Author Topic: What war would you be willing to fight in? (Read 943 times)

Phaser11 · « **on:** November 23, 2006, 08:31:31 AM »

What war would you be willing to fight in?
Since the Iraq war started there has been all sorts of talk on if it is right or not. Then last night I saw Hard Ball on MSNBC and there was this guy asking if not the Iraq war, which war would you be willing to fight in?
I’m not saying this war is right or wrong, I don’t want to get into that, just what war would you be willing to fight in. Wars are going to happen. The human race is not smart enough to “not” have wars.
What would it take genocide? Religion? An enemy landing on your countries shores? A people repressed? What? Wars have been fought for all these reasons, which is yours.

There has been a lot of talk about a Draft also. Would a draft work? I used to think it was a bad idea, but now I don’t know. In the United States under the equal rights amendment, women would be drafted also. That means all 3 of my children are eligible. If there was a draft would you be more interested on who was elected into office? Would you be willing to let another country suffer to save you own children? I can’t answer these questions yet. As a solider (retired 22 years) I know what I would do, but when it comes to my children and a draft I would not want this country in a war.
Is that the answer, to offer our own children as a sacrifice? Would that work to stop a war? For me there is nothing more important than my family and my children, they are all I live for and love. Vote for the other guys and stick my head in the sand? I love this country. I love it’s freedoms. Just as each of you love your countries and your freedoms.

What in the hell are we going to do!

Peace

Phaser11, TSgt, USAF (Ret)
Vet, Operation urgent fury, Cold War, Desert Storm and chasing rebels around Central America.

Angus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2006, 09:37:42 AM »

Reflect this from WW2:

Would you, as a Polish soldier, have fought the Nazis in WW2?
Would you as a British fighter pilot in the BoB have done the same?
Would you, as a U.S.M.C fellow have fought the Japanese at Wake island?
Would you, as a RN guy, have dropped depth charges at the submarines who were sinking merchant vessels?

Other sides....all getting unclearer....

Would you, as a Russian soldier have shot a teenage German POW in the back of the head?
Would you, as a French soldier under German command, have opened artillery and machine gun fire on U.S. and British troops?
Would you, as a Japanese Sniper, shoot U.S.M.C. corpsmen as a Primary target?
Would you, as a U-Boat commander, machine gun an unarmed and lone 20-ton fishing boat to pieces?
Would you, as a German soldier be ready to march children into a death chamber?
Would you, as a bomber pilot be ready to drop incendiaries on heavily populated and undefended urban areas?
Would you be ready to Nuke?

War is one dirty deal, and has the tendency to start from a rather clear cause and get into absolute lunacy.

Just my cents....

Halo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:07:36 AM »

Excellent post, Angus.

eagl · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:20:23 AM »

I volunteered during a time of relative peace, so I guess that means all of the above.

From a personal survival point of view though, modern warfare is heavily tilted towards survival by anyone on the same side as the US. From that perspective, today's wars are far better than any past war because I'm much less likely to die horribly than (for example) my grandfather during WWII or my great great great great whatever grandfather during the american civil war.

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:39:46 AM »

i would only fight in a war if i could loot and pillage, i want something for risking my life.

Golfer · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2006, 01:21:19 PM »

I remember having a discussion on this very topic during one of my AP classes in high school.

When asked "would you fight if" the following scenarios happened...i'm sure you could guess which one was the final answer.

What if France was invaded?
What if Great Britain was invaded?
What if Canada was invaded?
What if an enemy force landed and invaded Virginia (or other state)?
What if Ohio (or your home state) was attacked?
What if your city was attacked?
What if your neighborhood was attacked?
What if your neighbor was attacked?
What if your house was attacked?

Lets just say that nobody went across the pond to help out in this hypothetical situation.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2006, 01:46:03 PM »

WW VII

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2006, 01:55:39 PM »

I took my first oath shortly after we left Viet Nam. I took it again when commisioned in 75. I never gave a thought as to which war I would fight in. I was joining my country's armed forces. If I am not willing to fight, that would have been a rather sorry route to take.

It is not a soldiers perogative (sp?) to determine the policy of their nation. It is a soldiers responsibility to weigh orders to determine if they are lawfull. That does not mean nor imply that the time to do so is after having been told to go fight or report to duty in a combat zone. Unlawfull orders are often one of the things we are discussing here and they tend to be fairly obvious.

This is a good example of an unlawfull order.
"Would you, as a Russian soldier have shot a teenage German POW in the back of the head?"

as is this:
"Would you, as a German soldier be ready to march children into a death chamber?"

This on the other hand is not:
"Would you, as a bomber pilot be ready to drop incendiaries on heavily populated and undefended urban areas?"

and this is not:
Would you be ready to Nuke?

Examples of all of them are from WW2 of course. In a total war such as that one, the civilian population is a "means to wage war" as they are part of the support base of the beligerant country. If you are unwilling to accept that premise, then you are unwilling to accept the justification to engage in WW2 as an allied soldier. It also means you have just granted the enemy military a safe zone from which to resupply, retrain and launch their forces if they choose to do so in an urban area. Think Hanoi harbor. Think storage of AA missiles in schools and Hospital grounds.

Defeat of an enemy nation does not always mean total destruction of their military. It can certainly mean destruction of the desire and means of the nations ability to wage war and that can hinge on the civilian population's will to support the "cause". Because the "means" is often in or next to a civilian population center for munitions or other war material production there will be casualties. The civilians are the way they get the material created. No military force makes their own munitions, weapons, rations etc., the civilians are doing it for them.

Slash27 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2006, 01:59:46 PM »

War of the Worlds.

Thrawn · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2006, 02:17:01 PM »

War against plaque.

Dago · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2006, 02:34:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
War against plaque.

How about the war on Gingivitis?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2006, 03:14:49 PM »

Revolutionary War, War of 1812. Maybe Civil War. Maybe.

Thrawn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:30:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
How about the war on Gingivitis?

See, mission creep has already begun.

Nilsen · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:59:26 PM »

I would fight in any war were a NATO allied is attacked by a non-member.

Fishu · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2006, 05:53:13 PM »

For my own turf.