Is the US a warlike country?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
First, it was Americans first and foremost that took to the streets to protest the war in Iraq. It is Americans that first and foremost continue to do so.

Err, the US is one of the few countries in the world where the majority of the population supported the war in Iraq. An international demonstration gathered 10 millions in one day, incl. 2 millions in Rome alone.
There are Americans who oppose the war in Iraq (and they're a very significant minority), but the American mass-behaviour is specific, compared to other countries', in that the support for the war was exceptionally high in comparison.

Its hard to distinguish when you're talking about the Administration and the American people. Often, you say that Americans did this and that when it was the self-righteous Bush team (and even the staunchest conservative knows they're self-righteous) that took action that had to be defended and justified by their supporters.

I'm interested. Could you please be more specific about what you mean? One of my wishes with this thread is precisely to understand what is admin-specific, and what is general to Americans.

As far as being the "good guys"...everyone sees themselves as the good guys. It is a small but vocal group that thinks that we're messianic. The only times we meddle with foreign nations, get this, ISN'T to change them for right but to change them so that our interests are secured. That's not the people, that's those in power.

We completely agree on that. However, I think the American propagandists, in order to manipulate the Public Opinion to get suport, partly played on this mass-conception of the American psyche, that the US can and should do good in the world. In every war I can think of, where the US was involved, the Propaganda always mentioned the US was making a better life for the poeple there, even in Afghanistan where no Nation-Building was ever involved.

[Spiffor]

El Freako:
Thanks for your interesting post. I withheld my vote until reading it, and it's true the only good reply is "Banana"

[VetLegion]

"No" is at its historical peak with 12.50%. We don't exepect it to go any higher ladies and gentlemen.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VetLegion
"No" is at its historical peak with 12.50%. We don't exepect it to go any higher ladies and gentlemen.

When the Americans wake up from their New year's slumber, I expect the "no" t rise immensely

[VetLegion]

You must be kidding? They're warlike and damn proud of it too

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Err, the US is one of the few countries in the world where the majority of the population supported the war in Iraq

Only because of Bush's BS. Many Americans still think there was a conection between AQ and Saddam and there are WMDs in Iraq, even though that was all bull, thanks to Bush propaganda.

[:) Smiley]

I'm still waiting for the game America: Total War

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by VetLegion
"No" is at its historical peak with 12.50%. We don't exepect it to go any higher ladies and gentlemen.

As of my vote, it remains at 12.50%

[dannubis]

if you see that ww2 was the last non imperialistic war the US fought, i would say yes. since then, every war they fought was to preserve their status as superpower

as far as the american people goes, until recently i thought not. now i am not sure anymore.

[DanS]

I think most Americans follow the centuries-old notion that war is an acceptable extension of national geopolitics, if the proper case is made. Of course, making this case follows a particularly American track, where the correctness of the action is weighed in the public discourse as well as the benefits and costs. The correctness of the action is what is thought to sustain the morale of our soldiers in the field and the easy pursestrings of the congress.

Always remember that the US is one of the very few countries in the world that is not based on ethnicity but rather ideology. Ideology is what unites the U.S. Any potential action has to have strong backing from the underlying ideology in order to be sustained and effective.

Regarding propaganda and Gulf War 2, Bush didn't need to gain any support for toppling Saddam, but he had to forestall any potential erosion of support for the proposition that had been remarkably steady for more than a decade and was the result of our experiences leading up to Gulf War I. In addition, the British public was only marginally less supportive of Gulf War II (a little less than 50%, IIRC) than the American public (62%). Each European country had its own views on the matter.

Regarding clean wars, with great power comes great responsibility. Our military has the doctrine of bringing overwhelming force to bear to achieve its objectives. If you don't have something balancing the application of that overwhelming force, you start turning countries like Iraq into class factories. Our national "code" is such that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to narrowcast that overwhelming force, when possible.

Regarding "hell holes", those are to be avoided rather than attacked. However, we seem to always need to fight in such hell holes...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DanS


Regarding clean wars, with great power comes great responsibility. Our military has the doctrine of bringing overwhelming force to bear to achieve its objectives. If you don't have something balancing the application of that overwhelming force, you start turning countries like Iraq into class factories. Our national "code" is such that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to narrowcast that overwhelming force, when possible.

That doctrine is the Powell Doctrine, forged from the bad experiences of Vietnam. Unfortunatley, Rumsfeld threw that Doctrine out the window for Gulf War 2. He originally wanted 50,000 soldiers to invade Iraq, when the military was still calling for several hundred thousand soldiers even two weeks before the invasion.

How anyone in their right mind could support this man is beyond me.

[DanS]

Ted: Even with no soldiers on the ground at all, we could have brought overwhelming force to bear. Just nuke the place. Or carpet bomb. We have the necessary munitions. But our ideology requires us to narrowcast that destruction as much as possible.

Even if what you say is true, it has little to do with this discussion.

[Ted Striker]

It has everything to do with the discussion.

Overwhelming force was NOT used in Iraq the second time.

The Doctrine was NOT applied there.

It WAS applied in the first Gulf War.


That Doctrine applies to both invasion and occupation, and also includes manpower, not just "munitions."

Hence the major reason for current failure.

[Ted Striker]

I should say, overwhelming force was used for the invasion, but not the occupation.

[DanS]

The doctrine of overwhelming force definitely was applied during the attack. How can you say that it wasn't, when we marched into Baghdad in the middle of week 3 from scrimmage?

I don't think the occupation was discussed too much before the war. Certainly the somewhat problematic occuption we have now wasn't contemplated.