Why doesn't the US remain united in wartime?

[Alexander's Horse]

Other democracies manage it. Britain and France for example.

In WWI and II the US came in late. Other democracies fought for 4 years or more without disunity undermining their war effort. Lucky those wars didn't drag on much longer once the US got involved.

In Vietnam the US lost the war on the home front before it lost on the battlefield.

It cut and ran in Iran in the 70's and Lebanon 80's and Somalia in the 90's because of domestic opposition/disunity.

Now in Iraq the war is half over and support for the war is heading South with the job half done. A majority of American want out and the US has only lost less than 2000 dead and about 10,000 wounded.

The US got off lightly in all its wars in the last century as a matter of fact - suffering much less than other democracies, particularly France in WWI and II. And yet the US is usually the first democracy to bail out...

Do you see a pattern? Maybe Americans don't love freedom and liberty as much as we do.

It even affects computer games. Civ says democracies and republic can't maintain support for war and must make peace when offered - which is nonsense except in the US case - but this exception caused the stupid unhappiness rules on democracies waging war in civ. Bummer.

Why is it so?

[GePap]

Maybe because the US has really never fought many wars that threatened its very existance since the Civil War?

Heck, the UK wasn;t even in Vietnam and she was wracked by protests, as was France in 1968-69.

Look at France during the Algeria war- had two attempted Military coups, one Republic fell, terrorism in the Capital and in Algeria, a mess overall.

Besides, those Monarchies always have less war weariness0 must be why you Aussie continue to chose to be subjects to Good Ol' Elizabeth.

[Zkribbler]

Well, France gave up in Indochina long before we did.

Britain gave up almost its entire empire.

The U.S. will fight for its survival -- witness WWII. But we had no vital interests at stake in Vietnam, Lebanon or Somalia.

We didn't cut an run in Iran is the 70's. We didn't have a dog in that fight -- or al least we didn't perceive ourselves to have one. Rather, a popular religious figure was coming back to the country to contest leadership with a corrupt dictator.

[Alexander's Horse]

last in, first out is the pattern

[Getao321]

you can't really count WW1 as IIRC there was quite a bit of suppression of dissent within the nations by the gov't, and the French Army actually mutinied near the end...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
last in, first out is the pattern

Last in certainly, first out, I don't know.

[Alexander's Horse]

maybe its just the legendary short attention span and low boredom threshold of Americans

Keep your wars short people

[:) Smiley]

The US doesn't remain united? There wasn't exactly unified support for wars such as Vietnam or Iraq in the first place.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Well, France gave up in Indochina long before we did.

Britain gave up almost its entire empire.

The U.S. will fight for its survival -- witness WWII. But we had no vital interests at stake in Vietnam, Lebanon or Somalia.

We didn't cut an run in Iran is the 70's. We didn't have a dog in that fight -- or al least we didn't perceive ourselves to have one. Rather, a popular religious figure was coming back to the country to contest leadership with a corrupt dictator.

Yeah, but we put the Shah in there in the mid-late 1950's. He was our guy and we dumped him - hell, we let the poor man rot from within while he bounced from one unfriendly country to another. We finally took him in when it became more embarassing to us to have the cancer-ridden ex-ruler live in an airplane.

[Bill3000]

Obviously because Democracy has a High War Weariness rate, we didn't finish Women's Suffrage first, and we've been in war for quite a couple of turns. Thus, the unrest.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Smiley
The US doesn't remain united? There wasn't exactly unified support for wars such as Vietnam or Iraq in the first place.

they don't seem to get behind anything - put differences aside for the common cause - its the foreign policy problem from hell - why can't they fight a war for years and years and not care like the rest of us?

enemies have noticed this quirk

[Imran Siddiqui]

OP: 7/10. Not a bad troll. Well written .

[Alexander's Horse]

I never scored lower than 7.5/10 at uni you bastard

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


they don't seem to get behind anything - put differences aside for the common cause - its the foreign policy problem from hell - why can't they fight a war for years and years and not care like the rest of us?

enemies have noticed this quirk

Cause Americans aren't confortable with the idea of themselves as white men crushing the dirty little brown men like you Aussies or those racist Europeans!

Imperialist running dogs!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it was a bit obvious now. Especially the don't love libertry and freedom line.