Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The (ineffective) way the US fights wars now.

Posted 4 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 1:30 p.m. EST by OWSisawaste (133)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As a country we have changed they way we fight a war.We no longer fight wars we fight "police actions". We use our military as a world police and it is ridiculous. We need to get back to the way we fought when Teddy Roosevelt was president or the way we fought in WW2. Conventional war may be ugly and it may get men killed but that is what war is. war is ugly and it is bad, but it going to happen. It has happened since the beginning of time and will continue till the end of the time. War has changed it is true, war has gotten more "civilized" by only allowing certain weapons or not allowing certain types of ammunition. All of that only makes modern "war" more not like war. Nowadays we are not allowed to use hollow-points because they cause more damage... why the hell would they do that. The point of war is to kill your enemy as fast as you can, not to have to waste two bullets on one man...I am getting off topic here but the point is that te United States needs to re-learn how to fight a war or we will continue to pussyfoot around the middle east for years. The US has fallen into a hole full of hippie views and people afraid that people die in war....well guess what, people die in war. In order t win a war more people are going to have to die, on both sides. Unfortunately that means that some US soldiers and Marines are going to lose their lives, I sucks, I know. But it is the way war works. In order to start to win the War on Terror we need to use the US war machine the was it was intended. we have already tried to speak softly to the terrorists, now it is time to hit them with the Big Stick (for those of you that don't know that is a Teddy Roosevelt reference, look it up).



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 4 years ago

We are the only country who will win a war (against the native americans) and give them land and money back because we won it from them

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 4 years ago

yeah an we also are the other country that invade a country ad tries to build a nation of democracy at the same time....its ridiculous

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 4 years ago

How so?

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

by trying to build democracy in Iraq as well as trying to fight the terrorists is not what the military was made for....it was made to destroy enemy troops with maximum prejudice

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 3 years ago

Ok I just wanted clarification. I agree with you. If you want to change a society's political leanings you have to take them over first with soldiers and release the politicians on the masses.

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

yeah pretty much....its the soldiers job to kill and destroy the enemy its the politicians job to "nation build" soldiers are not supposed to be policemen ...

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 3 years ago

In some situations it may be better to have trained professionals in a possibly hostile situation

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

what do you mean by that?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 3 years ago

I mean that when a country, such as one in the middle east is taken by the military, it would be better to have military in position for a while until the politicians have done they're work

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

yeah but then the military leader would have to ONly enforce martial law... the military leader should just enforce the new politicians ideas.....besides trying to make the middle east a "democratic nation" is doomed to fail....they have been tribal and 3rd world since medieval times. we cant change them....all we can do is detroy them enough so they do not attack us again...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 4 years ago

Ineffective and inefficient.

We now subcontract cooking services and pay civilian cooks $100-K when the army used to have its own cooks making a sergeant's pay. And they have private security making $140-K instead of privates making $14-K.

[-] 2 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

yup.......the military is absolutely more deadly nowadays but it just is not the same it used to be.

[-] 1 points by twiggy (24) 4 years ago

The corporations that manufacture, war materials, have paid off our elected officials - the money the 99% pays on war- goes to the coffers of the 1% ++++training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 3 years ago

it does not really matter that the tax payer money does not fo directly to the military, eventually it gets there. Don't get me wrong it would be nice if it ALL went to the military but that is not realistic. Its the fact that we don't fight war the way is is most effective