Sorry coulden't fit the whole thing in. Should US soliders be send and killed on missions that don't concern the US?

you mean like Vietnam? Remember that Blunder?
Thanks LBJ nice call!

Yes, because in one way or another they do affect us

Second answer would be: Depends.

Yes that is what I mean.

The US is the most powerful country in the world. Sooner or later we get involved in everything. I guess it depends on what the mission is. If it could someday reach us than it's worth sending troops.

[size=4][b]NO!!![/size=4][/b]

that sounds like a bullshit liberal answer, would you care to explain in more detail on it

Only if you believe that a one world government is the way to go.

I'm sorry, but I don't think our role should be World Police.

Unless it affects us, why should we go around the world and tell people how to live and what to think?

Usually it just breeds more US resentment. Over and over again, these peace keeping missions backfire. When will we learn our lesson.

And things usually aren't that much better when we leave.

Hear. Hear. [beer]

Not just no,but hell no! Peacekeeping missions should only be assigned to third string players like Pakistan and Malaysia.American troops have better things to do,like get suntans and chase woman......or men, depending on your genetic makeup.

If it does not concern us, then NO.
But how many places in the rapidly shrinking world do not concern us? No, I do not belive in one world government, unless it's run by the U.S.A. If we want to remain the dominat player in the world, we sometimes have to step up and get dirty. Teddy Roosevelt understood this, and America became a world power to be reckoned under him. Our influence was at an all time high at the end of the first world war, but we withdrew into isolationism. Instead of taking the bull by the horns, we withdrew into our own little sphere of influence. We let our military drop to 17th place. By not participating in the League of Nations, we allowed Italian aggression in the Horn of Africa. Japnese aggression in Mancuria, and mainland China. And finally apeasment to Hitler over the Sudetenland, allowing the Cezh's to be swallowed up setting off the second world war.
We are the only Super Power left. We can rapidly become a has been second or third rate power. All we have to do is become isolationists, muttering about "One World Government Conspiracy", or quitting the U.N.
No I do not like the U.N. But until there is a replacement, it is the only show in town. And if handled properly, as in '90/'91 where we build a coalition it can work to our advantage.
The alternative is to put on your tinfoil hat, bury your head in the sand, and hope you don't get stepped on in the scramble to replace the United States as #1.  

Only if we are allowed to kick some ass when it needs to be done.

Tyler

Absolutily YES!!! so that nationals and terrorist groups can bomb our embassies and naval ships for medeling in their polictical, religious and national affairs. we have every right to impose our imperialist justice on others for not doing as our congressman and U.N. leaders think they should.

imliblio

No.


I would just love for the U.S. to pull out of ALL foreign countries.

Pull out of the U.N. and N.A.T.O.

Complete isolationism.

Wait for a little while and see who wants us back.

I bet it would be a long list.

Realistically, there are some places that we should be involved. I just don't believe we should be as spread out as we seem to be.

The problem is defining "what concerns us". Too often times the dems will get us involved for no other reason than "well, we have to do SOMETHING!" But if conservatives are in power of the white house or senate/house of representatives, the Libs are quick to point fingers & call  a conservative a "warmonger". Case in point- Kuwait. We went for one good reason - so that John Doe American doesnt have to pay $5.00 for a gallon of gasoline, while Liberals went around saying that we shouldn't go to war "just over oil". We did that one right - went in, kicked ass & took names!

Vietnam? No way
Bosnia? They dont have anything we need (except maybe a few nice Yugo AK's!)
Somalia? nope
Grenada - Sure, we had civilians THERE in trouble
Panama - yes

HELL GODDAMN [B]NO[/B]

Here is your criteria, is it VITAL to the US that we go?

If your not sure what that means try this:

Is it worth seeing the person you care about MOST(including yourself you selfish bastards)get killed over it?

If the answer is NO, how the f*ck do you have the nerve to send someone else?

Here's the real problem. U.S. Soldiers,Sailors,Airmen and Marines are supposed to be warriors NOT baby sitters grocers and cooks for a bunch of third world,backwards ass country f%*ks! Save the "peacekeeping missions for the loosers in the U.N.(LOL). Send in our troops when the job calls for major asskicking, not peacekeeping.

As Stg44 and btip already stated there are times when it's vital for the US to do "a little peacekeeping," in order to protect US interests.

The problem is how long to stay after the job is done. Bosnia, being a prime example, is just going to drag out for years and years. An alternative would be to pull out and then return for the action 6 months later after the slaughter has begun again. That or just say "you guys had your chance - you blew it, bye, bye."

Vietnam was about saving the French's face (why bother?) and stopping communism. Didn't have jack shit to do with peacekeeping.

The reason we've had so many peacekeeping missions as of late is because there's an old saying that goes along the lines of "in order to be a successfull President, you have to win a war."

Well, I think the movie "Wag the Dog" was awfully close to the truth. Clinton was screwing up on the homefront (except for creating the first budget surplus in 40 years), so he needed some good PR by winning a war somewhere "safe." I bet 99.9% of the rank and file of the US military cringed when Billy boy said no US soldiers were going to get killed in Bosnia - what a load of crap!

And finally; regarding the comment about seeing a loved one die, if you join the military you should know that it's a high risk profession. "What, I actually have to use my rifle? I didn't sign up for this, this is dangerous man!" NO SHIT!!!! If you haven't figured that one out you're in for a surprise.

Retribution?  Sure, if a cruise missile isn't good enough.

Evacuation of US citizens from a hostile environment?  Sure, if those citizens didn't know about the hostilities until it was too late.

Protecting vital U.S. interests?  I guess I need to know the governments definition of "vital" before answering that one.

Peacekeeping????  Hell no.  Let them fight their own battles.  Why should they risk their lives to keep warlord "A" from kicking the crap out of warlord "B".

NOT NO BUT FUCK NO!!!!!!

this is how we get into little BULLSHIT WARS

Yes,  they are a valid military nission if it meets the conditions set forth under doctrine.  All of the ones that we have successfully participated in (there have actually been some) followed these rules.  All the ones that went bad, didn't meet the doctrine.

When it became apparent that peacekeeping was going to be a big part of Army life, we got a block of instruction on peacekeeping.  This was at the Officer Advance course (at least us CBT Arms guys did).

I can't find the text, but some of the highlights were:

It must be vital to the national interests of the US.

There has to be a peace to keep (A good example is the Sinai.  A bad example is Somalia).  You can't force a peace.  Both parties have to want it.

There has to be an objective.  You have to know why you're there.

There has to be an exit strategey.  You have to know how you're getting out.

There were a few others, but these were the big ones.  What always pissed me off was when troops would get sent in AGAINST this doctrine, and then people would wonder why it didn't work.  Duh!

Yes, we should execute peacekeeping missions.  We should just execute them correctly.  We didn't do that all throughout the Clinton administration.

Ross