I would fight in a war if...

[Royal Tenenbaum]

What would lead you to fight in a war?

[FartinMowler]

I really don't think I could kill another person but If someone came into my country and started killing people, like for example in the movie "The Piano" I would rather die fighting than be herded into holding pens.

[Immortal Goat]

I'd fight against a justifiable enemy because not all enemies can only be a threat when invading. Countries with far-reaching missiles are a threat and they don't even have to set foot in the country they are waging war against. However, I sincerely hope it never comes to that. Nuclear weaponry was the biggest mistake ever.

[punkgrrrlie10]

other:

For those of us coming from a family which has a lot of military in it and having alot of friends in the military you fight a war if you are enlisted and called up. Your job is to be a soldier whether you want to be fighting against another or not. It's not an intellectual exercise. There is a commander in chief and you go when called. It's your job. You may not agree with why, but that's not your place.

[davinxtk]

With respect, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

As a human being you have the right to choose whether you want to lay your life on the line for a cause.
Being so numb to it is what allows for words like "fungible" to be applied to humans.

I voted that I'd go to war if we were being invaded. I don't necessarily mean active, on-land invasion, though. I would fight in a war if my way of life was literally in question. If my first ammendment rights were in question (wait a minute...), if my fourth ammendment rights were being challenged (uhm...), if America was for some reason no longer able to hold fair elections, if we were being governed by a force of religious doctrine... wait a minute.
Where the fuck is my war?
"Old white men wielding martinis and wearing dickies have occupied our nation's capital." (Michael Moore)

Yes, I'd fight in a civil war if one were to erupt with cause and promise behind it. Yes, I'd fight in a war against a country that was literally a challenge to the United States, invasion force or not. No, I would not fight in a war to protect any people from any political party; spare the possiblity that there was some form of mass-genocide or further atrocities being carried out.
However, I wouldn't want to fight a war overseas without international support. I don't necessarily mean literally, I would really just want more than a few rinky-dink countries to agree with the cause.

[Bobo Adobo]

I voted for the Invasion choice, same reasons as Davinxtk.

[ScruU2wice]

Definatly if someone was invading.

And if some one kidnapped helen of troy...

[AChimp]

I would fight for whichever side was winning.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

I voted for only if it was in my country. At least that way I would be protecting something that was important to me.

[Perndog]

Other: I would fight in a war if I really wanted to kill someone OR if we were being invaded and I couldn't leave the country safely. I don't have a sense of national pride. I have a sense of self-preservation. So I would fight if and only if I thought killing another human or destroying property would be a fulfilling experience in its own right (and you can be sure there are several members of the Special Forces who do what they do for this very reason).

[FartinMowler]

Other: I would fight in a war if I really wanted to kill someone

You just get more stupid as the day's go on :lol

[Anonymous]

Stupider. Not "more stupid," you stupid.

[Pub Lover]

'Anti-Grammer Police' :lol

[Anonymous]

Just when it's ironic.

[CastroMotorOil]

Isaid agianst a jsutifieable enemy, such as if china decided to actually start launching shti our way, and we went over to stop them or something. bad example i know. The point being that if there is a significant threat to my famlies' and my well being and way of life, then i'd go to war for my country.

[punkgrrrlie10]

If you make the choice to become a soldier, you haven't put restrictions on it by saying "only if i agree with the cause". It is still a choice.

[AChimp]

I think it goes without being said that if you're already a soldier, you don't have any choice about where you are going to be sent. I believe that the spirit of this thread is, "What would motivate you to enlist?"

[El Blanco]

I would fight for whichever side was winning.

Are you Canadian or Italian?

I went with justifiable enemy. Of course, "justifiable" is pretty vague. I believe in the old "the best defense is a good offense" line of thinking, so many of you will probably disagree with what I see as justifiable.

[Brandon]

Against invaders.

[AChimp]

Are you Canadian or Italian?
Well, since chimps are decidedly hirsuite, I will have to go with Italian. :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I chose "just cause." Chimpy is right, what would drive me to enlist would be a war that I felt was necessary, although precautionary as a last resort.

Some examples, had I been alive, throughout the 20th Century the 20th Century:

Justified (relatively speaking): WW II, the Korean War, the first Gulf War, and (perhaps) the war in Afghanistan.

Unjustified (relatively speaking): WW I, the Vietnam War, and "Operation Iraqi Liberation." :)

I think the choice to defend while being invaded is sort of superfluos, in that you'd certainly be "justified" in defending yourself, your family, your loved ones, etc. Unless you're perhaps French. ;)

EDIT: On a side note, I must admit that this entire thread has put B&S's song "I fought in a war" in my head. :)

[punkgrrrlie10]

I think it goes without being said that if you're already a soldier, you don't have any choice about where you are going to be sent. I believe that the spirit of this thread is, "What would motivate you to enlist?"

Are you sure b/c the first thing that popped in my head when I read this was the conscientious objectors to Iraq who were already enlisted and serving.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Which I think is a relatively small list, especially when compared to those soldiers who are reenlisting in order to do more rounds in Iraq.

I think the real question was what would drive people to fight in a war, thus enlisting, thus going through b.t., etc....

[Immortal Goat]

other:

For those of us coming from a family which has a lot of military in it and having alot of friends in the military you fight a war if you are enlisted and called up. Your job is to be a soldier whether you want to be fighting against another or not. It's not an intellectual exercise. There is a commander in chief and you go when called. It's your job. You may not agree with why, but that's not your place.

Obviously she's never heard of being a "conscienious (sp?) objector".

[El Blanco]

Being a conscientious objector doesn't mean you don't go. You just get put in a noncombat role. You still get shipped out. At least, thats how I understand it.

[Perndog]

I think it means you don't get signed up at all, but you are required to do some kind of non-military service, like join the peace corps (my dad went to Ethiopia during Vietnam) or the Red Cross or whatever.

[Immortal Goat]

Pern hit it right on the nose. I would sooner join the Peace Corps than fight in the war in Iraq.

[punkgrrrlie10]

other:

For those of us coming from a family which has a lot of military in it and having alot of friends in the military you fight a war if you are enlisted and called up. Your job is to be a soldier whether you want to be fighting against another or not. It's not an intellectual exercise. There is a commander in chief and you go when called. It's your job. You may not agree with why, but that's not your place.

Obviously she's never heard of being a "conscienious (sp?) objector".

Obviously you don't read the whole thread before writing, genius.

[El Blanco]

I think it means you don't get signed up at all, but you are required to do some kind of non-military service, like join the peace corps (my dad went to Ethiopia during Vietnam) or the Red Cross or whatever.

thats an alternative to a draft, but its not being a CO. The military will assign an objector to a non-combat role. I believe its an official title with the pentagon.

[AChimp]

:lol

If it's a draft you're talking about now, you are lucky if you are one of the minority that they decide to let choose their post. I'm sure that everyone throughout history who has gotten conscripted has been concientious objector, otherwise they would have volunteered. Doesn't stop them from being assigned cannon fodder duty.

[Perndog]

Blanco: I just did a little homework, and I discovered that there are different kinds of COs as recognized by the military and the Selective Service act.

A plain old CO is one who objects to military service of all forms and will be required to perform civilian service (like my father) if his draft number is called.

A noncombatant CO is one who doesn't mind the military but doesn't like killing, and he will be assigned a noncombat role in the military.

A selective CO is one who doesn't like certain kinds of tactics or weaponry, and he will be assigned to a particular military unit based on his objection.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You don't get "cannon fodder duty" if you're approved....

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Just to clarify... I meant what would make you enlist whilst a war was happening?

[kellychaos]

other:

For those of us coming from a family which has a lot of military in it and having alot of friends in the military you fight a war if you are enlisted and called up. Your job is to be a soldier whether you want to be fighting against another or not. It's not an intellectual exercise. There is a commander in chief and you go when called. It's your job. You may not agree with why, but that's not your place.

That's one of the reasons I didn't sign up for another term. Naively, I thought that I would fight for my country because I thought that our country wouldn't think of fighting a country without justification or those who directly threatned our way of living. When I enlisted and I saw that we have maps of countries, points of contact in those countries, intelligence agents to help amend existing plans, continual development of contingency plans, ports and air strips that we knew we were going to use WHEN the need arose, ect. Maybe I'm not explaining this right as far as the mindset goes. Something like this, I guess: "Whoever you are, we know we can kick your ass. We, in fact, have definitive, well thought out, and complex plans to kick your ass so just step one foot out of line, have some resource we need, or serve some political agenda and we WILL do it." The thing is, the person making those decisions doesn't necessarily have to have any training in geopolitical relations or military leadership. He is just the trigger man, the guy with the say-so. Hell you, apparently, don't even need the approval of congress anymore ... and that's some scary shit. Just sayin'

[AChimp]

Every country has plans like that. I'm sure there's even well thought-out plans for invading the U.S. somewhere that would work. :/

[kellychaos]

I mean every country and down to the minute detail. I won't get into detail but I saw our invasion maps, plans, operations orders, unit allocation and strength reports, ect for Haiti several months before I ever saw there WAS a problem in the broadcast news or through any government administrative source.

[Pub Lover]

Every country has plans like that.
What's the bet most of the Pacific nations don't have such plans? >:

[Pub Lover]

...I saw our invasion maps, plans, operations orders, unit allocation and strength reports, ect for Haiti several months before I ever saw there WAS a problem in the broadcast news...
...but isn't being prepared a good thing? :rolleyes

[El Blanco]

I mean every country and down to the minute detail. I won't get into detail but I saw our invasion maps, plans, operations orders, unit allocation and strength reports, ect for Haiti several months before I ever saw there WAS a problem in the broadcast news or through any government administrative source.

Ya, every major military does that. ITs more an acedemic excersice than anything else. Remember a few years back when the LA Times "broke" the news about invasion plans of China? Military officials basically gave a "ya, so?" kind of response. England even has plans to invade us.

And you know what? I like the idea that we have such detaile dplans. Just in case. You think prior to 9-11 you would have thought we had reason to invade Afghanistan?

[punkgrrrlie10]

jamaica???

[El Blanco]

Ya, mon, they be developing dat der Atomic Bong.

[Pub Lover]

No, she went of her own accord. :lol

:drunk
:postcount

[Pub Lover]

damn, I'm too slow. :(

:postcount

[kellychaos]

Ya, every major military does that. ITs more an acedemic excersice than anything else.

I don't think it's as "acadaemic" as you might think. These types of plans are up to the minute and backed up by satellite, aircraft recon, on-site intelligence, ect. When I was at Fort Bragg, I was part of an 110% allocated unit. That means that we were over-allocated in terms of soldiers, equipment, ammunition, ect. The purpose of that is, in case we had to deploy, we didn't have to wait for anyone on leave, training elsewhere, ect. We also didn't have to worry whether we had enough resources at any given time. We were constantly updating our personnel files, wills, medical records, shots, finances ect. so that kind of administrative thing wouldn't hold us up when we're ready to move. Adding to that, we alway had our duffels more than half-packed and just had to throw in a few last things when the time came. Adding all this up, this leads to a unit that supposed to be ready to go (with all the last kisses) within a 24-36 hour window ... and we were just the average GIs. Some of the specialty units had an even narrower window. If you knew all the logistics involved, I think that you might be a little impressed. I'm not trying to over-exaggerate or pump up the Army image (I could care less, really). I'm just trying to give an accurate portrayal. While we do train overseas, there is a purpose ... that purpose being to be able to move quickly in a "real world" sense and not an "academic" sense.

[El Blanco]

I don't get it. We are supposed to have the most advanced, powerful military in the world. That is how things should be handled.

[mesobe]

id fight if someone invaded my country over greed and money. Even though its not the individual US soldiers fault that they are fighting in Iraq and it sucks that *anyone* is dying, I hope those Iraqis defend themeslves vigorously. They have every right and reason to.

EDIT: even if my own country did such a stupid thing as to invade another country for selfish reasons, Id throw my patriotism aside and stick to my thoughts.

[kellychaos]

EDIT: even if my own country did such a stupid thing as to invade another country for selfish reasons, Id throw my patriotism aside and stick to my thoughts.

If you were already enlisted, you wouldn't have much of a choice. Well, assuming your unit had that geographical area of responsibility and you were in a combat arms unit (or one that supports a combat unit). Actually, only a small percentage of those serving during a conflict ever see combat. Theoretically, it is possible to serve a 20-year career in the military and to never have served in any conflict. It happens all the time.

[GAsux]

I would fight in a war if they gave me lots of cool shit to blow up. That would be cool.

Kelly,
I don't know when you got out but I can assure you that the days of doing 20 without being involved somewhere are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. And I'm not talking about silly nonsense like Desert Fox or Allied Force. For the first time in 30+ years we're likely to have an entire generation of combat veterans. Shooters per se.

[davinxtk]

I'm sure there's even well thought-out plans for invading the U.S. somewhere that would work. :/

There aren't. There isn't. It couldn't happen, AChimp.

We not only have the advantage that our extremely well-trained and well-funded military offers us, but also the advantage of large amounts of civilians who want to maintain their way of life. In a heartbeat there would be private militias on the move, the army and the national guard would be fucking everywhere, and the very worst anyone could hope to cause is widespread factioning and seperation. Our country is far too large, both in land area and population; without mentioning that the only points of entry that would be of any use would be the Canadian or Mexican borders. The coastlines are far too densely populated, any sort of invasion would result in barbaric displays of collateral damage.

Assassinate leaders, blow up strategic equipment/buildings, yes, these are all possible inside the US. Actually take the country over by means of an invasion force?

You would need the support of every armed force on the planet.

[kellychaos]

Kelly,
I don't know when you got out but I can assure you that the days of doing 20 without being involved somewhere are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. And I'm not talking about silly nonsense like Desert Fox or Allied Force. For the first time in 30+ years we're likely to have an entire generation of combat veterans. Shooters per se.

I agree that it'd be a rare event but it's still theoretically possible if you have certain job skills that keep you outside the area of combat arms. Every time that you come up on orders, it's kind of like a roll of the dice depending on where UPERCEN (army's human resource department) thinks it needs your job skill at that time ... unless you have "station of choice" through some kind of incentive in your re-enlistment contract. That being said, if you really want to make the military a career, all the neat little ribbons and medals sure look good when it comes time for the military board to review your records for promotion and combat is a quick way to get them.

[Mr. Oysterhead]

The coastlines are far too densely populated, any sort of invasion would result in barbaric displays of collateral damage.
D-Day, it's been done before, what's to stop it from happening again? Especially since Russia is planning to put military service into its school curriculum. I would guess that if Europe was up to it, it could take down the US without many problems. Also, Canada and Mexico are the only entry points but as far as I know the southern border is terribly defended.

[AChimp]

Davin, you are assuming that the majority of the U.S. population would still be alive. :lol

[El Blanco]

D-Day, it's been done before, what's to stop it from happening again? Especially since Russia is planning to put military service into its school curriculum. I would guess that if Europe was up to it, it could take down the US without many problems.

1) Mutually Assured Destruction. "Get your troops off our territiory or we turn your homeland into a plutonium dumping ground."

2) We can move our forces a lot faster nowadays than the germans could in 1944

3) The British aren't running a French resistance here to sabatoge us

Also, Canada and Mexico are the only entry points but as far as I know the southern border is terribly defended.

Ya, but we would see them coming well in advance.

[Zebra 3]

:) - I'd fight only in a civil war against western Canadians - especially if I can drop a shit load of Humane Bombs of Freedom® over the province of Manitoba.