• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When should the United States of America go to war?

When should the United States of America go to war?

  • Total voters
    72
rathi said:
Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam have proved that having the worlds most powerful military doesn't mean anything if your political objectives can't be accomplished with force alone.
Click to expand...

Having the world's most powerful military doesn't mean anything if your political objectives don't include actually winning the war. The common thread in those wars is not that they were unwinnable, because they were not, but that our military efforts were undermined by politicians and subversives. The military has been denied the use of effective tactics and sufficient numbers, the treasonous media has reported our "inability to win" and our lack of resolve, and our cowardly civilian populace turned against the war at the first sign of difficulty.

No nation can win a war under these circumstances. If we had fought this way in any of the wars before the second half of the 20th century, we would have been relegated to the scrap heap of history.
 
chickie said:
I disagree. There was no trickery. Muslims attacked us 911. That started it. W decided to fight back. He went after the world's worst terrorist, Saddam Hussein, took him out and won the war. Mission accomplished. The war on terror is ongoing. As long as we have people whose version of their Bible tells them to kill us, we will always have violence and war.
Click to expand...

Christians attacked us before 9/11 in Oklahoma. I am still disappointed we did not take them out.

To answer the war, we should go to war when we need to go to war. You can't predict it in advance usually.
 
The Mark said:
As in, when an "opportunity" presents itself (however slight and flimsy, or great and imperative), what reasons/incidents do you consider necessary to justify the USA going to war, or even a "conflict/whatever".

Please choose your generalized poll option and post with your reasons for doing so.
Click to expand...
When we are or one of our allies are attacked.

Iraq was NOT a threat to anyone, in fact Colon Powell said so in Feb 2001 and Condi Rice said so in July.


 
I'm a believer in the pre-WWII way of going about war, which is to say don't do it until they start attacking us on U.S. soil first. Think about how much money and lives could have been saved if we kept to that policy the past 65+ years?
 
JohnWOlin said:
Think about how much money and lives could have been saved if we kept to that policy the past 65+ years?
Click to expand...

Think about how many more people would have died because their countries succumbed to international Communism. We may have failed in North Korea and Vietnam, but our active opposition tied up Soviet resources and prevented many more countries from falling.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Think about how many more people would have died because their countries succumbed to international Communism. We may have failed in North Korea and Vietnam, but our active opposition tied up Soviet resources and prevented many more countries from falling.
Click to expand...

and it also destroyed a bunch of others, made as enemies with half the middle east, etc. If you really think that Soviet russia could have survived I think you should really look into the fact that, most of what Russia did was a front.
 
The Soviet system could never have survived, but it could have taken more nations down with it.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The Soviet system could never have survived, but it could have taken more nations down with it.
Click to expand...

And which of these nations would have been better off? Most of the crappy countries the Russians were going after were already heading down that direction or they suck. Japan was fine, SK was fine, any European country (sans their German territory) and many more nations poorer than theirs were absorbed into Russia and then declared independence again, or just stay part of crappy ole Russia to this day.

However, I will concede that the arms race, specifically NASA as a byproduct of the Cold War was something fantastic that came out of the Cold War.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Pretty much whenever the opportunity presents itself. At least every couple decades or so, whether we have an excuse or not. War is necessary for the economy and for maintaining the martial spirit of the nation, and is generally good for the species.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly one of the most original thinking posts I've seen at DP in a long time.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Quite possibly one of the most original thinking posts I've seen at DP in a long time.
Click to expand...

Well I understand what he is saying, war promotes the advancement of technology, the rapid amount of wars we have seen the past 100 years directly correlates with us getting out of using the same kinds of tech for the past thousands of years, however it didn't have to be like that, it just did.
 
Redress said:
Christians attacked us before 9/11 in Oklahoma. I am still disappointed we did not take them out.
To answer the war, we should go to war when we need to go to war. You can't predict it in advance usually.
Click to expand...


Correction.

One man, whose sympathies lay with a little-known church called the Branch Davidians, attacked the government building in OK in response to and in revenge for the deaths of many civilians and children in the Waco Massacre, conducted by the fedgov under Clinton and Reno against a religion known as the Branch Davidians.


Your original statement is terribly lacking in factual accuracy.
 
Goshin said:
Correction.

One man, whose sympathies lay with a little-known church called the Branch Davidians, attacked the government building in OK in response to and in revenge for the deaths of many civilians and children in the Waco Massacre, conducted by the fedgov under Clinton and Reno against a religion known as the Branch Davidians.


Your original statement is terribly lacking in factual accuracy.
Click to expand...

See, the beauty is that you got my comment without realizing it. Now extend what you wrote to what I replied to. My comments where made the way they where very much on purpose, and you know I know the reality of Oklahoma.
 
Having the world's most powerful military doesn't mean anything if your political objectives don't include actually winning the war.
Click to expand...

True. Our current problems revolve around politicians who are too politically afraid to enact a strategy capable of winning the war, yet simultaneously too politically afraid to end it.

The common thread in those wars is not that they were unwinnable, because they were not, but that our military efforts were undermined by politicians and subversives. The military has been denied the use of effective tactics and sufficient numbers, the treasonous media has reported our "inability to win" and our lack of resolve, and our cowardly civilian populace turned against the war at the first sign of difficulty.
Click to expand...

Such factors must be accounted for in strategy, not whined about after you lose. Political will is a strategic resource just like steel, and should be accounted for in any conflict. Vietnam failed because NVA made the cost of winning too high. The only way to win was to stay in Vietnam indefinitely. That losses sustained during such an operation would outweigh any benefit of keeping the South separate.


No nation can win a war under these circumstances. If we had fought this way in any of the wars before the second half of the 20th century, we would have been relegated to the scrap heap of history.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Our ability to win at maneuver warfare is the best it as has ever been. Comparing the two wars in Iraq, it is pretty clear that fighting a pitched field battle is trivial compared to a drawn out counter insurgency. Our political strategy should recognize that fact and favor conflicts that are easily decided in decisive battles.
 
Goshin said:
Correction.

One man, whose sympathies lay with a little-known church called the Branch Davidians, attacked the government building in OK in response to and in revenge for the deaths of many civilians and children in the Waco Massacre, conducted by the fedgov under Clinton and Reno against a religion known as the Branch Davidians.


Your original statement is terribly lacking in factual accuracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you just basically proved the point without knowing it. Take out christian put in muslim, put in some other terrorist organization and BAM! You got your receipe for some terrorism. BAM! Kick it up a notch!
 
JohnWOlin said:
Yeah but you just basically proved the point without knowing it. Take out christian put in muslim, put in some other terrorist organization and BAM! You got your receipe for some terrorism. BAM! Kick it up a notch!
Click to expand...

Sometimes my sarcasm goes over people's heads. Goshin is a really smart(and good) guy, he will figure it out.
 
Redress said:
Sometimes my sarcasm goes over people's heads. Goshin is a really smart(and good) guy, he will figure it out.
Click to expand...

That was sarcasm? I actually thought you were being pretty direct.
 
I voted sometimes. I think we should go to war in order to help our allies. However, I am unsure if that qualifies as "when necessary."
 
Redress said:
Sometimes my sarcasm goes over people's heads. Goshin is a really smart(and good) guy, he will figure it out.
Click to expand...

I knew what you were doing before I ever replied to that post. I knew you knew better too.... this isn't our first dance, after all. Nonetheless, the point needed to be made lest someone ignorant misunderstand it, or misconstrue it.
 
Last edited:
ALWAYS!

You people are wasteful. You do realize that our rounds and shells have expiration dates right?
 
Redress said:
Christians attacked us before 9/11 in Oklahoma. I am still disappointed we did not take them out.

To answer the war, we should go to war when we need to go to war. You can't predict it in advance usually.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe many of the things I am reading here.
Are not there any good history books? Written by honest men?
And this McVea character was no more a Christian than Hitler.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Pretty much whenever the opportunity presents itself. At least every couple decades or so, whether we have an excuse or not. War is necessary for the economy and for maintaining the martial spirit of the nation, and is generally good for the species.
Click to expand...

That is a really foolish way of thinking. War is NOT necessary for the economy. Where does anyone come up with that statement / idea?
 
Other-
When we are attacked on our shores, or when another close ally (democratic/republic friend) is directly attacked on their shores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom