• 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!

Is war becoming an acceptable policy in america?

I think the lessons of the two big wars have taught America that we need to fight dirty, covert/messy wars to avoid WW3.
 
Paschendale said:
Violence is, and always has been, the last resort of civilized people, or the first resort of cowardly brutes. The eagerness with which the United States has accepted warfare demonstrates how very far we still have to go.
Click to expand...

Bud, all the people we fought were people for whom violence was the first resort. In most cases they'd demonstrated disdain for diplomatic efforts or economic pressures.


Maybe we just recognized that nothing short of force was going to work, and cut to the chase rather than dragging it out that much longer.

Saddam had been defying innumerable edicts for over a decade, and if he didn't have WMD then by golly he sure seemed to WANT everyone to believe that he did. His aggression and viciousness had been demonstrated many times. Afganistan was harboring Bin Laden and refused to give him up, and were ruled by an incredibly brutal Taliban system.

Look at Iran's rhetoric. Not a country I'd want to have nukes. Yet we've been trying diplomacy and economic pressure for most of a decade now. Doesn't look like we're rushing to war there either.

I think you're being overly harsh in your judgement of my country. If we had been less willing to fight in 1941-45, less willing to stare down a nuke-armed USSR for forty years afterwards, Europe's history might have been very very different.


The top power always draws criticism; if the top power also has the moral courage to act while most others prefer to sit and wait and hope for the best, that too draws criticism.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Bud, all the people we fought were people for whom violence was the first resort. In most cases they'd demonstrated disdain for diplomatic efforts or economic pressures.
Click to expand...

Some of them, absolutely. Sometimes it was us, too.

Maybe we just recognized that nothing short of force was going to work, and cut to the chase rather than dragging it out that much longer.
Click to expand...

And yet you wouldn't think that anyone else is qualified to reach that conclusion about us. Violence begets violence, and if we don't put a stop to it, who will?

Saddam had been defying innumerable edicts for over a decade, and if he didn't have WMD then by golly he sure seemed to WANT everyone to believe that he did. His aggression and viciousness had been demonstrated many times. Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and refused to give him up, and were ruled by an incredibly brutal Taliban system.
Click to expand...

And we were entirely justified in going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, and to attack the Taliban who were supporting him. But it's an entirely different issue to take on defeating a bad leader for treatment of his/their own people. We cannot conflate the two. And I'm actually fairly supporting of defeating dictators. But our reasons aren't nearly so pure. A lot of it is self righteousness, and a lot of it is bigotry.

As to Saddam's posturing. Ever think that maybe he wasn't posturing for us, but for his violent neighbors? The world does not revolve around the United States, no matter how much we'd like it to.

Look at Iran's rhetoric. Not a country I'd want to have nukes. Yet we've been trying diplomacy and economic pressure for most of a decade now. Doesn't look like we're rushing to war there either.
Click to expand...

And I hope we don't. Think about the one time nuclear weapons were used. They were used against a non-nuclear enemy to end a war. No one is crazy enough to start a nuclear war. The direct consequences of a leader authorizing a nuclear attack on a country that retaliate in kind is the death of that leader's children by nuclear weapons. Every leader knows this, and I really doubt that any leader (at least now that KJI is dead) is crazy enough to sacrifice their children to strike an enemy. Do you?

I think you're being overly harsh in your judgement of my country. If we had been less willing to fight in 1941-45, less willing to stare down a nuke-armed USSR for forty years afterwards, Europe's history might have been very very different.
Click to expand...

Did I suddenly stop living here? Your country? That's some pretty serious disrespect right there. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's not cool.

And, again, do you really think that anyone, on either side, ever wanted a nuclear war? Really? The Soviets were just as scared that we were going to go nuts and wreck everything as we were of them.

The top power always draws criticism; if the top power also has the moral courage to act while most others prefer to sit and wait and hope for the best, that too draws criticism.
Click to expand...

And sometimes people act not from moral courage, but from cowardice and greed. The former is good, and I support it. The latter is what we seem all too accepting of. We need to be careful to differentiate the two and not let the line blur.
 
Wiggen, et al,

It has become "an acceptable foreign policy solution;" but, should it be?

Wiggen said:
War has always been an acceptable foreign policy solution when all other approaches fail. And it probably always will be.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

War is an admission that "diplomacy" has failed.

The US is a military hegemony in support of its power and influence.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Diplomacy will fail as long as dictators exist.
 
War is part of our economy. If world peace hit tomorrow, america would go belly up the day after. The US is the largest arms supplier in the world, ever since Russia tanked. Go to any part of the world, where someone is being shot or blown up, and there is now about a 70% chance they were shot or blown up by something that said "Made in America". We've lost cars, we've lost tech manufacturing...weapons are the last thing we make, in any great supply, with minimal outsourcing.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
Wait... you mean start WWIII?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. For example, if America didn't help rebuild Europe after WW2, or Japan, both Europe and Asia probably would be communist, maybe even Central America, but we chose a post WW2 doctrine that let's our enemies understand that we are ready and willing always to fight versus our pre WW2 isolationist mentality. I would say that it has served us well with all things considered because while it's impossible to determine the outcome of the world if we resorted back to our pre WW2 way of thinking, you can make some realistic assumptions that it would probably be worse for the world in general and America if we didn't fight smaller conflicts to avoid greater conflicts. There is no easy choice, and war does suck, but since the beginning of humanity there never has been a time without the need for war, so the realistic conclusion is that we need to use it for our own interests instead of letting our enemies use it for theirs, because they will, and that is the reality...
 
et al,

Let us quite beating around the bush. We are, today, talking about Iran - as a potential nuclear weapons state.

The US is not only rattling its sabers, but it is rattling those of Israel. Just about every major candidate has already taken the position that the US will not allow Iran to join the nuclear weapons club. And the SECDEF (Leon Panetta) is raising the specter that Israel my take action soon. We are falling back to the 20th Century concept that America is invincible in war --- if it cannot be persuasive in peace (under the theory that "war" is diplomacy through other means). We see the threat of military action as our first and strongest option.

Well, the assumption here is that a well planned and executed surgical strike will halt the Iranian program. Are we sure (or how sure are we)?

  • It may be ineffective.
  • It may cause a delay.
  • It may halt the program.
  • It could start a conflict (asymmetrical or conventional).

It is a huge question with very uncertain outcomes.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Paschendale said:
Some of them, absolutely. Sometimes it was us, too.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. I've noticed how rarely our involvment in Bosnia, Somalia and Libya is criticized, but how quickly people critique our actions in Iraq and Afganistan. Hmmm...





And yet you wouldn't think that anyone else is qualified to reach that conclusion about us. Violence begets violence, and if we don't put a stop to it, who will?
Click to expand...

Inaction often begats violence too. Our lack of firm response when Adoph started annexing neighboring countries just encouraged him to continue; our retreat from Somalia prompted bin Laden to believe we could be cowed with a few thousand dead.

Sometimes there's no avoiding it, and the longer you avoid recognizing this fact, the worse the outcome.




And we were entirely justified in going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, and to attack the Taliban who were supporting him. But it's an entirely different issue to take on defeating a bad leader for treatment of his/their own people. We cannot conflate the two. And I'm actually fairly supporting of defeating dictators. But our reasons aren't nearly so pure. A lot of it is self righteousness, and a lot of it is bigotry.
Click to expand...

No nation is pure lily-white good, and rarely is any nation pure black-hearted evil; we know this. Motives likewise. On the whole though, we try to do what we see as right. Like Diogenes of Sinope, searching for the honest man without flaw, you will not find him. At best you'll find those who try to do what is right and try not to harm the innocent more than can be helped. That would be us.



And I hope we don't. Think about the one time nuclear weapons were used. They were used against a non-nuclear enemy to end a war. No one is crazy enough to start a nuclear war. The direct consequences of a leader authorizing a nuclear attack on a country that retaliate in kind is the death of that leader's children by nuclear weapons. Every leader knows this, and I really doubt that any leader (at least now that KJI is dead) is crazy enough to sacrifice their children to strike an enemy. Do you?
Click to expand...

Achmadinijhad is a possibility.



Did I suddenly stop living here? Your country? That's some pretty serious disrespect right there. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's not cool.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I forgot you were American. Lotta people here, sometimes it is hard to keep track.
 
presluc said:
Before any poster jumps on this thread thinking that this thread is about anti miltary or anti American.

Let me put some things straight, I am proud to be an American, my family or at least one or more has fought in every American war including myself,in Nam', including a cousin serving on a ship around the mideast and a nephew in Afganistan today
So this ain;t about looking for Utopia or a conspeircy theory.

I don't know about the posters out there but I've always been a bit of a history buff.
Last night after the game, I was watching a channel about the 1st world war.
Actually started in 1914 America wanted no part of the war in Europe.
However, after the sinking of the Louisitania and some very nasty codes from Germany that fell into British hands Wilson reluctantly declared war.
The people of America came out in force to volenteer and those that couldn't supported their troops in force.
While American soldiers was sent to Europe people at home rolled up their sleeves and went to work on everything the American soldier needed, this was not forced labor but volenteer to work extra hours.
When the soldiers came home parades and speeches for the survivors tears and prayers for those that fell.

In 1936 Germany was broke owed money and had a high unemployment rate.
Some Guy with a funny moustache named Hitler had an idea, all he needed was a scapegoat and a few promices of peace, provided he got what he wanted.
A guy named Chamberlin fell for that at first
Problem was he ask for too much then he started taking, that led to War.

Once again America wanted no part of a war in Europe or any other place.
However on Dec. 7th 1941 Pearl Harbor and the U.S. naval base there was attacked.
F.D.R. had no chioce but to ask the Congress to declare WAR.

Once again young Americans stood in line to enlist.
When they left American shores evcerybody at home rolled up their sleeves women put away their aprons and doned factory garb to become welders and assemble parts needed by the military, rubber drives, metal drives, newspaper drives, War bonds sold.
In 1945 when the soldiers returned there were parades and speeches for the survivors, tears and prayers for those that fell.

But what of Viet Nam, S.Korea, Boznia, Somalia,, Iraq 1&2, and others?

When we were told of the coming war with Afganistan the president of the United States said " Take your wife or girfriend out for a dinner see a show or something"

In Iraq it was a differant story smoking gun. WMDS. Mushroom cloud ect.
None were found so somebody didn't confirm the so called weapons of mass destruction.
Then it was Lybia, Serbia
Now it's what about Iran?

The only retalatory strike was in Afganistan, and Americans did what was asked by the president, go out to dinner see a show.

So, not one the bring up the old pharse "IN MY DAY", because frankly I'm not that old but between 1941 WAR and 1951 War and 1964 war right up to Desert storm and the war on terror something seems kinda lost in translation.
In my opinion anyway'.

No matter how clean you try to make it ,or how ordinary you try to sell it WAR is one thing pure and simple PEOPLE DIE .
"WAR SUCKS":peace
Click to expand...

Warfare is the only government jobs plan that the GOP approves of.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Not sure about "becoming". IIRC, the USA has been involved in an armed conflict somewhere on the globe every year since WW2. That's a long time of becoming.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time we at least tried to have some peace.:peace
 
Proud South Korean said:
:doh
Another presluc thread that rants against international trade, and for a mismash of obscure economic thinking and pacifism
Click to expand...

You want to respond to this thread respond, you want to trade insults on line I got private messager for that.

I've had 1 infraction for being too nasty to a poster got no time to start another.

You got a problem with the thread respond, if not step off.

The complaint department ain't here.:peace
 
obvious Child said:
War has always been an acceptable policy in America.
Click to expand...

That's the second time somebody posted that on this thread.

Maybe it's about time I ask some questions on that statement.

Who in America thinks war is acceptable?
Is it the average people that send their friends and family into combat to maybe die maybe not?
Is it the National guard that worries about their unit getting called up to go to combat again?
Is it the tax payers that send more and more taxes to the depatment of defence?
Is it the soldier that is just about to retire but is called into combat yet again?
Is it the people that get the letters from the military saying their loved one is KIA OR MIA?
Is it the poor people whose kids join the service to help paty bills?

You see, I'm kinda having a hard time finding the majority of Americans saying " OH WELL, GOT NOTHING ELSE TO DO LETS GO TO WAR"??

Maybe in the Pentagon WAR IS ACCEPTABLE.
Mybe some wimp ass general in an office is calculating acceptable to American military dead.

Frankly I don't buy that ****, and I don't think a majority of Americans do either.

Pass a law saying put THE FIRST BORN of everyone responsible for starting a war in the front lines put them on point.
Then see if WAR WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.:peace
 
Last edited:
stsburns said:
to OP: as one of my other nerdy friends would say: "Were American's, we love war, cause were good at it!"
Click to expand...

I take it you've never seen combat, as for your nerdy friends tell them to go back to their vidieo game war and hope that the draft doesn't make a come back.:peace
 
Daktoria said:
War is an outgrowth of a militant society. It happens because people are so competitive internally that they create social rejects.

These social rejects have to do something with their lives, so it's either resort to a life of crime within society, or go do criminal acts to someone else outside society.

Without internal war, there would be no external war. Think about that.
Click to expand...

Though about it you think about this .

If we fought crime as hard as we fought other nations ?
If we rebuilt neighborhoods of America like we have in other nations after we were at war with them what then?
If social rejects of America got the same foreign aid and comfort that our defeated nations have got from us what then?

You think about this.:peace
 
ecofarm said:
Diplomacy will fail as long as dictators exist.
Click to expand...

Or, as long we prefer invasion/occupation/regime change to negotiation.
 
ecofarm said:
Until we're all free.




It has been acceptable policy in every country ever. The only question is, what for?
Click to expand...

I can not speak for others but when I was drafted to fight in Nam' I was free,
During the last invasion of Iraq we were free from Iraq except for a big mouth waving a rifle around and making threats.
need I go on?:peace
 
Medusa said:
a real world power should act this way to gain respect , it should know how a world peace can be reached through diplomatic efforts and mediation......
Click to expand...

Yeah but you can't make as much money on pen , paper, and peace talks as you can on arms sales, defence contracts, oil and real estate:peace
 
Catawba said:
Excellent post Presluc! You make some important observations about how our military posture has changed over time, from a position of defense to one of nation building in our image through prolonged military force.

We spend almost a Trillion dollars a year on the military industrial complex, almost as much as the rest of the world combined!!!!

Aside from any moral implications of killing innocents to make their country safe for Western exploitation, how can we continue to afford such gross waste when we need to get our house in order?
Click to expand...

An excellant way of expressing the truth about WAR.

Of course you know be by now my friend my post aren't so elegantly phrased.

I say this in resonding to your post.
America has lasted since 1865 without armed conflict, America as we know is a land of immigrants plus the native Americans whose ancestors were already here.
In short there is no one ethnic bacckground in charge here but a melting pot of mixed religions mixed races and mixed cultures with one foundaion.
Yet some how day after day we make it work dealing with criminals drug pushers, junkies, murderers rapeist,and still without all out WAR.

So differant nations have differant governments and differant foundations, but it seems America wants Democracy and Capitalism for all countries.
To be free is one thing to be free on what , could be what the majority of people want is differant.
Suppose they do not want capitalism suppose they want Democracy with their own standards of government governed by the committee or people they choose?

They can use the Democracy without the capitism, or can use Capitalism without Democracy or make up their own form of government, much like Cuba or Israel.
Much like China today is using capitalism but not changeing their funamental government.

The world will never be governed by one particular government, at least not in this century.:peace
 
Wiggen said:
Nobody wants war. Stop making strawman arguments. You said war was never acceptable. I said you were wrong. War sometimes is acceptable. That's it. Period.

Look, make up your mind. You spend post after post telling us how war is never an option, never acceptable, and then when I identifly you - quite correctly - as a Pacifist, you deny it. Look, there's nothing wrong with being a pacifist, as long as there are other people around to protect you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my expectations were too high.

However I thought everyone was capapable of reading between the lines.
Especialy throughout the history of America.
FLAGS LIKE "don't tread on me" with a rattlesnake in the background.
The word of political office and military service.
"TO PROTECT AND DEFEND"

Keyword here "DEFEND"

So War is acceptable to defend ones nation against oppressors foriegn and domestic.

However to say starting a war is acceptable is to say violence is acceptable.
If it is then if I don't like the looks or action of an individual I can just declare War walk up and shoot him point blank in the face in front of witnesss anytime anywhere.

This action might be acceptable to me but to a judge and 12 jurors it would not be acceptable.

If however I had a gun in my house a person broke into my house and tried to kill me, and I killed him instead it would be acceptable for it would be self defence.

If we are attacked we should declare WAR , if threatened we should make are response clear if attacked we will attack.

Bottom line War is acceptable only in a defensive practice.

America's policy should be clear if you stand with us stand with us those who don't step off, don't start nothin there won't be nothin.:peace

FYI "STRAWMAN" What kind of adjective is that , a bit old doncha think?
IRONY= A PACIFIST WHO GOES INTO COMBAT.
 
KevinKohler said:
War is part of our economy. If world peace hit tomorrow, america would go belly up the day after. The US is the largest arms supplier in the world, ever since Russia tanked. Go to any part of the world, where someone is being shot or blown up, and there is now about a 70% chance they were shot or blown up by something that said "Made in America". We've lost cars, we've lost tech manufacturing...weapons are the last thing we make, in any great supply, with minimal outsourcing.
Click to expand...

So is America to depend on War for economic renewal???

Is the saying "BLOOD FOR OIL" to be replaced by "BLOOD FOR DOLLARS"?:peace
 
Goshin said:
I'm sorry, but the facts not only fail to bear out your assertions, they thoroughly refute them.

First of all, there is no draft. If by "poverty draft" you mean people volunteering for the military due to a lack of other good options... lots of people volunteer so they can GO TO COLLEGE when they get out, so they can get a good job and have a piece of the good life. Many do so successfully.... this would not be the case if they were all social rejects as you claim.

Secondly, a fair number of people join the military who already have a college degree, or have other career options... they CHOOSE to join out of patriotism or a desire to serve or family traditions or wanderlust or what have you.

Third... many MANY employers PREFER to hire Veterans. If military people were social rejects would this be true? Obviously not. Many employers prefer veterans because they know that vets have learned discipline, teamwork and hard effort through their military service.

There are 21.6 million veterans in America today. 26% have at least a Bachelor's degree, almost the same as the general population. 92% are highschool graduates, compared to the general populations' 86%.
$35,367 Annual median income of veterans, in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars, compared with $25,605 for the population as a whole. 9% of vets are business owners.

Veterans Day: Census Facts — Infoplease.com


Doesn't exactly bear out your theory that vets are social rejects, does it? That calls the rest into question as well. War and its causes are far too complex to be dismissed with a dubious theory about social rejection.
Click to expand...

It does pan out because you're still justifying enlistment for the sake of getting a job.

Anyone who lives to work is a social reject, and on top of that, enlisting in the military involves risking your life to defend a society which didn't care about you.

Your post deals zero with culture. Veterans, as much as anyone else, cannot be socially assimilated without engaging culture. Yes, someone might have skills. Yes, someone might be productive. No, someone who merely has skills and productivity is no more respected than a machine.

Family traditions? That's generation after generation of alienation.

Patriotism? Those are principles which couldn't afford assimilating veterans into civilian life.

Wanderlust? Look, there's nothing wrong with being an explorer, but being a nomad does not entail a sense of belonging to society.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom