• 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!

Why do Americans Love War?

Americans typically do not want war, the companies who profit off of it however do want war, in fact the bastards absolutely love it! Americans only become "pro-war" when we are attacked, which is understandable but I feel we jump the gun going of off emotions rather than logic.

Interesting thing

WWI: Lustiana
WWII: Pearl Harbor
Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin
Terror: 9/11
 
I don't know if Americans love war, but I do know that some people love sweeping generalizations.

Unfortunately, the world is not such that one could ever run an experiment to assess the costs for NOT going to war at a certain point in time. The lesson from WW2 would suggest that the price for not going to war can be a terrible thing, indeed, and of a quantum magnitude greater than if war was initiated at an earlier stage. This is what so many of the appeasers seem to ignore, even as they wag their fingers in others faces about morality. There are certainly moral implications to everything we do, but they seem to forget quite conveniently that there are also moral ramifications involved in LACK of action.

How many lives would have been saved if, for instance, Hitler had been confronted aggressively at a much earlier stage in time? If people are TRULY concerned with human life and not just in giving the appearance of moral superiority, they will consider the ramifications of appeasement as well as the ramifications of war. If others categorize this as "war mongering", that simply speaks of their own lack of moral clarity on the subject.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Or, lets educate people.
Click to expand...

hmmm, i'm thinking that's not going to help your side here, any more than studying the 20th century history of the Democratic party would help them keep the black vote locked up.
 
cpwill said:
hmmm, i'm thinking that's not going to help your side here, any more than studying the 20th century history of the Democratic party would help them keep the black vote locked up.
Click to expand...

Why do you turn everything into partisan politics? I was not talking about politics. I was talking about education, without mentioning pigmentation of skin.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Not necessarily... he could have gotten his commission based on the need for a teacher at the academy. Do you have a link to his bio?



He's not a pilot, and he was an officer..... So it doesn't seem he even made Fobbit status. :shrug:
Click to expand...





La?


:pimpdaddy:
 
Gardener said:
I don't know if Americans love war, but I do know that some people love sweeping generalizations.

Unfortunately, the world is not such that one could ever run an experiment to assess the costs for NOT going to war at a certain point in time. The lesson from WW2 would suggest that the price for not going to war can be a terrible thing, indeed, and of a quantum magnitude greater than if war was initiated at an earlier stage. This is what so many of the appeasers seem to ignore, even as they wag their fingers in others faces about morality. There are certainly moral implications to everything we do, but they seem to forget quite conveniently that there are also moral ramifications involved in LACK of action.

How many lives would have been saved if, for instance, Hitler had been confronted aggressively at a much earlier stage in time? If people are TRULY concerned with human life and not just in giving the appearance of moral superiority, they will consider the ramifications of appeasement as well as the ramifications of war. If others categorize this as "war mongering", that simply speaks of their own lack of moral clarity on the subject.
Click to expand...


It is a crime I could only thank this post once.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Why do you turn everything into partisan politics? I was not talking about politics. I was talking about education, without mentioning pigmentation of skin.
Click to expand...

i was referencing our other debate that turned historical; remember how you accused me of supporting racist policies? :)

education is generally a dangerous thing to the 'peace and love' crowd; they are better off with only a very certain amount; and preferably as limited in context as possible.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
A real, full scale and all encompassing war has not been waged on our soil.
Click to expand...

Except for the revolutionary war, the war of 1812 and the civil war.

One does not have to live under a torrential downpour know when its raining.
 
cpwill said:
i was referencing our other debate that turned historical; remember how you accused me of supporting racist policies? :)

education is generally a dangerous thing to the 'peace and love' crowd; they are better off with only a very certain amount; and preferably as limited in context as possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'll bet you are a Jimmie Buffet fan.:cowboy:
 
Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger
Or, lets educate people.
Click to expand...


Nah, let's just kick their asses.

Educate a thief, you just get an educated thief.
 
This comment is excellent:

We have not had a war to speak of on American soil since the Civil War... but in the South that war remains a major cultural factor, because the South was devastated in it and spent a century recovering and rebuilding. We're still poorer than most other regions of the USA. The imprint of having been conquered and militarily occupied is still a part of the Southern psyche. No one living still remembers it, but many of us heard stories passed down from Grandma's Grandpa about "the War".

This is very true. Shelby Foote made some very anectdotal comments about "fighting a war on your front doorstep."

I don't think Americans "love" war; I think America's politicians (left and right) fight them for profit. Many of the war profiteers in Congress are liberal democrats whose businesses make billions from war material support (Kerry, Feinstein) while overtly proclaiming to be anti-war.

The Vietnam War was never prosecuted under Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon; it is unfortunate since we bled "one of our greatest generations" from the delta to the DMZ. Our soldiers are brave and well trained; our politicians (from both parties) are exhibit bravery under press cameras and light bulbs. Most of the very affluent in Congress (Dem and Rep) do not have son's and daughters who fight; or like Clinton or W., used their connections to find a way not to fight.

And currently, aftering WINNING in Iraq and Afghanistan, we chose (unwisely) to stay and (unwisely) nation build. We won both conflicts, we eliminated, destroyed or contained Al Queda in both countries while freeing nearly 27,000,000 Iraqi's from totalitarianism. W. then made the worst decision of his presidency by deciding to 'stay' and police both nations.

I salute those of you who have fought in the Iraq/Afghanistan war. I thank you for your service to our nation.
 
Last edited:
GayLibertarian said:
This comment is excellent:

We have not had a war to speak of on American soil since the Civil War... but in the South that war remains a major cultural factor, because the South was devastated in it and spent a century recovering and rebuilding. We're still poorer than most other regions of the USA. The imprint of having been conquered and militarily occupied is still a part of the Southern psyche. No one living still remembers it, but many of us heard stories passed down from Grandma's Grandpa about "the War".

This is very true. Shelby Foote made some very anectdotal comments about "fighting a war on your front doorstep."

I don't think Americans "love" war; I think America's politicians (left and right) fight them for profit. Many of the war profiteers in Congress are liberal democrats whose businesses make billions from war material support (Kerry, Feinstein) while overtly proclaiming to be anti-war.

The Vietnam War was never prosecuted under Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon; it is unfortunate since we bled "one of our greatest generations" from the delta to the DMZ. Our soldiers are brave and well trained; our politicians (from both parties) are exhibit bravery under press cameras and light bulbs. Most of the very affluent in Congress (Dem and Rep) do not have son's and daughters who fight; or like Clinton or W., used their connections to find a way not to fight.

And currently, aftering WINNING in Iraq and Afghanistan, we chose (unwisely) to stay and (unwisely) nation build. We won both conflicts, we eliminated, destroyed or contained Al Queda in both countries while freeing nearly 27,000,000 Iraqi's from totalitarianism. W. then made the worst decision of his presidency by deciding to 'stay' and police both nations.

I salute those of you who have fought in the Iraq/Afghanistan war. I thank you for your service to our nation.
Click to expand...
I concur, although being from Texas I would some what disagree with the analysis of the south to some extent.
 
Politicians and big business love war.

I never met a veteran that liked war. In fact ever veteran I know is anti-war.
 
BCR said:
Americans typically do not want war, the companies who profit off of it however do want war, in fact the bastards absolutely love it! Americans only become "pro-war" when we are attacked, which is understandable but I feel we jump the gun going of off emotions rather than logic.

Interesting thing

WWI: Lustiana
WWII: Pearl Harbor
Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin
Terror: 9/11
Click to expand...

The Lustiana incident occurred in 1915, the US entered the war in 1917. The decision to enter was not based on that incident but if you feel it was than surely 2 years constitutes a reasonable period for logical decision making.

Going to war in WW2 after the massive expansion of Nazi Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor is hardly a decision based on emotion. Letting the Nazis and Japanese divide the world amongst themselves is hardly a logical strategy, even if the Pearl Harbor attack had never occurred the US would have still eventually gone to war as, again, allowing the rise of a expansionist radical hostile force such as Japan or Germany is not good policy.

As for the Gulf of Tonkin, there was so much screwed up about that war and I couldnt even say I disagree with you.

And as for 9/11, the last thing America needed at the time was to display a willingness its enemies and its allies to suffer through that kind of attack without response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom