1
   

Western Acceptance of War

 
 
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 12:55 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;9634 wrote:
It foolishly thinks it can survive anything and everything without lifting a finger to defend itself. It has also succumbed to materialism, such that it refuses to replenish its populations naturally, in favor of leisure, disposable income and 'stuff'. Accordingly, it has opted to repopulate the continent by way of widespread alien immigration. The on-rushing human waves now threaten to drown it.

In the throes of this post-modernist hallucinaction, the West actually believes it's acceptable to surrender its destiny and fate to whomever wants it. So be it. That it shall have. It shall also have a slow, agonizing death. I for one will go down fighting. I'd prefer a bullet between the eyes than a dull sword sawing through my neck. :headbang:
[/U]

Amen, I refuse to allow the politically correct hand wringing crowd to force my surrender of my culture and beliefs. On most Canadian forums if you mention the word Islam they jump you before you have had a chance to state what you wanted to say. Our troops are dying in Afghanistan and we aren't allowed to discuss this because the liberals think it's being racists.

I agree with you Doly, the fight in Iraq needs to be taken out of the "Media" and put back into the battle field. How can they be defeated when the US visa vie the media aren't allowed to attack the enemy with full fire power.

Madness, such madness.
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 01:12 pm
@Red cv,
Yes. To put it more simply: Don't start a war if you are not ready to do whatever it takes to win it.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 10:01 pm
@Pinochet73,
I don't see any comparison to Korea or Vietnam?
As in any war the first pretence is to win. But while in the effort sometimes the lines get distorted.
The initial commitment was there at the first intent, then as now the support base went from fullbore to well lets think about it then to maybe we should get out. You don't win second guessing yourself to the point of retreat. Which is what this Congress is good at, at this point in time.
Quote:
Use of U.S. Forces Abroad
1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.

1956 -- Egypt. A Marine battalion evacuated U.S. nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.

1958 -- Lebanon. Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of its government to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside.

1959-60 -- The Caribbean. 2d Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect U.S. nationals during the Cuban crisis.

1962 -- Cuba. President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.

1962 -- Thailand. The 3d Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by Jul 30 the 5000 marines had been withdrawn.

1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1976, the United States played a role of military support in Laos.

1964 -- Congo. The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964-73 -- Vietnam War. U.S. military advisers had been in South Vietnam a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position the Saigon government became weaker. After the attacks on U.S. destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked for a resolution expressing U.S. determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a U.S. installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543 000 in April 1969.

1965 -- Dominican Republic. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent more troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.

1967 -- Congo. The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1970 -- Cambodia. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.

1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and U.S. nationals from Vietnam. (Note 3)

1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of U.S. citizens from Cambodia.

1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 U.S. citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the U.S. Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.

1975 -- Mayaguez incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayaguez, a merchant vessel en route from Hong Kong to Thailand with U.S. citizen crew which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.

1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five U.S. naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.

1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American military personnel were killed while in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea for the purpose of cutting down a tree.

1978 -- Zaire. From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.

1980 -- Iran. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.



Quote:
Hence, I think every soldier who has died since WWII has been a senseless death and a life wasted.

Those are up till 1980, if you hit the link there are alot more to date. Do you honestly think they are all waisted lives? I'm sure most don't.
Quote:
The responsibility for these deaths rest with the leaders who had the power to send them to their deaths.

As with any volunteer army under control by a republic, they are paid for there services. The military is run by a elected civilian regardless of experience. It is his judgement that dictates foreign policy and whether it includes military action. You need not a declaration of war to fight one. As our history has defined.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:33 pm
@Red cv,
War was never officially declared against the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese. Doesn't sound like a firm commitment to win to me.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 07:18 am
@Pinochet73,
Have you ever see a satelite pic of Korea at night? I'm sure the South Koreans are very happy we got involved. otherwise for the most part they would all be dead. There would of been a higher count i think then when we left Vietnam after funding was pulled. Iv'e heard diferent amounts but the average figure is as highas 6 million. I wonder if more then that will die when we pull out of Iraq, what do you think? In any case there is a lot of police actions by our administrations. We never declared war on Germany either, why was there loss of live worthy and not any others after? Did we not give Germany a firm enough commitment? Hard to believe you think all there lives were waisted.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 12:15 pm
@Pinochet73,
Quote:
Hard to believe you think all there lives were waisted


Not wasted, but could have been put to better use.
0 Replies
 
Sherman cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 01:28 pm
@Doly,
Doly;9756 wrote:
Yes. To put it more simply: Don't start a war if you are not ready to do whatever it takes to win it.


Some people are out of reality they do not recognize that sometime the force is ncessary to stop crazy cultures populations like all those Palestininas and mulims neighbours...It wouldn,t be a war, right? How could we win all those muslims, by a pat on their back? The media also should be prevented to write things that give those pople ideas on how and where to strike, they are irresponasble and dangerous almost like the enemies....:no: :AR15firing:
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 01:34 pm
@Pinochet73,
Bear in mind that the US is fighting radical Islamists. If you believe that all muslims are violent then you need to open your eyes.
0 Replies
 
Sherman cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 03:01 pm
@Red cv,
I do not believe that all muslims are radicals... I quite find difficult to trust them..Also i do not see the moderate ones faight the radicalism fervently...On the contrary i find non radical muslim absent, is because they think that westerner or other no muslims culture see them as radicals? Who knows....I do not have problem with muslim religion i have a problem with the people who practice it in a barbaric and archaic way...Plus with muslims they are always question mark unanswared????????I have the feeling they are not truthful at all......:eek:
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 03:10 pm
@Red cv,
Being a non-violent Muslim can, I suppose, have its advantages -- you can play both ends against the middle -- but at the same time it has its disadvantages -- you sometimes get caught in the crossfire.
0 Replies
 
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 03:44 pm
@Pinochet73,
Yep I agree with you Doly. The war in Iraq is being fought in the Media not in theater. The pacifists don't want the US to win, or fight the enemy. Gone are the days when a country was run by a political party that stood for a united country. Now the political parties spend all their time bickering and power playing and if they manage to run a country inbetween their childishness that's an added bonus. I've become rather bitter towards Canadian politicians, it's all about the "Party" and Canada and it's survival seem to be unimportant.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 04:28 pm
@Red cv,
I love these forums because I find out so much about other countries and cultures. I will never have the means to be a world traveler so hearing details such as you just posted are very interesting. I am an enthusiastic audience for any information you wish to share.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 08:51 pm
@Curmudgeon,
In a spiritual sense, they died for a glorious cause. They'll be rewarded in Heaven. In a practical sense, however, you're right. We ventured into another war unprepared, psychologically, to win it. It's a tragedy.:no:
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:47 am
@Pinochet73,
Quote:
I've become rather bitter towards Canadian politicians, it's all about the "Party" and Canada and it's survival seem to be unimportant

Where is Z0z0 when you need him, LOL. He would be discusted that you think Canada is not perfect. That's the impression he would give me any way. Not a slight on Canada, i love you guys.
0 Replies
 
Tulip cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 12:38 pm
@Pinochet73,
The thing is that the war was declared on the wrong country, and now it is a big mess. Is Iraq any better without Hussin, we shall wait and see, since right now it is unstable. The West likes to be 'peaceful' and yet all the previous peace and prosperity came with a pricetag, the lifes of many people who fought in earlier wars. Fighting is a part of human history, and yet today people think that peace is just possible by protesting enough, by complaining enough, by ignoring enough. These are always those people who have never volunteered or enlisted and those are always people who have not been touched by events like 9/11.
Peace comes with a price, and sometimes the price is to stand by what you believe in and by defending it.
The peaceniks are those who would rather be photographed socialising with other peaceniks, and shouting words in a safe and abundant country, all awhile brave soldiers are protecting and defending the freedom in which they are laughing, sipping coffee, and congradulating each other on how peaceful they are...
It is more convenient to not accept a war, while enjoying the fruits of other people's sacrific.
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 04:29 pm
@Pinochet73,
I wonder what would a peacenik do if someone came to their home, ordered them out and preceded to take over their home. The left on their own free will so in effect they gave their home away. Would the fight to regain their home, or go to welfare and demand another home. I'm guessing the latter because they seem to lack the moral fortitude or spine to stand up for what is right and just.
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 07:02 pm
@Pinochet73,
Tibet is an example, and they did exactly as you said.
0 Replies
 
Tulip cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 07:40 pm
@Red cv,
excuse my ignorance, but are you talking about Buddists?

great point Red,

I think Janie had some sort of legal battle about money, l wonder how she would feel if people showed up with signes and a protest march, demanding she hand over the money and stop fighting for it?

Same with the hypocritical peaceniks who are not supporting their country are are in fact helping the hatred mongering child molesters. And the amusing thing about peaceniks is that they don't understand the war, have no clue what a Quran is, and think MU is a camel...or the elimination of a camel....
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 09:00 pm
@Pinochet73,
China invaded Tibet, mostly a religious country that was ruled by the Dalai Lama, and he even though he had the option to launch a war chose to leave in peace, and hasn't returned since.
0 Replies
 
Tulip cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 09:08 pm
@Red cv,
ahhhhhh, yep now l remember the movie on this and it was really shocking...nasty chinese.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 02:54:11