The US Late To Wars

[Gunny]

Drummond ... Ref your comment in the other thread I don't want to derail.

It's aggravating to a lot of us that we're are always late to wars. Our dynamic is different than yours. you got into WWI based upon a bunch of treaties that looked like a Rubic's Cube. You didn't have much choice in WWII. I think you were getting the crap bombed out of you, and the RAF was on its last leg from sheer attrition. Only Hitler getting pissed at the bombing of Berlin and shifting targets to cities got the RAF off the hook and a little respite

The US on the other hand has a bunch of people to this day that can't grasp the concept that if you stop it before it starts, there's a LOT less damage on both sides than if you wait until you're facing a monster.

These people have to be outraged before they'll get off their butts. The sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. I'm a firm believer in the former being an excuse.

In BOTH wars, Britain benefited greatly by the US entering. For one, we were supplying Britain in both wars before we were ever in them. I doubt a merchant marine sailor on a Liberty ship getting hit by a U-bout would understand the difference between declared and undeclared war. The RAF had a lot of American and Canadian flyers in both wars.

Our entrance into both wars ended them. A lot of what if's. Like had the US gone straight after Japan instead of FDR agreeing with Churchill and Stalin to defeat Germany first. Germany was less of a threat to us than Europe.

In WWI it took our troops to break a 4 years old static line where not much was accomplished but killing people and going nowhere. The MG was introduced as a main line weapon while commanders were still sending troops in frontal assaults using Napoleonic tactics.

But as they currently call themselves, the left in this country firmly does its best to get in everyone's way, and heap bad media on everything done to keep anyne from solving a problem. What do they do? Declare victory, pull out our troops and leave a vacuum.

When WWII started the Republicans were the isolationists and anti-war and the Dems the warhawks. How times and labels have changed.

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) ... Ref your comment in the other thread I don't want to derail.

It's aggravating to a lot of us that we're are always late to wars. Our dynamic is different than yours. you got into WWI based upon a bunch of treaties that looked like a Rubic's Cube. You didn't have much choice in WWII. I think you were getting the crap bombed out of you, and the RAF was on its last leg from sheer attrition. Only Hitler getting pissed at the bombing of Berlin and shifting targets to cities got the RAF off the hook and a little respite

The US on the other hand has a bunch of people to this day that can't grasp the concept that if you stop it before it starts, there's a LOT less damage on both sides than if you wait until you're facing a monster.

These people have to be outraged before they'll get off their butts. The sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. I'm a firm believer in the former being an excuse.

In BOTH wars, Britain benefited greatly by the US entering. For one, we were supplying Britain in both wars before we were ever in them. I doubt a merchant marine sailor on a Liberty ship getting hit by a U-bout would understand the difference between declared and undeclared war. The RAF had a lot of American and Canadian flyers in both wars.

Our entrance into both wars ended them. A lot of what if's. Like had the US gone straight after Japan instead of FDR agreeing with Churchill and Stalin to defeat Germany first. Germany was less of a threat to us than Europe.

In WWI it took our troops to break a 4 years old static line where not much was accomplished but killing people and going nowhere. The MG was introduced as a main line weapon while commanders were still sending troops in frontal assaults using Napoleonic tactics.

But as they currently call themselves, the left in this country firmly does its best to get in everyone's way, and heap bad media on everything done to keep anyne from solving a problem. What do they do? Declare victory, pull out our troops and leave a vacuum.

When WWII started the Republicans were the isolationists and anti-war and the Dems the warhawks. How times and labels have changed.

That's a great post. I've little to say in response to it ... points well made.

The turnaround from Dems being hawks, to Republicans taking on that mantle, is incredible, bordering on the farcically ridiculous. But ... there it is. It reminds me of the fact that Lincoln, as I understand it, was more on the side of racial equality than Woodrow Wilson was, a generation later. Dem reinventions over the generations are quite something to behold (.. to the extent that anyone ever does ..).

I'm one Brit who'd always argue that we owe the US a great debt of gratitude for their, as you'd say, 'saving our asses' repeatedly, from one World War to the next. Yes, from our perspective, you're 'late' to wars. Even so, once you enter them, the level of sacrifice you incur on behalf of others' needs ... really needs to be respected and acknowledged as the remarkable thing it is.

We should never forget that. But far too many of my countrymen do. Especially those on the Left, who consider themselves 'enlightened' in their myopic rejection of warfare when the need for it is inescapable.

Currently ... Obama's truly disgusting decision to pull forces out of Iraq when he did, even to giving the enemy years to prepare for it (!!) ... was something which I'd love to have seen him be impeached for. You don't give an enemy a critical advantage, one costly in lives ! Iraqi local forces floundered. ISIS stepped in, filling a power vacuum, and they built on it. My belief is that none of that was ever necessary, and only happened because a politically correct narcissist thought it would help history view him favourably.

[revelarts]

LAte to Wars... Plural.

Ok so late to WW1 , I'm not sure why we had to be in that one still. But OK.
late to WW2, for simplicity, I'll give you that.

so ONE war maybe 2. we are "late " for.

which other wars were we late FOR.
Korea?
Veitnam?
the Cold War?
CUba Bay of Pigs Invasion
Laos & Cambodia
Grenada
Honduras
Panama
Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru:. in "War on Drugs"
the 1st Iraq war
Bosnia
the 2nd Iraq War
....
Afghanistan.. still there going on 20 freaking years
assisted coup in Libya
and now in Syria
Drone striking --bombing-- 7+ countries since 2001 now in the "war on terror".

which of these other GRAND wars for civilization are we late to exactly now?

I'm not sure how some people can just look though the lens of WW2 at war and U.S. military actions and how we should respond to supposed threats.
that was a 4+ year conflict for the U.S., 70+ years ago now.
there's a LOT more info to siff through than Isolationist ideas of the 1940s,
or war mongering mindset that believes the U.S. war machine is hammer that can fix every problem.

[gabosaurus]

If you want Obama prosecuted for getting out of the war, shouldn't we also prosecute GW Bush for starting it? Both moves proved to be equally unpopular.

[Gunny]

LAte to Wars... Plural.

Ok so late to WW1 , I'm not sure why we had to be in that one still. But OK.
late to WW2, for simplicity, I'll give you that.

so ONE war maybe 2. we are "late " for.

which other wars were we late FOR.
Korea?
Veitnam?
the Cold War?
CUba Bay of Pigs Invasion
Laos & Cambodia
Grenada
Honduras
Panama
Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru:. in "War on Drugs"
the 1st Iraq war
Bosnia
the 2nd Iraq War
....
Afghanistan.. still there going on 20 freaking years
assisted coup in Libya
and now in Syria
Drone striking --bombing-- 7+ countries since 2001 now in the "war on terror".

which of these other GRAND wars for civilization are we late to exactly now?

I'm not sure how some people can just look though the lens of WW2 at war and U.S. military actions and how we should respond to supposed threats.
that was a 4+ year conflict for the U.S., 70+ years ago now.
there's a LOT more info to siff through than Isolationist ideas of the 1940s,
or war mongering mindset that believes the U.S. war machine is hammer that can fix every problem.

Stay on topic and out of your conspiracy theory Twilight Zone, looks like we were late to every one. Forget doing the right thing or any moral obligation. Somebody had to blow our shit up first. And almost nothing you listed were actual wars. My daughter teaches 1st grade. I'll have her send you some 1st grade history you can befud dle yourself with. Hint: It starts with the book title on the cover. Don't tell anyone if you figure out. It'll take away your edge on the other 1st graders.

[Black Diamond]

Stay on topic and out of your conspiracy theory Twilight Zone, looks like we were late to every one. Forget doing the right thing or any moral obligation. Somebody had to blow our shit up first. And almost nothing you listed were actual wars. My daughter teaches 1st grade. I'll have her send you some 1st grade history you can befud dle yourself with. Hint: It starts with the book title on the cover. Don't tell anyone if you figure out. It'll take away your edge on the other 1st graders.
Does your daughter teach about the illuminati ?

[Gunny]

That's a great post. I've little to say in response to it ... points well made.

The turnaround from Dems being hawks, to Republicans taking on that mantle, is incredible, bordering on the farcically ridiculous. But ... there it is. It reminds me of the fact that Lincoln, as I understand it, was more on the side of racial equality than Woodrow Wilson was, a generation later. Dem reinventions over the generations are quite something to behold (.. to the extent that anyone ever does ..).

I'm one Brit who'd always argue that we owe the US a great debt of gratitude for their, as you'd say, 'saving our asses' repeatedly, from one World War to the next. Yes, from our perspective, you're 'late' to wars. Even so, once you enter them, the level of sacrifice you incur on behalf of others' needs ... really needs to be respected and acknowledged as the remarkable thing it is.

We should never forget that. But far too many of my countrymen do. Especially those on the Left, who consider themselves 'enlightened' in their myopic rejection of warfare when the need for it is inescapable.

Currently ... Obama's truly disgusting decision to pull forces out of Iraq when he did, even to giving the enemy years to prepare for it (!!) ... was something which I'd love to have seen him be impeached for. You don't give an enemy a critical advantage, one costly in lives ! Iraqi local forces floundered. ISIS stepped in, filling a power vacuum, and they built on it. My belief is that none of that was ever necessary, and only happened because a politically correct narcissist thought it would help history view him favourably.

Depending on who you listen to, the major shift of our time began with Nixon and his so-called "Southern Strategy" the left has deemed some sort of racist conspiracy. What it actually was was Nixon appealing to disaffected Southerners who to that point had been loyal Democrats. My family on both sides was. While Civil Rights WAS part of the issue, the Dems embracing hippies and peaceniks and dropping their stones at the door was the real issue. Prior to that, most Southerners were Dems.

So why WOULDN'T Nixon appeal to their sense of abandonment by their party? I would if I was a politician.

The nail in the Coffin was Jimmy Carter. He was left of left, but that is when the Dems passed the point of no return. Any diehard holdovers from 68 jumped ship in 80. I watched people vote for Reagan who had Democrat stamped in their DNA. That left the Dems with a bunch of leftwingnuts running their party.

As the Dems have continually shifted left toward fascism, the GOP has shifted left as well in an attempt to keep up with the moderate vote. BOTH sides label themselves with words that do not describe them by definition. There is NOTHING "liberal" about these leftwingnut Nazi progressive democrats that call themselves such. Likewise these big government Republicans that call themselves conservative.

Now, contrast comments above with:

Woodrow Wilson screened "The Birth of a Nation" (a silent film depicting blacks and subhuman and the KKK as knights in shining armour) in the White House. So what do you call turning rainbow colored lights on the home of the President of the United States?

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President, and they were the lefties of their day. The South was conservative, wishing to maintain status quo. And in tru leftwingnut fashion, the US dreamed up and excuse to attack the South and take what the South wouldn't give them, using slavery as a PR tool.

And as Rev was so kind as to point out above for the viewing audience, there are always those without a clue that want to stick their heads in the sand like ostriches and pretend it isn't happening while the world goes to sh*t around them. He is lost in his own paranoid imagination. Meanwhile the elephant in his room he's ignoring is laughing at him.

The way to get the US into a war is to make the weak feel threatened. THEn they start blaming the government for not protecting them. The same government they won't let do anything proactive. Then the President comes up with new rules to increasy security and they start crying about their rights being infringed. They're going to cry no matter what.

[Black Diamond]

How were we late for the Cold War? Other than not taking Pattons advice and advancing to Moscow using captured nazis.

[Gunny]

How were we late for the Cold War? Other than not taking Pattons advice and advancing to Moscow using captured nazis.

If you are referring to Rev's list, it's too early in the morning to subject your brain to that drivel. I mean look what he's listed. The War on Drugs.:laugh: Last I checked we were never at war with Laos and/or Cambodia. We went after the Ho CHi Minh Trail. We were never at war with either country.

We entered Vietnam as UN peacekeepers. It was a UN action we bore the brunt of. Likewise Korea and Bosnia.

Grenada was a simple rescue action.

We have never been at war with Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, or Columbia. We DID beat the Mexicans out of some land in 1846.

I think he left out those "wars" in Ferguson and Baltimore ....:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Still waiting to get a strait answer.
so far it's been some name calling And dodges.

and then some odd nitpicking over 1/3 of my list that site military interventions of various kinds.
Odd because Gunny you say they aren't "wars" but in your 1st post you say.
"...In BOTH wars, Britain benefited greatly by the US entering. For one, we were supplying Britain in both wars before we were ever in them. I doubt a merchant marine sailor on a Liberty ship getting hit by a U-bout would understand the difference between declared and undeclared war. ....."
So yeah I agree, "declared" or "undeclared" "peace keeping" or "police action" or "military intervention" If you're attacked by some military force or if a military force (ours) attacks a nation or group, it's basically at war.
so yes in every item on my list the U.S. MILITARY was lethally engaged.
So my question still stands WHICH war (or war euphemism) have we been late too?

[revelarts]

As far as Dems or Republicans being more Hawkish today well If what you guys wanted was more war then you should have voted for Hillary or Bernie.
(or Lindsey Graham... I think Drummond would like Graham. He loves wars, sees terrorist eeeeverywhere and doesn't care about the constitution or rights or collateral damage.)
but BOTH Hillary and Bernie were more prone to attack Syria, Iran or other M.E. Countries and 'defend' Israel than Trump claimed to be at the time and still.
Neither of them are part of the anti-war wing of the left.
Both voted for or supported most (if not ALL) of the interventionist wars/'military actions' over the past 25+ years.
And Hillary seemed/seems itching for a war with Russia. Has been ginning up conflict since before the campaign. link (http://thehill.com/policy/international/212896-clinton-calls-for-tougher-sanctions-on-putin). Proposing more sanctions and such while Trump wants to wind down conflict with Russia.


However there are definitely more vocal Republicans when it comes to war mongering and PRE-emptive striking. But the establishment Dems are FULLY on board VOTE and ADVICE wise with wars of all kinds.
But they do often complain afterwards if the wars popularity goes sour.
SaveSave

[Gunny]

Still waiting to get a strait answer.
so far it's been some name calling And dodges.

and then some odd nitpicking over 1/3 of my list that site military interventions of various kinds.
Odd because Gunny you say they aren't "wars" but in your 1st post you say.
"...In BOTH wars, Britain benefited greatly by the US entering. For one, we were supplying Britain in both wars before we were ever in them. I doubt a merchant marine sailor on a Liberty ship getting hit by a U-bout would understand the difference between declared and undeclared war. ....."
So yeah I agree, "declared" or "undeclared" "peace keeping" or "police action" or "military intervention" If you're attacked by some military force or if a military force (ours) attacks a nation or group, it's basically at war.
so yes in every item on my list the U.S. MILITARY was lethally engaged.
So my question still stands WHICH war (or war euphemism) have we been late too?Lethally engaged does not translate to war. I answered your question already. You're just wasting air and opportunity and time, as usual. I think I was rather clear. Like I said, try 1st grade history FIRST.

What a trainwreck you are sometimes.

[revelarts]

Lethally engaged does not translate to war.
(accept when you say it does in your 1st post)

I answered your question already. (nope)

You're just wasting air and opportunity and time, as usual. (contentless minor Insult 1)

I think I was rather clear. Like I said, try 1st grade history FIRST. (contentless minor Insult 2)

What a trainwreck you are sometimes.(contentless minor Insult 3)


Look Gunny as hard as it may be for you admit, the fact is we haven't been late to JACK since WW2.
... 70 years ago.
Since then we've usually been in some conflict 1st and even INSTIGATING conflicts around the world.

And a good case can be made that many if not most those conflicts have been counter productive.
Iraq and Libya are 2 most recent examples.
WAR is not a good solution in most cases, and it definitely isn't a Pre-emptive cure to all the bad in the world.
In fact Pre-emptive attacks are called INVASIONS and WAR CRIMES in the genva convention.
(which yes you know far better than me about the treaties because you were in the miltary etc etc etc, but somehow you don't want to abide by it, WHY)

[Gunny]

Look Gunny as hard as it may be for you admit, the fact is we haven't been late to JACK since WW2.
... 70 years ago.
Since then we've usually been in some conflict 1st and even INSTIGATING conflicts around the world.

And a good case can be made that many if not most those conflicts have been counter productive.
Iraq and Libya are 2 most recent examples.
WAR is not a good solution in most cases, and it definitely isn't a Pre-emptive cure to all the bad in the world.
In fact Pre-emptive attacks are called INVASIONS and WAR CRIMES in the genva convention.
(which yes you know far better than me about the treaties because you were in the miltary etc etc etc, but somehow you don't want to abide by it, WHY)There's nothing for me to admit. You are wrong. That does not require an admission on MY part.

Late to act does NOT require armed armed conflict which you would know had to read the conversation between myself and Drummond. Everything preceding actual armed conflict doens't disappear when the shooting starts.

The simple point you keep trying to twist is, we could have precluded many of these conflicts and/or the severity of them had we been proactive. Hitler could have been stopped before he got started as well as Tojo. Instead we let them go unchecked until they attacked us and we became outraged.

Dumbass little onefers are NOT wars. How many MORE lives were lost due to a lack of preparedness, waiting to be attacked, and playing catch up half the war? Most of the territory we took back from Japan we held on Dec 7 1941. All those lives lost because people like you want to play ostrich until someone comes up and kicks your ass that's STILL sticking up in the air no matter how deep you bury your head.

[aboutime]

Reading rev's words reminds me of Obama again. It sounds like rev likes to blame the USA for all the problems when he says we started them.
Rev. Would you prefer to allow enemies from around the world to control everything?

Better yet. You should become the KATY PERRY fan club president, and join her in insisting that ISIS, HAMAS, IRAN, N. KOREA, and RUSSIA should just RODNEY KING their way into YOUR HEART. "Can't we just get along?" Singing KUM BY YAH, and hoping nobody wants to KILL YOU, or YOUR FAMILY because you are such PUSHOVER Mr. Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7tmfAXbK8c

[Drummond]

If you want Obama prosecuted for getting out of the war, shouldn't we also prosecute GW Bush for starting it? Both moves proved to be equally unpopular.

Surely, what matters is to take an action (or series of them) it is RIGHT to take.

Was it right to provide terrorists with a power vacuum they would then be free to fill ... or, in Obama's case, one you could argue that they were INVITED to fill, considering just how much advance notice he gave them of intended troop withdrawals !!

Would it have been right to suffer 9/11, then to resolve to NOT answer it, militarily, at all ? Perhaps the Leftie answer would've been to issue a few choice condemnatory words in the UN, then let it ride, until such time as further 9/11 equivalents were launched ?

It was in the name of the War on Terror, which you claim GW Bush 'started', that the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was smashed. Do you say that for the sake of not 'starting' that, those terrorists in Afghanistan should've been left alone, to do their worst, in years to come ?

Bush reacted to a terrorist assault. He started .. NOTHING.

[Drummond]

AT would you prefer we attack every country that doesn't like us, or doesn't give us our way?
the shoot 1st and ask question later, and Do i as say not as i do fan club?

or COULD THERE BE some other alternatives to the ideas of,
pretending there are No threats and everyone is lovely
and attacking other nations without clear cause other than our financial benefit and straddling the rest of the world with our military's guns to the world's head for our "safety"?

Seems to me very clear that the U.S. military/theGun is NOT the main tool or only to use in international affairs.
You have to consider the psychology of those you'd oppose.

So tell me. On what possible basis would you presume that terrorists would respect anything other than force ?

The point of being a terrorist (other than to satisfy a subhuman bloodlust - obviously !!) is to - get this - TERRORISE. I think the clue is in the word ?? Now, you tell me ... how does that fail to be light years away from any possibility of negotiation, or sheer reasoning ?

A terrorist would be pleased with its victims (those who survive) bending to its will. That is totally different from shared 'accommodations' being reached. Terrorists want others to bend to them. This, to them, would be a form of victory. This (apart from the bloodlust thing) is what they want.

AND ... this is why a War on Terror is necessary, and why it's the only proper approach. There is an less than proper one ... SURRENDER.

Do you advocate surrender ?

You reason with people who are open to reasoning. You cannot reason with those who aren't.

There are therefore times when war is necessary. Against a nation, or against smaller groupings ... it doesn't really change between them. If you're dealing with an opposition determined to win out, and said opposition cannot be usefully reasoned with, and a proper accommodation reached out of it .. then, what's left to you ?

I, for one, would much rather not go down the 'surrender' or 'appeasement' route (appeasement is only, ultimately, a longer and drawn-out version of surrender, anyway).

Wars happen because there has to be a victor, and a vanquished. Which would you prefer to be ?

Revelarts, you really do need to free yourself from Leftie thinking. Try instead to think in terms of what best serves your country's interests. Try it - forget 'blame game' tactics and arguments, and TRY IT. I think you'll find it to be a liberating experience.

[aboutime]

You should now be arranging to go to Syria, or Libya, or any number of other Terrorist Run/Controlled states. And get an audience with the leaders. Tell them you are from the USA, and you want them to sit down with you, and discuss their ability to KILL anyone who disagree's with them...Like Muslim women, and children, Christians, Jews, and even Non-believing Athiests who would like to make FRIENDS.

Of course. Before you go. Be sure to advertise your arrival, and how much you despise using deadly weapons that SHOOT, BLOW UP, BOMB, or make lots of noise.
And don't forget to make sure your LIFE INSURANCE policies are PAID UP.

Finally. Be sure to make arrangements for the return of your HEAD, back to your miserable, Terrorist Hating Nation with a strong Military.