War In The USA

[del]

Since the Korean War, what nation have we attacked?

you mean besides the dominican republic, grenada and iraq?

gee, that's a tough one.

 

[Xenophon]

What's interesting about the post is the central thesis that if the United States were a country that had more historical experience of domestic invasion and occupation and continued war on its soil (with other nations) and on the soil of other nations, it would be less inclined to favour war as an instrument of foreign policy.

I'm not sure if the thesis is valid. It hasn't stopped many European countries from going at it, especially those with empire and colonies.

The theory is not valid, the USA fought its first two wars on its on soil, and its most damaing war within its borders (Revolution, war of 1812, civil war).

 

[Diuretic]

On the other hand, the Brits haven't fought anyone on land in their country since 1066 (outside of the Civil War) but they sure as hell delivered it around the world between then and now.

Having said that I'll have to think about the implications

 

[publicprotector]

ALLIEBABA, Thank you most sincerely, you have exhibited the true American belief that you have been programmed to do. That is the complete belief in a fraudulentand corrupt system that tells you that your country are the ones to help those poor supressed peoples around the World when the reality is yournation exploits any and all for its own selfish ends. Note I said your nation not your people, the carpet bagging days of the civil war never ended it just kept on going.

So whilst the average American dies and suffers in ignorance for the material benefit of the few nothing changes. The mind control tricks and brainwashing works as I speak.

StEEL, what looting, even in WW2 it was well known of the wholesale looting committed by American forces, thats not to say other did not do it they just did not do it on the scale that the US did.

As for what wars or who has the US attacked since then well the list is long but here is a few, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, Grenada, Somalia. They are just the ones we know of. War and the act of war can be prosecuted in many ways, it does not have to be an all out confrontation or the declaration of war itself to commit acts of war. The mere fact that you put your own forces in anothers country can be construde as an act of war.

I read on this site Korea commits an act of war against the US for knocking out the net that is just one example. But this detracts from the thread, again I ask just how many Americans would have the guts to say they would fight a war on their own turf not many I do not think yet they are quite happy to export it to others.

A nation is not made strong by its Government or its ruling elite, it is made strong by the willingness of the people to fight for a given cause. Since Korea the people of the US have been hoodwinked generation after generation into believing that evryone is out to get them when the reality could not be further from the truth. No unfortunately the American populace good hardworking people that they are have allowed themselves to be manipulated past all reason to the point that they no longer think for themselves but blindly follow the dictat that is laid before them.

It is difficult to say who is wong or culpable, the average man wants the basic things in life and a peaceful one at that irrespective of his colour creed or nationality. But when one dangles the trinkets of wealth in front ofthis simple man he looses all reason and rational to the point of blind allegiance and murder in his heart.

 

[Neo]

As many Americans seem to support the notion of war and export of same around the World just how many Americans would welcome war if it was happening in their own country.

Having the good fortune nay luxury of not having the bloodshed and destruction of their people and nation would the average America be so pro war if they suffered as so many others have.

It is my firm belief that this total detachment from the reality of war that leeds Americans into believing its perfectly OK to attack any nation they like be they a threat or not. The average American does not know what war is like even for their own combatents never mind what it must be like to be invaded and occupide by a foreign force.

I am sure that many would soon loose this lust for mass murder and wholesale looting if they had undergone the same process.

I find your lack of grammar and punctuation to be somewhat hilarious if not down right pathetic. Ever hear of a run on sentence? Apparently not as evidenced above. You must be a Liberal, taught in the public school (screwl) system and a shining example at that. Hell, you can't even spell simple words that a 2nd grader can easily accomplish. You may find that to be unimportant, but I would just offer that such examples of stupidity renders whatever you attempt to argue as D.O.A.. I'm guessing you're at best an 8th grader.

 

[Toro]

On the other hand, the Brits haven't fought anyone on land in their country since 1066 (outside of the Civil War) but they sure as hell delivered it around the world between then and now.

Having said that I'll have to think about the implications

The British were bombed heavily during WWII.

Also, they engaged in a low-grade war for a generation with the IRA, who set off bombs in British hotels and stores.

America has not experienced either of those.

 

[xotoxi]

We never attacked Iraq. We attacked Saddam, and we remain to prevent terrorists from assuming his place.

We train their police, they have asked us repeatedly to stay.

Please...feel free to carry on with your delusion.

 

[Diuretic]

On the other hand, the Brits haven't fought anyone on land in their country since 1066 (outside of the Civil War) but they sure as hell delivered it around the world between then and now.

Having said that I'll have to think about the implications

The British were bombed heavily during WWII.

Also, they engaged in a low-grade war for a generation with the IRA, who set off bombs in British hotels and stores.

America has not experienced either of those.

Indeed they were bombed heavily, for years, but as terrible as that was it was better than trying to resist a full-blown land invasion and, after being defeated, suffering the ignominy of occupation*. And yes, the mainland bombing campaign was something the British endured for several years. But, compared to some European and Asian countries which were occupied by the Axis forces, the Brits ididn't suffer the same - check out Lidice for example. And Spain has its continuing guerilla war with ETA. The US has Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and a few other events and that's it. Call them lucky I suppose. But I still don't see how a lack of wars** on home soil can be linked to a willingness to go bombing the crap out of others around the world. As I said before, war happens for a reason and it's usually about resources or trade, it's not got a lot to do with a tendency to being bloodthirsty or being blase because the crap wasn't bombed out of their country.

*The Channel Islands were occupied by German forces during WWII.

**Allowing for the exceptions that Xenophon has pointed out

 

[editec]

As many Americans seem to support the notion of war and export of same around the World just how many Americans would welcome war if it was happening in their own country.

Having the good fortune nay luxury of not having the bloodshed and destruction of their people and nation would the average America be so pro war if they suffered as so many others have.

It is my firm belief that this total detachment from the reality of war that leeds Americans into believing its perfectly OK to attack any nation they like be they a threat or not. The average American does not know what war is like even for their own combatents never mind what it must be like to be invaded and occupide by a foreign force.

I am sure that many would soon loose this lust for mass murder and wholesale looting if they had undergone the same process.

Without a doubt.

We read the fantasies of chickenhawk Americans on this board daily.

Internet tough guys the lot of them.

 

[JW Frogen]

What's interesting about the post is the central thesis that if the United States were a country that had more historical experience of domestic invasion and occupation and continued war on its soil (with other nations) and on the soil of other nations, it would be less inclined to favour war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Hello Diuretic my freind.

I would offer this, the one part of the US that has known invasion, defeat, and occupation is the one place in the US that is the most supporative of US intervention elsewhere, the US south.

I think the lesson they learned was intervene early enough and with enough power or be intervened upon.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am glad the South learned this lesson after the Civil War.

 

[editec]

What's interesting about the post is the central thesis that if the United States were a country that had more historical experience of domestic invasion and occupation and continued war on its soil (with other nations) and on the soil of other nations, it would be less inclined to favour war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Hello Diuretic my freind.

I would offer this, the one part of the US that has known invasion, defeat, and occupation is the one place in the US that is the most supporative of US intervention elsewhere, the US south.

I think the lesson they learned was intervene early enough and with enough power or be intervened upon.

Interesting (and accurate, I suspect) observation, there, JW.

Yes our Southern Bretheren do tend to be more bellicose than the rest of the nation.

They are, (or at least were) over represented (per capita at least) in our military services, too, aren't they?

That might, perhaps, explain why the Southerners seem to be more likely to support any and everything involving anything that demands increasing our military, no?

 

[Diuretic]

What's interesting about the post is the central thesis that if the United States were a country that had more historical experience of domestic invasion and occupation and continued war on its soil (with other nations) and on the soil of other nations, it would be less inclined to favour war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Hello Diuretic my freind.

I would offer this, the one part of the US that has known invasion, defeat, and occupation is the one place in the US that is the most supporative of US intervention elsewhere, the US south.

I think the lesson they learned was intervene early enough and with enough power or be intervened upon.

Interesting idea JW, a situation I had overlooked.

 

[publicprotector]

With regard to the ACW there is no doubt that if the south had been sufficiently equipped and had the numbers it would have beaten the North. Man for Man the southern combatent was far more dedicated and driven than his northern counterpart.

Why memebers choose to ignore the actions of its country I don't know but the simple facts are that the US has prosecuted war for its own ends. Or to be more correct the ends of the rich and powerful as none of these conflicts past or present has made the populace richer, safer or anything else as it is the masses that ultimately pay the price for war and conflict.

Rather than supporting war if the people of the US has suffere the way so many others have it is more than likely that they would not support a corrupt foreign policy or a bogus war on terror if they had undergone the same process.

And to be fair one cannot expect anything else from a people that are continually lied to and decieved on an almost daily basis.

 

[editec]

With regard to the ACW there is no doubt that if the south had been sufficiently equipped and had the numbers it would have beaten the North. Man for Man the southern combatent was far more dedicated and driven than his northern counterpart.

Probably true.

The fact that they were generally fighting what they percieved as being an invading army gave them incentive to fight that certainly few Northerners had, that's for damned sure.

Why memebers choose to ignore the actions of its country I don't know

Because people eventually realize that paying attention, protesting, or otherwise making their discontent known in legal ways serves no purpose, would be my guess.

I think of it as good citizenship fatigue.

but the simple facts are that the US has prosecuted war for its own ends. Or to be more correct the ends of the rich and powerful as none of these conflicts past or present has made the populace richer, safer or anything else as it is the masses that ultimately pay the price for war and conflict.

You and the communists of the pre WWII are in agreement then that the definition of war is a bayonette with a worker on each end.

I know you probably think of the above observation as an insult, but in some ways you libertarians and communists are on the same page when it comes to their distrust of the master class which seems to dominate every society.

I agree with both (usally, but not in this case very different) schools of political philosophy in this case, incidently.

Governments are typically the tools of the master-classes of every society. Sometimes they're motivated to do things to make their people happy, other times, their motivations are to do things which do not serve the nation as a whole.

Rather than supporting war if the people of the US has suffere the way so many others have it is more than likely that they would not support a corrupt foreign policy or a bogus war on terror if they had undergone the same process.

Yup.

And to be fair one cannot expect anything else from a people that are continually lied to and decieved on an almost daily basis.

Yup.

 

[BrianH]

I will agree that today's American society is distanced from war and bloodshed. However, I would not pretend to know how Americans would handle it. Lets not forget that it took many years for Americans to get involved in both WWI and WWII. Americans have been "historically" (that is until the 1940s) a typically neutral country that preferred to stay out of war.

 

[Diuretic]

I will agree that today's American society is distanced from war and bloodshed. However, I would not pretend to know how Americans would handle it. Lets not forget that it took many years for Americans to get involved in both WWI and WWII. Americans have been "historically" (that is until the 1940s) a typically neutral country that preferred to stay out of war.

Got a long way to beat the Swiss

wb Brian.

 

[editec]

I will agree that today's American society is distanced from war and bloodshed. However, I would not pretend to know how Americans would handle it. Lets not forget that it took many years for Americans to get involved in both WWI and WWII. Americans have been "historically" (that is until the 1940s) a typically neutral country that preferred to stay out of war.

Stay out of European wars you mean. And that served us very well, too. As did imposing tariffs to encourage American industry I might add.

But we had no problem going to war (with AmerIndians and Mexicans) to expand our own territory in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[JBeukema]

What is the last nation we attacked, genius?

In the 20th Century, I read somewhere, only one democracy attacked another country without first being attacked. That was the US. I'm still trying to rebut that.

what about.. um... crap...

I can't think of any...

We never attacked Iraq. We attacked Saddam

Is that like how Germany attacked Stalin and not Russia?

and we remain to prevent terrorists from assuming his place.

we had no business going in ion the first place. We're not fixing anything; we're playing damage control.

they have asked us repeatedly to stay.

what?

Iraqi men celebrated in Baghdad. Although some Iraqis said they worried that the security forces may not be able to control the insurgency, they were also relieved to have the Americans out of sight.

 

[Douger]

There already is a war in the US. The government against YOU, they're winning ....BIGTIME.
As usual you pussies wont do a thing about it.
Go take your Prozac and watch " Michaels" funeral video.

Palin/Cheney 2012.
Idiots.