I agree with trout. The last good war that the US fought was WW II. I think that by the time we got involved the morality of it was pretty clear. I would probably eventually get involved in fighting if some fascists or communists took over the US and proceeded to hunt down me and all my friends and relatives because they disagreed politically with them. I have been touched by the rationale of the Nicaraguans and El Salvadorans who eventually fought back. Initially they formed political groups and unions , voted and had peaceful demonstrations for poiltical change agains the small rich group running the country. Then anyone who a union leader, demonstrated or opposed the government was arested or killed. It eventually got so bad that the government went after just about any extended family member of a union leader, opposing politician or prominent demonstrator. At that point you either resign yourself to that level of oppression and silence or you become a guerilla. Given the immense death and brutality of the civil wars that resulted I think you can argue for either acquiescing or becoming a guerilla.
If these guys came to town, I'd do what I could... But really, this is an easy question for most... yes I would fight if my family were threatened, if we were invaded, if there was a grave external threat to our national interest. The harder question for us, I think, is what would it take for you to risk the comfortable life you live and upset your friends, family, and neighbors in order to protest or attempt to change something within our country? Say what you will about MLK, Jr's faults, but he was as brave as any soldier in battle and carried the burden of knowing that what he was pushing could cause innocents to die. Same with other civil rights activists and some of the early labor leaders. The folks who stood up to HUAC and McCarthy did so at exceptional personal and economic risk. As for me, I really don't know when or where I would put my family's well-being aside for a principle.
If the US government instituted a minimum 2 year commitment for 18 year olds we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's great that people are asking this question. I would fight if my country called me to fight but it would depend on the cause since it's now acceptable to wage war without a formal decleration from Congress which I have a problem with. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.
Macbeth, well said. Well, let's not overstate the case. France was downright beligerant until the end of World War I. They conquered most of Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. Bismarck goaded them into a war with soon-to-be-Germany in 1870 over a pretty minor indignity (and the French lost badly). By 1914, they were aching to fight the Germans again. And, really, even during the interwar period, they wanted to invade Germany for breaches of the Versailles treaty. They didn't do it because they couldn't get backing from the English and the Americans, who felt the Versailles Treaty was unduly harsh on Germany. Their cowardice showed really only when they did not defend their ally Czechoslovakia from the Germans. Of course, if they had tried, the would have lost in 1938 instead of 1940. As for the question, I think a couple of things would have to happen for me to fight. 1) I'd either wait to be drafted or join to pre-empt the strong possibility of being drafted in a very disadvantageous position. I think volunteering should be left for professional soldiers. If they need me, they'll call. 2) I'd want a declaration of war from Congress. I'm sick of them giving all their power away to the other two branches of government. In my mind, a war is not legitimate unless Congress declares it. 3) I'll fight on American (or French) soil. I won't be in the business of conquering other countries. I'll make exceptions for extreme examples. The funny thing is I think the biggest privation I would face in joining the Armed Forces would not be risking death, killing others, atrocities, or imperialism (all of which I don't like); it would be the food. I don't know what I'd do if I had to eat cafeteria food, or, God forbid, MREs.
MacBeth, WTF are you on the French side for? Do you know that in '98, they could not get a vote through the security council on Milosovic so they asked us to intervene anyway to help clear up a war on their doorstep? Guess what, we helped them out and now that we are asking for their help, what do they do? They screw us because they have oil contracts and are selling MILITARY parts to Saddam in violoation of UN sanctions that they endorsed. There are 19 countries that are supporting us in this war, and most of them are doing it because they know that Saddam is a bad guy and the world will be a better place without him. This is a simple black and white argument, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do..and when we liberate the Iraqi people and a more stable middle east develops, the world will be a much better place to live. Just get it over with and go in already......it is the right time and place. Let the bombs fly.... Oh, and I would fight for my country any time they asked. DD
That's too laissez-faire for me. I'd fight if anyone invaded that lazy-fare France, too. We have a treaty that promises it. But who knows if they'd reciprocate. They would probably just write poetry about our troubles and debate over glasses of absynthe, whether it was our own fault, or how we should be able to take care of ourselves. Since there are so many foreigners from allied nations here, maybe someone should start a sister thread to this one titled, "Would you fight to protect or liberate an ally?"
btw: I mean nothing by making fun of France; it's just so easy, and ya know, we are all jealous anyhow. I mean, who wouldn't want a free trip to France to protect them, get free wine, and liberate all those farm girls. viva resistance...has multiple, passionate meanings.
Yes, even for France. It's about good vs evil. If a country was wrongly invaded I would fight to liberate them. Just like Kuwait. I may not agree with France on everything, or most things, but just like the Great Men did 60yrs ago I would fight to liberate them again. If one of our allies attacked its neighbor and was invaded in return and lost... then I don't know about that. Maybe they get what they deserve. Heyp - I would have to take a lot of razors over there to "liberate" those women even further....
Yes, please forgive us ignorant rubes for our outlandish attempts to ascribe some sort of reason for the rather unreasonable position of the French government. One question, why have the French, Chinese, Russians etc... been attempting to get the U.N. sanctions removed for the past several years if now these same sanctions are so effective at containing Saddam? Here's the opinion of the equally "arrogant, globally ignorant, knee-jerk ego-centric" Spanish Prime Minister: http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm?id=1...ome& channel=IRAQ CRISIS - latest development<br%20/>s&objectid=47BD2119-2F0C-4BF9-A9489D5109DBE97E MADRID, March 10 (Reuters) - Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, an active supporter of the United States on Iraq, on Monday linked the "material interests" of France, Russia and China in Iraq to their opposition to the use of force there. Spain, currently on the U.N. Security Council, has joined the United States and Britain in backing a tough new resolution giving Iraq little time to disarm or face military strikes. "We don't have any material interests in Iraq...France has material interests in Iraq. Russia has material interests in Iraq. China has material interests in Iraq. We don't have any," Aznar told Telecinco television in drawing a distinction between governments on opposing sides within the U.N. Security Council. Asked by the interviewer if those interests explained the French, Russian and Chinese positions on Iraq, Aznar said, "That's a question only they can answer." "Simply, it seems to me they are on the wrong path and should be adding more pressure on (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein...They have the wrong orientation," Aznar said. . . . Oh, and regarding the French & Russian oil contracts (worth tens of billions of dollars, by the way), Yale economist William Nordhaus maintains that these agreements "were negotiated on extremely favorable terms" by the Iraqis "with an eye to gaining Security Council vetoes" in return. How dare he?!?!
Seems that some of our allies in Europe feel the same way with regards to the reality of international security guarantees: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-081013-9767r Foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz told state radio that if Portugal were attacked, "it would be unlikely France and Germany would come to our rescue." He said: "Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany? "I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us. For instance, during the 1996 mission in Bosnia, operations took place with the support of 20 satellites, of which only one was European," and the remainder belonged to the U.S. "If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica.
Since no one or nothing we exist after WWIII, I'd fight...cause we might as well make the best of it and end it with one big shabang...
I used to think this too, but now, since the downfall of the Soviet Union and the general acceptance that MOST countries will not use Nukes because that would mean the end of everyone, I'm not so sure a "world war" such as we had in the beginning of the century is so far fetched, with the outcome NOT decided by nukes. If a conflict involving most of the world was confined to one or two continents, I believe it IS POSSIBLE to have a global coalitioned conflict without resorting to nukes. I could be wrong, though.
You know I think that would solve a lot of problems for this country. There are plenty of no good 18-30yr old punks with no jobs living off their mommas with kids. If they would have put some service time in, then at least that would have some skills and be productive in this country.
I like the idea, but wouldn't limit it to military service alone. There's a ton of other ways for young people to serve their country.
I understand where a lot of you are coming from, but I just couldn't kill someone, unless it was in direct self-defense or defense of a family member. By direct I mean in the room with me. And I certainly wouldn't fight for America. This country hasn't even given me a green card yet. Are you kidding?
A middle school where we believe that the 60 year-old twits that declare war should be the ones to go and fight. I'm in the prime of my life right now, and I have no intention of going to Iraq and dying so oil prices can go down, and Bush can take credit for improving the economy.
