why do americans get so upset when we use military force. do we believe our leaders are incompitant?

Answer 1

Americans don't get upset over using force - at least not the vast majority. They get upset over using military force when the reason is not clear or it is a reason that they don't agree with. They also get upset if they believe the war is not being handled well, which I believe is the case with our current situation. People are seeing soldiers coming home in coffins, but are not seeing results in Iraq and in many cases, don't even know what results they are hoping for. Are we expecting to intimidate an enemy that is not afraid to die? I admit that I don't have the answer to this problem. But what we're doing certainly isn't working.

Answer 2

in the long run its not that they dont like seeing the force used its that americans cant except casualties. so far 3000+ men and women have died (compair that with the battle of Tarwa in the pacific which lasted 4 days and had more casualties). the gains in iraq have been there and they arent going as "fast" as people want them to. i honestly wonder if people know how long it takes to build a democracy? especially in the middle east which hasnt had a history of it.

the use of force should always in some way shape or form benift the country. did saddam have WMDs? i dont know i honestly cant say, so far very few have turned up. whos to say they werent smuggled out of the country before the invasion. i do belive i heard a old Bathist general on a talk show say something along those lines. but people are looking at the fact that the adminstration "lied" to us. the fact is look at it this way:

we pull out now: chaos on a scale not seen yet envelopes iraq, hundreds of thousands of people will die in this civil war. the entirty of iraq will blame us and we will have ONE very pissed of iraq (again) and the rest of the middle east will hate us even more for doing this. (this assumes iran doesnt outright invade Iraq and conquer it)

we stay until stabilization is accomplished: we have a DEMOCRATIC goverment that would be closley allied to us in a region that breeds terriorists, the violence that is now going on would consume more soldiers lives, yet secretarin vioolence would not have been as bad as if we pulled out. there is a strong Iraqi army that knows what its doing and can easily perform joint operations with the US should we ever need to conduct MO (military operations) in the region.

as to answer you origanal question, the people are upset when we use force 1) when there lied to 2) when it produces american casualties 3) when there seems to be no end to the conflict 4) when the gains so far havent proved forth coming.

Answer 3

I think you have a question that people need to think about before they slam out a reply. Americans didn't always get upset when we used the military. If they had France would still be fighting for the Nazi's (Yes they joined forces with Hitler) against Britain and Japan would be chopping off the heads in Hawaii. The Gulf of Tonkin was the first lie that cost 58,479 lives and turned Jane Fonda into a traitor and John Kerry into a liar. Now we have something that started with WMD's which was a lie, has cost over 3000 lives already and has Jane Fonda being a Traitor again. ...............I'm done bitching about the world

Answer 4

There are so many variables regarding both your questions.

I believe that we use military force to move nations in a direction we think they should go, and every once in awhile, we use force to protect our own.

Iraq is a perfect example of moving a nation. The notion that we were worried about human rights and WMD's in Iraq was only a good excuse. If you base our occupation of Iraq on WMD's, we should have already attacked Iran!

Millions of people are being killed in some African nations. Why didn't we attack theose regimes? The answer is simple; they don't threaten the world economy.

All the rhetoric being thrown around by our politicians only caters to an idealistic theory and gives the elite a place to hobnob with our leaders, who, in my judgment, are all incompetent. I would eliminate new members of Senate and the 110th congress as they haven't been around long enough to understand that they need to give the masses something to complain about.

Answer 5

When military force is used against imaginary threats that were later proven to be horrenous lies then the word incompatent should be replaced with criminal .

If I got some guy to beat the crap out of you beacuse I convinced him you raped a child (when you clearly did not ) then that would be a criminal act . In that case the guy who did the beating acting on my lie would be more or less blameless it would be me the liar .

Following that example it is not the American military to blame they did the beatings on the order of a criminal who blatantly lied . Put him in jail and pay damages to the multiple thousands of people you have killed and maimed because of a bold faced lie

Answer 6

The Democrats Have created a quagmire they are pulling lose out of the Jaws of Victory they are all to fuuny, they are for the War and ar enow against it.

I LOL each time I see one of these idots parroting their non-sense and lastly I watched CNN recently on the news and I was more educated than the entire panel,

God help us.

Answer 7

They aren't upset over the use of military force, they are upset about the lack of a clear plan and objective, as well as the overall mishandling of the war.

Answer 8

Don't put all Americans into one catagory. I believe military force is necessary to keep peace.

Answer 9

Force sometimes is necessary, but if it is used for the wrong reasons, I think that's where people may become upset.

Answer 10

I don't know if competency comes into play as much as a disliking the killing of the young men(and some women) of our country and maybe theirs, too.