View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:07 am

Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:56 pm
Posts: 2482
Location: Your Reflection. *snicker*
Gender: Female
Post War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) • Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:53 am
The non-poll version. And also, this is a discussion specifically on how America fights in wars, if war and violence is always bad, and recent warfare. Recent meaning, anything in the last 200 years or so. So think more semi-recent warfare, I suppose, but yes, share a piece of your mind and please defend what you think. This is meant to be a discussion, not just a place where you post "war is bad. ALWAYS!" Explain why you think that way, the reason why I'm making a new topic is that the last one was rather spamful, so, just saying, this is meant for a good discussion. :p

“Asphixation, defenstration, breathing wool, decapitation. Drinking from a lava pool, driving drunk to look so cool. Crazy bees sting you a lot, eating any rats you caught - all these ways that you can die. Don't forget poisonous pie!" -Classic SmashQueen, Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:03 pm
There's always another secret... ~ Mistborn, Sanderson

Profile YIM
Zora Guard
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 246
Gender: Male
Post Re: War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) • Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:38 pm
In remaining factual and relevant, going with Tetromino's timeframe (which you ought to shorten to the last century IMO), this includes everything since the War of 1812. Only 4 wars were waged over 200 years ago, and then we're basically at the beginning of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... ted_States

Since my knowledge of American warfare isn't too terribly bad, at least within the last century, I'll comment a bit. For the most part, the US prior to WWI had been involved in border skirmishes and quite a few occupations. I would say that the US tends to fancy itself some sort of international arbiter in terms on conflicts, until post-WWII anyways.

Examining both WWI and WWII, the US entered both conflicts rather late, and more reactionary than aggressive. In many cases, the 'Allied' forces wanted the US to enter to help bring about a swift end to war (which they usually did) and 'opposing' forces favored the US staying out of the conflict as, let's face it, their chances of actually winning are better if they don't have to face the US.

One cannot help but question, though the US always tries to avoid, and sometimes prevent war, with their might, would it not be better to have the US in from the getgo to end the conflict swiftly? How many lives might have been saved had America stepped in early WWI or WWII to bring down the opposing forces sooner? Would the US presence have ended the war sooner? Or would the war simply have escalated out of control because they'd been fighting from the start?

Regardless, a fact remains that the US presence did help cement victory in both these World Wars. However, it was WWII which changed the US outlook on conflict. Rather than avoid, why not 'prevent'? So since the end of WWII, the US has taken a more active and personal approach to resolving conflict, becoming a world police of sorts. (reference, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc..).

While I personally feel that these preventative campaigns have been far less useful, I have to admit, I will thank the US for doing all the dirty work that needs to be done. I'm not pro-war or anything, but I'm just glad the job was taken by the US and not Canada. The conflicts and someone to fight them are unfortunately necessary, the combatants just happen to be more willing than unwilling.

PSN and XBL: TemjinZero (lemme know who you are when you add me!)
Co-Founder of Awesome Canadian Gamers Ventcast (A.C.G.V.)
Visit our blog at http://www.acgventcast.ca and subscribe to our podcast on iTunes!

Profile WWW
Hylian Swordsman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:37 pm
Posts: 406
Location: Kokiri Forest, Hyrule
Gender: Male
Post Re: War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) • Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:50 am
War is a subject I've long been opinionated in. I feel that war is wrong, but war is just a human's natural urge to fight for what they feel is threatened. I do feel, from the United States standpoint, that we need to revert back to be isolationists (pre-WWI). I do also feel that complete isolationism will screw the US over. So moreover, I would say we just need to stay out of this "world police" business. I will present my points with two key examples.

Example 1: Vietnam. This is the biggest situation I can think of, where we should not have been involved. I understand the "Red Scare" situation here on the homefront and the "Domino Theory", but Vietnam, neither side mind you, asked for our involvement. We lost many, many, many, many good men and women in Vietnam for a lost cost. The fighting lasted for 11(?) years. A war this long, not even on OUR home soil. "Oh well Communism would have spread to all of Indonesia if we hadn't intervened." WHO GIVES A CRAP?! We are located NO WHERE CLOSE TO VIETNAM. We should have stayed out and a lot of good people wouldn't have died.

Example 2: Korea. This is the second situation that I can think of where we shouldn't have been involved. I understand that South Korea was capitalist and North Korea was communists, (again, domino theory) but it goes back to what I said about Vietnam. America is nowhere close to either country. We could have easily lived with South Korea falling. Again, a lot of good people died when they shouldn't have. And to further address the situation, what has been gained from our involvement? A demilitarized zone on the 38th parallel. So that means, we lost a lot of good American lives, for a temporary cease fire, in which neither country can make an advance, and to still not be fully appreciated for all of the lives lost. If you guys, and gals, are anything like me, then you are thinking about how stupid this sounds. And to reflect on current events, the DMZ is now getting heated up again. Both sides are "practicing" against the other's attacks. If these two go to war, again, then all of the American lives lost would be in vain. And I hope and pray that the American families who lost someone in this will step up to find a diplomatic solution instead of just sending more American people, close to our age group, to their deaths.

As I was typing this, I have come to a third example, and that is Persian Gulf/War in Iraq. I won't lie and say I know all about Persian Gulf, when I don't. I don't actually know a whole lot. The War in Iraq should have never occurred. We also should have never went after Saddam Hussein. Saddam was keeping to himself at the time of our invasion. Bin Laden and Al-Queda are the ones we should have went after and focused on, and they were "supposedly" in Afghanistan. "Oh well Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." SO THE *NAVI* WHAT?! WE HAVE EIGHT TIMES MORE NUKES THAN HE DID, IF HE DID! I mean, North Korea, we know, for a fact, has WMDs and why not invade them? If that is the justification for invading Iraq and going after Saddam, then why don't we DO SOMETHING SENSIBLE and go after Kim Jong Il and North Korea. "If we did that, it'd be the Korean Conflict all over again, and you said prior that you were against the conflict." I said our justification for the Korean Conflict was unjust and completely idiotic. If WMDs pass as enough justification for starting a conflict, then we should go to war with North Korea. They hate our guts anyways, so why not? Now that I've derailed a little bit, to get back on topic with my rant, we still have NOT found Osama Bin Laden. We found three of his #2s but not him. And some would say he might have ran off to Pakistan and we should go after him there. No, because we do know that Pakistan has Nukes, and they are an ally. They also, don't give a crap, like the rest of the world, about our revenge from September 11th.

Don't get me wrong. I love America and I love living in this magnificent country. I am just against the decisions made by her leaders. I do feel, that I want to run for President, or even Congressman. I once heard: "If you want something done, do it yourself instead of complaining and expecting someone else to care about your opinions." So what better way to fix the problems I feel about it, than to take charge. And to tie this section of the words up with the actual topic, so the mods don't get upset, that quote, sure, can be applied to why we are getting involved with world politics, but it shouldn't justify our engagement to every conflict in sight.


Profile WWW
Hylian Squire

Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 1
Gender: None specified
Post Re: War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) • Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:11 pm
Vietnam shouldn't have lasted 11 years. The reasons Vietnam turned out as it did was (1) we had a vasculating military strategy (2) bad policies regarding personnel (3) a draft with more holes than swiss chesse rendering it useless (4) failure to mobilize the economy for war (5) failure to launch an all-out assault on North Vietnam.

Had we had an air-tight draft where everyone privledged or not had to serve, had we kept units together during the conflict, had we put the US economy on a wartime production level, and had we launched an all out invasion on North Vietnam, we could have ended that war in 18 months.

As for Korea, had we followed Douglas MacArthur's advise and expanded the war to China and moblilized for it as such, Communism would have fallen in China and China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, would all be free today.

As for the current conflicts today, we made the same mistake. We failed to institute an air-tight draft, we failed to expand our military to at least five million active-duty personell as well as a National Guard and Reserve force to tens of millions of citizen-soliders, we failed to put the US Economy on a wartime production level, and we failied to have a through plan of occupation and reconstruction.

We should have done this and first, went to Afghanistan with 500,000 troops. Then we should have went to Sudan and stopped the Genocide as well as toppled the Islamist regime there. Then we should have swept through Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Tunisa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, until we have rid Al-Queda of any hiding place and have made the world safe for democracy

There is also a "Grand Strategy" of the United States and that is to keep a rival naval power strong enough to challenge the USA from forming. As long as we kept the Communist empire from expanding and denying the Soviet Navy warm water ports, we were winning. When we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, we kept Iraq from expanding across the Middle East, controling 50% of the world's oil, and acumilating enough wealth and power to build a Navy to challenge the US.

It is in our interest to keep the Middle Eastern nations from unifying into a Arab empire or a Restored Caliphate of Islam. BTW, the goal of the Islamists is to establish a global Islamic Caliphate where all are under the rule of a Caliph, where all have to follow Islamic law, and where non-Muslims are oppressed or executed.

Zora Guard
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 11:06 pm
Posts: 194
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Gender: None specified
Post Re: War and violence (specifically American and recent Warfare) • Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:07 pm
I think that war is wrong because it causes violence, death, and a lot of other things. There were a few major wars during America's history.

There was the American Revolution. During the mid-18th century, King George III didn't treat the colonists fairly. There were a lot of taxes, and no representatives in for the colonies. They wanted to be independent. But Britatin wouldn't let them, so the American Revolution started. After a few years, America won with the aide of France.

Then, there was the War of 1812. Napoleon was the leader of France. America had built an alliance with both France and Britain, but France and Britain were at war with each other. America had tried to remain neutral, but they were eventually forced to fight when they couldn't trade with either of the countries. After Napoleon was defeated, Britain was at war with America again. After a while, both sides got tired of fighting and ended the war. This was also known as the Second War of Independence.

Then in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the president. Thinking that they didn't have a voice in the election, all but 3 slave states seceeded (4 if you count West Virginia). Then on April 12th, 1861, the American Civil War started. During that time, it was America's bloodiest war with over half a million casualties (or was it deaths alone?). Then on April (15th?) 1865, Ulysses Grant and his army captured Richmod, the Confederate capital. Some time later, Lee surrendered and America won the Civil War.

In the early 20th century, World War 1 started. I'm not sure of the exacty details of it, but I do remember that America tried to stay neutral, but Germany did something that pulled them in.

Then in 1939, there was World War 2. America tred staying neutral in this one. Then Adolph Hitler came and wanted to kill a lot of people. So I think that Britain and France went after Germany. In 1940, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, which called America to war. The war between America and Japan lasted until 1945 when America used the atomic bomb on Japan, which caused a lot of destruction.

So America hasn't been involved in a lot of wars, but the wars that it went through had a lot of destruction, bloodshed, and violecence. Those wars were major.


Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.