U.S will have a hard time getting the people to go to War for them again

X' Y"

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

+1

It's too bad war can't be treated like it was before TV. Leave the media coverage out of it, might help things I think. Conflict will always be happening, yet this constant media coverage I think ruins it. It probably doesn't help the soldiers fighting over there when everyone at home is crying over it and saying it's a stupid war now that they have a front row seat. One person gets killed and it's like riots start....if only some people realized the thousands who died in a day's time in WW2, for example. But people back then didn't know that right away because the media wasn't filming the battles and putting it on tv every night. Happy people at home can bring better hope and morale to soldiers on the front. Maybe it would work, maybe not, I'm just taking a guess.

leviathan91

We had an enemy in Vietnam. They were the North Vietnamese Army. :| Let me rephrase what I stated earlier: We could have won Vietnam if there wasn't so much political micromanaging of the war. Also, the difference between the media coverage of WWII and Vietnam was that all the News Stations agreed to air certain news about World War II. It was basically self-censorship. As for Vietnam, the media coverage was biased. You even had Walter Cronkite announcing that Vietnam wasn't winnable but also, with scenes of the destruction of Asia and our men in body bags did influence a lot of people to evade the draft and protest. The media coverage wasn't favorable and even certain celebrities went to great lengths to actually portray the NVA as good people. Remember Hanoi Jane?

While the media did talk about how America could save Iraq, it also went on to exaggerate the war as a qaugmire. Also, it is incredibly stupid to think that we went to war against these countries simply for their resources. Again, if we wanted oil from Iraq, we would have done what the French, the Chinese, and the Russians have always been doing - Taking advantage of the Oil-for-Food program. And what did Vietnam have? Absolutely nothing and we still went to war to contain communism.

A special study mission headed by Representative Walter Judd, a recognized Republican spokesman on Asia, surveyed the Far East and reported on its view of the high stakes involved: The area of Indochina is immensely wealthy in rice, rubber, coal, and iron ore. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent6.htm

America set up a dictator Ngo Dinh Diem to control the situation where France failed. Deim failed because of religious differences of the people. Diem was executed 20 days before Kennedy. Then Johnson went to war with Vietnam.

The United States moved quickly to prevent the unification and to establish South Vietnam as an American sphere. It set up in Saigon as head of the government a former Vietnamese official named Ngo Dinh Diem, who had recently been living in New Jersey, and encouraged him not to hold the scheduled elections for unification.http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnimvivi18.html

You talk about the scripted mainstream media and Hanoi Jane. I talk about citing the Pentagon Papers. Moral? The mainstream media is there to distract us.

I remember in high school they had marine and army recruiters on site, they got many kids to sign up when they turned 18. They get them in other ways like they offer pizza parties and give out free stuff like shirts, games ect...to kids throughout their high school years and when they turn 18 they get them to sign up.

I volunteer at an animal shelter, I can't be drafted anymore because of that. So no worries there, but I think the military will always have people willing to sign up, if not they would pull out the draft.

I'm not anti-military or anything like that, it's good for some people and our troops are brave men and women. But I don't think we should be going around starting all these wars, only good thing to come out of Iraq was killing Saddam who was a brutal tyrant, but we made a bigger mess of things then we should have.

We should have just left it alone, we don't go to wars to help people, we only get involved if it's in our own best interest to do so.

ShadowMoses900

Well without cause any nation would have a difficult time getting their people to go to war against another nation.

You forget than in 2003, the majority of Americans supported action in Iraq. There were more vocal opponents compared to the ongoing action in Afghanistan, but it was still a good majority.

In fact American didn't mind the war until about 2006 after the first attempt at reducing troops in Iraq failed. Then the country exploded into civil war and America had to continue deploying more troops there to keep the peace. Support for the war kept reducing after that.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I believe you are right. No one in this country wants any more wars. At least not any reasonable person.

kraychik

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I believe you are right. No one in this country wants any more wars. At least not any reasonable person.

l4dak47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Nobody wants an unnecessary war. Most importantly, though, Americans are sick of fighting wars that are then destroyed by leftist politics that ruin the military's ability to secure military objectives. Either fight a war to win it and destroy the enemy or don't fight it at all. Don't send the military in with its hands tight behind its back and give the enemy the advantage.

kraychik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] I......actually agree. I never really understood why the U.S. is always trying to "save" as much lives as possible. It's fvcking war. We go into war to destroy the enemy, not to let them become our friends. With that said, both Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that we should have never started. Or at least, they could have been handled way better than they were. BossPerson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I believe you are right. No one in this country wants any more wars. At least not any reasonable person.

l4dak47

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Nobody wants an unnecessary war. Most importantly, though, Americans are sick of fighting wars that are then destroyed by leftist politics that ruin the military's ability to secure military objectives. Either fight a war to win it and destroy the enemy or don't fight it at all. Don't send the military in with its hands tight behind its back and give the enemy the advantage.LOXO7

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Nobody wants an unnecessary war. Most importantly, though, Americans are sick of fighting wars that are then destroyed by leftist politics that ruin the military's ability to secure military objectives. Either fight a war to win it and destroy the enemy or don't fight it at all. Don't send the military in with its hands tight behind its back and give the enemy the advantage.

kraychik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

That's a pretty stupid strategy when you're not fighting a country's government or it's people. Counter-terrorism is much different than waging a conventional war.

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] I......actually agree. I never really understood why the U.S. is always trying to "save" as much lives as possible. It's fvcking war. We go into war to destroy the enemy, not to let them become our friends. With that said, both Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that we should have never started. Or at least, they could have been handled way better than they were. SpartanMSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

That's a pretty stupid strategy when you're not fighting a country's government or it's people. Counter-terrorism is much different than waging a conventional war.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] Was it a war with Iraq and Afghanistan or was it a war on terror and terror happened to engulf those countries and countries beyond?kraychik

Terrorists are intangible?

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] lol. War on terror. How can you declare a war on an idea? It's like the war on drugs, pointless and a waste of time and money. Furthermore, if you really want to stop terror, then there other ways to do that than declaring war on an entire nation. SpartanMSU

Terrorists are intangible?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] Beat the enemy, give 'em hell, make 'em surrender and get out. Here's a great clip from the crazy Michael Savage channelling how millions of American feel about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSTJT36ArU

Do yourself a favour and watch it. Even if you disagree, it's great.

kraychik

That's a pretty stupid strategy when you're not fighting a country's government or it's people. Counter-terrorism is much different than waging a conventional war.

Should we nuke every country that poses a threat or posseses an entity that poses a threat then? Would that not create more enemies, endangering the US even more?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] Agreed, war on an intangible idea is sort of ridiculous. It was a bad phrase and remains a bad phrase.kraychik

Terrorists are intangible?

You realize that fascism and communism aren't one in the same thing, right? Yet we still waged war with supporters of both. Get my point?

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

That's a pretty stupid strategy when you're not fighting a country's government or it's people. Counter-terrorism is much different than waging a conventional war.

SpartanMSU

Should we nuke every country that poses a threat or posseses an entity that poses a threat then? Would that not create more enemies, endangering the US even more?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] It's not stupid considering the states are complicit in terrorism. you play into the game of the terrorists when you refuse to engage states because your enemies are "non-state actors". You allow them to hide among civilians while they exploit your bleeding heart. This is the reason why the superpower known as America is entrenched in long-term conflict with third-world countries like Afghanistan. kraychik

Should we nuke every country that poses a threat or posseses an entity that poses a threat then? Would that not create more enemies, endangering the US even more?

That's basically what you're suggesting from your posts. That would be the cheapest and easiest way. Same goes for waging total war, which it seems you propose.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Should we nuke every country that poses a threat or posseses an entity that poses a threat then? Would that not create more enemies, endangering the US even more?

SpartanMSU

That's basically what you're suggesting from your posts. That would be the cheapest and easiest way. Same goes for waging total war, which it seems you propose.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] Yes, because the only two choices America has are 1) prosecute long-term "counter-terrorist" battles as you seem to prescribe or b) "nuke all countries that pose a threat". kraychik

That's basically what you're suggesting from your posts. That would be the cheapest and easiest way. Same goes for waging total war, which it seems you propose.

Okay, so let's level the entire country by whatever means necessary, which was my point. Is that what you propose? If not, then why not?

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out what you're methods of conducting counter-terrorism operations would be.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

That's basically what you're suggesting from your posts. That would be the cheapest and easiest way. Same goes for waging total war, which it seems you propose.

SpartanMSU

Okay, so let's level the entire country by whatever means necessary, which was my point. Is that what you propose? If not, then why not?

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out what you're methods of conducting counter-terrorism operations would be.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] There's a lot of room between the deployment of nuclear weapons (which are no longer seen as a credible threat by our enemies, anyways) and the way wars are prosecuted today by America and her allies.kraychik

Okay, so let's level the entire country by whatever means necessary, which was my point. Is that what you propose? If not, then why not?

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out what you're methods of conducting counter-terrorism operations would be.

call them leftists and they will surrender immediately

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Okay, so let's level the entire country by whatever means necessary, which was my point. Is that what you propose? If not, then why not?

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out what you're methods of conducting counter-terrorism operations would be.

wis3boi

call them leftists and they will surrender immediately

I feel that after the sham that was the Iraq War (business opportunity), a large portion of the American people will think twice about blindly following or sending their children off to War based on the Presidents word.

I hope to God this is the last we have seen of War... but if it comes I see the U.S bringing back the draft out of nessessity.

Your thoughts?

ShampooMctavish

[QUOTE="ShampooMctavish"]

I feel that after the sham that was the Iraq War (business opportunity), a large portion of the American people will think twice about blindly following or sending their children off to War based on the Presidents word.

I hope to God this is the last we have seen of War... but if it comes I see the U.S bringing back the draft out of nessessity.

Your thoughts?

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="ShampooMctavish"]

I feel that after the sham that was the Iraq War (business opportunity), a large portion of the American people will think twice about blindly following or sending their children off to War based on the Presidents word.

I hope to God this is the last we have seen of War... but if it comes I see the U.S bringing back the draft out of nessessity.

Your thoughts?

Ace6301

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] An unfortunate pitfall of representational democracy where the President has control over the armed forces. Ace6301

lets not forget he openly assassinated a us citizen, that is just murder.

[QUOTE="Brozekial"][QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Well, who in the world would want to join USA army after everyone got duped and lied to? No one, I would hope....

Some people suggest that the president could invoke the military draft once again if the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate(and it seems that it is....) due to the National Emergency that he declared not to long ago where he exemplifies his concern over the nuclear proliferation of the Russian Federation.

[quote="White House"]...

In the Executive Order I have issued today, I find that the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation in the Russian Federation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. I therefore declared a national emergency to address this threat and to continue the blocking of all property and interests in property of the Government of the Russian Federation directly related to the implementation of the HEU Agreements.

A major national security goal of the United States is to ensure that fissile material removed from Russian nuclear weapons pursuant to various arms control and disarmament agreements is dedicated to peaceful uses, subject to transparency measures, and protected from diversion to activities of proliferation concern. The United States and the Russian Federation entered into an international agreement in February 1993 to deal with these issues as they relate to the disposition of HEU extracted from Russian nuclear weapons (the "HEU Agreement"). The HEU Agreement provides for 500 metric tons of HEU to be converted to LEU over a 20-year period. This is the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads.

...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/25/letter-russian-highly-enriched-uraniumad1x2

If it comes down to a draft, I'd rather get charged with treason and go thru hell while being "interogated" then to fight for the interest of coporate entities.

With less than one in four people qualified to enlist under today's enlistment standards and the military possibly involuntarily separating over 100,000 troops over the next five years nothing short of an invasion of US soil by an opposing military force will cause the draft to return right now. And if an invading army isn't enough for you to consider defending the country with your families at risk you probably have some issues.

Also, the penalty for refusing induction is much less than the penalty of desertion. Refusing induction would usually get you five years and a fine, but desertion could possibly get you the death penalty in a time of war. Not to mention it's so easy to disqualify yourself from military service I don't even know why people say they will run when they could just Google disqualifications for military service and use one of them.

An army invading US soil would not be enough for me to submit my will to a military machine backed by a system that provoked the invasion of the US. I'd rather get charged with whatever comes with refusing to serve.

If that makes you think I have issues, then perhaps you have issues yourself...

An army invading US soil would not be enough for me to submit my will to a military machine backed by a system that provoked the invasion of the US. I'd rather get charged with whatever comes with refusing to serve.

If that makes you think I have issues, then perhaps you have issues yourself...

_R34LiTY_

Here's the thing about my statement. I totally understand if you're against serving in a place like Iraq since you may feel we had questionable motives for being there (the biggest reason being thrown around by anti-war activists is stealing their oil).

But on the other hand, if in the unlikely scenario that North Koreans or some other enemy of ours who somehow made it here are overrunning your home town and you picking up a rifle is the difference between whether your family lives or dies but you still refuse to serve that makes me question how much you care about the people you love.

Which is why I would assume someone would have issues if they won't even defend their family when push comes to serve. Chances are if the US is invaded you won't have to worry about being charged with refusing to serve during a draft since if we lose you're probably going to be killed or imprisoned by the invaders anyway.

I don't know why kids nowadays talk about how they would refuse to serve in a draft and would go to jail anyway. It's so easy to disqualify yourself from enlistment if we did need a draft we would be hurting on finding qualified people. A Google search could tell you the thousands of legal ways you can disqualify yourself from service which include but aren't limited to gaining 200 pounds, self-inflicted wounds, putting racist tattoos on your body, getting a sex change, and more.

Plus, a not-so legal way to disqualify yourself would be to beat your wife and turn yourself in since the Launtenberg Amendment would kick in after your conviction, making you unable to legally touch a firearm and totally useless to the military.

?

If there is a call to arms I will go.