If we had to fight WWII as we fight wars now

[Delta4Embassy]

Not only would we have lost, but there'd probably have been an American revolution in the middle of it all.

40 million dead in World War 2. We start screaming for leaders' heads if a few dozen die now. Compared to the willingness to sacrifice and toughness of our past, we're a bunch of whiny pussies today. Ask people to conserve and cut-back and they don't. Makes us stronger you tell them, reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy we say. But no, they just want everything they have and even more. Concept of teamwork and collaboration are foreign words to them.

We love to say we support the troops. But what we don't say is "...as long as I'm not asked to sacrifice anything or will be inconvenienced." Soldiering and military service has become a kind of lowest 'untouchable' caste in our society. There's the rich, the poor, and the military. Pretty much in that order too insofar as being well-off. And so long as milutary servicepeople are actually in the military they're taken care of (relatively speaking.) But once they're out they're right there in that untouchable category. VA healthcare is an oxymoron.

The people who should be given carte blanch in every restaurant and store they walk into might get a 5% discount if any at all. President Obama's infamous "You didn't earn that" speech was wrong. Should have pointed out without veterans and the military we'd all be British subjects. Damn right you didn't earn that, without the men and women willing to die and be grossly inconvenienced with a lifetime of nightmares ahead of them none of us would have much of anything at all.

 

[whitehall]

It's just freaking impossible for combat Troops to take real estate while they risk court martial if a civilian is thrown into the cross fire by the enemy or killed by artillery fire. American lives are lost in Afghanistan because the administration isn't willing to fight and yet doesn't have the political courage to abandon the mission.

 

[Mad Scientist]

One tour flying B-24's in WWII was enough to turn my Grandfather into an alcoholic.

I can't imagine what 5, 6 or 7 tours would have done to him. If he'd have survived.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I don't believe you can make a good comparison to WWII and today's wars although I would say "1234 what the fuck are we fighting for?" is a damn good question today that nobody in WWII would have ever asked.

 

[eagle1462010]

PC culture has taken it's toll. Even shortly after WWII in Korea.

Mac was not allowed to bomb China in their country to cut their supply lines even after they sent a half a million into the fight.

That is insanity. Politicians setting up rules in War from the safety of their plush chairs and offices.

 

[dilloduck]

PC culture has taken it's toll. Even shortly after WWII in Korea.

Mac was not allowed to bomb China in their country to cut their supply lines even after they sent a half a million into the fight.

That is insanity. Politicians setting up rules in War from the safety of their plush chairs and offices.

and bankers.

 

[eagle1462010]

PC culture has taken it's toll. Even shortly after WWII in Korea.

Mac was not allowed to bomb China in their country to cut their supply lines even after they sent a half a million into the fight.

That is insanity. Politicians setting up rules in War from the safety of their plush chairs and offices.

and bankers.

You mean those I call parasites..............Yep, they are traitors.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Not only would we have lost, but there'd probably have been an American revolution in the middle of it all.

40 million dead in World War 2. We start screaming for leaders' heads if a few dozen die now. Compared to the willingness to sacrifice and toughness of our past, we're a bunch of whiny pussies today. Ask people to conserve and cut-back and they don't. Makes us stronger you tell them, reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy we say. But no, they just want everything they have and even more. Concept of teamwork and collaboration are foreign words to them.

We love to say we support the troops. But what we don't say is "...as long as I'm not asked to sacrifice anything or will be inconvenienced." Soldiering and military service has become a kind of lowest 'untouchable' caste in our society. There's the rich, the poor, and the military. Pretty much in that order too insofar as being well-off. And so long as milutary servicepeople are actually in the military they're taken care of (relatively speaking.) But once they're out they're right there in that untouchable category. VA healthcare is an oxymoron.

The people who should be given carte blanch in every restaurant and store they walk into might get a 5% discount if any at all. President Obama's infamous "You didn't earn that" speech was wrong. Should have pointed out without veterans and the military we'd all be British subjects. Damn right you didn't earn that, without the men and women willing to die and be grossly inconvenienced with a lifetime of nightmares ahead of them none of us would have much of anything at all.

You raise a number of substantive points. Here's my two cents worth to advance the conversation.

From the 1960s on the ethos of individualism has really burrowed in like a tic. There was a greater sense of Americanness and community during the 30s and 40s and 50s than there is today.

Multiculturalism has fragmented society in unexpected ways. The obvious way is with respect to race. The non-obvious way is with respect to class. We've always had class divisions but the distance between the classes was much smaller when we didn't have to contend with multiculturalism. Blacks were off in their own "separate but equal" communities and that left whites. You had the rich kids going to public schools, we had the right side of the tracks and wrong side of the tracks neighborhoods but there was still plenty of interaction between the classes.

Look at today - gated communities, private schools, stores designed to appeal to niche markets and this within racial groups. Overlay the racial and ethnic enclaves. Some public schools are >90% minority. Same with neighborhoods.

Divide and Conquer has always been an effective strategy at weakening a society. Liberal American propagandists have successfully convinced people that diversity is strength. It's clearly not when we actually try to measure the social factors involved.

We no longer live in a society where Veronica Lodge goes to school with Archie and Reggie and Jughead and she's not friends with Betty either.

Another factor in play is assortative mating. Male physicians marrying female physicians. Male lawyers marrying female lawyers. If not of the same profession then most certainly of the same educational and social background. The days of the male doctor marrying his nurse, the executive marrying his secretary are gone. This type of mating pattern results in far less social mixing. Now we have cultural bubbles of various kinds coexisting in the same space but not mixing within that space.

Another feature is what liberals have done to increase the cost of forming families. Raising a family is now more expensive than it used to be so we now have smaller families. In terms of war-fighting this means that war casualties hit families with "no sons to spare" and this causes tremendous political pressure to prevent casualties.

So the social support for war fighting like we saw in WWII is very weak because liberals have fractured society. We used to have a more unified society, but today we can't make the same claim.

As to the way society views the military, you're onto something. Again it's cultural erosion at work, again instigated by liberals. I'm not even talking about the outright hostility that liberals show to service members of the institution of the military - that's obvious to us all - rather I'm talking about the dilution of honor. Here's a classic example that gets to the heart of the issue - to be a hero used to mean that one was honored for something that one had done, a great sacrifice was undertaken and done so selflessly. Then liberals began their experiment of diluting and redefining and now hero means someone who has endured a hardship. Are you a child suffering through cancer? Yes? Then you're a hero for suffering. Hero now equates to victim. Did you suffer through a rape? Yes? Then you're a hero for persevering through life. Well, victims are not heroes. When we elevate victims to hero status then we actually dilute the cultural significance of what it means to be a hero.

I get the sense that a lot of people go through a pantomime of sorts when it comes to honoring veterans. They mouth the right words but there is no awe, no real respect backing the words directed at a real hero who did something extraordinary. This is because liberals have diluted what was rare into something that is common and the ordinary man is just disengaged enough to not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and it's easier to just pay lip service than to really appreciate the significance of heroism.

Look at some of the heroes who came out of WWII. These guys had huge name recognition all across society. People understood what it meant to be awarded a particular honor. They respected the award and the men who EARNED those rewards. How about the heroes of today? They get to close a trading session of the NYSE, people applaud them in a perfunctory manner and they're forgotten 15 minutes later. To me, this speaks of a cancer in society. We no longer take to heart and no longer celebrate valor because society is too damned fractured to allow this cultural practice, the celebration of valor, the be nurtured and developed and spread and culturally enforced.

 

[whitehall]

When WW2 finally got the US out of the "great depression" the US was run by a virtual corpse and a high school educated V.P. who didn't have a clue. The generals ran WW2 and life was cheap and murder of civilians was part of the strategy. Be very afraid when the generals are in charge.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not only would we have lost, but there'd probably have been an American revolution in the middle of it all.

40 million dead in World War 2. We start screaming for leaders' heads if a few dozen die now. Compared to the willingness to sacrifice and toughness of our past, we're a bunch of whiny pussies today. Ask people to conserve and cut-back and they don't. Makes us stronger you tell them, reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy we say. But no, they just want everything they have and even more. Concept of teamwork and collaboration are foreign words to them.

We love to say we support the troops. But what we don't say is "...as long as I'm not asked to sacrifice anything or will be inconvenienced." Soldiering and military service has become a kind of lowest 'untouchable' caste in our society. There's the rich, the poor, and the military. Pretty much in that order too insofar as being well-off. And so long as milutary servicepeople are actually in the military they're taken care of (relatively speaking.) But once they're out they're right there in that untouchable category. VA healthcare is an oxymoron.

The people who should be given carte blanch in every restaurant and store they walk into might get a 5% discount if any at all. President Obama's infamous "You didn't earn that" speech was wrong. Should have pointed out without veterans and the military we'd all be British subjects. Damn right you didn't earn that, without the men and women willing to die and be grossly inconvenienced with a lifetime of nightmares ahead of them none of us would have much of anything at all.

You contradict yourself. President Obama did indeed say and mean that alone, we are weak, together we are strong.

Our military is incredibly bloated with eqipment we will never use again because we will never again fight a war where 'taking real estate' is the point.

Like it or not, President Obama has changed the way we will settle our differences. As long as we don't have a Repub president, we will fight with drones and technology instead of lives and money.

Needless to say, if we elect a Repub president, we will be in multiple ground wars almost immediately.

Top Five Defense Budgets
(budget authority in billions of current U.S. dollars)

U.S. vs. Global Spending
(budget authority in billions of current U.S. dollars)

U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending | Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

 

[alang1216]

We haven't been attacked since WWII. If we were attacked today we'd unite in a heart beat. There was a case made that we were attacked by Taliban proxies on 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan did unite us for a time. That unity was squandered by the invasion of Iraq. US governments have gotten us into repeated wars that were dubious at best. It's no wonder we soured on military solutions.

Maybe if we celebrated peacemakers like we celebrate war heros we wouldn't need war heros.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd love to fight WWII the way we fight wars now

We would really kick some butt

 

[Nosmo King]

The wars we fought after WW II have been wars against insurgent groups, not national governments. WE could clearly see the threat from Germany and Japan. We addressed those threats as we have always fought foreign wars, against the national governments of Japan and Germany.

Where's the Capitol city of the Taliban? Of the Viet Cong, of Al Qeada? To win WW II, we occupied Berlin and Tokyo after defeating the national governments there. Why don't we fight wars the same way now? Because we are not fighting nations and their ability to prosecute war. We are fighting gangsters and insurgents. To put it another way, we no longer fight nations. We fight ideas.

 

[regent]

The wars we fought after WW II have been wars against insurgent groups, not national governments. WE could clearly see the threat from Germany and Japan. We addressed those threats as we have always fought foreign wars, against the national governments of Japan and Germany.

Where's the Capitol city of the Taliban? Of the Viet Cong, of Al Qeada? To win WW II, we occupied Berlin and Tokyo after defeating the national governments there. Why don't we fight wars the same way now? Because we are not fighting nations and their ability to prosecute war. We are fighting gangsters and insurgents. To put it another way, we no longer fight nations. We fight ideas.

Maybe we label incorrectly, all battles are not wars. We fought a number of battles against our own natives, against pirates, against nations that did not pay their debts, and so on, were they wars or battles? Today so many battles are not full fledged wars and yet we think of them as wars, and worse they seem continuous and against different groups. Maybe the A bomb has made the old fashioned all-out wars obsolete for the time being? Let's hope so.

 

[Sig_Sauer]

Rikurzhen has some valid points about we've changed since WWII. One must also take into account the fact we didn't a camera on every combat helmet. The media was on board with the effort to include Hollywood. We didn't have the ability to surgically strike at our enemies. Carpet bombing was the only way to break the enemy. I do agree that political correctness and multiculturalism have done their damage. The way we're going we'll end up like th old Soviet Union. Everyone wants a separate identity for their little group and thinks their group is oppressed here in America. Without unity you cannot possibly prosecute a war like WWII.

 

[2aguy]

Our military is incredibly bloated with eqipment we will never use again because we will never again fight a war where 'taking real estate' is the point.

Hmmm...always fighting the last war...which will almost guarantee the next war will be all about taking real estate...

 

[regent]

When WW2 finally got the US out of the "great depression" the US was run by a virtual corpse and a high school educated V.P. who didn't have a clue. The generals ran WW2 and life was cheap and murder of civilians was part of the strategy. Be very afraid when the generals are in charge.

That virtual corpse probably had more loyalty than any thing we've had since. I wonder if Lincoln created the same feelings of belonging and being part of a great nation as did FDR. The sad thing is that we the people are not offered nor demand the great leadership that some of our most able presidents gave us. Is that lack of demand, America's weakness?

 

[MaryL]

America is in such a sad state of disarray now, we are not the country we were 50 years ago. No sense of identity or roots. If we had this same mindset in 1941, we would have not just lost, we would have ended up helping the bad guys because the committees couldn't make their minds up.

 

[rightwinger]

We fight wars much more efficiently and value the lives of our soldiers much more today than we did in WWII. We also offer better advancement opportunities to blacks, women and gays

I prefer today's Army

 

[whitehall]

The last surviving member of the air crew that dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima died at 93. The dirty little secret not available to the crew of the Enola Gay was that the Japanese were frantically trying to negotiate surrender terms but high school educated Harry Truman was determined to go with his former boss's mandate of "unconditional surrender". While the Japanese were trying to negotiate terms with our "ally" Joe Stalin the hangup was the preservation of the Japanese Emperor and ironically the Japanese emperor was preserved after Truman OK'd two horrible weapons to be deployed on civilians for the first (and last?) time in history.