Do we love war?

DO WE LOVE WAR?

Obviously we do, we just voted for WWIII...
We should change the name of the DOD to DOO (Department of Offense) as that is what it truly is...

CA,

That was a well put post Thanks for you insightful views. I know where your coming from with your intrest in the tech of weapons. Its not the purpose, its the mechanics

SC,

They could still take the alotted mount for surplus and allocated it to where its needed. Its done all the time, its just usually taken from education, healthcare, or SS and given to the defence budget. Why cant it be the other way around?

I believe it comes from the fact that the American people are rather sheltered in that they have not had the experience of foreign troops on US soil. We are conditioned by the media as seeing war as video game, something that happens over there. I too am a gulf war veteran and it amazes me the ignorance of the American people when it comes to the reality of war. Bush has done a great job sheltering the US people for what is really happening in Iraq. I guess you can also say it comes from the militarization of your youth. Kids as young as 4-5 in indoctrinated into a war game mentality, playing Army, GI Joe, and so called action movies and cartoons help to cement this mentality. To say that war is part of our hunter killer traits doesn�t fly when you look at the whole picture.
When small town America sees the reality of suffering that war brings and , when Joe Redneck see foreign tanks and troops rolling down main street . It will change

Originally posted by Kidfinger


SC,

They could still take the alotted mount for surplus and allocated it to where its needed. Its done all the time, its just usually taken from education, healthcare, or SS and given to the defence budget. Why cant it be the other way around?

I wish it was the other way around.

Want to here my Plan for SS? I will tell you anyway.

Insurance is a big money pit. Car insurance alone could fix the problem.
Most people dont spend a fraction of what they pay in. Insurance companys should have to send the "extra" money not used by the person to the SS or to a type of medicare acount after the retirement age.

Most elderly do not drive, they live in condos, the only thing they really need is meds and food.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by SpittinCobra]

WERE HUMANS!!!!!! OF COURSE WE LOVE WAR!!!!!!!


Hell we havn't gone a century with out a war in Human history and it will always be this way until the top dog rules the courtyard (america )


Give or take a century , Americas influence will be so great that all nations will bow before the almighty American military!!

Originally posted by THX 1138
WERE HUMANS!!!!!! OF COURSE WE LOVE WAR!!!!!!!


Hell we havn't gone a century with out a war in Human history and it will always be this way until the top dog rules the courtyard (america

)


Give or take a century , Americas influence will be so great that all nations will bow before the almighty American military!!

I surely hope all that blabber is extreme sarcasm.

Misfit

Originally posted by THX 1138

Give or take a century , Americas influence will be so great that all nations will bow before the almighty American military!!

While I greatly respect that this is your opinion, this is also the kind of thought that gets our troops slaughtered. Those troops are not just expendable soldiers. Most of them have Wives, Husbands, and children. Most of them volinteered for service to pay for college, or to get medical benifits, or even just to find a job. When you enlist in the military, they dont tell you about alot of things that go on within the ranks. Hell, if people really knew how the military was ran, there would be no volinteers.

America needs war every decade, just look through out history and you shall see.

Our military is out there fighting with 1990's technology in order to put use to the billions upon billions in military spending from that time.

Its kinda like your computer, once it gets slow and out dated you'll want to make space for todays technology.

I think defence development causes a circle to form. Its one that must be broken. Even though we fought a war using decade old tech, we pounded Iraq into dust during the main part of the war. I dont think there is a vehicle out there that can compete with a M1- Abrams in all its many forms. Personally, I dont think we need to do any production of more military equipment untill the old stuff is usless.

It sounds to me like this cycle of weapons building is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get paid by the government. The US gov cant possibly believe that there is a nation with a greater military presence then our own. I guess the argument for this would be that in order for us to maintain this superiority, we have to keep advancing our tech. but if our tech is decades ahead of most other countries, and still on par with the others, then why is this a valid argument?

I honestly believe that the US media and Hollywood have a lot to do with Americans' perceived love of war.

In movies, war is absolutely glorified in Hollywood. Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, Enemy at the Gates, the list goes on and on. The hero wins all the time, no matter how insurmountable the odds.

In movies and on TV, you see the explosions but you DON'T see the resulting carnage. Just like the network news, you get to see the cool explosions, the huge balls of fire and the debris shooting up into the air as the hero leaps away just in time.

What you don't see is the shattered bones, the flayed skin, the MILES of guts strewn about. You don't see the corpses lying on the battlefield, bloated and maggot-infested. You don't see the lives destroyed, the family members who come by later to mop up the body of their loved one with a mop and dustpan. The scores of dead innocents who happened to "get in the way" and become "collateral damage", like they're not even human anymore, but a statistic, an "acceptable risk that is necessary to perform our objective".

It's cool to see a missile streak off into the night, a big American flag emblazoned on its' tail. What you never see is the target. You may see it hit, on the news, but all you see is a building or a tank explode dramatically. You don't see the wet carnage it leaves behind, you don't see the psychological effect it has, you don't see the absolutely insane destructive power unleashed in a millisecond on a "target".

I think that until you've experienced war, and SEEN the results (short-term and long-term), you don't really have a good handle on the reality of it. The sights, the smells, the ever-present fear, the despair.

As cool and as technologically advanced as these weapons are, they are designed to destroy everything that they're aimed at, with no exceptions. Yay.

Europeans probably understand war better just because so many have been fought on their soil in the past and they have access to soooo many more different points of view through the various media outlets across the continent.

My 2 pennies.


jako

"Have we come full circle in our mental evolution and completly reverted to a race of killers to survive?"


... you kidding? we're still cavemen but with amazing technology and fantastically bigger weapons - we have not come full circle at all ... but we are definitely better at acting civilised.

As a sociologist I like to look at what the symbolics of war is, by how people talk about it and what language they use.

What I've seen is that some people who support war the most (not the war in Iraq or the war against terror, but the concept and activities of war) usually convey the feeling that war shows toughness and dominance, and hence raises individual and national pride.

I would also suspect that in some people's unconscious, war and the show of toughness reinforces the United States as a strongly "male" nation. The fighting soldier is a symbol of virility, and the fact that a number of posters on this board oppose women being in the front lines is telling.

To see how the American nation is viewed by some as having an essentially "male" persona, you need only look at how Uncle Sam is represented in some avatars - always with rippling muscles, either getting ready for a brawl or bare-chested like a commando.

Or the flipside, peace seems to be viewed as emasculating and even effeminate.

Politically Correct Cavemen Well, are you saying that we havent come full circle because we never left the starting point to begin with?

Otts,

Whats up stealth ninja super secret commando Glad to have you back

[edit on 11/5/04 by Kidfinger]

yep ... we still come from a place of fear - we still believe we have to kill to survive - has that ever changed? threaten, attack, flex muscles, make the biggest roar ....

... and anyway I don't get the concept of 'WAR' on 'terror' ... a kindergartener would know that if you fight fire with fire you just get a bigger fire?





[edit on 5-11-2004 by c_au]

Hey kidfinger, thanks I just wanted to let the angst and gloating on November 3-4 pass a bit. Like the election itself, the reactions were predictable. Different posters stayed true to themselves, for good or bad.

I see what you are saying now. We havent left our starting position, we just figured out more efficient ways of killing our enemy than with a club
My opinion has always been, if you are going after someone, dont be a chickens**t and hide behind symantics. Come out and face it. Do it face to face. All of our new war machina do nothing but take the killing and murder out of our sights so its easier to do. If we had to go in face to face, I think things would change. Drop the guns and slug it out. If you cant settle differences that result in violence this way, you shouldnt even be where your at. I personally think that Bush should have went after Sadam himself if he was such a threat. Of cours Bush knew he would have gotten his a55 beat in 20 different directions if that happened.

I dont want anyone to think I condone violence. Thats not me. I think if you have a problem, you should try and discuss it. Dont force your opinion on other people, and the whole world will be a better place.

... beautiful words

Originally posted by Otts

To see how the American nation is viewed by some as having an essentially "male" persona, you need only look at how Uncle Sam is represented in some avatars - always with rippling muscles, either getting ready for a brawl or bare-chested like a commando.

Hmmm.... Who could that be Oh, I KNOW

Or the flipside, peace seems to be viewed as emasculating and even effeminate.

Well, I guess Im the most effeminate masculine I know Peace is the only answer. Without it, we are doomed to repeat history. By the way, are your spirit manufacturing facilities still being threatened?

Originally posted by c_au

... beautiful words

Thank you very much

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I like the Romanticism of war. I am not talking about modern warfare. I am talking about ancient and Medieval type warfare, where mounted Calvary, infantry, and skirmishers rode out to meet each other in a pitched battle. It was brutal, but it wasn't someone lobbing a nuke at you from 1000 miles away. It wasn't an army using chem/bio weapons. It was for survival. It tested the mettle of men; their strength and endurance, and the strategies of commanders. It was honor and chivalry. It was essentially good vs. evil. An invading army versus those out to defend their homeland.

Even WWII had it's romance and intrigue. They knew who the bad guys were. The fought with rifle, knife and grenade. They 'shot and moved'. There were front lines drawn. The high-tech state of warfare totally obliterated the romance. No, we have no idea who the enemy is, or what he looks like. There are no lines drawn. He could be hiding in a city with a suitcase nuke, or worse.

There is no honor in the world anymore; no chivalry.

Do I like war; of course not. But I sure as hell love playing it on PS2 and the computer!!