Moderateman Moderateman

America No Longer Has the STOMACH for WAR.

▼

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 #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
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
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why should we think America has a stomach for war when we don't seem to have the stomach to stand up to our own elected official... or even demand the laws we have are enforced. We are a nation of the criminal, for the criminal and by the criminal... The honest citizen gets nothing, the criminal gets everything.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The spirit that made America into the country that she is, is DEAD!"

What spirit would that be? The selling of a war has to appeal to the basic question of "is it right or wrong to a majority of the populace?"
For example (simplistic) Revolutionary War; Foreign rule and taxation without representation = bad. Self rule by representative government and preservation of personal freedoms = good. Therefore we buy war. And again the Civil War Secession and slavery = bad. Preservation of the union and obedience to representative government = good. Therefore war is seen as a necessary evil. The same holds true for WWI and WWII. Oppression and conquest of the "old country" just don't play well with a majority of European immigrants in the US. And a "sneak attack" by the Japanese, well "we'll be damned if you bloody our nose without an answer."

But then things changed. Korea, Vietnam. The argument that we had obligations to keep our word (treaties) swayed some people. But the purely political motivation was much too obvious, but sustainable wrapped in an appeal to patriotism. But there was an air of "optional" about those involvements. The old "good vs. evil" sales pitch didn't quite sell because of the ever increasing shades of political gray. That argument became perfunctory (witness the catch phrase "axis of evil"). It was the permissable lie to assuage the moral conscience of the nation. It's sincerity was not just questionable, but down right doubtful. Now it is invoked as a "nod nod wink wink" policy bereft of any sincerity what-so-ever.

Now add to that the clash of cultures we're witnessing in our adventures in the middle east, and a goodly part of Europe. The lines aren't so black and white anymore. It isn't so difficult to comprehend why we're perceived as engaging in another Crusade by the Islamic world. Our belief in Freedom doesn't allow us to stand up and paint ourselves "good" and the other guy's cause as "evil". Not when it appears he is defending his home and principles against us.

No MM, the "spitit" you speak of is not dead. It is irrelevant to this application and can not be invoked in the consciences of good peoples.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
the reason there is no STOMACH (and trust me I have die hard troop supporting friends now turning 180)
is because it was not a defensive war ... it was a war of choice on innocents:

Stories like this:
/***************************
Photos Indicate Civilians Slain Execution-Style
An official involved in an investigation of Camp Pendleton Marines' actions in an Iraqi town cites `a total breakdown in morality.'
By Tony Perry and Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writers
May 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — Photographs taken by a Marine intelligence team have convinced investigators that a Marine unit killed as many as 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them "execution-style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha after a roadside bomb killed an American in November, officials close to the investigation said Friday.

The pictures are said to show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back, congressional and defense officials said.
*****************************/

HAH HAHA HAHA
Killing women and children ... and "they hate us because we are free"
HAHAHAHAH

The blowback from this is gonna be a bitch ...
And this is just one story we KNOW about ... how about all the others we will NEVER learn about

But but ... "they hate us for our freedom"


Remember a while back a family was gunned down ... leaving a 12 year old daughter
Before that we levelled a neighborhood looking for "insurgents" then claimed they blew up the houses
with WOMEN and KIDS


Think what you want of us ... WE ARE COWARDS!!!
We WOULD never do that to a country with A REAL means to defend itself ... look at the hands of
policy with North Korea

NO NO NO
"they hate us cause we are free"
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
>The USA is at war against Terrorism...please, get that right at least,

This is a BOLD FACED LIE

If we were fighting such a war the VERY FIRST thing we would do would be to pour billions into
1) making sure EVERY item (down to a toothbrush) that passes through the ports are searched
2) making sure we dont hand over said ports to a foreign government where a few of the SO CALLED
HIJACKERS were from
3) making sure no one can cross our northern or southern borders without our knowledge

This isnt about terrorism ... its about a PNAC doctrine to reshape the middle east ... the blowback
from this will be PAINFUL
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
hopefully there'll be a time when america has the brains & skills for peace.

as pie-in-the-sky as that may seem, i recall greywar having said something to the effect that war is the equivalent of a fistfight only on a hugely larger international scale. (i'm paraphrasing from memory but that's the gist of it as best i can recall...i apologize profusely in the event i've misconstrued or misquoted him.)

if he indeed make such a comparison, it seems really close to exactly right to me. (if he didn't, i'll be happy to take credit for it )

i believe it's very possible to live out one's adult life (accomplish goals, acquire stuff, provide for your dependents, interact with others, etc.) without resorting to physical force.

it's just one more manifestation of dat ol 'first you gotta be smarter than the damn dog' thing.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

having read all but the anon cowardly trolls comments (which do not merit the waste of time), I focus on this one as being closest to the truth (sorry Chak and Baker, Stute got you this time).  It only needs the addition of the Press.  For you see the truth is that in the past, when the decision to go to war was made, the American press stood behind the fighting man, and supported them (and vilified the leadership afterwards).  That started to change in Korea, and then came to full flower in Vietnam. 

the worst part is that now, the Media does not even pretend to support the troops, taking every excuse to vilify them.  And by extension influencing the public.  So while there was very strong disagreement in all wars (to the point that Lincoln, perhaps alone among presidents, committed high crimes and treason), the Media did not go against them until the fighting men and women's lives were no longer in danger.

It is not America who has lost its stomach.  It is the media that has lost its soul.  Vast parts of America have never had the stomach, and never will. But they were not so emboldened by yellow journalism to call our brave soldiers baby killers until recently.  When the quality of reporting matched the IQ of the reporters - in the single digits.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
the worst part is that now, the Media does not even pretend to support the troops, taking every excuse to vilify them. And by extension influencing the public. So while there was very strong disagreement in all wars (to the point that Lincoln, perhaps alone among presidents, committed high crimes and treason), the Media did not go against them until the fighting men and women's lives were no longer in danger


i'm having a difficult time deciding which is more disturbing: your apparent lack of historical perspective or the patent nonsense you're trying to palm off as fact.

prior to development, implementation and--one might reasonably argue--refinement of both electronic communication and image capturing technology, journalists and town criers (the only media available) were lucky if their war reports were made public prior to conclusion of fighting.

as those tools became available, publishers--recognizing war news sold papers--wasted no time abusing their new power to incite wars and keep em going as long as possible. what you're trying to attribute to patriotism was nothing more noble than greed and powerlust.

a lotta american lives were lost thanks to the kinda support hearst and pulitzer provided which you now seem to applaud.

apparently you're such a fan you can't help but emulate the great sensationalists and obfuscators of yesteryear with baseless and inflammatory false statements like this:

the Media does not even pretend to support the troops, taking every excuse to vilify them

nice try citizen guy
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr Guy WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING AND WHERE CAN I GET SOME

************************
the worst part is that now, the Media does not even pretend to support the troops, taking every excuse to vilify them. And by extension influencing the public. So while there was very strong disagreement in all wars (to the point that Lincoln, perhaps alone among presidents, committed high crimes and treason), the Media did not go against them until the fighting men and women's lives were no longer in danger.
***********************************


That must be some good stuff your snorting ... give me your address and Ill send you a self
addressed stamped envelope for a "sample"

By and large the ENTIRE MEDIA is in support of this mess ... because the MEDIA conglomerates are
also in bed with or own stocks in military industry complexes ... its all complex PUN intended.
they all (democrats, republicans,media,moguls) have a vested interest in ongoing wars ... as long
as their own dont fight it

Saying the media is to blaims shows you have no reasoning ability and you are possibly suffering
from blindness.

Even with the media's routine of "support the troops" somehow 70%+ of us with thinking ability
manage to formulate our own ideas


an earlier poster ... summarized it well:
***********
what you're trying to attribute to patriotism was nothing more noble than greed and powerlust.
*****************

To which I add:

'The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice--and always
has been.'
--Mark Twain

'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'.
--Samuel Johnson

Dr Guy ... please post some more ... I could use the laugh!!! Fortunately the numbers who think
like you are DWINDLING ... small consolation ... but consolation nonetheless!!!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the issue of the media and Dr Guy' remarks ... I also submit the following


************************
Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 29 May 2006

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
****************************************************************

IMAGINE MY SHOCK ... NOT!!!
That why ... other than cartoons ... the t.v is off in my house
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why should we think America has a stomach for war when we don't seem to have the stomach to stand up to our own elected official...


Ding! We have a winner. Exactly. Something I'm proud to say, (well, it wasn't against an "elected official". Actually, agains a "repot") the farmers in Klamath falls stood against.

34 by rombios (Anonymous user)
Sun, May 28, 2006 01:07 AM


All right, who let the 'trolls' in? :S

~L
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: NadeonPosted: Saturday, May 27, 2006"The spirit that made America into the country that she is, is DEAD!"What spirit would that be? The selling of a war has to appeal to the basic question of "is it right or wrong to a majority of the populace?"


the spirit in which I speak is the drive that made us push further west, to tame an untamed land, to do it by yourself with the sweat and blood of your own body, to take responsibility for what you did.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: rombios(Anonymous User)Posted: Monday, May 29, 2006Dr Guy WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING AND WHERE CAN I GET SOME


this is rude and if you wish for me to leave my comments open to unregistered users I would behave if I were you, or chop chop no more comments.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: rombios(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, May 28, 2006


Think what you want of us ... WE ARE COWARDS!!!We WOULD never do that to a country with A REAL means to defend itself ... look at the hands ofpolicy with North Korea


speak for yourself, do you really think we could not blow N korea away? or are you just someone that is filled with self hate and hatred of America?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
40 by ElindelWolf
Tue, May 30, 2006 01:11 AM


34 by rombios (Anonymous user)
Sun, May 28, 2006 01:07 AM


All right, who let the 'trolls' in? :S


I did lucas, I must have forgot to lower the lid on the outhouse crapper and he ascaped!
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the spirit in which I speak is the drive that made us push further west, to tame an untamed land, to do it by yourself with the sweat and blood of your own body, to take responsibility for what you did."


Eh, I'm no rombios fan, but do you have to be so two dimensional and jingoistic about it? The 'push further west' is one of our most shameful times in US history, and wouldn't have been accomplished without the abuse, subjugation and outright genocide of both indigenous and immigrant peoples alike.

I don't mind pride, MM, but the kind of pride I see around here these days isn't what *I* call 'taking responsibility'. It is deny and excuse everything and call people names while you do it. There was a time that the opinions on the right were filled-out and well considered, but around here now it is like listening to the average lowbrow politics radio show...

I wouldn't have had the stomach to give smallpox infected blankets to children, or work thousands of chinese to death building a railroad, or lead settlers to certain death to incite the American people to want to exterminate the Indians. I'm a big western movie fan, don't get me wrong, I doubt many people have seen more of them than me, or enjoyed them more, but reality is reality.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
#45 by BakerStreet
Tue, May 30, 2006 2:43 PM


Eh, I'm no rombios fan, but do you have to be so two dimensional and jingoistic about it? The 'push further west' is one of our most shameful times in US history, and wouldn't have been accomplished without the abuse, subjugation and outright genocide of both indigenous and immigrant peoples alike.


many things we did was shameful baker, but those were individual acts, that does not take away from the courage the people showed taming the west.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't mind pride, MM, but the kind of pride I see around here these days isn't what *I* call 'taking responsibility'. It is deny and excuse everything and call people names while you do it. There was a time that the opinions on the right were filled-out and well considered, but around here now it is like listening to the average lowbrow politics radio show...


well baker I was the first to admit there is much I do not know, but I still have an opinion. I am sorry I do not meet up to your expectations and cannot debate things they way you want them to be debated not all of us uneducated louts are up to your superior standards of excellence Nor are we as well informed or eloquent as you are. Please accept my humble apologies for wasting your time writing such trite articles.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
I commented on this article favorably. I wasn't addressing this article in the comment above, rather the drum-thumping, jingoistic, self-defeating way you dismiss people's arguments and the people themselves lately. Rombios is ignorable, don't get me wrong, but if you want to persuade, you deal with arguments, you don't just dismiss them with a cliche' and wait for the 'hell yeah' from the usual peanut gallery.

You guys have become cock of the walk around here with most of your opponents leaving or getting banned. It hasn't help the quality of your work a bit. You can act like I am insulting you intelligence or knowledge, but you know as well as I do that I have applauded you many times. The right-wing faction at JU has just decided shouting people down is all the effort that is needed.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
#48 by BakerStreet
Tue, May 30, 2006 3:05 PM


You guys have become cock of the walk around here with most of your opponents leaving or getting banned. It hasn't help the quality of your work a bit. You can act like I am insulting you intelligence or knowledge, but you know as well as I do that I have applauded you many times. The right-wing faction at JU has just decided shouting people down is all the effort that is needed.


I believe that I encourage debate baker, at least I thought I did, the ones I personally shout down are the ones that seem totally unreasonable to me. Like gene for instance.

Maybe you could help me by pointing out when I just shout someone down that has presented a reasonable argument.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted what you meant.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, Americans have always had the skill and brains for peace.

Most of what America does is peace, not war.

The most obvious example, though, is the Space Race of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

As Kennedy put it:

"We choose to go to the moon... because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills..."

That's what we got, instead of a major world war against the Soviet Union: the Cold War, the proxy wars in Southeast Asia and South America, and as the primary focus of our respective military-industrial complexes, a multi-billion dollar scientific and exploration contest.

Give me the Apollo Project over nuclear apocalypse any day.

And speaking of not having stomach for something, how shameful is it that we no longer have the stomach for resource-intensive and risky space exploration?