America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Where did all the spirit go?
Published on May 25, 2006 By Moderateman In War on Terror

After much thinking and reflecting Paying attention to our history The spirit that made America into the country that she is, is DEAD!

WE entered the WW1 at the very end, we really did not want to participate and only after we geared up and procrastinating for years we finally committed our country to go to war. WE take credit for winning WW! but the truth is the allies would have won the war without us.

WW2 was a conflict America wanted nothing to do with, we laid back and supplied the British with the means to wage war against Hitler, The simple truth is if Japan did not bomb pearl harbor we would have not went to war at all, and would have let Europe fall to the Germans, The way we handled WW1 shows a distinct lack of spine and heart. We knew what the Germans were doing and we stood by and did nothing. Although when we entered WW2 we did it all the way, the whole country got involved, Men enlisted at For the record paces not ever even approached in any war to follow.

After WW2 America prospered grew fat and weak, the spirit that was in our forefathers no no lived in the hearts of Americans.

Korea was a huge cluster frack, the first time the United Nations fought a war, as usual America was at the forefront of the war, we would have just rolled up North Korea and spit her out, but the Chinese were having none of that, We failed in that war and the first traces of how weak and useless the united nations appeared. For the first time America suffered a humiliating defeat.

WE made a mistake fighting the Vietnam war, our hearts were not in it at all, men deserted, men ran to foreign countries to avoid having to fight, the public turned on the troops and the troops responded by fragging officers, disobeying orders and showed a serious failing in America, she no longer had the will to fight a war. We suffered another defeat and ran home with our tails tucked between our legs.

Desert storm gave a little of our spine back, the war ended very quickly, which was good BECAUSE AS we see now, if the war does not end quickly, the people once again turn on the troops. WE have no stomach for a protracted fight.

This war such as it is shows once again, if the battle takes too long we wither and die., America was all proud about how quickly we rolled up Saddam, we walked proud and talked loud but as the casualties started to mount as will happen in a war, out from the woodwork crawled the cowards and now we once again See the PEOPLE of America have no will for a real battle that does not end quickly!
Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on May 25, 2006
#14 by MythicalMino
Thursday, May 25, 2006


War is war....and until certain ppl realize that...well...America will continue to have its gut eaten from the inside out.


the greatest threat to america is "freedom of the press" and the far left lunatic fringe.
on May 25, 2006
We need to fight wars as if they were executions. Swift, very destructive, and overwhelmingly successful in destroying the people who need to be destroyed. Collateral damage goes along with that, but in the end if the reason for the war doesn't merit the risk of innocent death you shouldn't be making war at all.

This is excellent, and by far the most cogent anti-Iraq war argument anyone has ever made here. Yes, war should be the very last resort, when the very existence of the nation and one's way of life are at stake, in which case, no holds can realistically be barred. The only slight thing I would disagree with is the phrase "if the reason for the war doesn't merit the risk of innocent death", which realistically should read, "if the reason for the war doesn't merit the inevitable innocent deaths..."

Kudos where it belongs for the fact that some nations now try to fight wars while minimising innocent death (but also minimising the importance of the lives lost by such an ugly euphemism as 'collateral damage). However, war is basically unleashing a collective controlled psychosis in which innocent deaths will happen, prisoner abuse will happen, innocent civilians will be murdered because a young soldier is frightened and feeling a bit 'tense' that day, and a level of hatred against the nation being fought on a purely racial or national basis will happen, no matter how disciplined the army, or how precise the smart bombs or well-meaning the politicians. This kind of action can surely only ever be morally justified as a very last resort. Some claim that that point was reached; I'm not so sure.
on May 26, 2006
The comparisons that you make are not quite apt. World War I and in World War II in spite of all the noise about making the "world safe for democracy" the USA was fighting as Niall Ferguson points out to retain its share of the world power. I hesitate to use the word world hegemony because while US was a "Great Power" it was yet not the dominant player in the International System, a hangover from the days of the "Concert of Europe". You may say that USA was conscious of her national objectives for which the country went to war.

The Vietnam War and now in Iraq the USA is pursuing ideological goals that are as yet not clearlly defined. Nations do make sanctimonious noises about their lofty goals. We however should not be hesistant to ask ourselves whether there are tangible goals. Now consider BUsh and the Bushmen's stated objectives for the Iraq War; Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al Qaeda. Bush and the Bushmne were wrong on both these objectives. Therein lies the reason for the collapse of the Bushmen approach to Iraq.
on May 26, 2006
There may not have been Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq....BUT....WMD have not been so easily proven/disproven. So please spouting off that it is fact that there were never any WMD in Iraq.

Besides....America is at war with terrorism...not just Bin Laden & Al Qaeda. Iraq did have terrorism within its borders...and in fact, it was state sponsored terrorism. Just ask those who lost their eyes, arms, legs, wives, brothers, sisters, fathers, and husbands. Ask the women found on the road side, brutally raped and dumped by Saddam's "well-behaved" children. Ask those found buried in mass graves about the terrorism.

The USA is at war against Terrorism...please, get that right at least, since nobody else on the left seems to understand.
on May 26, 2006
Moderateman, how dare you bring a sense of history to what is going on today!!! You know that the war in Iraq is in a bubble and cannot possibly be compared to anything, at anytime, anywhere! You know that Prs. Bush is the worst president ever, not because of how he may or may not compare to other presidents, but simply because he is. To go back and actually look at facts would be stupid because, well, there is no reason to bring history into a historic statement.

I both laugh and weep when I see what is going on with our country. People willing to jump to any conclusion as long as it makes Prs. Bush look bad. Logic, reality, truth, facts, it's all meaningless. As long as the U.S. is the bad guy and all our "victims" are the good guy, they are happy.

Welcome to America... where ever it is.
on May 26, 2006
Once we entered Vietnam the line drawn between civilian and soldier was blurred and in this war it disappeared entirely. There is no definitive enemy, no Capital to be seized, no ruler, nothing at all that will signal the end of the war. And if a person sees no end to a terrible event, no matter how noble the aim, they will lose support for it.


Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. I always ask myself why are we the most powerful country today, we have such a complication between getting the job done and our moral values. There is no way to help anyone on this planet without some sacrifice and people don't seem to see that. Everytime a disaster happens on the other side of the world, those rescue teems who go to help from all parts of the world have to sacrifice being away from their families, eating what ever is available, sleeping in tents or shelters, risking their own lives to save survivors and the already dead. Why do we even bother trying to help countries like Iraq so that we can be criticized later on? We should just let them be and if one day we are attacked by WMD then we have a reason to cripple them and let them recustruct themselves.

I bore of all this. I hate it when we feel we are doing something good but the rest of the world sees us as cruel power-hungry people. I say let them all die on their own.
on May 26, 2006
so war isn't the same as it as before.. get over it. We aren't trained to fight WWII anymore either.. Get over it. Quit acting like we can't fight war, simply because it isn't the same as it used to be. Guess what, NO Officer or NCO living today has had to fight a war with a definitive line, or where claiming real estate was the goal. No training doctrine is still based on that concept. Not one soldier in the U.S. Military today has been trained to fight a WWII style war. Get over it!
on May 26, 2006
I don't think we've ever had the stomach for war, really.

Not as a part of our national culture, anyway.

Sure, we've been able to produce mass quantities of fighting men when we want to, and of course there's always going to be a certain amount of government-sponsored beatings getting delivered to various parts of the world, but if there's anything these examples from history show us, it's that we've never really agreed as a nation that any given war was necessary.

From our isolationism at the start of the two world wars, to our deeply divided feelings about Korea and Vietnam, to the more recent heated controversy over the Iraq "war" (in historical terms, it barely rises to the level of a "police action"), it's clear that we've never had the stomach for war.
on May 26, 2006
#17 by Chakgogka
Thu, May 25, 2006 10:54 PM


We need to fight wars as if they were executions. Swift, very destructive, and overwhelmingly successful in destroying the people who need to be destroyed. Collateral damage goes along with that, but in the end if the reason for the war doesn't merit the risk of innocent death you shouldn't be making war at all.

This is excellent, and by far the most cogent anti-Iraq war argument anyone has ever made here. Yes, war should be the very last resort, when the very existence of the nation and one way of life are at stake, in which case, no holds can realistically be barred. The only slight thing I would disagree with is the phrase "if the reason for the war doesn't merit the risk of innocent death", which realistically should read, "if the reason for the war doesn't merit the inevitable innocent deaths..."


an excellent condensation of the points baker made.
on May 26, 2006
18 by Bahu Virupaksha
Fri, May 26, 2006 00:18 AM


The comparisons that you make are not quite apt. World


I was not comparing wars to wars. I was comparing the attitudes of the civilian population then and now.
on May 26, 2006
19 by MythicalMino
Fri, May 26, 2006 07:33 AM


The USA is at war against Terrorism...please, get that right at least, since nobody else on the left seems to understand.


I get this, so I assume you meant this for someone else.
on May 26, 2006
Reply By: stutefishPosted: Friday, May 26, 2006I don't think we've ever had the stomach for war, really.


revolutionary war, french and Indian war, war of 1812, civil war, Spanish American war, ww1, ww2 Korean war, Vietnam war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, several minor things like somalia, Grenada, panama, the philippine Moro war, this from a country not yet 250 years old.
on May 26, 2006
And in all of these wars, there was a sizeable portion of the American citizenry that was against them.

Also, you're totally failing to distinguish between a government decision to send troops in harm's way, and the public's tolerance for sending them there or keeping them there for very long.

Look how quickly we abandoned the Somalia mission, after "Black Hawk Down". That's not the behavior a nation that has lots of stomach for war.

There was a lot of opposition to our activities in Panama, too.

And Grenada was barely even a battle. Our troops went in and provided security for the emergency evacuation of American nationals on the island. I don't recall if there were even any combat casualties. The whole thing was over before the country had to figure out whether they could stomach it or not.

As to the overall gist of your comment, Modman, riddle me this: how does America's "lifetime vs. wartime" ratio compare to other nations?

How many wars, police actions, security details, and emergency evacuations has the French military been involved in, since it was first born?

Begin with the Gaul tribes that fought against the expansion of the Roman Empire. Don't forget Charlemagne's efforts to unify western Europe under his rule, and his sons' efforts to maintain control of its splintered fractions.

Let's not forget the Brits, either. Aren't they still fighting the Irish? How long has that been going on? We've only been in Iraq for three years, and a huge fraction of our population had lost their stomach for it before we even got there. Compared to the British complacency towards the troubles in Northern Ireland, we Yanks come across as positively pacificistic!
on May 26, 2006
Basically you have two types of war: the ones where you really fight to defend your home, and the diplomatic ones, where the war is primarily fought to obtain some political goal. I don't believe America has no stomach for the first type op war. If it really matters, the country will unite and fight a terrible war.
But diplomatic wars need quick successes, just like diplomacy needs success stories to obtain support back home. And yes, Iraq was a diplomatic war, as there is no real 'war' against terrorism. There is a diplomatic power struggle in the Middle East in which America tries to increase its own influence and decrease the support for Islametic extremists, but basically its politics, the military only play a supportive role to back America's diplomatic claims.
on May 26, 2006
19 by MythicalMino
Fri, May 26, 2006 07:33 AM


The USA is at war against Terrorism...please, get that right at least, since nobody else on the left seems to understand.


I get this, so I assume you meant this for someone else.




MM, I was talking to Bahu....sorry about the misunderstanding

Chris
4 Pages1 2 3 4