It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. military incapable of fighting a war

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
No, I am not talking about dishing out the punishment. I am talking about how much stomach and morale America has for a war, big, prolonged war. It does not look good at all.

One things I noticed about the U.S. military is that they don't seem to be truly "in it." Meaning they seem distracted. Except for a few, I have heard all military personnel say "I'm in the Army, etc." What's wrong with that? Well, it doesn't really show much pride if you say you're "in the service." It does show a lot of pride in someone when they say "They are a soldier," for example. If you go Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen will say "I am a freedom fighter." Go back in time and you will hear the Japanese warriors say "I am a Samurai." I am is very different from I am in. To say that you are something that makes up something shows you are proud of who you are. You know why we need catchy recruitmen slogans like "Be All That You Can Be" and "An Army of One?" Because we need to generate the morale of being a soldier.

Tactically, strategically, logistically, and technologically, the U.S. are tough to beat. But when it comes to ideology, morale, and stomach, the U.S. can be broken easily. All U.S. soldiers like to say "We're fighting to protect the freedom of people." That's great. But is that truly always the case? I mean, don't we invade select countries to protect our own interests? In other words, do our troops truly know what they're fighting for? Or is it just rhetoric they want to believe in? As Americans we must all support our troops, because they are always fighting under "fuzzy logic," meaning most of the time they don't know what they're doing or why. But the Native Americans, North Vietnamese, Mujahadeen, and perhaps even the Iraqis know why they fight. They KNOW they fight for their lives and freedom. U.S. troops think they fight for freedom.
The U.S. can be broken easily. Kill 18 soldiers and the president will call for a withdrawl. Show civilians being burned (which is a common occurance in war), show the public the realities of war instead of the video recordings of aircraft FLIR systems and they will ask for a withdrawl. In the military, don't give them their pay, benefits, and kill one or two guys and they'll suddenly not want to fight. Against the Native Americans, etc. kill 60 of their own people in ten minutes and see if they cry.
Another thing is that Americans (and the French) surrender very easily. In World War II, when faced with insurmountable odds, most of the Americans surrendered and instead decided to face torture. Look all throughout history and you will see Americans are willing to live rather than get the job done. I mean, if a foreign nation invaded the country and began tearing the U.S. from limb to limb, how many people would actually fight back? Very few. Other nations with the "true warriors" are always taught to fight to the end and never give in to the enemy. If you're going to die, take two of the enemy with you.
Please do not take this as a U.S. bashing parade. I am very thankful for all that U.S. troops have done. What they did in World War II was truly amazing and can never fully be compensated. And the few times they protect us today are things you should never forget. But I am simply stating the facts of the situation. The U.S. military is not a military that can fight a war against an enemy that has will, courage, and an attitude. Of course, I have to realize there are different societies. The U.S. is one run by complex political/social theories and the whole family/American Dream complex that the way we fight wars is totally different. Our belief is that we do our job (if we can) and come home. But still, that even more shows we cannot fight a war nor do have the stomach for it. My fear is that if we face a nation in war, like China, Iran, or North Korea, we will face a nation of warriors, ones that will fight to the last man, never surrender, and even if we win the war, they win mentally. All the while, our soldiers will either surrender so they can return to their families or run away.

Let me be constructive, though. When I enter the U.S. military, I will not be like the others. I will say "I am a soldier." And when in battle, I will fight to the end. I will never surrender, I will never cloud my judgement with things outside my duty, and I will bring them all down with me.




posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
UH?

well I know one thing, the left leaning media and academics and brain washed youth are cryin' their eyes out over Iraq even though most of them will never be within 5000 miles of it.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
If this had been written during the Vietnam era, it would have been well served and merited. My apologies, but I find very little in this that accurately describes the US military of today. Never under-estimate the will and resolve of the US people, the will and resolve of the US military and the will and resolve of a "soldier" period, be he/she is from Russia or from Argentina.
Under-estimating a foe or friend can be deadly in more ways then one.

A "nation of warriors" implies that a nation "breeds" warriors for warfare and I find that not factually sound.
I respect your opinion but I do believe that "if" and "when" you join or enter service, you will see and learn otherwise. Join a Special Forces Unit or an Airbourne Unit or Para-Rescue Unit or a Ranger Unit, Marine Recon Unit, among others, and I guarentee you will see and learn otherwise.




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
i think if we were invaded most men would fight
with wat ever thay had.and the men in iraq its
probaly hard to fight a war when it has nothing to do with our freedom.sadom was a bad guy but we
helpt him get his wepons and he never thretand us
at all becous he new he would lose.thats wy heran and
hid in a hole.ww2 thay fought till no end so the us
was not run by hitler. now thats worth fighting for.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
as MOST people know U.S. is CAPABLE to fight a offensive war.


they just DID.

well it was a SMALL one.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Its really easy to just blurt out a bunch of words about what it means to be a soldier... I think you may have read one too many Mack Bolan novels...Its people like you that want to throw out morality in the professions of arms...You sound like you just want to hurt/kill people... kind of sociopathic if ya ask me.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I find it humorous that this individual thinks that the US military is incapable of fighting a war against a determined, professional, motivated foe.

Aparently they aren't doing a good job teaching US history in high school these days.

I wonder what the Japanese would have to say about this?



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
look i know the us would probably pull out if a war was for norhing just land or to "face" but that does not mean the us are cowards unwilling 2 fight quite the oposite in fact they like britain the meaning of life and one thing the us do not surrender easily the surrendered mostly in ww 2 because they had wounded with them now they would rather try 2 keep that soldier alive rather than go down in a blaxe of glory bringing him with them i mean come on when ur outnumbered surrounded and uv got wounded are u seriosly gona go and start a personal war no!

i have respect for most us regular and special forces i mean cum on the moto of the usa and cpountries "no 1 gets left" behind means that they are prepared 2 risk lots of men for just 1 man frankly the us could never go into a full on war there public would go nuts and demand a cease fire
but u ask any soldier what is worth fighting for they would say 2 protect the inocent and there leaders think the same even if some are currupt little ***** but they would not risk war if it was not becasue of some very bad *****
in my mind i belive the us has the firepower and man power 2 fight almost any war but there public does not like seing its people killed so ur right the us public would want an answer but if it was good enough then they would support it
hoah
from ur good friends (and targets for ur rednecks ) the british



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Seekerof

I even said I'd be joining the military. And my point does stand true. The U.S. does not have that same attitude other nations and nations of the past have had. The U.S. as a whole always tries to hide, using words like "freedom" and "safety" to somehow make themselves feel better about what's going on. They always think "I'm glad we're going to be helping the people." Sorry, but war is not about helping people. War is ALWAYS about survival. Forget the Hollywood version of the soldier. When somebody shoots at you, the last thing on your mind is "helping people." The only lives you will ever care about is your own and the lives of your friends. The life of the man next to you is far more important than finding WMD.

I think "breeding a nation of warriors" is a good thing. As long as you only do it to those who accept it, it would be very good. That attitude of never-say-die would brush off onto the rest of the people as well. Really, besides you, Seekerof, me, and anyone on this board, how many mainstream Americans would take up arms against a foreign invader? When robbers enter a bank, very few people fight back. The occasional good samaratin will do what has to be done, but everyone else will watch or say "Don't shoot!" like the French.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by groovyguru
Its really easy to just blurt out a bunch of words about what it means to be a soldier... I think you may have read one too many Mack Bolan novels...Its people like you that want to throw out morality in the professions of arms...You sound like you just want to hurt/kill people... kind of sociopathic if ya ask me.


Morality? Morality will prevent you to win wars. Let's say you're somebody who doesn't like shooting people from behind. If you alert them first and then fire, they may be a bit quicker and kill you.

No, I don't believe in hurting/killing people. In fact, I am against it. What I am talking about is a sense of duty as a warrior. You hurt/kill not because you like to, but because you have to. This is where the morality issue is a bust. You can never do "what needs to be done" if you let a fabricated sense of "right" and "wrong" get in the way.

In war, you have to do whatever it takes to survive. Even if it means blasting a retreating enemy to bits. It's evil, but they could come back with chemical weapons and kill thousands of your own friends.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
I find it humorous that this individual thinks that the US military is incapable of fighting a war against a determined, professional, motivated foe.

Aparently they aren't doing a good job teaching US history in high school these days.

I wonder what the Japanese would have to say about this?



Don't take statements too far. I am very well aware of what the Japanese would think. But look at this way. I think the battles lasted longer than they should've. The lone reason why the Japanese lasted so long is because they never gave up. If they had fought like the French or the Iraqis, the battles wouldn't have taken as long. The Japanese were just at such odds in numbers that they wore down eventually.

We also conquered the Native Americans, but it was also a lot of trouble. If you read my post, you'll also see that it's not necessarily about winning the war itself, but winning mentally. This can't be said about the Native Americans, but that is ONLY because the U.S. government suppressed them and prevented them from ever reaching out to others again.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
ummmm ok sweatmonicaido.......... lets all make generalizations like that.............

what are you talkin about.........

please give one example with proper quotations and legit sources that displays what you said..............

in every country, there are some people who will fight till death and others that will surrender. I am guessing you have never been in a war. All I can say is watch where you get your info.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I was not talking about the comaraderie in combat. That has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about the will to fight, not the will to help your buddies.


Originally posted by devilwasp
look i know the us would probably pull out if a war was for norhing just land or to "face" but that does not mean the us are cowards unwilling 2 fight quite the oposite in fact they like britain the meaning of life and one thing the us do not surrender easily the surrendered mostly in ww 2 because they had wounded with them now they would rather try 2 keep that soldier alive rather than go down in a blaxe of glory bringing him with them i mean come on when ur outnumbered surrounded and uv got wounded are u seriosly gona go and start a personal war no!


The above statement proves what I've been saying. You say sometimes it is wise to surrender to preserve the lives of the survivors, especially when you're surrounded and wounded. Okay so far? Fine. Let me ask you this, though. If you truly believed in your cause, then wouldn't you fight to the end? And would you rather risk pain and torture instead of dying honorbly for what you believed in? Of course, life is meaningful, but when it comes to something you believe in, isn't that worth dying for?

By surrendering, you are in effect saying, "You were right, you are better than us, I don't know why I fight." What is that showing? Isn't that saying you have no idea what you're fighting for, if you'd rather give up?

Some of you will say I was never in a war and that makes me ignorant. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. I always believe in whatever I do. In war, I believe it's all about survival. And if I am in war, I will fight until I survive... even I get killed. Surrendering means I lost the will to stick up for what I believe in.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Omega1, these are things you can find by looking at history (except for World War I, World War II, and the Persian Gulf War). Listen to some of the things our soldiers have to say now. A whole bunch of them were talking about how they would never stay in the military even a few more benefits were awarded. No offense to our soldiers, but since when did you join for the benefits? As a soldier, you should be willing to fight for whatever cause, true or false, you are burdened with. Doesn't show much dedication to leave because "they haven't done their part."

I am not saying it's wrong to leave the military. I think it just shows something to leave because you haven't been paid. Sounds more like mercenaries than real soldiers.

But I am not bashing them. Get that straight.

And no need to tell me these are all things I made up, the "evidence" above is all true and that's all that matters. It's been real.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I still dont see any evidence. Just cause some people were draft dodgers doesnt mean all of america is.

oh yea......... and if a mercenary isnt a true soldier then what is???



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Surrendering to save the guy next to you seems more like using your head than saying "you know what? I quit! I am no good at this and you are better!". At least it seems that way to me.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
QUOTE

"Of course, life is meaningful, but when it comes to something you believe in, isn't that worth dying for?"

Some of your material is quite true however absurd it sounds, but let us examine this quote. firstly an item is "worth" what it costs if the value or benefits that you derive from it are of greater or equal value to the price you pay for it. Would you pay the rest of your life (the good times etc etc), your families heartache etc etc and die for a cause, considering that you wouldn't be able o experience this effect after it had happened therefore rendering it obsolete? I doubt it.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
QUOTE

By surrendering, you are in effect saying, "You were right, you are better than us, I don't know why I fight." What is that showing? Isn't that saying you have no idea what you're fighting for, if you'd rather give up?

How do you know that at that time you could be thinking "I believe in saving lives, but I fear for mine right now!" You have uttered a self defeating example, by making it a one way street. I can tell you that humans all have a breaking point, and at this very moment all rationalisation goes out the window.

Some of you will say I was never in a war and that makes me ignorant. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. I always believe in whatever I do. In war, I believe it's all about survival. And if I am in war, I will fight until I survive... even I get killed. Surrendering means I lost the will to stick up for what I believe in.

You can believe in something false, but you can't have knowledge about something false, except of course for knowing it's false. How can you have knowledge of something you've never experienced in real life? That only leaves you with a false or guessed belief.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
love to hear from this guy after a nice bloody tour in a war like vietnam, i'd bet he would be singing a different tune! OH and by the way ever heard of the phrase "live to fight another day"?



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
here's me, campaigning for popularity.
war is not about survival. it's about selling weapons. it's about breaking stuff and killing and maiming and pedalling fear. the fear gives control of the people to the elite rulers. the broken stuff gets fixed and relines the coffers of the elite. what they teach in schools is NOTHING like the truth.
the bankers/industrialists have (started and) won every single war in history(it pays to be on both sides).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join