• 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!

Would you go to war to defend the USA?

Would you go to war to defend the USA? (Americans only, please)

  • Total voters
    84
Canell said:
Frankly, the greatest danger for the USA is a civil war and breaking apart, imho.
Click to expand...

North against South? Red against Blue states? Democrats vs. Republicans? Star-Belly Sneetches vs. Plain-Belly Sneetches?
 
Destroying the base camps of an international terrorist organizations yes, OCCUPYING that nation for a dismal decade as a back water conflict, no.

Fighting terrorism doesn't require boots on the ground, that flames terrorism.

Someday we might learn that lesson...

I am not going to hold my breath....
 
I would fill whatever role I could in defense of US soil. Is that even a question?
But I had to answer 'other' because it's a vague poll question. As some have pointed out, 'defense' is a pretty loose term nowadays.

Afghanistan was a requirement as far as I'm concerned. If someone punches you, you'd better punch back or you end up being the punching bag. The Taliban were given plenty of opportunity to "do the right thing" and they refused, so **** 'em. Iraq II was a farce.


As for other things, no I wouldn't (too old) but many things I encourage because we need to be engaged in some kind of action every so often or the military gets soft. No amount of combat exercises or wargames can replace the real thing. We need the occasional military action to keep & hone skills and test new weapons systems. I know many will groan but UN actions seem to be a reasonable means of accomplishing this - we keep a solid military machine and general world opinion of us seldom suffers for it.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
we need to be engaged in some kind of action every so often or the military gets soft. No amount of combat exercises or wargames can replace the real thing. We need the occasional military action to keep & hone skills and test new weapons systems.
Click to expand...


:shock::shock::shock:

OH. MY. GOD.

In order for our military to be at it's best at any given time, we NEED to be killing somebody somewhere on some relatively routine basis???????????
 
Dragonfly said:
:shock::shock::shock:

OH. MY. GOD.

In order for our military to be at it's best at any given time, we NEED to be killing somebody somewhere on some relatively routine basis???????????
Click to expand...
Did you think the term 'battle hardened' was an urban myth that's been perpetuated for millennia?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Did you think the term 'battle hardened' was an urban myth that's been perpetuated for millennia?
Click to expand...

So by the same logic it’s a good thing for all towns, cities, and states to have some level of violent crime, rapes, gang related activity, and murders so that the police and ER and hospital employees can be on top of their game as well? Let’s not leave out some of that pedophilia either. We need some of that so our authorities can be adept at dealing with that too right?

It’s good for fires to burn down apartment complexes or high rises so fire companies can be ready for when fires strike apartment complexes or high rises?

It’s good to have a huge natural disaster so emergency responders and all the events that happen after such a tragic event can be prepared for the next natural disaster?

Hell, we should probably drop an atomic weapon on some “worthless” community on this planet just so we know how well our nukes and their delivery systems work too right? It’s been way too long since we’ve nuked somebody. We have no idea if our current nukes are capable of mass destruction unless we use one every now and again right?
 
Depends on the circumstances. Hell, we were in Iraq to "defend the USA." I wouldn't go abroad to some country who poses no threat to our national security, but if a country were to attack us and there was a proper declaration of war...then yes I absolutely would fight for America.

I could put petty political differences aside and stand side by side with anyone and fight for our people. However, I would not volunteer to the armed forces if we just decide to blindly attack another nation despite clear evidence going against the government's claims.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think he means get out of the way of those opposing the invasion... not everybody is a fighter nor should they be. We need all skill ranges to win in that situation.
Click to expand...

that goes without saying, but in the event of invasion, everybody should contribute to the war effort, whether it's doing the fighting, or supporting the resistance to occupation. There's no such thing as "neutral" when being occupied.
 
Dragonfly said:
So by the same logic it’s a good thing for all towns, cities, and states to have some level of violent crime, rapes, gang related activity, and murders so that the police and ER and hospital employees can be on top of their game as well? Let’s not leave out some of that pedophilia either. We need some of that so our authorities can be adept at dealing with that too right?

It’s good for fires to burn down apartment complexes or high rises so fire companies can be ready for when fires strike apartment complexes or high rises?

It’s good to have a huge natural disaster so emergency responders and all the events that happen after such a tragic event can be prepared for the next natural disaster?

Hell, we should probably drop an atomic weapon on some “worthless” community on this planet just so we know how well our nukes and their delivery systems work too right? It’s been way too long since we’ve nuked somebody. We have no idea if our current nukes are capable of mass destruction unless we use one every now and again right?
Click to expand...
I do not think frivolous military actions are a good thing and I implied as much when I stated UN actions were OK. Very few if any UN actions have been frivolous. I'm sorry you didn't make that obvious connection.


As for your psychotic rant here, sadly there are many instances and situations that seem to present themselves all on their own without any assistance from us.

- Police and firefighters die every day, their 'wars' never seem to end.
- ER's and hospitals are often overflowing from highway massacre because one lone idiot decided they needed to send a text message or put on makeup in the middle of rush-hour traffic.
- Pedophilia and rape are an everyday occurrence and I don't think anyone is every 'ready' to deal with that trauma.
- Natural disasters are something we deal with when we have to and, yes, having people around that have been through similar incidents DOES help those who have never been through it before. Unfortunately, we get enough natural disasters that there's never a time who no one has been in one.

Bad things already happen day to day, everyday right here in America. You didn't know this?

Thank God wars are much less frequent. If you're young I understand your confusion, we've had more than our share of warfare of late. Of course, 75% of our recent fighting (Iraq II) wasn't called for and the UN certainly didn't sanction it - or did you miss that part of my post?
 
Last edited:
Porchev said:
North against South? Red against Blue states? Democrats vs. Republicans? Star-Belly Sneetches vs. Plain-Belly Sneetches?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I lost my crystal ball. ;) JK. :)
 
Paratrooper said:
See I can respect that. Not everyone is cut out for military life. I suppose the original topic might be kind of vague. I'm thinking of would you take up arms and fight period vs. would you enlist, go to basic training, advanced individual training, get armed and then go off to the fight.
Click to expand...

If we were being invaded, I would take up arms and fight by whatever means possible.
 
Cephus said:
When were we at risk of physical invasion in WWII?
Click to expand...

some japanese made it to american soil,and some japanese subs made it to the california coast,german subs tried to attack america and some came super close before they were taken out.
 
beerftw said:
some japanese made it to american soil,and some japanese subs made it to the california coast,german subs tried to attack america and some came super close before they were taken out.
Click to expand...

And the many different plans the Germans had to bomb America, and the German spies that infiltrated our shores, and the plans they had to use radioactive ordnance against us...
 
Cephus said:
When were we at risk of physical invasion in WWII?
Click to expand...
The Germans couldn't even pull off Operation Sea Lion. It was postponed in 1940 and was never a real option afterwards. If they couldn't get across 20 miles of ocean who the hell thinks they could have made it to the US?


Ed:
But see next post.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
some japanese made it to american soil,and some japanese subs made it to the california coast,german subs tried to attack america and some came super close before they were taken out.
Click to expand...
Lokiate said:
And the many different plans the Germans had to bomb America, and the German spies that infiltrated our shores, and the plans they had to use radioactive ordnance against us...
Click to expand...
I would have thought two simple words, "Pearl Harbor", would have been enough to prove the point.


I'm NOT saying we should have - but had we stayed out of the War in Europe I doubt the Germans would have paid us any notice (until after securing Europe ;)).
 
MoSurveyor said:
I would have thought two simple words, "Pearl Harbor", would have been enough to prove the point.
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor was an attack, not an invasion.
 
Cephus said:
Pearl Harbor was an attack, not an invasion.
Click to expand...
Agreed - but the Philippines and various other US territories in the Pacific were.

Remember, Hawaii was only a territory back then, too.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
some japanese made it to american soil,and some japanese subs made it to the california coast,german subs tried to attack america and some came super close before they were taken out.
Click to expand...

They were provoked, US put embargo on them so this was expected.
 
Paratrooper said:
Regardless of the reason? Would you have taken up arms to defend Germany in WWII?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really have choose as almost every German man was invited to army at some point of war, so answer is Yes as I would be invited without choose.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Agreed - but the Philippines and various other US territories in the Pacific were.

Remember, Hawaii was only a territory back then, too.
Click to expand...

That's true. You'd probably have to go back to the 1800s to find a war where we were being invaded on American soil by a foreign power.
 
Cephus said:
That's true. You'd probably have to go back to the 1800s to find a war where we were being invaded on American soil by a foreign power.
Click to expand...
Territories are US soil just as much as Alaska and Hawaii were before 1959.

But if you mean one of the States being invaded by a foreign power, yeah, you'd have to go back a few years. It comes from having a good navy. :)
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I would have thought two simple words, "Pearl Harbor", would have been enough to prove the point.


I'm NOT saying we should have - but had we stayed out of the War in Europe I doubt the Germans would have paid us any notice (until after securing Europe ;)).
Click to expand...

The Amerika Bomber project began development in 1938.
 
Lokiate said:
The Amerika Bomber project began development in 1938.
Click to expand...
Was that the German LR bomber project's name? I can never remember.

I did say "until after securing Europe". Hitler expected to have Europe sewn up by the end of 1942. Too bad for him the Russian weather didn't cooperate in '41 - early '42. ;)


Japan also had a LR bomber project, don't remember it's name either. The goal for them was the west coast using biological or chemical bombs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom