I know that this is a pointless gesture arguing with you but please look at the history of the US before WW1 and WW2. In both cases we held back from entering the fight as long a possible.
In both cases the military had been slashed from the levels existing during the previous conflicts. Slashed in manpower and lacking the latest technology. In both cases, the military had to learn quickly and rebuild even quicker to supply its troops. This is a lesson that cost the US dearly in both conflicts and now 50 years later we are still facing the same exact issues: Lack of supplies in the field and lack of soldiers to fill the needs.
Both are examples of reluctance to fund a properly staffed military and reluctance to go to war.
You touch here in my view some core point of the question “why”.
Yet while it is certainly true that powerful nations always relied on expanding and sustaining their military capacity, this does not answer the question why that sill is the first option of the USA today. There are now other channels available worldwide to solve problems that were not available in the past.
We are not fighting in Afghanistan? That doesn’t count as a war?
I don’t consider it hyperbole to call it a war when over a hundred Americans along with thousands of our allies have died rooting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
War wasn’t the first option. The Taliban could have handed over Bin Laden and the others responsible for the WTC attacks and Saddam could have allowed unfettered access to UN inspectors. Both these wars could have been averted if they had complied with our very reasonable demands.
If they are soldiers, they know they have a risky job. Just like policemen and firefighters now that when they choose that job.
I think you need to become more specific about that to make your point clearer to me.
[quote]
Yeah anyone who wears the uniform is a hero to most because they do the shit jobs that no one else will.
[/quote)
In my view the US military is based on voluntarely enteriing military service. If military service was forced on them as it is in many other nations you could mke a point of this comment. Now it is meaningless.
Did they enter the military voluntarely or where they forced to do that?
In most cases, soldiers choose to join up knowing the pros and cons and I’d be surprised if many joined up to protect anyone’s freedom rather than get a paycheck, learn a trade, progress through an honorable profession – the usual stuff. Also, in many of the world’s armies, soldiers will do the majority of their service outside of combat.
I don’t doubt that many soldiers, in all armies, have and will carry out praiseworthy heroics but so do people in all walks of life and it demeans the word if we attribute the “hero” tag to anyone just because they have chosen a certain profession.
While it may be true that the Navy mothballed a few ships, the fact remains that the USA in 2001 spent more on its military than any other ten nations combined. It’s hard to deny that the U.S. puts an unusually huge amount of money into armaments and soldiers.
The U.S. has simply NOT had the same attitude towards war and military spending since 1945 as it did before. Since then it’s been perpetually armed to the teeth.
JXJohns points out that the US now faces a shortage of soldiers, but in no way is this comparable to the situation the US was in prior to World War II. There’s a shortage of soldiers no because the U.S. has its armed services committed in a dozen different places, having invaded and occupied two entire countries, being involved in small-scale wars in places like the Philippines and Colombia, and having huge chunks of military power dedicated to places in Korea. To pass this off as being the result of demilitarization is crazy; the U.S. contingent in Korea is powerful enough to win a war against most of the world’s nations.
I don’t have the, um… antipathy towards the USA that Aldebaran does, but the rish here to claim “we aren’t militaristic at all” is a bit of protesting-too-much. Let’s not turn this into a false dillemma and pretend the only options are
“not at all militaristic” and “obsessed with war.”
The USA IS noticably militaristic as compared to other Western nations. I can’t think of many other indistrialized nations where there’s so much tie-in between weapons of war and professional sporting events, or are you denying they have USAF flyovers at NASCAR races? The worship of soldiers is there, too - again, not ridiculous, but it’s pervasive; the Jessica Lynch bit being an excellent example. It’s not to the level of fascism or anything, but there’s an unwillingness here to see what’s right before you all.
A question … only half tongue-in-cheek … for those who say “any serviceperson = Hero” …
Now that we have privatized so much of our military operations, are the private citizens doing the work once done by the military “Heroes” too? Halliburton, misc. mercenaries (or Security Companies if you prefer), logistics, etc.
Absurdity.
I expect most answer “No, because they make more money.” So is the only disconnect the money? Are they not still “serving the good of their common man”? Just in the most profitable (Amercian) way possible?
I don’t mean to degrade military service. I just personally reserve the word Hero for the ones who directly risk life and limb in the moment. By that definition, I would probably apply it to a higher percentage of firefighters than the military overall. And with the current war, I have deep misgivings about “Serving honorably for a less than honorable cause”. I am sure there are some heroic deeds taking place on the day-to-day, but it just doesn’t sit right in the big picture.
I do not appreciate your constant attempt to switch the focus of this discussion to your obsession with what is sold to you as “wat on terror”.
You can open any thread you want to give your view on “Taliban” and “Aghanistan” and “the reason why the US invaded Afghanistan”.
You can do the same for giving your view on the invasion of Iraq.
All of this has nothing to do with the questions in my OP and you got your answer on your assertions already spelled out here from a few other members. On which I shall add :
The USA is not “under attack”
There was no reason to invade any nation. Yet when the US decided to go against the Taliban by this invading Afghanistan, they gathered at least intetrnational agreement on this.
There was most certainly no reason at all to invade yet an other sovereign nation and their was and is certainly NO support for this by the UN or the international community.
Aldebaran, which cultural group or large nation seen in a historical perspective do you think the US’ers are more militaristic than? (…can you end an English sentence on “than”?)
According to here (waring PDF) 13.8% listed Duty to Country. They didn’t list “protecting freedoms” as an option but you are correct most people join the military for other reasons.
Show me the Native American cities of stone, in North America. Can’t?
Show me the non-game trail roads. Can’t?
More than 99% of the continent was wilderness, with a few large villages, but no towns or cities.
Yes, I know about the Mound Builder city near the confluence of the Missouri & Mississippi Rivers. But it was abandoned centuries before we came. Ditto with the Cliff Dwellers.
The Pre-Colombian Native Americans didn’t have metalworking, stone masonry, roadbuilding, or a written language.
Not savages, yet hardly in a class with Renaissance Italy.
“wat” is in the language of my mother the same as “what” in English but can also mean something soft, like a soft plushy cotton ball (=watten of watje)
Maybe this would be a good idea for a sig… “GW Bush = a Watje on Terror”
You asked if we were under a constant threat or in constant war and I replied that we were.
We were attacked and we are responding to that attack.
The Taliban was giving haven to a man that was responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. They were allowing a terrorist orginization to operate with impunity in there country that is reason to invade.
[/quote]
I never said there was
Then why don’t you respond to my the evidence I provided that America is not preoccupied with war nor with glorifying soldiers.
It seems to me the comparison is implicit. Compared to whom are the Americans fixated with Military and War? If not you need to be more specific with what you mean by overly fixated. Instead you start out with the assumption that Americans are “preoccupied with Military and War”. An assumption that begs to be challenged. Anyone who posts under such a subject without questioning the assumption tacitly agree to its validity.