Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Online
There are 181 users online

You can register for a user account here.
Library of Congress

Military Quotes

War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms.

-- Machiavelli

Current poll results


Is the U.S. military prepared to fight a two front war?

Yes58 %58 %58 % 58.24 % (99)
No32 %32 %32 % 32.94 % (56)
I do not know5 %5 %5 % 5.88 % (10)
I have no opinion0 %0 %0 % 0.00 % (0)
Other, please list in comments2 %2 %2 % 2.94 % (5)

Total votes: 170
One vote is allowed per day

[ Voting booth | Other polls ]

Comments

Display Order
Re: Is the U.S. military prepared to fight a two front war?
by
on Dec 29, 2002

I voted other for that fact that I do not know how long it would take to institute a draft. History has shown that the standing army we keep can not fight a two front war, it would take a draft or very large call up at the least.


Re: Is the U.S. military prepared to fight a two front war?
by Anonymous
on Dec 30, 2002
We have troops deployed all over the globe, our economy is not at its best, we are engaged in a war on terrorism, we are almost certainly going to be invading Iraq virtually alone, the national and state budgets are in deficit, we have neither a draft nor mandatory enlistment, the pork barrels and troughs overfloweth, our population majority is aging rapidly, our birthrate is down, the Congress is divided, healthcare and insurance industries are eating us alive, unemployment is up and rising, our allies are not exactly in our corner, troubles are brewing in this hemisphere, we maintain the largest nuclear deterrent imaginably necessary, supply lines to a ONE front war are going to be extremely long...why, Oh WHY would anyone even think of fighting, again, in Korea! Being patriotic is one thing, but biting off more than anyone could chew is a whole different elephant NOBODY is gonna want to see.
Bluehawk

Re: Is the U.S. military prepared to fight a two front war?
by GoldenDragon
on Jan 01, 2003
I just don't know. The United States is capable of leading the world but, again go to war much less in two seperate conflicts seperated by thousands of miles?
We weren't prepared to win in Vietnam and the politburo wouldn't allow us to anyway. Is the American public, the politically correct, any different today than they were then?
One thing I will swear to though is that it will be over my dead body that the returning troops will not be treated as we were but I don't think that the younger generation is prepared to raise their right hands and swear that they are willing to die for their countries way of life or to protect our former allies from agression of our former enemies. Back in the '60s we were drafted or enlisted because we knew that it was the right thing to do. Because our country asked us to do it. We had a Democratic Liberal in the White House and then a Southern Democrat and finally a Conservative Republican. None of them were prepared to tell the troops to do whatever it took to get the job done. The Brass knew what it would take but that would mean shutting off the supplies from Laos and Cambodia. Two other countries that served up the BS that they were "Nuetral" and the American people, who weren't even there, believed those who wore a flower in their hair.
I don't know if Geedobbya is a good enough salesman or has the balls to get the job done.
I'm ready if they want me. Been there, done that.

Re: Is the U.S. military prepared to fight a two front war?
by Anonymous
on Jan 04, 2003

Don't fight two front wars. Focus on one enemy at a time. Work problems from most difficult to least difficult. Two front wars (especially on oppisite sides of the world) cost additional lives. Not saying that they can't be won, but primary focus should always be the most threatening.


Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in
Military History
Forum Posts

Military Polls

Which of the following organizations has done the most to help you or others you know as a veteran?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 53

This Day in History
1758: James Abercromby is replaced as supreme commander of British forces after his defeat by French commander the Marquis of Montcalm at Fort Ticonderoga during the French and Indian War.

1759: Quebec surrenders to the British after a battle which sees the deaths of both James Wolfe and Louis Montcalm, the British and French commanders.

1862: Confederate General Robert E. Lees army pulls away from Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, and heads back to Virginia.

1863: Union cavalry troops clash with a group of Confederates at Chickamauga Creek.

1914: The British occupy Luderitz Bay.

1915: The Belgian coast is bombarded by French artillery and the British fleet.

1916: The French take Deniecourt.

1918: The French, in liaison with the British, capture Savy Wood and Fontaine-les-Cleres.

1918: The Germans continue strong counter-attacks north and south of Moeuvres.

1945: Gen. Douglas MacArthur moves his command headquarters to Tokyo, as he prepares for his new role as architect of a democratic and capitalist postwar Japan.