View Full Version : Would the US come together for WWIII?
atb35
08-31-2007, 09:43 AM
Piggying off of the racial Katrina thread....
Do you think America would band together if we were attacked? IMO, I think we would. 9-11 to me showed that when someone attacks us (meaning the united states...(no angel, not just African Americans), we as a nation get pissed off. There is no way another country could invade the USA and expect people to roll over and take it.
I think everyone would get guns and start fighting in the streets if necessary. Even if it didnt come to that, or we didnt get invaded....assume there was another Pearl Harbor...where another country deliberatly attacked us. Our military would go wipe them out, and everyone (except the left wing hippie bitches) would be behind them. The problem we are having now is that most of America (according to whatever polls) dont believe we should be in Iraq. If we were attacked, it would be completely different.
Yes, I know we were attacked on 9-11, but it wasnt by any one country...it was by cells of people. To this day, NO american would have heartache if we found a hideout of Taliban and took them out.
Agreed completely.
Pretty sure if the US was invaded, even the hippies would be packing heat. And 9/11 had nothing in common with Pearl Harbor. PH was a very solid military strategy. If it was a video game, the Japanese players would be saying, "hehehe pwned".
9/11 was a terror attack. Military was not the target.
newvalor
08-31-2007, 10:18 AM
hey lets not forget those people that think we should be nice to our aggressors because we don't want people to protest for thier rights being abused or broke.
atb35
08-31-2007, 10:33 AM
Agreed completely.
Pretty sure if the US was invaded, even the hippies would be packing heat. And 9/11 had nothing in common with Pearl Harbor. PH was a very solid military strategy. If it was a video game, the Japanese players would be saying, "hehehe pwned".
9/11 was a terror attack. Military was not the target.
Yeah, like I said...if it were an invasion, the general population would be behind the military...another terrorist attack...not so much UNLESS we knew specifically where the terrorists were and pwnd them!
hey lets not forget those people that think we should be nice to our aggressors because we don't want people to protest for thier rights being abused or broke.
I honestly believe even the liberal hippies save every insect whining bitches would be all about killing the mofos that invaded the US. Some people just need SOMETHING to protest though, so Im sure there would be a few of them...but hey, they could be first in line to use as human shields....
Sorry, I'm still cracking up that Bush compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor last week or the week before...
Fonze
08-31-2007, 11:21 AM
dk just cause it wasn't a nation attacking us (or was it) doesn't mean it wasn't just as bad.
No, it was worse. Civilians were the target. In war, generally, military targets are priority. In terrorism, there generally doesn't seem to be much distinction. Their only aim is fear, panic, and mass death. Men, women, AND children.
I can at least RESPECT a resistance. Terrorists deserve no respect whatsoever. And military leaders, like those of the Japanese Navy that successfully wiped out Pearl Harbor... well, it's hard NOT to admit that that was one well thought out attack.
The ONLY thing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor had in common is that they both drew Americans together and helped create a willingness in Americans to fight.
atb35
08-31-2007, 12:36 PM
Well on the topic of war and how people should be treated...wtf is with rules of war anyway? I never understood that. If I am going to war with another country...Im going to do anything I have to do to win. If that means cutting holes in the heads of prisoners, filling the hole with acid until they talk, then I will do it. Just plain f-ing stupid if you ask me. Liberal bitches complaining because soldiers took photos of prisoners...are you ******* serious...PHOTOS! OMG, we hurt their feelings.....**** their feelings and **** them!
Im not saying we should wipe out all the children and civilians of the country that attacked us, but if some die, then then die...but they shouldnt be targeted.
P_chan
08-31-2007, 12:37 PM
I often what the 'liberal hippies' would do if someone they knew, like a family member, was killed in an attack against the US. I wonder if they would drop their 'don't hurt anyone' style of thinking and want revenge.
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 01:11 PM
Geesh, this thread is in need of some strong Devil's Advocating. Hold on. I'll be back in a second.
Get ready.
DougP
08-31-2007, 01:15 PM
No, it was worse. Civilians were the target. In war, generally, military targets are priority. In terrorism, there generally doesn't seem to be much distinction. Their only aim is fear, panic, and mass death. Men, women, AND children.
I can at least RESPECT a resistance. Terrorists deserve no respect whatsoever. And military leaders, like those of the Japanese Navy that successfully wiped out Pearl Harbor... well, it's hard NOT to admit that that was one well thought out attack.
The ONLY thing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor had in common is that they both drew Americans together and helped create a willingness in Americans to fight.
And that willingness has died down since:) I would not say that what is going on in Iraq is a resistance since they are targeting a lot of civilians as well as military targets. I'd still call them terrorists in my book.
On topic: Would America band together like they did back when WWII broke out if it were to happen again today? My thoughts are mixed on this one. At best some would but not all. We are much more divided as a nation compared to what we were back then. Soon after we brought the fight back over to another theater such as Europe, Asia or the Middle East Americans would lose their taste for war. In their eyes the fighting would become pointless and in vain at that point.
I don't think the American public of today would have had the stomach to see Berlin fall much less the surrender of Japan. Not every American was backing the war back then either. Imagine if we had the "work" camps today like we had for the Japanese back then? Gitmo has nothing on them btw. Imagine what the American people would be like after the first CNN report of how we lost over 2000 soldiers in one day. I doubt the public of today would stand behind their nation like they once did so many decades ago.
Obviously the war we are talking about would not be controversial. More or less it would be Army vs Army etc. Its hard to put a real face or flag to the enemy that we are fighting today. They are nationless in the traditional sense. I supposed that's why people are riding the fence as to whether or not we should continue to confront these enemies. I don't doubt for a second that the media of today and some of the public wouldn't hesitate to refer to the Imperial Japanese Kamikaze as freedom fighters.
2000 soldiers in one day? Shoot, look at WWI? I recall reading about some 50,000 soldiers dying in a day in one of the major battles during one of my history courses.
One thing to consider: Why do you think the US has become so divided these days in terms of war? I positively think part of that stems from distrust of the government. People are sick of rediculous wars with only political reasons.
World War I and World War II were different. There was a greater cause. The biggest cause we've been fighting for TODAY has been the liberation of people who don't want to be liberated and the dismantling of a terrorist group that has caused us to rethink our whole terms of battle.
The current insurgency in Iraq, I agree, is little better than the Al Qaida (sp?). However, the group that was resisting the US invasion is the group I was talking about. I can respect a group of young men/women defending their way of life.
Obviously the war we are talking about would not be controversial. More or less it would be Army vs Army etc. Its hard to put a real face or flag to the enemy that we are fighting today. They are nationless in the traditional sense. I supposed that's why people are riding the fence as to whether or not we should continue to confront these enemies. I don't doubt for a second that the media of today and some of the public wouldn't hesitate to refer to the Imperial Japanese Kamikaze as freedom fighters.
Exactly!
See, you present a good case without screaming DAMN LIBERALS! *applause*
There's a reason behind every person's thinking. If you fail to only see black and white (liberal vs conservative, republican vs democrat, etc) you will always fail to understand both sides of an arguement. Not you Doug.
Respect @ You. :thumbup1:
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Atb34, I tend to agree with the first half of your OP, but after that not so much.
The problem we are having now is that most of America (according to whatever polls) dont believe we should be in Iraq. If we were attacked, it would be completely different.
Yes, it probably would be different. But I don't see most Americans believing we should not be in Iraq as a problem. We are there based on lies to us, and after having realized we were lied to, it is only appropriate that we retract our support for such an action.
Yes, I know we were attacked on 9-11, but it wasnt by any one country...it was by cells of people. To this day, NO american would have heartache if we found a hideout of Taliban and took them out.
I think many would have heartache if that hideout were an apartment building in the center of other crowded apartment buildings, or perhaps next to a school or orphanage.
I don't think aiming a missile at such a target, knowing it would result in the deaths of several hundred innocent civilians is justified. As Americans, I think we should value life and hold to some higher principles than just being a bean counter of bodies e.g. 200 civilian lives can be traded for a cell of 5 terrorists in their hideout. Otherwise, we have become what our enemies are. If so, why fight them when we can just join them?
DougP
08-31-2007, 01:37 PM
Atb34, I tend to agree with the first half of your OP, but after that not so much.
Yes, it probably would be different. But I don't see most Americans believing we should not be in Iraq as a problem. We are there based on lies to us, and after having realized we were lied to, it is only appropriate that we retract our support for such an action.
I think many would have heartache if that hideout were an apartment building in the center of other crowded apartment buildings, or perhaps next to a school or orphanage.
I don't think aiming a missile at such a target, knowing it would result in the deaths of several hundred innocent civilians is justified. As Americans, I think we should value life and hold to some higher principles than just being a bean counter of bodies e.g. 200 civilian lives can be traded for a cell of 5 terrorists in their hideout. Otherwise, we have become what our enemies are. If so, why fight them when we can just join them?
I didn't hear stories of too many Americans crying when we were bombing the heck out of Berlin. More than just a couple of apartments went down in those bombing raids:D
We're not exactly fighting against a government now. Surely you can see the difference between this and previous wars.
Fonze
08-31-2007, 01:42 PM
real shit we won the world wars partly because of carpet bombing and relentless offense, not cause we wanted to know if its okay to come in.
Yes even though the shites' are not r best friend many didn't like the rule they lived under saddam.
atb35
08-31-2007, 01:45 PM
I don't think aiming a missile at such a target, knowing it would result in the deaths of several hundred innocent civilians is justified. As Americans, I think we should value life and hold to some higher principles than just being a bean counter of bodies e.g. 200 civilian lives can be traded for a cell of 5 terrorists in their hideout. Otherwise, we have become what our enemies are. If so, why fight them when we can just join them?
I think you are reaching for an argument here....
I never said anything about where the hideout was, civilians getting killed, or orphanages. I merely stated if we took out a 'Taliban hideout' meaning a place where Taliban congregate....I doubt anyone would say a word.
I know how the country is, and if we bombed a secluded building with 10k terrorists including Osama Bin Laden in it, but we happen to kill two dogs...some morons would be bitching about it.....
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 01:48 PM
I didn't hear stories of too many Americans crying when we were bombing the heck out of Berlin. More than just a couple of apartments went down in those bombing raids:D
Agreed. But then, you have to remember three things which I think are quite different from today:
1. Our government has not whipped us up into a belief that we are fighting an all out war for national survival. We are not being asked to sacrifice anything for the war effort, there is no draft. Hell, we are told to just keep on shopping.
2. The news media of today, unlike then, is not a willing partner with the government in feeding the public propoganda from the government line.
3. Then Americans just did not have access to the realities of what those bombings meant for the people on the ground at the time it was happening.They just got those pics of bombs falling out of the planes from a birds eye view and little plumes of smoke going puff over the countryside. A then later just already burned out destruction pics of buildings. Maybe a few shots of firemen trying to douse the fires as they were raging as well.
They were not treated to the kind of war photo journalism we have of today, and those images can galvanize outrage unlike anything of WW2 that was permitted to be shown to the public.
Yes, it probably would be different. But I don't see most Americans believing we should not be in Iraq as a problem. We are there based on lies to us, and after having realized we were lied to, it is only appropriate that we retract our support for such an action.
You know what...
These lies were so easy to see through from the very beginning. If anything, America deserves this. While the sensible people were screaming about the lies, the rest of the US was telling us to shut up. So hey, they're getting what they deserve.
Believe it or not, I LIKED BUSH when he was first elected. I liked his dad. And when 9/11 hit us, I had absolute trust that the leaders of the US would take appropriate action so that this wouldn't happen again.
And then Bush used 9/11 for his own political reasons. He used 9/11 as a case to invade Iraq. And, probably even the biggest, most painful realization, he sincerely doesn't give two ****s about terrorism. If he did, all effort would be spent trying to take down Al Qaida, not trying to bring about regime change in Iraq nor rebuilding what we've destroyed.
Why are we in Iraq? What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? Why, after listening to the weapons inspectors tell us REPEATEDLY that Iraq was no longer a threat, did we put top priority on regime change in Iraq, and when did Osama stop being much of a priority at all?
Enlighten me. Enlighten me on why us Americans should blindly support our country to the same degree Japan's nationalism flowed during WWII and before? Because that's what a lot of you are asking.
I know how the country is, and if we bombed a secluded building with 10k terrorists including Osama Bin Laden in it, but we happen to kill two dogs...some morons would be bitching about it.....
Let that moron bitch. The rest of us would be happy.
DougP
08-31-2007, 01:54 PM
We're not exactly fighting against a government now. Surely you can see the difference between this and previous wars.
I can. That's the point though. This isn't the same kind of war. That's why this is so difficult. They can run and hide in countries we cannot justify going into. They can get support from countries that we cannot go to war with. More importantly unlike other wars the support we have recieved on this has been sparse and that's before the whole Iraq situation. In comparison to what we sent to Europe during each war what did our allies contribute after 9/11? (before Iraq)
Also we wouldn't be able to fight another conventional war like we did in the past. We can't just indescriminantly bomb another nations capitals like we did before. With the media coverage being what it is today and as ficle as the American society is we'd be getting anti war protests by day two of WWIII.:army:
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by atb35
I know how the country is, and if we bombed a secluded building with 10k terrorists including Osama Bin Laden in it, but we happen to kill two dogs...some morons would be bitching about it.....
Let that moron bitch. The rest of us would be happy.
lol. That moron doesn't exist, because we never would find a building with 10k terrorists in it.
Man, I love straw men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Kinda like boogie men. Easy to build them (pointed @atb35).
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 02:23 PM
... we'd be getting anti war protests by day two of WWIII.:army:
Perhaps all this anti-war protests is long over due in coming for man's progress toward a peaceful world.
Let's hope it spreads to other countries as well. No reason why we should not be the first to experience it much more than other countries. After all, we do lead the world.
DougP
08-31-2007, 02:27 PM
Perhaps all this anti-war protests is long over due in coming for man's progress toward a peaceful world.
Let's hope it spreads to other countries as well. No reason why we should not be the first to experience it much more than other countries. After all, we do lead the world.
Honestly sometimes I wish we could just take the back seat for a decade or two and worry about our own problems for a change. Let someone else take the hot seat so they can see for themselves how easy it is.:thumbup1:
Ok I am going to play devil's advocate against the US "joining together" to fight against enemies similar to what was faced during WWII.
The US can not accept losing a few thousand people let alone face the possiblity of having millions of casualties. The media circus that would exist would force the US government to find a peaceful solution. Not to mention the fact that the two governing political parties in my opinion could not find common ground to fight a common enemy. I personally feel that one party now only gives "face" time to supporting the troops in action now. I can not imagine them giving an opposing president the power to wage unlimited warfare. Which would be necessary if faced with a conflict like the country did during WWII.
I also can not see industry turning itself to war time production to keep up with the destruction and attrition of equipment that the forces on the ground would have. That doesnt even begin to touch the inability to decide which company would produce what. With the current supply system and laws set in place competitive bidding is the law of the land and the government could never hope to get everyone on board in time to cooperate. People/businesses are too concerned with their own profit margin.
Let's not even begin to discuss casualties, the US does not have the facilities needed to care for the expected influx of patients that would need to receive treatment. Put that on the back burner for a moment.
Personell needs, the draft would have to be reinstitued, and how many people would the country need to put into jail for dodging the draft? How many people would cry about their civil rights and not want to go off and die for their country? How many people would sue their drill sergeants during boot camp or basic training because they were verbally abused by their D.I.'s?
How many people could handle the rigors of an "old" school bootcamp training that would be necessary to prepare the recruits about the horrors of war?
How many companies would allow the government to take control of their assests to allow the movement of supplies and troops around the world?
If anything close to a war similar in scale to WWII happened now the US had beter hope for it to end in one year or the country would be faced with shortages throughout the entire system. There would be a crisis in my opinion that would only leave the leadership with one option to defend and protect the country from any and all invaders. And I dont know of anyone that wants to see another Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Just a few ideas to get people here to start thinking on this topic on a broader scale.:D
P_chan
08-31-2007, 05:39 PM
Perhaps all this anti-war protests is long over due in coming for man's progress toward a peaceful world.
Full blown 100% hand holding, accepting people for who they are, peace will sadly never happen. There is always a bad apple who would use that new found piece as an example. The second everyone in the world decides to love each other, a group of people would rise up and start to take over other groups of people.
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 05:46 PM
Full blown 100% hand holding, accepting people for who they are, peace will sadly never happen. There is always a bad apple who would use that new found piece as an example. The second everyone in the world decides to love each other, a group of people would rise up and start to take over other groups of people.
Whether we will ever reach that end point of Utopian peace I don't think is debatable. Most sane, or at least realistic people, agree we surely will not.
Though an increase in war protests, hoping to reach that endpoint, surely would be a good thing if it helps to sway governments, or to make them pause and consider, before embarking on war to attain their goals.
DougP
08-31-2007, 05:52 PM
Whether we will ever reach that end point of Utopian peace I don't think is debatable. Most sane, or at least realistic people, agree we surely will not.
Though an increase in war protests, hoping to reach that endpoint, surely would be a good thing if it helps to sway governments, or to make them pause and consider, before embarking on war to attain their goals.
I doubt that because there are still anitwar protesters out there that are pretty violent themselves
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 06:04 PM
I doubt that because there are still anitwar protesters out there that are pretty violent themselves
I am not sure anti-war completely equates with being anti direct action, or anti-civil disobedience, or even means that one is a pacifist on all levels.
But, it could be true that anti war protestors who are violent may draw more people to their cause if they could keep from being violent.
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 06:12 PM
real shit we won the world wars partly because of carpet bombing and relentless offense, not cause we wanted to know if its okay to come in.
Wouldn't carpet bombing of civilian population centers qualify our WW2 pilots, old and grandfatherly now, to be terrorists -- albeit retired and honored ones?
P_chan
08-31-2007, 06:24 PM
Wouldn't carpet bombing of civilian population centers qualify our WW2 pilots, old and grandfatherly now, to be terrorists -- albeit retired and honored ones?
If memory serves me correctly weren't flyer's warning of the bombing often dropped before they bombed?
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 06:33 PM
hey lets not forget those people that think we should be nice to our aggressors because we don't want people to protest for thier rights being abused or broke.
I am not sure there are many who do say we should be nice to our aggressors, or at least not in any substantial numbers that keeps us from meeting force with force.
Also, there is the valid argument that our past foreign policies and adventures have sowed the seeds of hatred that have brought animosity and enemies to us. Sometimes it is true that one's crows do come home to roost. Humans have long memories, and they do not just extend back through our own lives, but to the generations of our fathers', grandfathers', and great grandfathers', etc... Should we ever atone for those past transgressions in some way -- verbal and through actions?
Back to "being nice to aggressors": What many people do think is that military responses should be somewhat proportional(i.e. not exactly equal, but then again not going overboard) to the innitial attack or threat.
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 06:40 PM
If memory serves me correctly weren't flyer's warning of the bombing often dropped before they bombed?
I am not sure if that was a common practice in all carpet bombings of population centers during WW2. With the real threat of U.S. planes being shot down by German air defenses, I would bet that the U.S. forces did not advertise then that they would be over their cities soon.
Even if it were, would that make a difference when the operation's mission is one to destroy a population center and to demoralize them by breaking their people' will to fight? To me that is still targeting civilians -- even so with a type of terror.
What if before attacking the Trade Center there were some leaflets scattered through the building of the Trade Center warning of the impending doom? Then would that free those Al Quaida from the charge of terrorism in this incident? I don't think it would. In fact, militant Muslims had already tried to destroy the Trade Center in the 90's but had failed. That was warning enough that the Trade Center was a marked target!
My point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say WW2 pilots targeting civilian population centers are innocent of terrorism and yet claim that others attacking your population centers are guilty of it. Reason demands that one be objective and fair. It is only our prejudice that lets us reject reason.
The American public in my opinion couldnt handle "enemy" civilian casulties either. They would cry for the heads of the Pentagon leadership for killing innocents. I can not image in this day and age americans getting that pissed off at one country so totally that even it's civilians were fair prey.
DougP
08-31-2007, 07:17 PM
There might be some grey area there though. Couple of differences stand out between then and now. Back then it was countries at war. Two sides throwing everything they had at eachother. A great number of civilians were working in production on both sides to stock the war machines furnaces. Unlike now where there is a group of nations confronting smaller organizations. War in the conventional sense was never underway when the initial attacks of September 11th occurred.
Now although both carpet bombing and terrorist acts of today seem near identical by the modern definition of terrorism there are some differences.
Look at the basic definition.
Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.
Yes carpet bombings create fear or "terror". But they are not perpetrated for an ideological goal. They are meant to take out enemy infrastructure and make ground occupation easier. Carpet bombing especially in Europe were conducted as such due to poor aerial surveillance and intel. You know the key targets are in a particular area but not sure as to where. Now yes there was a great number of innocent lives lost. We have learned from that and is why we do not use such tactics today. A surgical missile strike is not carpet bombing.
Now modern day terrorism specifically(surgically) targets civillians with no intention of attacking enemy infrastructure or armament. Sometimes the same groups do attack military targets as well. War is hell. It is no where near as indescriminent as carpet bombing. Carpet bombers weren't waking up that morning with the intent of killing innocent civilians.
Just another view...
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 07:55 PM
Now modern day terrorism specifically(surgically) targets civillians with no intention of attacking enemy infrastructure or armament. Sometimes the same groups do attack military targets as well. War is hell. It is no where near as indescriminent as carpet bombing. Carpet bombers weren't waking up that morning with the intent of killing innocent civilians.
Just another view...
I see your view, Doug, and agree with parts of it. But Bin Laden has said that the economic infrastructures are what make the might of the West strong, and and what better way to try and weaken that infrastructure and to send some shockwaves through it than hitting the Trade Centers and closing down much of New York -- not to mention the air industry that was sending thousands of business men on their way to work within the infrastructure.
Billions were lost and they got a lot of bang for their buck, so to speak.
Now, if the airplanes had targeted football stadiums filled to capacity, there could have been much more loss of life than what occured in the Trade Centers. That makes me think that the economic infrastructure(which they view as the furnaces of the war machines against them) was probably the main target -- not to mention the demoralizing affect of hitting one's enemy's symbols of their national identity.
It seemed not only terroristic, but strategic in its goals and message.
DougP
08-31-2007, 08:14 PM
Very strategic indeed. Unfortunately unlike the carpet bombers their actions that day were not condoned by the rest of the free world in hopes of defeating a dictatorship.
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 08:23 PM
Very strategic indeed. Unfortunately unlike the carpet bombers their actions that day were not condoned by the rest of the free world in hopes of defeating a dictatorship.
Are the definitions of terrorism decided by the majority? Or are they decided on by more objective criteria?
The majority can also be a mob in their rush to judgement. I am not quite sure that in the hearts and minds of most individual Muslims that the action was not condoned. How many Muslim countries had/have volunteered to go into Afghanistan with us to root out the Taliban and Al Quaida? Where are the massive number of Islamic mercenaries volunteering themselves to come to Afghanistan and fight those Muslims who took those innocent lives?
There are so many definitions of terrorism even amongst the U.S. government agencies that the whole concept is a slippery fish at best. We wrangle over its meanings because the implications could be harsh when pointed back at our own forces.
DougP
08-31-2007, 08:35 PM
Are the definitions of terrorism decided by the majority? Or are they decided on by more objective criteria?
The majority can also be a mob in their rush to judgement. I am not quite sure that in the hearts and minds of most individual Muslims that the action was not condoned. How many Muslim countries had/have volunteered to go into Afghanistan with us to root out the Taliban and Al Quaida? Where are the massive number of Islamic mercenaries volunteering themselves to come to Afghanistan and fight those Muslims who took those innocent lives?
There are so many definitions of terrorism even amongst the U.S. government agencies that the whole concept is a slippery fish at best. We wrangle over its meanings because the implications could be harsh when pointed back at our own forces.
I don't believe that terrorist actions are done in the best interest of the world's muslim community. Nor do I believe the world's Muslim community backs the terrorists actions. Do you?
TheNoNamedOne
08-31-2007, 08:50 PM
I don't believe that terrorist actions are done in the best interest of the world's muslim community.
I don't think they are either. But many want a Caleph to reign and unite the Muslim world. They view the West as keeping that from happening. To them having a Caleph reestablished would be good for the Muslim world.
Nor do I believe the world's Muslim community backs the terrorists actions. Do you?
Officially, I don't think they do. Unofficialy, I am not so sure since they have not sent troops with us to Afghanistan to show that they, too, would like to hunt down these terrorists. That is why I doubt that many of them do not wholley believe they are terrorists, and in fact perhaps many do view them as Freedom Fighters.
How do you explain that they have not shown overwhelming support in hunting them down and weeding them out of their societies?
--------------------------------
Man, let's try to use the next several posts to tie in and bring this discussion back to Uniting the U.S. like the OP said. Didn't realize how far we got off of it until just now. Not saying we can't continue on this, but let's try to tie it into the OP to some extent.
*But I do see the relevance, because the definition of terrorism can be a divisive issue amongst Americans in identifying a threat to the U.S. that we should be united against.
DougP
08-31-2007, 09:12 PM
I can sum up the solution in one word.
Education
The more the world knows about one another the better.... sometimes
If only America could be better educated than perhaps as a nation we could see eye to eye on more topics and issues.
socalheart
08-31-2007, 11:00 PM
Y'all just went everywhere possible with this one, eh? :)
Do you think America would band together if we were attacked?
If America were attacked in a militaristic maneuver, similar to Pearl Harbor, yes. If it were an attack similar to 9/11, not likely. This current conflict is having quite an effect on America and its opinion of war. It's a sad opinion based on my view of the current state of the union.
atb35
09-01-2007, 12:46 AM
Whether or not you believe about the war in Iraq, or how America in general feels about war...I honestly believe if we were attacked, we as a country would band together to suppress any opposition.
The best thing about America is FREEDOM, most people take it for granted, but there are millions who would be willing to die for it. WWII was not an anomaly, it wasnt a different time that produced the people back then that stood up for freedom.....it was America! I have no doubt in my mind that damn near everyone would be willing to step up to the challenges that would face our nation.
Our politicians have done nothing but lie, decieve and convolute the truth in the past 100 years. George W. Bush is no different then any other president we had in that time period, he just happend to be in office when a bad situation took place. What could he possibly do to make it better? Pull out and look like a pussy or continue and look like a terrorist trying to make money? It is a lose lose situation....he just happens to be in the unlucky position of being the president at this time.
Regardless of what people believe, our President isnt all that powerful...do you honestly believe he make desions HE wants to? There are thousands of people telling him what to do, how to do it and when to do it. He cant please everyone, that is one fact we do know. Unless we are losing dozens of men and women a day fighting in Iraq, why would we withdraw? It would make the USA look weak. That is something I certainly dont want, then everyone with $10 and a plan would be gunning for us.
We are America, united we stand...perhaps people should start believing that!
(yes, regardless of what our politicians make the military do)
I for one, even when I retire, will ALWAYS stand behind the military. Hundreds of thousands of brave men and women volunteer to serve, regardless of what our politicians believe, I will always believe in them!
So, unconditional nationalism then?
TheNoNamedOne
09-01-2007, 01:44 AM
Or unscrutinized nationalism then?
atb35
09-01-2007, 05:19 PM
That is part of the problem...at no point am I stating we shouldnt voice our opinion or TRY to make changes. People dont know how to take things for what they are...its either one extreme or the other.
I think it should be nationalism...not unconditional or unscrutinized...just nationalism.
That works for me. Funny how people question your nationalism the second you raise your hand to question anything the government may be doing wrong though. Or peg you as a nutjob liberal.
But so there is no confusion, this is the part of your post I was referencing.
I for one, even when I retire, will ALWAYS stand behind the military.
Would you still stand behind the military if they were blatantly doing something wrong? I can think of a few points in time where this has happened with negative results even during THIS decade. Which is why I brought up unconditional nationalism.
That works for me. Funny how people question your nationalism the second you raise your hand to question anything the government may be doing wrong though. Or peg you as a nutjob liberal.
But so there is no confusion, this is the part of your post I was referencing.
Would you still stand behind the military if they were blatantly doing something wrong? I can think of a few points in time where this has happened with negative results even during THIS decade. Which is why I brought up unconditional nationalism.
Good point I wonder if people could stand behind the military even when a select few commit crimes under the cover of fighting a war.
DougP
09-01-2007, 08:54 PM
Would you still stand behind the military if they were blatantly doing something wrong? I can think of a few points in time where this has happened with negative results even during THIS decade. Which is why I brought up unconditional nationalism.
I think "standing" behind the military can be looked at in other ways.
Its not just a matter of standing behind the government's "right arm of war" so to speak. It could be, more or less, supporting those who are serving their country. The military isn't one man.
Good point I wonder if people could stand behind the military even when a select few commit crimes under the cover of fighting a war.
I should hope so. Key words select few. Just because Iraq has been a controversial issue does that mean that the war on terror should end? And by that I mean the "real" war on terror that most Americans were for right after we were attacked. Or because of bad choices and a bad president are Americans just ready to give up and piss on the graves of those innocent lives that were lost that day? Or should we forsaken the many men and women who are serving their country with honor today because a select few are messing up?
I should hope so. Key words select few. Just because Iraq has been a controversial issue does that mean that the war on terror should end? And by that I mean the "real" war on terror that most Americans were for right after we were attacked. Or because of bad choices and a bad president are Americans just ready to give up and piss on the graves of those innocent lives that were lost that day? Or should we forsaken the many men and women who are serving their country with honor today because a select few are messing up?
To keep this thread on topic, which btw has nothing to do with the wars, plural here btw, in Iraq and Afganistan, would the American people stand behind the military if faced with a conflict similar to WWII...to that I would say yes.
DougP
09-01-2007, 09:09 PM
I hope you didn't think I was trying to move off topic. btw the war on terror is one war on two fronts, Iraq and Afganistan. Much like WWII was fought in Asia and in Europe.(Same war different fronts)
atb35
09-01-2007, 10:34 PM
That works for me. Funny how people question your nationalism the second you raise your hand to question anything the government may be doing wrong though. Or peg you as a nutjob liberal.
But so there is no confusion, this is the part of your post I was referencing.
Would you still stand behind the military if they were blatantly doing something wrong? I can think of a few points in time where this has happened with negative results even during THIS decade. Which is why I brought up unconditional nationalism.
To the Military? Yes, I will always stand behind them. To the men and women who are serving. They are not making the decisions, they are just serving their country. Obviously if some idiots in the military do something completely stupid, I wouldnt be behind them.
I hope you didn't think I was trying to move off topic. btw the war on terror is one war on two fronts, Iraq and Afganistan. Much like WWII was fought in Asia and in Europe.(Same war different fronts)
WWII was not limited to two specific countries as the current war on terror is. The point if I am not mistaken of the original post here was to discuss whether or not the US could or would have the ability or desire to fight a similar war today that happened during WWII.
In my opinion many of the comments made here on this thread so far deal only with the current situation and not with what the intent of the OP was.
However I could be wrong.:)
3y3sor3
09-02-2007, 08:36 AM
In response to the topic of this thread, I believe that America would come together in the face of a WWIII type situation.
America may be a divided nation these days, over such issues as Immigration, Welfare, and Foreign Policy, but we all hold fast to those things which brought us here in the first place.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
When something comes around that truly threatens those ideals, we respond. I believe that America came together after the 9/11 attacks to say that we won't tolerate attacks on our way of life.
Now whether our leadership has done the right thing in its actions since then... I'll leave that to the historians.
Asshat
09-02-2007, 08:47 AM
I vote......"no." Americans have their heads stuck too far up their asses. We're far too concerned with making a buck, or who is doing whom, or what the weather is like in central Kansas to do something like ration fuel and tires or plant victory gardens.
Oh sure, a few folks will wave flags and say "we support you" because that doesn't cost too much. But in the end, America is happy to allow the military to fight their battles for them.
Fonze
09-02-2007, 12:41 PM
Thats why I see the 70% want us to get out of Iraq have no argument cause they don't sacrifice anything. How many people actully know someone who's been to Irag or Afganistan and I'm no talking bout a friend of a friend or I went to school with him or drank with him.
I do believe americans would fight hard and long and sacrifice much for their country.
I know several people who have gone to Iraq.
I still disagree with the invasion.
And you asked "How many people actually know someone who's been to Iraq..." and "I'm not talking about I went to school with him"
School friends are valid friends. Seriously, what were you expecting by limiting it so narrowly?
I know several people who have gone to Iraq.
I still disagree with the invasion.
And you asked "How many people actually know someone who's been to Iraq..." and "I'm not talking about I went to school with him"
School friends are valid friends. Seriously, what were you expecting by limiting it so narrowly?
Maybe rereading the op would help shed some light on it.:D
Fonze
09-02-2007, 01:10 PM
did you disagree when it happened or do you now diagree. Remember 70+% were for going in in 2003. Anyways this is off topic, but my point is who really is sacrifing for these wars but families of mil members.
Asshat
09-02-2007, 01:53 PM
did you disagree when it happened or do you now diagree. Remember 70+% were for going in in 2003. Anyways this is off topic, but my point is who really is sacrifing for these wars but families of mil members.
That is why I made my statement too. The "US" is not at war, the military is. That is a change from previous World Wars, but very much like Korea and Vietnam. (By military I include family and friends of warriors)
By the way, count me as one of the 70 percent who were sucked in to the lies told to us for invading Iraq. Could that be a reason so many are against this war now? Perhaps we should be at war with Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps we should be at war with Saudi Arabia?
And a few other countries as well. Hindsight is nearly always 20/20.
Fonze
09-02-2007, 02:03 PM
Could that be a reason so many are against this war now? Perhaps we should be at war with Saudi Arabia?
Your'e right but there many reasons for his removal and yes the biggest one was wrong.
We should either be at war with them and others or just leave that place to crumble on it's own and close our ears to the suffering and aid request from that part of the world.
Lets not forget the unmatched generousity of the US, not just military aid but economic and medical as well.
DougP
09-02-2007, 02:29 PM
That is why I made my statement too. The "US" is not at war, the military is. That is a change from previous World Wars, but very much like Korea and Vietnam. (By military I include family and friends of warriors)
By the way, count me as one of the 70 percent who were sucked in to the lies told to us for invading Iraq. Could that be a reason so many are against this war now? Perhaps we should be at war with Saudi Arabia?
When did the War on Terror actually end?
Were there WMAs found in Iraq? No. So by the book yes we were lied to and tricked into thinking that there would be WMAs found all over in Iraq. However the fact that up until the UN investigations preceeding the war there could have been WMAs in Iraq is still inconclusive.
Should we have gone in based on the intel we had? Most likely not.
As it was put before "sufficiently credible to merit further investigation" does not mean "sufficiently credible to launch an invasion".
What is known though is that we are still at war with the same enemy. And by that I don't mean they all are members of the same organization or use the same long distance provider to make calls. But they are terrorist none the less. An enemy that our nation went to war with allmost 6 years ago. It was then our nation vowed to rid the world of such a threat. Also Bush was rather clear when he said "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
So how does this tie into the topic of the thread. Easily. We are speculating how America would respond to a threat similar to what we faced durring WWII. A WWIII if you will. Well we are faced with a threat. A much greater threat then what we faced back then. This threat is a new breed. An enemy that can strike from anywhere at anytime. It will not appear on radar before an attack. We can not see it coming at us like a fleet of ships or a squadron of planes.
We are still in the middle of a very real war with a very real threat. I believe that the way America is "banding" together( or lack there of) during this crisis is a good indicator to what the answer might be to the question this thread asks.
I think we need to stop thinking of war in terms of two sides wearing different uniforms lining up and taking aim at one another. War in the conventional sense may be long gone. Or put at hold for a while. Just because "we" made a mistake and are in a horrible situation doesn't mean that packing up and leaving will end the war we are still in today.
atb35
09-02-2007, 06:55 PM
My whole point with the thread was this...as divided as America is now, with racism, sexism, miltaryism, sheepism or any other isms...would we pull together if faced with a country-wide threat. Terrorism will always divide people, that is what its goal is.
Would the bloods fight alongside the crips (spelling??) if we were invaded? Would all the liberal hippies pick up weapons and defend their homeland? Would all the people who do whatever it takes to stay out of the military sign up and help defend it?
How about all the high paid actors, athletes or entertainers...would they fight?
I believe America as a whole is strong and would pull together if we were invaded.
did you disagree when it happened or do you now diagree. Remember 70+% were for going in in 2003. Anyways this is off topic, but my point is who really is sacrifing for these wars but families of mil members.
I doubt it was 30% who were against it... Seemed a LOT less back then. Yes, I was part of the minority who was saying "Iraq is a mistake. Don't do it." I've been saying it since at least 2002 or whenever it was that the idea of invading Iraq first came up as potential action.
I still think it was a mistake, and I still think we're hurting ourselves by spreading ourselves so thin.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.