NationStates Jolt Archive


If the US is going to win the war they must...

Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 00:37
clean up their act at home. What was the main reason all those other nations wanted to become like America after the marines occupied them? The Americans made things better and so the defeated nation wanted to learn from them which is why JApan has sexual equality, why the Philipines and Germany tried out democracy for a while and why third world nations began looking up to America. Back then Americans were the centrist, reasonable, educated and technologically advanced and wherever they went they made the place better rather than worse, in WWII the Americans were the ones to surrender to if you were a civillian in the middle of a war who was just trying to keep you and your family alive, why? The US military tried their best to be civil with civillians an POWs but thats not the story now... Now US soldiers are imfamous for doing the exact opposite, this I ascribe to the corruption at home, when America was a clean more civilized society that reflected off them when they went to foriegn lands, forighners saw a civilized (maybe not as civilzed as the forighners, depends on which country they're at war at) technologically advanced society reflected off the soldiers' actions, now though they see the corrupt crime infested, selfish perverted and cruel society that is in America today. If the corruption is destroyed and weeded out sexual torture at camps will be gone and replaced by a form of torture more civilzed like putting salt in cuts and wounds or something, America would stop killin Iraqi civs and would finally make Iraq a better place to live in than a anarchtic scorched hell-hole. To simplify my point is, good people from America become good soldiers (morally speaking) bad people become bad soldiers who may get the job done but commit atrocious war crimes.

Thoughts?
Captain pooby
30-12-2006, 00:42
clean up their act at home. What was the main reason all those other nations wanted to become like America after the marines occupied them? The Americans made things better and so the defeated nation wanted to learn from them which is why JApan has sexual equality, why the Philipines and Germany tried out democracy for a while and why third world nations began looking up to America. Back then Americans were the centrist, reasonable, educated and technologically advanced and wherever they went they made the place better rather than worse, in WWII the Americans were the ones to surrender to if you were a civillian in the middle of a war who was just trying to keep you and your family alive, why? The US military tried their best to be civil with civillians an POWs but thats not the story now... Now US soldiers are imfamous for doing the exact opposite, this I ascribe to the corruption at home, when America was a clean more civilized society that reflected off them when they went to foriegn lands, forighners saw a civilized (maybe not as civilzed as the forighners, depends on which country they're at war at) technologically advanced society reflected off the soldiers' actions, now though they see the corrupt crime infested, selfish perverted and cruel society that is in America today. If the corruption is destroyed and weeded out sexual torture at camps will be gone and replaced by a form of torture more civilzed like putting salt in cuts and wounds or something, America would stop killin Iraqi civs and would finally make Iraq a better place to live in than a anarchtic scorched hell-hole. To simplify my point is, good people from America become good soldiers (morally speaking) bad people become bad soldiers who may get the job done but commit atrocious war crimes.

Thoughts?

The .mil would find themselves with lawsuits on every front by every group imagineable if they only let GOOD people in.

Oh, and stop insinuating that we are just out to kill civilians. Not so. We're after Alqaida, WMD, Islamofascists....

Oh, and US soldiers nowadays are the best we've ever had. Whoops, almost forgot,

Marines
Airman
Sailors
Knight of Nights
30-12-2006, 00:46
Im afraid I do not agree with you, sorry. Social conditions do affect national policy and foreign attitudes, but not to the extent that you are supposing they do. Japan has made amazing strides- but their sexism in universities and the workplave is still incredibly rampant, I'll try to get you some statistics on that. Also, any nations we occupied have long changed their governments away from our trend.

We were better at diplomacy in the WWII, but only because our distance made us slightly removed from the situation. Aside from Pearl harbor, we had no brooding histories and secret scores to settle like the troops that had seen their neighborhoods burned down and their families killed.
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 00:47
You missed my point, war is serious business, you don't let slackers who'd ruin your factory's reputation get a job so the military shouldn't allow people in who would give forighners a bad impression of America, the sooner Iraq belives democracy is better the sooner the US wins.
Ifreann
30-12-2006, 00:47
The .mil would find themselves with lawsuits on every front by every group imagineable if they only let GOOD people in.
Depending on your definition of good, I doubt that very much.

Oh, and stop insinuating that we are just out to kill civilians. Not so. We're after Alqaida, WMD, Islamofascists....
I didn't read anything like that, sure you're not just attacking the position you expected him to take?
Drunk commies deleted
30-12-2006, 00:47
clean up their act at home. What was the main reason all those other nations wanted to become like America after the marines occupied them? The Americans made things better and so the defeated nation wanted to learn from them which is why JApan has sexual equality, why the Philipines and Germany tried out democracy for a while and why third world nations began looking up to America. Back then Americans were the centrist, reasonable, educated and technologically advanced and wherever they went they made the place better rather than worse, in WWII the Americans were the ones to surrender to if you were a civillian in the middle of a war who was just trying to keep you and your family alive, why? The US military tried their best to be civil with civillians an POWs but thats not the story now... Now US soldiers are imfamous for doing the exact opposite, this I ascribe to the corruption at home, when America was a clean more civilized society that reflected off them when they went to foriegn lands, forighners saw a civilized (maybe not as civilzed as the forighners, depends on which country they're at war at) technologically advanced society reflected off the soldiers' actions, now though they see the corrupt crime infested, selfish perverted and cruel society that is in America today. If the corruption is destroyed and weeded out sexual torture at camps will be gone and replaced by a form of torture more civilzed like putting salt in cuts and wounds or something, America would stop killin Iraqi civs and would finally make Iraq a better place to live in than a anarchtic scorched hell-hole. To simplify my point is, good people from America become good soldiers (morally speaking) bad people become bad soldiers who may get the job done but commit atrocious war crimes.

Thoughts?


So the fact that the US demonstrated the will to destroy entire cities and to bomb, burn and starve the population of the enemy into unconditional surrender during WWII didn't help pacify those countries for occupation? Personally I think the US military has become too kind to the civilians of enemy nations. They should teach the conquered people that they are defeated and that the only way to stop their children from being slaughtered is to behave themselves.
The Pacifist Womble
30-12-2006, 00:51
Oh, and US soldiers nowadays are the best we've ever had. Whoops, almost forgot,

Marines
Airman
Sailors
You're probably right. The OP was rather idealising the US military personell of the past. But the OP also has a point about America's formerly moderate political image/scene. Why did you guys all shoot far to the right wing in the past few decades???
Drunk commies deleted
30-12-2006, 00:53
You're probably right. The OP was rather idealising the US military personell of the past. But the OP also has a point about America's formerly moderate political image/scene. Why did you guys all shoot far to the right wing in the past few decades???

Because the sixties hippies overcompensated for their far left attitudes of the sixties and seventies.
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 00:54
Im afraid I do not agree with you, sorry. Social conditions do affect national policy and foreign attitudes, but not to the extent that you are supposing they do. Japan has made amazing strides- but their sexism in universities and the workplave is still incredibly rampant, I'll try to get you some statistics on that. Also, any nations we occupied have long changed their governments away from our trend.

We were better at diplomacy in the WWII, but only because our distance made us slightly removed from the situation. Aside from Pearl harbor, we had no brooding histories and secret scores to settle like the troops that had seen their neighborhoods burned down and their families killed.

Judging by the way American society was back then US soldiers would take pity on those who have been victimized in WWII, with their family members sent off to camps, homes bombed, and the experiments done on them by nazis. And the way soldiers treat those they invaded affects the attidute the invaded country has toward them, China invaded Japan long ago (some time in the medieval ages), thus the reason Japan and China hated each other ever since, Poland probably has hard feeling against Germany today because of all the mistreatment from Germans during WWII, and England and Frace invaded several times so they show tons of animosity today. If America cleans up its act in Iraq they might want to become a democratic nation.
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 00:58
So the fact that the US demonstrated the will to destroy entire cities and to bomb, burn and starve the population of the enemy into unconditional surrender during WWII didn't help pacify those countries for occupation? Personally I think the US military has become too kind to the civilians of enemy nations. They should teach the conquered people that they are defeated and that the only way to stop their children from being slaughtered is to behave themselves.

True but, the grizzly war crimes should stop, the things America's doing is making them imfamous to the whole world, a less demoralizing, dehunaizing tactic should be used to keep them in line to prevent the US's international opinion and the attitude Iraq has towards the US to go down.
The Madchesterlands
30-12-2006, 01:01
Travel back in time and find good arguments.
Socialist Pyrates
30-12-2006, 01:03
clean up their act at home. What was the main reason all those other nations wanted to become like America after the marines occupied them? The Americans made things better and so the defeated nation wanted to learn from them which is why JApan has sexual equality, why the Philipines and Germany tried out democracy for a while and why third world nations began looking up to America. Back then Americans were the centrist, reasonable, educated and technologically advanced and wherever they went they made the place better rather than worse, in WWII the Americans were the ones to surrender to if you were a civillian in the middle of a war who was just trying to keep you and your family alive, why? The US military tried their best to be civil with civillians an POWs but thats not the story now... Now US soldiers are imfamous for doing the exact opposite, this I ascribe to the corruption at home, when America was a clean more civilized society that reflected off them when they went to foriegn lands, forighners saw a civilized (maybe not as civilzed as the forighners, depends on which country they're at war at) technologically advanced society reflected off the soldiers' actions, now though they see the corrupt crime infested, selfish perverted and cruel society that is in America today. If the corruption is destroyed and weeded out sexual torture at camps will be gone and replaced by a form of torture more civilzed like putting salt in cuts and wounds or something, America would stop killin Iraqi civs and would finally make Iraq a better place to live in than a anarchtic scorched hell-hole. To simplify my point is, good people from America become good soldiers (morally speaking) bad people become bad soldiers who may get the job done but commit atrocious war crimes.

Thoughts?

at first read I this post was being sarcastic but I think not now.....you need to take stroll through the web on the USA's military past record there is no glorious benevolent past....rape, murder, torture, concentration camps, death camps, genocide it's all there.........if it weren't for Guacamole Bay and a few other embarrassments I'd say the US military today is the most responsible it's ever been in it's entire history(still needs improvement...)
Forsakia
30-12-2006, 01:05
snip

Thoughts?
You should embrace the wonders that are paragraphs.
Ifreann
30-12-2006, 01:06
I think the droppiong porno idea was better than this one. Mainly cos it involved porno.
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 01:09
Travel back in time and find good arguments.

These are good arguments, we all know society was less corrupt in the past, we all knowthat the US has had possitive effects on old enemies and now we have negative ones. And you didn't point out the weakness in my arguments. And we all should know that europe, middle east, and asia see us as a bunch of uncivized drug pushing, bastardly, perverted animals, because of how our soldiers acted in Iraq, no forighners researched on America's corruption until the Iraq war started, if we clean up are act and remove our corruption (which is a good thing) the forighners will respect us more. Our corruption is the main reason they hate us. Remove the corruption and the flag burning ends.
The Madchesterlands
30-12-2006, 01:13
These are good arguments, we all know society was less corrupt in the past, we all knowthat the US has had possitive effects on old enemies and now we have negative ones. And you didn't point out the weakness in my arguments. And we all should know that europe, middle east, and asia see us as a bunch of uncivized drug pushing, bastardly, perverted animals, because of how our soldiers acted in Iraq, no forighners researched on America's corruption until the Iraq war started, if we clean up are act and remove our corruption (which is a good thing) the forighners will respect us more. Our corruption is the main reason they hate us. Remove the corruption and the flag burning ends.


I meant arguments to go to war. Even if you were some apotheostic society when you invaded iraq, you would have still had to find a real reason to do so.
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 01:17
I meant arguments to go to war. Even if you were some apotheostic society when you invaded iraq, you would have still had to find a real reason to do so.

Well looking into the current situation we've seriously peeved Islam, just pulling out would be like letting go of some really violent guy you tired to beat up in the street and letting him go, you would probably get stabbed by him, pulling out of Iraq would result in another attack.
Socialist Pyrates
30-12-2006, 01:21
normally I don't use links, but the OP is so ill informed I couldn't help but give him/her a guide as to where to begin ....

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=135

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith

http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm
The Madchesterlands
30-12-2006, 01:21
Well looking into the current situation we've seriously peeved Islam, just pulling out would be like letting go of some really violent guy you tired to beat up in the street and letting him go, you would probably get stabbed by him, pulling out of Iraq would result in another attack.

I absolutely agree with you there, that's why i mentioned time travel.
I believe that the perception of the US worldwide, and particularly in the muslim world, cannot be repaired in this generation due to what has occurred in Iraq so far. Therefore, the only solution is to gradually begin to pull out, me thinks.
Prekkendoria
30-12-2006, 01:29
I absolutely agree with you there, that's why i mentioned time travel.
I believe that the perception of the US worldwide, and particularly in the muslim world, cannot be repaired in this generation due to what has occurred in Iraq so far. Therefore, the only solution is to gradually begin to pull out, me thinks.

Pulling out should only take place once there is a possibility of the Iraqi government still being intact two weeks later (not literally,but you should understand the meaning). If not then a gradual pull out, although looking better at the time, will not save face and the US will still be accused of taking a cut-and-run approach, which will doi further damage to the US's reputation.
Call to power
30-12-2006, 01:31
American soldiers are just a nations soldiers like anywhere else they have never been some knights in shining armour, you only need to look at Europe’s old stereotype of Americans (as opposed to the new fat version) to see that

Furthermore it is pretty slanderous that you somehow choose to ignore your allies contribution to occupation and that somehow in your mind America trumpets equality and wealth out of its arse when clearly places like as you stated Germany gained democracy from the Weimar government which emerged because of WWI being fought and the blockade (also get over WWII it happened over 60 years ago)

But as for your suggestion I think the US troops require more training and a much more strict command we live in the age of high tech weapons combined with elite troops make the training much tougher and above all educate about the occupied nations history and culture its time America works of its reputation of the ignorant invader out to wave guns around
Socialist Pyrates
30-12-2006, 01:35
the US will still be accused of taking a cut-and-run approach, which will doi further damage to the US's reputation.

the war was immensely stupid idea from day one.....the US has "won the battle but lost the war" that was evident before the war had even began, only the US, GB and a few other minor allies failed to see that.......

it isn't possible to do further damage to the US's reputation, it's as low as it can go....
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 01:36
Pulling out should only take place once there is a possibility of the Iraqi government still being intact two weeks later (not literally,but you should understand the meaning). If not then a gradual pull out, although looking better at the time, will not save face and the US will still be accused of taking a cut-and-run approach, which will doi further damage to the US's reputation.

Do you suppose that if only good people were enlisted war crimes would go down or be eeliminated?
The Madchesterlands
30-12-2006, 01:39
Pulling out should only take place once there is a possibility of the Iraqi government still being intact two weeks later (not literally,but you should understand the meaning). If not then a gradual pull out, although looking better at the time, will not save face and the US will still be accused of taking a cut-and-run approach, which will doi further damage to the US's reputation.


I don't believe it's up to the US to decide when to leave. When (or if) the fighting dies down a little bit, a referendum should take place, despite the risks to the USA's image.
Prekkendoria
30-12-2006, 01:42
the war was immensely stupid idea from day one.....the US has "won the battle but lost the war" that was evident before the war had even began, only the US, GB and a few other minor allies failed to see that.......

it isn't possible to do further damage to the US's reputation, it's as low as it can go....
I'm not sure it is, there are still things they have yet to do that could utterly destroy the little credibility they pulled out of the Cold War. Just for the record, the actions of our PM did and do not reflect public opinion, its just true.

Do you suppose that if only good people were enlisted war crimes would go down or be eliminated?
Probably not eliminate, but it may help a very little, even so the strains and emotional turmoil that war makes a person face could turn a 'good' person into one willing to do terrible things, and the kind of detachment necessary to over come this is far to much to be taught to a regular infantry man
Reconaissance Ilsands
30-12-2006, 01:46
I don't believe it's up to the US to decide when to leave. When (or if) the fighting dies down a little bit, a referendum should take place, despite the risks to the USA's image.

Well the corruption did lead up to this, putting and end to it would solve tons of problems, life in the US would be safer, the educational system would be better so only educated presidents who know what they're doing get into office, and the Iraq war wqon't repeat itself, and because the US would have well educated citezens they would know who to vote for and who they shouldn't vote for.
Prekkendoria
30-12-2006, 01:48
I don't believe it's up to the US to decide when to leave. When (or if) the fighting dies down a little bit, a referendum should take place, despite the risks to the USA's image.

US troops cannot remain in place forever, American public opinion would not allow it. A referendum would be nice, but do you think that the US would allow anyone else to dictate policy to them, if only on principle. It might however help their reputation on a broader scale, seeing them listening to someone else for a change would be nice. Shame Bush couldn't listen to Blair, despite his dogged loyalty.
Socialist Pyrates
30-12-2006, 01:50
Just for the record, the actions of our PM did and do not reflect public opinion, its just true.


and many americans disagreed with GWB's decision to attack Iraq, but as a nation they did, just as GB did......in a Democracy you have take responsibility for your choice of leadership....
Prekkendoria
30-12-2006, 01:53
and many americans disagreed with GWB's decision to attack Iraq, but as a nation they did, just as GB did......in a Democracy you have take responsibility for your choice of leadership....

Why, a large majority objected, and were ignored because Blair seems to follow Bush without question, not very democratically. If he had not gone to war, there is no way the UK would have. Also, the opposition had pretty much the same in terms of numbers of votes.