A soldier's war -- It's just so sad!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mensch1351, Jul 24, 2011.

  1. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Every Sunday morning I watch Christiane Amanpour on ABC for lots of reasons. But at the end of her show she has a segment called "In Memoriam." Ever since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started, ABC has included this segment on this program. Each week they list the names, rank, age and place of birth of the soldiers who have been killed with the words, "We remember all those who have sacrificed their lives. The Pentagon this week released the names of X number of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan."

    And this week it was 17!! For 10 years now I have been watching list after list, name after name, place after place in America of our bravest making THEIR sacrifice.

    I am of the belief that GW got "sucker" punched into starting these wars with the "express" purpose of the Terrorists to bankrupt us! In the long run THEY must have known that the knee jerk outrage over 9/11 would not only cause us to take some form of military action, but they would make sure it was a "long term" military action that would be very costly in both lives and money for America! (and it would drain our military strength in multiple deployments having to be undertaken!)

    All this while the American people as a whole have been asked to sacrifice very little. The FIRST time in American History wars are conducted without a way to PAY for them. Corruption and ineptitude commonplace in addressing the "re-building" of these nations.

    My "questions" are simply --
    1) how long are the American people going to put up with seeing our nation sacrificing our most precious resource (our young) for a war(s) that has lost its way?
    2) Are you as fed up as I am with whatever political posturing keeps taking place to keep these wars going 10 years after 9/11?
    3) How do you perceive we would be ABLE to respond militarily (troops on the ground) if the nation were actually threatened?
     
  2. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    1) Until the politicians start losing their children or the people start raising hell like the Vietnam war.
    2)Yes, the divided country is not doing anyone any good.
    3) Not sure We have the reserves here but as for a standing military here in this country I don't know.
     
  3. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,869
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Some fun questions!

    1) You are wrong that a countries most precious resource is its young. The first thing which happenes in every war is the young get rolled out as soldiers with the anticipation they will be killed. They die to preserve territory and wealth, which are always the most precious possessions of every country, because they are what gives existence to that country. The definition of a victory is that I have 1 citizen left and you have none and I have all your territory.

    Now having said that, I think the current war is pathetic. There was no significant threat to US territory. The wars we have now are the consequence of politcal maneuvering for small advantages in a position which is generally pretty damn good. So on the one hand, the young are enrolled as soldiers in the expectation that they will fight and die, but on the other hand the gains they may win are poor.

    So this is a balance between politicians who decided the losses were acceptable, because soldiers are individually NOT valuable to a country, and people who are upset that their loved ones or neighbours are suffering for no obvious gain. You tell me how long people will put up with this, but in truth the numbers are quite modest by the standards of serious wars.

    2) I was fed up with the political rubbish used to justify these wars before they began. The invasion of Iraq had no justification at the time in the UK and none has emerged since. (Tony Blair said 'trust me', and lots of talk about theoretical threats)

    3) The US? The US is not seriously threatend militarily by anyone. There are no credible threats, so it should do just fine. There has been negligible terrorist activity within the US, by which I mean, how does your risk of death or injury by terrorist action compare to ordinary things, like being run over or a heart attack. The risk is negligible. If the risk became greater then I expect US people would take it more seriously and deal with it.

    The only credible military threat to the US is one using nuclear weapons, and no quantity of ordinary soldiers will protect you against a country which has acquired the technology to deliver a nuclear attack. Which might indeed be a justification for these wars, except that there does not seem to have been any credible evidence of a nuclear threat from the countries invaded.

    If some slower military situation arose, like historical wars, I am sure the US would do what it did then and in a couple of years would have a respectable military force. Then the politicains might take seriously the question of how to pay for this, and impose realistic taxes. At the moment, the pressure on revenue from the wars paradoxically strengthens the hand of those trying to cut taxes. Since it is only a pretend war the cost is relatively small and manageable simply by borrowing. Then the bigger debt is a useful tool to demand whatever action you claim is the best way out. Were the bill bigger then there would be no choice but to tax.

    Of course, this is grandstanding and risks disaster if a miscalculation is made. Like happened a couple of years ago.

    With regard to whether the terrorists are winning on points, yes, I think they are. But once again, this suits some politicians. In the UK frankly the risk from terroists has been hyped up, whereas when we had had some real active terrorists, the propaganda aim was to maintain calm and not permit ordinary life to be affected.

    The measure of this may be seen in the recent events in Norway. About 100 people have been killed and all are shocked. In reality this reflects the incredibly safe nature of modern life in Norway. It is shocking because it is a unique event.
     
  4. Horrible

    Horrible New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    438
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I can't say for sure now, but I know for a fact that more Marines died in 2006 stateside, in motorcycle wrecks, than on overseas duty. That includes the other12 active conflicts we were participating in, not just IRQ, and AFG
     
Draft saved Draft deleted