America No Longer Has the STOMACH for WAR.

Where did all the spirit go?

from JoeUser Forums

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!
17,176 views 57 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
We don't like fighting wars where we're not directly threatened. WW1 and 2 were a great example of what it takes to get us into a fight. So in leiu of a war of retaliation, we need a short and decisive war. As soon as we declare victory, we want out. We've never been a people that did well with police actions or occupations. If we're going to go in, we want to do so quickly and get out just as quickly.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!


Like Mike Tyson, we're a country that prides itself in getting the job done fast, right and with power. But once we are forced to fight the long fight we no longer have that pride anymore and begin to lose ground.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what many people don't understand is that what we see now in terms of protest against war isn't much different at least in sentiment than what we've seen in any other major war. There were people totally opposed to getting involved in WW2, even after Pearl Harbor. Some didn't want to bother in Europe and only fight the Japanese.

There were draft riots during the Civil War in the North. The Civil War is seen as glorious and honorable, but in reality it wasn't a popular war at all on the quasi-moral Northern side. Add to that the fact that Lincoln made a mess of it and it is very similar to what we are seeing now.

We don't like war, we like to see our enemies defeated. We like to see them defeated quickly with a low loss of life on our side. Instead of undertaking such, we whine about caring about our enemy, and try to stand around and be touchy-feely with them and set them up new governments. Then lots of our soldiers get killed, and people begin hating war.

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.

If you want to see Americans apt to support military action, give them fast, inexpensive victories where the enemy is defeated, not treated better than American taxpayers. We have the power to do that, we just want to make war into some humane corporal punishment as if other nations are our children. It's "the lamentations of their women" all the way, to me.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
#1 by Zoomba
Thursday, May 25, 2006


So in leiu of a war of retaliation, we need a short and decisive war. As soon as we declare victory, we want out.


my point exactly, most wars take time and we have run out of it. sadly we have turned into civilized warriors, what a crock!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
#2 by Charles.C
Thursday, May 25, 2006


Like Mike Tyson, we're a country that prides itself in getting the job done fast, right and with power. But once we are forced to fight the long fight we no longer have that pride anymore and begin to lose ground.


but it's not the military that loses hope, it's the freaking civilians that cause our spirit to wither and die/
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
#3 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 25, 2006


think what many people don't understand is that what we see now in terms of protest against war isn't much different at least in sentiment than what we've seen in any other major war. There were people totally opposed to getting involved in WW2, even after Pearl Harbor. Some didn't want to bother in Europe and only fight the Japanese.


the diference today is everything is reported so damn fast, one person farts in washington dc and the whole world goes pew@!! in 2 nminutes.



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.


we are in such agreement on this, war IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLOODY! Since when have wars become so nice.?

If you want to see Americans apt to support military action, give them fast, inexpensive victories where the enemy is defeated


as evidenced by the first gulf war, in, kill, out and gone.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also you have to remember that WWII was different than this one. Londoners and Berliners in WWII went to the bunkers when the bombs dropped and the soldiers fought.

The American soldier and the American people had a definitive enemy. A picture of what the German soldier looked like. A focus for his anger.

This war, its all up for grabs. The man who gives the soldieers the hot tip on Monday about a bomb is the person who set it up on Wendesday.

Once we entered Vietnam the line drawn between civilian and soldier was blurred and in this war it disappeards entirely. There is no definitive enemy, no Captial 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.

IG
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
but it's not the military that loses hope, it's the freaking civilians that cause our spirit to wither and die/


That's what I meant.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
7 by InfoGeek
Thursday, May 25, 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.

IG


very well put. America ahas become so spoiled that anything that calls for having to do with less or some sacrifice we just lay down now , there was a time you knocked america down she got up and kicked your ass, now she just lies there and whines.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
#8 by Charles.C
Thursday, May 25, 2006


but it's not the military that loses hope, it's the freaking civilians that cause our spirit to wither and die/


That's what I meant.


I was agreeing, making sure we was on the same page. Glad to see we are.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Darn, my reply was "eaten by the system"

Suffice it to say major props to MM for another great article.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
11 by terpfan1980
Thursday, May 25, 2006


Darn, my reply was "eaten by the system"

Suffice it to say major props to MM for another great article.


this one was painful to write I almost feel like a left wing kook pointing out this stuff, but I felt it had to be done.

thanx terp nice compliment.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The American soldier and the American people had a definitive enemy. A picture of what the German soldier looked like. A focus for his anger."


Which points out a newer problem. We can't hate the 'huns' anymore, or feel animosity towards someone just because of their heritage or their race. Imagine in this day and age someone on a "newsreel" saying "Kill one of those Iraqis for me, Joe!"

Probably a better perspective, but we are sensitive now to the point of self-loathing. We can't even feel good about killing people who are actively trying to kill us. We are told that we shouldn't feel good about killing anyone, good or bad.

Again, a more noble perspective, but one that wouldn't have been a preferred characteristic in 99.9999% of human evolution. Nor, I'm afraid, is it beneficial now anywhere outside of our moral standards.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like the lyrics in one of Mellencamp's songs:

Be careful of those who kill in Jesus' name
And those who don't believe in killing at all
Walk tall


War is war....and until certain ppl realize that...well...America will continue to have its gut eaten from the inside out.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
#13 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 25, 2006


"The American soldier and the American people had a definitive enemy. A picture of what the German soldier looked like. A focus for his anger."


Which points out a newer problem. We can't hate the 'huns' anymore, or feel animosity towards someone just because of their heritage or their race. Imagine in this day and age someone on a "newsreel" saying "Kill one of those Iraqis for me, Joe!"


My God the liberals would lose there collective minds.

Probably a better perspective, but we are sensitive now to the point of self-loathing. We can't even feel good about killing people who are actively trying to kill us. We are told that we shouldn't feel good about killing anyone, good or bad.


this is what happens when we let whiney little traitors have power, the fight is al;most over before it starts, waaaaaaaaaa we are making the terrorist stay up late......... waaaaaaaaaa the terrorist cannot eat pork. waaaaaaaaaaaaa, that is all I hear from the leftwing, the sound of sheep and whiney babies. waaaaaaaa!!1

Again, a more noble perspective, but one that wouldn't have been a preferred characteristic in 99.9999% of human evolution. Nor, I'm afraid, is it beneficial now anywhere outside of our moral standards.


this is where evolution failed, t when he was writing about evolution he had no idea one day the LIBERAL would be born and destroy all of mankind, out of guilt!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
#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.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
#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.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.