self sacrifice is not in the world of the week knee. The week knee use deception, PC correctness, governmental controls, and when people are needed they won't do it, but will employ another.


BS...last balkanic civil and "regular" wars were fought by assholes and rapists in both sides...so much for your character. I personally doubt of your ability to seize the War phenomenon reality beyond the romantic and hypocritical aspect fed by the Military. Brutalisation is one aspect of the warfare that annihilates "character" or morality. And moral recession can go beyond sanity in most cases.

[Basillicus]

The sad fact of war it takes men with character and strength to stand up and defend their country. The week knee spineless hid at home or dodge the military because their basic flaw in their character.

When the Men of Character die, the % of week knee becomes greater, War bleeds a country of those strong men and soon that country is over runned by the week.

The new generation of men are raised and influenced by the older generation, and who is that?

Fortunately the US has not lost a large number of Men of Characters as with other areas. There are still people who believe in self sacrifice for the betterment of all of man kind something the week knee have no clue about.

This is no different than the Police going after criminals, the firefighter going into a burning building to save lives, the EMT saving the life of the stricken.... or the Solder defending his/her country.

Commitment and self sacrifice is not in the world of the week knee. The week knee use deception, PC correctness, governmental controls, and when people are needed they won't do it, but will employ another.

No offence, but what a load of crap. Classifying soldiers as Men of Valor is good material for ultranationalist wankers and nice propaganda but has very little to do with reality. Sure there are characters who see themselves as some sort of holy warriors, but most are normal people who joined for various reasons and get killed or injured for nothing if leaders decide to send them to bad places. :roll:

Engineers, doctors and business men are much more useful for USA and responsible for it's dominance today, not soldiers. Calling them "the week knee" is stupidity.

[Friendly Fire]

Says who? Perhaps you can explain to me how shrugging off your duties to your nation so one can continue to have a life of leisure takes more courage? Cause right now to me it sounds like rhetorical garbage that has no merit.


Going macho doesn't help much living the very same life of leisure. To the contrary, war (on it's conventional approach) has rules that oppose the very basic principles of liberty found in most western civil liberal "societies". The "esprit de corps" demises any equality and mutual respect to replace it by the hierarchical level achieved in the slaughter...War and it's circus are the very nemesis of the supposed values that make you fight them.

Duties? Wich ones? Raping the serbian neighbour because her gran daddy shot your grand daddy? Just melt away. I'm facing you with what war really is. Not your average garbage about courage.

[Weasel]

Says who? Perhaps you can explain to me how shrugging off your duties to your nation so one can continue to have a life of leisure takes more courage? Cause right now to me it sounds like rhetorical garbage that has no merit.

Right now the bull**** of duty, heroism sounds like rhetorical garbage without merit to me. I have a more realistic view: soldiers are just tools of politicians to achieve their political aims. There is nothing heroic in killing or being killed.

[Roids]

Going macho doesn't help much living the very same life of leisure. To the contrary, war (on it's conventional approach) has rules that oppose the very basic principles of liberty found in most western civil liberal "societies". The "esprit de corps" demises any equality and mutual respect to replace it by the hierarchical level achieved in the slaughter...War and it's circus are the very nemesis of the supposed values that make you fight them.

Duties? Wich ones? Raping the serbian neighbour because her gran daddy shot your grand daddy? Just melt away. I'm facing you with what war really is. Not your average garbage about courage.

War is brutal, everyone knows this. We engage in the act of war to keep the brutish real world out of society. Just because we apply our values in our society does not mean we apply it everywhere. It's like saying that military structure should be a democracy, it simply is not realistic. Do western societies place "pure" or "perfect" capitalism as our economic structure? Hell no, we have a bastardization of the "pure" capitalist system to make it work in the real world. An imperfect system because of an imperfect world. I also think you are confusing character and morals, which are two different things. An example is that I consider Muslim extremists to be immoral bastards, but I admit they have some character in fighting for what they believe in.

[Freibier]

Right now the bull**** of duty, heroism sounds like rhetorical garbage without merit to me. I have a more realistic view: soldiers are just tools of politicians to achieve their political aims. There is nothing heroic in killing or being killed.
Agree completely!

[Roids]

soldiers are just tools of politicians to achieve their political aims.

Agreed! After all it was Clausewitz who said "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.". Does it change anything? We are still going to have nations fighting over beliefs and resources. We are still going to have to defend our nations. And with that we are going to need men of character to do it. If we don't then we might as well bend over and let our enemies genocide us like the people of Tibet.

A nation or people cannot exist without such character cause their are men who are willing to fight for their beliefs who will not be afraid to remove those who don't.

[Hollis]

No offence, but what a load of crap. Classifying soldiers as Men of Valor is good material for ultranationalist wankers and nice propaganda but has very little to do with reality. Sure there are characters who see themselves as some sort of holy warriors, but most are normal people who joined for various reasons and get killed or injured for nothing if leaders decide to send them to bad places. :roll:

Engineers, doctors and business men are much more useful for USA and responsible for it's dominance today, not soldiers. Calling them "the week knee" is stupidity.


LOL OK, I can see who raised you is my retort........ I really don't have a clue who raised you, but you seem to be missing the point.

Also it seems you believe war is completely avoidable, if that was true all crimes would be completely avoidable, sooner or later in the world you will find out there are people out there that really do not care if you live or die and are willing to see you dead.

BTW I did not say the other class of occupation or of the weak knee kind. I consider teachers among that class of people who serve their country, along with Doctors, Engineers etc......... Maybe go back and re-read my post and not "READ crap" in to it. BTW there is a socialogoical merit in what I said, The future generations learn from the elder one such things as Character, drive, ambition, etc.

BTW.......... really interesting how tangental these discussion become.

to add some more tangental discussion to thread, is it really Barney the Dinosaur fault?

[Weasel]

Agreed! After all it was Clausewitz who said "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.". Does it change anything? We are still going to have nations fighting over beliefs and resources. We are still going to have to defend our nations. And with that we are going to need men of character to do it. If we don't then we might as well bend over and let our enemies genocide us like the people of Tibet.

A nation or people cannot exist without such character cause their are men who are willing to fight for their beliefs who will not be afraid to remove those who don't.

In the history of my country I don´t find alot of men of character but a lot of canonn fodder. I don´t think that many soldiers know the (real) reasons why and for what they fight.

[Hollis]

egads, J.Kerryism/syndrome is alive and well on this thread.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/carrylargelc4.jpg

[Freibier]

Happy pawns

[Basillicus]

Also it seems you believe war is completely avoidable, if that was true all crimes would be completely avoidable, sooner or later in the world you will find out there are people out there that really do not care if you live or die and are willing to see you dead.

I don't believe war is never completely avoidable. When someone brutally attacks your county a choice has to be made; either to defend it if it is worth defending, or let it be occupied. Though in practice it isn't aways even possible to make this decision. Either way there's no glory in it, men forced to kill each others on both sides and some times civilians. Terrible waste of life, even if the country survives.

Question to ask is has foreign nations attacked USA lately or has it been the other way around.

[Roids]

In the history of my country I don´t find alot of men of character but a lot of canonn fodder. I don´t think that many soldiers know the (real) reasons why and for what they fight.

Perhaps, a lot of it seems so relative. To put it in context, look at the US in Iraq. Some go to stop what they believe is to spread of terrorism(debatable I know but that's for another discussion), some go to help the Iraqi people, some go help their comrades. Their can be a "real" reason why people should go, but it seems that it doesn't matter as everyone has their own personal war they fight.

Speculation my part.

[Hollis]

I don't believe war is never completely avoidable. When someone brutally attacks your county a choice has to be made; either to defend it if it is worth defending, or let it be occupied. Though in practice it isn't aways even possible to make this decision. Either way there's no glory in it, men forced to kill each others on both sides and some times civilians. Terrible waste of life, even if the country survives.

Question to ask is has foreign nations attacked USA lately or has it been the other way around.


Not getting into the political BS argument, there is enough threads on this conflict as to rightness or wrong ness. That is not the focus of this thread.

I Agree with your basic statement, The honor is not the honor like Hollywood places in it's movies on war.

It is the commitment and personally courage of those who defend and what it takes to defend. Same with Law Enforcement Officer, to expose one self to great risk and if need be to take a life.

There is no glory in taking a life and any peace one might find in doing so may come from the fact they prevented another from being killed/murdered/abused.

I too consider war a mistake on many fronts, but some times unavoidable against the greater harm that will be done if one does not engage the enemy. Often in life, some choice are both bad, except one being more worse than other, as you say fight or be occupied.

I think for the anti-war crowd is just to easy to cast dispersion on the Men and Women who serve in the US military (not commenting on other countries militarties.. See name of thread also because I don't know much about them)

Like three purple hearts Kerry branding those who serve as ignorant pawns. I am met some of the finest people in the Military who I have served with and who are serving now. Contrary to Kerry-ites BS about Military men and women, many enlist for reasons that are also nobel, not because they can not even get a job at McDonalds.

I did not discuss the other profession because it is not germain to this thread. My father in-law was a very talented engineer who helped the US during WWII by doing what was most needed of him. I have nothing but admiration and respect for him.

For those who consider war completely avoidable, I can not say anything that will change that view, For me you fit what Kerry says, about being ignorant... especially about life. Regardless of what you think, loves and hugs will not cure some narcissistic social path from murdering/victimizing/ or generally being one bad person. Some one will just have to just stand up and confront them.

There are already to many of you, who will look out a window, never calling the police and watch some person being stabbed to death over a 40 minute time period (three separate attack, yes it happend in NYC)

[Hollis]

Why do Americans glorify war?

- is it because there was never a recent (last 100 years) battle on US land where a region was occupied and citizens were subjugated? It never became personal on that scale?

- is it because the general population is disaffected by war and forget about it once it is over?

- is it because the US is geographically isolated from countries which they were engaged? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq?


- is it because the US never lost a recent (last 100 years) major war in which it participated in? And never had to feel the sting of reparations, lawlessness/anarchy, inflation, poverty, instability, etc, associated with post war countries on the losing side?

- is it because the US has more nationalistic feelings than other countries?

What are your thoughts?

Original Question and topic of this Thread for those who especially want to blame Barney the dinosaur.

[AZRON]

Getting back to the topic, I personally think these are the reasons for possible "glorifying" effect, atleast for the one we see in the media.
Maybe if the boots of war would have stomped all over north Americas continent in the scale as they have, for example in Europe, and the homefront would have felt the agony of being bombed, shot, deported, raped and pillaged (no family stories from the horrors of war) then the population might have more "down to earth" view on the subject and war wouldn´t be something which happens over the seas and is allways victorious (to some level anyway).

When the attitude of patriotism developed in the U.S. along with saluting and respecting war heroes and heroics the U.S. or it's colonial roots were involved in some pretty nasty wars on the Noth American continent.

Their were armed conflicts of small to very large ongoing from about 1680 to 1890. Two were quite large being the Revoltionary War and the American Civil War. Plus actions in the War of 1812 .
In many of the smaller wars captives , scalping , torture and fire were used alot.
In the American Civil War major cities were burned , millions were refugees , cities were seiged and significant battlefield casualties were taken.

This nationalistic attitude developed in wartime in this nation on it's soil.

[Weasel]

Perhaps, a lot of it seems so relative. To put it in context, look at the US in Iraq. Some go to stop what they believe is to spread of terrorism(debatable I know but that's for another discussion), some go to help the Iraqi people, some go help their comrades. Their can be a "real" reason why people should go, but it seems that it doesn't matter as everyone has their own personal war they fight.

Speculation my part.

Yeah, maybe. But maybe most of them are only in iraq because it´s their job and they earn their money with this. Or some recruiting officers told them **** about blood and honour. ;-)

My speculation.

[Roids]

Yeah, maybe. But maybe most of them are only in iraq because it´s their job and they earn their money with this. Or some recruiting officers told them **** about blood and honour. ;-)

My speculation.

Okay, whatever floats their boat. If they feel it's good enough for them.

[Friendly Fire]

War is brutal, everyone knows this. We engage in the act of war to keep the brutish real world out of society. Just because we apply our values in our society does not mean we apply it everywhere. It's like saying that military structure should be a democracy, it simply is not realistic. Do western societies place "pure" or "perfect" capitalism as our economic structure? Hell no, we have a bastardization of the "pure" capitalist system to make it work in the real world. An imperfect system because of an imperfect world. I also think you are confusing character and morals, which are two different things. An example is that I consider Muslim extremists to be immoral bastards, but I admit they have some character in fighting for what they believe in.


SO where is heroism in brutality?

[Roids]

SO where is heroism in brutality?

I'm not talking as their is glory or heroism in the brutality, I'm talking about the character needed to fight a war when it needs to done. Your trying to argue that their is honor in war as such their is honor of raping a women(which their is none). I'm talking of the kind of honor in which you fend off an that person who is raping a women. Apples and oranges my friend. Such as Hollis reiterated.

Let get this back on topic before Warpig or some mod locks this.

[Friendly Fire]

I'm not talking as their is glory or heroism in the brutality, I'm talking about the character needed to fight a war when it needs to done. Your trying to argue that their is honor in war as such their is honor of raping a women(which their is none). I'm talking of the kind of honor in which you fend off an that person who is raping a women. Apples and oranges my friend. Such as Hollis reiterated.

Let get this back on topic before Warpig or some mod locks this.

Brutalisation kills any character or moral ground in wich the "heroic" personnality was supposed to hold. Hence I've seen videos when "Us war heros" overtly speak to their CO about beating women in order to make them reveal their husband's location. His acts can allow him to be labelled as a hero, however he's just an asshole on the good side of History.

However as I said, America and war is just like EUrope and War...unseparable.

[Hollis]

Brutalisation kills any character or moral ground in wich the "heroic" personnality was supposed to hold. Hence I've seen videos when "Us war heros" overtly speak to their CO about beating women in order to make them reveal their husband's location. His acts can allow him to be labelled as a hero, however he's just an asshole on the good side of History.

However as I said, America and war is just like EUrope and War...unseparable.


A good thing to keep in mind the only similarity to a hollywood movie and real life is purely accidental.

That act is a violation of the UCMJ... and that person would find his/her way to the brig.

[Friendly Fire]

A good thing to keep in mind the only similarity to a hollywood movie and real life is purely accidental.

That act is a violation of the UCMJ... and that person would find his/her way to the brig.


Wow...procedural there matey? Hell > War >Hell. News report of 23 August 2004: TF1/FR2 (and I master English enough to understand ...I can hit her sir, it's obvious she lies!).

As for fictions...puh-lease! Counter guerilla warfare is all about going against "regular" ROE! Phoenix any one?

But hey this doesn't mean that the US is a hell's army like the Russian one!

[Roids]

Brutalisation kills any character or moral ground in wich the "heroic" personnality was supposed to hold.

So what are you implying here. That nothing is worth fighting for because it requires one to be brutal?

[Hollis]

Wow...procedural there matey? Hell > War >Hell. News report of 23 August 2004: TF1/FR2 (and I master English enough to understand ...I can hit her sir, it's obvious she lies!).

As for fictions...puh-lease! Counter guerilla warfare is all about going against "regular" ROE! Phoenix any one?

But hey this doesn't mean that the US is a hell's army like the Russian one!

I don't know about that news article, so really don't know if it was fact or fiction for propaganda reasons. There are bad people who make it into the Military, there is a special place for them, called the Brig.

I can speak for my experience in the US Military, specifically the USMC and in Combat, Viet-Nam 1969, you can google "Mutter's Ridge". I worked mostly with Kit Carson Scouts. I have friends who are currently in the US military, a very close friend is in Special Forces.

IN other words, Maybe you might want to question some of your facts. I have never experienced any of that crap, nor has friends of mine and if we did, we would lock the SOB up.

BTW Google Long Bihn Jail (SP?) out side of Saigon, and see who were doing their time there.

[Friendly Fire]

So what are you implying here. That nothing is worth fighting for because it requires one to be brutal?

Nothing is ...what?Man I never said that, I said Warrying makes you an ass, civil wars make you a further ass. Even the most educated fall in for that. I'm the very example of it. Glorifying war..I don't know if that's enshrined in the US but we got enough of those here in Yrup to concur that it's probably not true.

Hollis, meh I've seen enough chopped heads charred bodies in Viet nam with your guys posing in front of charlie gook to understand that you're faithful to the cause but you probably won't give in that in war people act like asses.

[cetnik]

In the end everyone diesso in the big picture who cares.:roll: But that'sjust me.

[Hollis]

Hollis, meh I've seen enough chopped heads charred bodies in Viet nam with your guys posing in front of charlie gook to understand that you're faithful to the cause but you probably won't give in that in war people act like asses.

Interesting, I guess I served in another Viet-Nam. My experiences is vasty different. Where you there? Um tieng Biet? Maybe you listened and believed 3 purple hearts Kerry's BS. BTW I never used the G- word, I worked mostly with Kit Carson Scouts, Two were ex- Bac Biet, one was ex-VC ( who I generally worked with, he was a local to our TAR).

I guess you never heard about CAP and PF's, Or Corpsman risking their lives to help Viet-Namese civilians or some Corpsmand or medics being captured and tortured by the VC because they helped the locals.

A aberation is not what all the people do.

This is a Picture of me and other Marines in my Company on in-country R&R in Qua Viet.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Dennis_Clark_s_VietNam_Photos.jpg

[gaijinsamurai]

Which one's you, Hollis?

[Mastermind]

I say he is the 2nd from the left. The more serious guy in the bunch. MM

[gaijinsamurai]

My guess is he's the one in the middle, with the squared-away cover. He's probably got a .45 hidden on him too!

[Group9]

funny that every one wants to hop on the "kick em when their down" band wagon. just remember that the Americans you are calling warmongers are usually the first on the scene with Aid and comfort when your country is hit with a natural disaster.
Also please recall that in the last century the 2 bloodiest conflicts of modern history were started by warmongering Europeans and the United States entered those wars only after being drawn into them by aggressive combatants.
Modern U.S. foreign policy is a result of 20th century European warmongering
in other words.. the Pot is calling the kettle black.

Europeans don't like being reminded that one of the reasons the US now gets involved in other people's business is because of how poorly isolationism worked out for us in WW1 and WW2.

With a choice between having people in Europe not like us, or having to fight another major world war, I think they will just have to not like us.

[Friendly Fire]

Europeans don't like being reminded that one of the reasons the US now gets involved in other people's business is because of how poorly isolationism worked out for us in WW1 and WW2.

With a choice between having people in Europe not like us, or having to fight another major world war, I think they will just have to not like us.


Isolationism? Wich one? The one that attacked Spain for Cuba? Or the One that is still sticking to the Monroe Doctrine?

Maybe I should dig out some of the US geopoliticians and their "isolationist" views? having a country built on Liberal values and claiming to be isolationist is an oxymoron.

This point about america being called to fight for the filthy europeans is moot and disproved to the max by the XXth century. Please don't bother yourself to answer it would just unleash a string of harsh answering by my side and probably utter discredit on your POV.

[ed316]

We, Americans, are warmongers and bloodthirsty people. We sacrifice goats and newborns at the alter of Aries. Rararrararararararah

[Friendly Fire]

We, Americans, are warmongers and bloodthirsty people. We sacrifice goats and newborns at the alter of Aries. Rararrararararararah


Oh you are?

[ed316]

Oh you are?


What do you think? You seem to know alot of America.

[Friendly Fire]

What do you think? You seem to know alot of America.


I think you're just humans and do common humain errors and react the most humainly (try to cover it up).

Nothing more nothing less. Now if you tell me you're some kind of modern times assyrians then I should get a ticket back to TEH USAXX. I must sacrifice a lamb or two.p-)

[Murray B]

Why do Americans glorify war?
What are your thoughts?

If you had written "Do Americans glorify war?" then it is possible to have some sort of reasonable discussion. What you have done is post a conclusion without any supporting evidence.

Now name any other superpower that would not have ruled the entire world with an iron fist if they had a monopoly of nuclear weapons? This is what happened after WWII until the Soviets got the bomb.

What would Ghengis Khan done with such a weapon? How about any Roman emperor? Are more recent dictators any different?

Most U.S. of Americans (and there are other kinds) would rather trade than invade. They want everyone to have an elected government, enough food, and a car in every garage. From what I can see most Americans tend to glorify peace most of the time.

[raider65]

I agree with Murray B. After WWII We were the only ones with the A-bomb. Who could have stood against us. Gen Patton wanted us to roll to Moscow but he was put on a leash even though he saw the enemy lumming in the future. We would have been a beign ruler of the world and the world would be a better place now (my opinion). But we pulled back and paid to help rebiuld countries that had been our enemies like German and Japan. We are the only country to use the A-bomb in war. It was used to save lives both of our troops and Japanese. In Korea, we pulled back to the 38th. We could have bombed the North to smithereens or made it a nuclear wasteland but we didn't. And now we might have to go back. Yeah, that sounds like we love war and are a warmongering nation.