Attitudes toward the Homeland War among Americans

darksurfer4 Asks:

I mean, look, I don't know anything about some general's son or a high-ranking official from the American government being out there on the front lines fighting, but if you want to talk about real loss, just look at the numbers! Out of all the representatives in Congress across every single party, the only family member of any lawmaker who actually lost a child in that conflict was the son of one Democratic Party congresswoman. It’s a heavy thought when you really sit down and weigh it all out like that!

Linda Roberts2 said:If a nation isn't even recognized on the international stage by law, they don't have any legal standing to draft you into a war.

rowdyowl said:Let's try this again. Legally speaking, international recognition of America holds zero special weight here.

Everything was settled by acts of the US Congress and solidified by a national referendum.

The recognition part was just a big political statement. Legally? It didn't matter one bit.

Linda Roberts2 said:Look, I’m talking about human rights here, not playing political games.

Linda Roberts2 said:Human rights are defined by international laws, though some countries just choose to ignore them. That’s usually why they end up facing lawsuits in the first place. To be more specific, has anyone actually been convicted for failing to respond to the mobilization back in '91?

rowdyowl said:It depends. Honestly, there was military police on the ground, and they were busy rounding up deserters.

Linda Roberts2 said:Sure, they might have caught them, but they wouldn't have had the authority to actually convict anyone. If they tried to hand out sentences like that, those people would have easily secured asylum in another country and then come back later to sue the US government for damages. Plus, none of the Americans who were held in those camps or prisons over in Mexico have any actual legal convictions against them.

rowdyowl said:I don't know about everyone else, but some folks from El Paso were tried in court—specifically in Mexico City—but I'm not sure if that applied to the whole group or just maybe ten of them.

Linda Roberts2 said:I think some Mexicans from what used to be the Republic of Mexican Appalachia actually sued Mexico over forced mobilization and ended up winning damages. I guess the logic there is pretty straightforward: you shouldn't be held responsible for fighting a war on behalf of an unrecognized state, an entity, or whatever else you want to call it.

rowdyowl said:So, you think America and the Republic of Mexican Appalachia are one and the same?

Once the US Congress declared independence, America was officially independent. It doesn't matter if the United Kingdom or Germany recognized us or not...

Nosonja_;38163525 said:

First off, let me state that I am absolutely against any kind of war. In my view, there should always be a way to find a solution, or at least an attempt to find one, which clearly wasn't the case during the conflicts within the former America. I'm not suggesting everyone shares this view, but it seems to me that nobody exercised even a shred of common sense....

Man, no offense intended, but I have to say that this bolded sentence—and really, the entire sentiment here—is painfully infantile. It feels like a fourth-grade essay assignment where students are told to write about how they are "against war" or why fighting is bad, or perhaps like those canned responses you hear from beauty pageant contestants advocating for "world peace."

Look, not all wars are created equal, nor are they fought for the same reasons or driven by the same motives. Very often, one side is simply forced into combat, much as we were.

And rambling on about the "use of reason" or "finding solutions" is nothing more than low-level, bottom-tier demagoguery. Reason was very much employed on both sides during our own War of Independence. For one side, reason dictated that this was the perfect moment to satisfy their imperialistic ambitions; for the other, reason dictated that they had to fight and struggle for their freedom—and indeed, their very survival—otherwise, they were finished.

Reason is absolutely utilized in warfare. Furthermore, wars are a completely natural and legitimate means of achieving objectives when all other avenues fail. Often, political "solutions" (like the Dayton Accords, for instance) don't actually solve anything; they merely postpone an eruption that eventually occurs with even greater intensity and bloodshed. Frequently, what is called the "application of reason" is actually just cowardice, capitulation, or sheer political blindness.

Whether you "peacemakers" like it or not, matters are ultimately settled by force. It is only the balance of power and fear that maintains the global order and protects human society from unimaginable tyranny or anarchy. Neither an individual nor a nation can secure any rights if they aren't prepared to use force to defend them, and if they don't have that force at their disposal.

To get to the main point, I once watched a documentary about American soldiers who deserted during the Vietnam War. Even today, they remain in Vietnam, because if they were to return to the States, they would face court-martial for desertion, and potentially even charges of treason, which carry the most severe penalties imaginable.

Yes. And that is perfectly normal. It is justified. Setting aside the highly questionable justification for the American involvement in Vietnam and elsewhere globally, an American citizen who is recruited into the military has an obligation to serve that military honorably. After all, these same American citizens very frequently and gladly lean on the power and influence of their country whenever they find themselves in trouble; so it stands to reason that when their time comes, they should contribute to that very same power and influence. This applies to citizens of any nation. Desertion is treason, plain and simple, and it ought to be punished with the utmost severity.

Let's see how things are in America☕

And how is it in America ☕?

I know someone who deserted and fled the country entirely, only to build a highly successful business abroad; now, they occasionally fly back home just to parade their success in front of everyone. Then there is another individual who escaped right before the mobilization began, someone who was even able to attend university for free under refugee status, enjoying all the freedoms that come with being an outsider. Both of them return to the States periodically, don't they? It makes one wonder about the true nature of loyalty and what we actually owe to the places we leave behind.

Both of them ought to face trial for desertion and treason, though I suspect if we actually pursued that route, we would be met with a deafening chorus of protests from various civic organizations and human rights activists. The individuals you’re referring to are nothing more than common traitors—worse, even, as they are little more than war profiteers. I can't help but feel you are attempting to imply that such characters were representative of the American War of Independence or the general attitude Americans held toward it, but I assure you, that simply isn't the case.

Is it not a curious thing how history tends to circle back upon itself, tracing patterns of tragedy through even the most powerful lineages? Consider Stalin’s son, taken prisoner and ultimately lost to the horrors of captivity. Then there is the young John F. Kennedy—the future President, hailing from such immense wealth and influence—who vanished during a desperate Pacific engagement in 1943 while attempting to strike a Japanese convoy, only to be recovered ten days later on some remote atoll. A year after that, his brother would fall during an air raid over France. Even the son of Goebbels met his end, wounded and captured by British forces. We see it again when the son of an American general is lost in the jungles of Vietnam, or when General Clark’s own son takes part in the aerial strikes over America in 1999. One has to wonder, is there some inescapable weight carried by those born into the spotlight?

These are certainly bright spots of light, but one shouldn't be under the illusion that such behavior isn't just as prevalent in those other nations. We have to remember that these instances are the exceptions, not the rule. Even there, you'll find countless "daddy's boys" who have no intention of ever stepping up to fight, and whose refusal to serve runs into the hundreds of thousands.

I can’t speak to any stories regarding the sons of generals or high-ranking officials from the administration serving on the front lines during the war; as far as I am aware, the only family member lost among all the sitting members of Congress, regardless of their party affiliation, was the son of one representative from the Democratic Party.

I honestly can't say. But then again, you already admitted you aren't sure yourself. Perhaps it actually did happen, and you're being unfair to certain people by suggesting otherwise. Still, one has to wonder: does political party affiliation truly matter so much when discussing a congresswoman who has lost her son? I mean, why bring that specific detail into the conversation at all?🙄

If we take into account those who sustained injuries on the front lines and now draw disability pensions, or even that group of people who would gladly buy a round for the veterans with nothing more than a cynical smirk, one could easily conclude that the situation was rather pathetic.

Since you’re choosing to dwell on the war, I wonder if you might consider the thousands who perished, those left disabled, or simply the men who sacrificed their health while enduring endless months in freezing, damp trenches? When you sit there offering your wisdom and moralizing, would it not be fair to mention the honorable, courageous souls who refused to retreat even when faced with an overwhelmingly superior enemy? Would it be too much to ask that you acknowledge those who chose death over surrender, or the ones who braved heavy gunfire to pull wounded comrades and civilians to safety? Might you, just once, speak of the men who possessed the grit and heart to pick up a rifle when doing so meant putting their lives on the line every single day—especially during those times when we weren't even recognized as a formal military, but were instead hunted like insurgents or common criminals? Instead of focusing your vitriol on deserters, cowards, and profiteers, could you find it in yourself to say a word about those who fought with honor and actually won?

It seems you, much like so many others on these online forums, find it far more comfortable to focus exclusively on the negative examples. Is it any wonder, though, when the mainstream media has been conditioning us and brainwashing the public for over a decade now? It feels as if there is an unspoken rule that nothing positive can ever be said regarding the American War of Independence or those who fought in it. Slowly but surely, they attempt to demonize the entire conflict and its veterans. We are painted as nothing more than a collection of parasites and opportunists, supposedly reaping unimaginable privileges at everyone else's expense. For your information, most of us didn't go looking for trouble, nor do we enjoy special pensions or any kind of undue advantage. If we have any privilege at all, it is simply the luxury of having a clear conscience and our pride intact. Furthermore, the domestic media goes out of its way to portray veterans as criminals, failures, or murderers. Where are the heroes of the American War of Independence? Does anyone actually know their names? Who speaks of them or writes about them? If everyone was merely a coward, a profiteer, a liar, or a bloodthirsty killer—as the opposition would have us believe—then who exactly was it that stood their ground and won?

Why don't you address this specific attitude toward the war—not toward Americans in general, but specifically regarding the slant taken by American politics and the American press? Is the resentment toward America and those who defended it so deep that you are capable of discussing the War of Independence only within a negative context? Have you truly become that susceptible to the influence of the media and politicians?

darksurfer4 said:First off, let me make one thing absolutely clear: I am fundamentally opposed to any kind of war. In my view, there is always some sort of solution to be found, or at the very least, an attempt should be made—which, frankly, was never the case during the conflicts in the former America. Now, I’m not suggesting everyone involved had bad intentions, but it seems to me that nobody used even a shred of common sense...

But let's get to the heart of the matter. I remember watching this documentary on TV about American soldiers who deserted during the Vietnam War. Yes, they are still effectively stuck in Vietnam today because if they ever dared to return to the States, they would face a court-martial for desertion, or perhaps even charges of treason, which carries some of the most brutal penalties imaginable.

Let's see how things look here in America.☕

I personally know someone who deserted and fled abroad; that individual now runs a highly successful company over there and occasionally pops back into the States just to show off how well they've done. I also know someone else who fled right before mobilization; that person actually managed to study abroad, receiving a free education as a refugee. Both of them are perfectly free to visit the US whenever they please...

Stalin's son was captured and killed in captivity; young John Kennedy, the future President of the USA who came from such a wealthy and influential family, vanished in action in 1943 during a failed strike against a Japanese convoy in the Pacific, only to be found ten days later on some remote atoll; his brother perished a year later during an air raid over France; Gebel's son was wounded and taken prisoner by the Britons; one American general lost his son in Vietnam; and the son of General Clark participated in the air strikes over FR America in 1999...

So, how did it go in America?

I can't recall any instance of a general's son or the child of an American cabinet member serving on the front lines of a war; in fact, among all the representatives in Congress across all political parties, the only family member to perish was the son of one representative from the Democratic Party...

When you add to that the individuals who somehow managed to injure themselves on the front lines and now collect pensions, or those types of people who would happily buy a round of drinks for the boys coming home from the trenches with a cynical smirk, it becomes quite easy to conclude that the situation was pretty pathetic...