WAR..What is it good for?

[Jim Richards]

US is a front...one that we don't seem to willing to secure, given our porous borders. No real attempt on the part of this Administration or Congress to secure our borders. NSA, on the other hand, may be trying to electronically strip search every American. I thnk they need to find the appropriate balance that allows them to do their best to uncover terrorists without violating our right to privacy. So far, they seem to lack balance in this effort, and the Constitution is a casualty of this war.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
I can understand the frustration you might have with people like that, but if we can't trust/expect our government (by and for the people) to make somewhat decent decisions for us then maybe we need to appoint a King and not a President and forget that America ever existed. We expect the best in here, its what makes us great. When we start settling for what we've got we might as well dissolve the Union because what would be the point?

Agree completely. I think anyone who is really aware of the "facts" (at least as the public knows them) surrounding this war and the leadup to it would say that hindsight being 20/20 we should not have invaded Iraq. No WMD, links to al Qaeda are thready at best, significant insurgency to deal with, conservative Muslims taking power, etc, etc, etc.

That doesn't change the fact the current generations of Americans just don't have the determination and "stick-to-it-tiveness" that they did in the WWII era. Those people lived through the Great Depression and knew what it was to struggle. They expected to work hard to make a living. They didn't expect the Gubmint to bail them out at every turn. They saw the war as a righteous effort to defeat evil in Europe. As I recall we lost more men in a few days on Iwo Jima than we have lost in this entire war. Yet you can't turn on the news without someone talking about the incredibly "high price" of this war. Don't get me wrong, even one life is a high price to pay, but I honestly think if WWII happened tomorrow, the current generation of Americans and the current generation of media would have likely lost the war.

[Jim Richards]

It's really hard to discount the stick-to-it-ivenss of the current generations. Many of us endured the decade of war in Vietnam. The Iraq war has been going on for quite some time, too. Politicians are worried about "another Vietnam." IMO, this leads them (politico's) to plan for short, easy wars. In their hope for prosecuting such a war, they envision minimum troop deployments, lots and lots of airstrikes, and best case scenarios for armed resistence. The military planners are likely not so hopeful; however, they do the civilian leadership's bidding. When these overly optimistic plans fail to succeed, the war drags on longer than it should've, the American losses are high, the public looses confidence in the gov's ability to execute the war. In Iraq's case, throw in a good dose of incorrect rationale for war, and who in their right mind would want to be mired in that war?

[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
...
That doesn't change the fact the current generations of Americans just don't have the determination and "stick-to-it-tiveness" that they did in the WWII era. Those people lived through the Great Depression and knew what it was to struggle. They expected to work hard to make a living. They didn't expect the Gubmint to bail them out at every turn. They saw the war as a righteous effort to defeat evil in Europe. As I recall we lost more men in a few days on Iwo Jima than we have lost in this entire war. Yet you can't turn on the news without someone talking about the incredibly "high price" of this war. Don't get me wrong, even one life is a high price to pay, but I honestly think if WWII happened tomorrow, the current generation of Americans and the current generation of media would have likely lost the war.

Im not so sure. I think if this were a war worth fighting, if the reasons were true, and the enemy identifiable we would probably see a huge flood of patriotism and support for this war. As it stands now, though, our leaders are less than trustworthy, the cause is just but not altogether immediate, the enemy is everywhere and nowhere all at the same time, and we're fighting all by ourselves with little to no international support. Not a good recipe for success, IMO.

[tabs]

Geezus this Thread has gone on for more than 30 minutes...where is my remote controller....

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by tabs
Geezus this Thread has gone on for more than 30 minutes...where is my remote controller....

Ummm, I think it was on your plate, Herr Buffetmeister.

[FrayAdjacent911]

I always tout the ProtestWarrior line:

"Aside from ending slavery, fascism, naziism, communism and genocide, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING. "


And I think our 'instant gratification' society expects too much, and expects it too quickly. It also expects it at little to no cost.

The current war won't make the world perfect, but it will make it better than it was.

[SGB]

there's no delusion like self delusion.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
I always tout the ProtestWarrior line:

"Aside from ending slavery, fascism, naziism, communism and genocide, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING. "

War did not end any of those things.

And I think our 'instant gratification' society expects too much, and expects it too quickly. It also expects it at little to no cost.

Since almost no one wanted this current war against Iraq, unless deluded into supporting it, and that is what has faded; your theory is shown false.

he current war won't make the world perfect, but it will make it better than it was.

There is nothing existing on the planet that would do that.

"War is a racket." General Smedley Butler, USMC, retired, recipient, twice, of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

[RoninLB]

"Wars are fought for profit"

[Nathans_Dad]

To me there is one major indentifiable factor in the change in public support for war over the last 100 years. Anyone guess?

The Media. Period.

Think about it. What is the primary (for many ONLY) source of news about their world?

Ok, so if you agree that the media is likely the #1 factor in how people perceive a situation whether it be a war, a hurricane or a Presidential election, then you must ask yourself if there has been a change in media coverage of war over the last 100 years.

Take a look at those old movie trailers from WWII. See a difference between that and the CBS Evening News today?

For right or wrong, the media filtered what it showed to the American people back in WWII. It strived to show the American soldier as brave and strong. It showed battles we won. It showed soldiers in good spirits. It had images like lightning bolts and hammers to show US strength. Basically, it was propaganda. But it kept the homefront strong and the supplies coming.

Today the media does the opposite. It strives to show the bloodiest footage it can get away with. It focuses on the negatives, the roadside bombs, the beheadings, the tapes from al Qaeda, the troops who are unhappy. Essentially it has become almost a propaganda machine for the terrorists.

I'm not saying one way is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that the change in the media since WWII is the primary reason for the poor support for every war since. IMHO of course.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
To me there is one major indentifiable factor in the change in public support for war over the last 100 years. Anyone guess?

The Media. Period.

Think about it. What is the primary (for many ONLY) source of news about their world?

Ok, so if you agree that the media is likely the #1 factor in how people perceive a situation whether it be a war, a hurricane or a Presidential election, then you must ask yourself if there has been a change in media coverage of war over the last 100 years.

Take a look at those old movie trailers from WWII. See a difference between that and the CBS Evening News today?

For right or wrong, the media filtered what it showed to the American people back in WWII. It strived to show the American soldier as brave and strong. It showed battles we won. It showed soldiers in good spirits. It had images like lightning bolts and hammers to show US strength. Basically, it was propaganda. But it kept the homefront strong and the supplies coming.

Today the media does the opposite. It strives to show the bloodiest footage it can get away with. It focuses on the negatives, the roadside bombs, the beheadings, the tapes from al Qaeda, the troops who are unhappy. Essentially it has become almost a propaganda machine for the terrorists.

I'm not saying one way is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that the change in the media since WWII is the primary reason for the poor support for every war since. IMHO of course.

The media has been the strongest proponent of going to war over the last 100 years. From the Pulitzer's support of the War with Spain to the Hearst's support of entering into World War One; they've been among the most bloodthirty entities in America.

War sells newspapers, back then; and sells TV commercials, makes newscaster's carreers, and gets a huge amount of face time for politicians on either side of the issue.

The media needs to develop ethics in this kind of deadly political participation, but I'm not holding my breath.

[M.D. Holloway]

yet the media is typically liberal...hmm, sounds like it is counter porductive yet self nourishing.

I like it! It is all coming togethr rather nicely wouldn't you say?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Im not so sure. I think if this were a war worth fighting, if the reasons were true, and the enemy identifiable we would probably see a huge flood of patriotism and support for this war. As it stands now, though, our leaders are less than trustworthy, the cause is just but not altogether immediate, the enemy is everywhere and nowhere all at the same time, and we're fighting all by ourselves with little to no international support. Not a good recipe for success, IMO.

Proof of this is comparison of support for the invasion of Afghanistan versus Iraq.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Proof of this is comparison of support for the invasion of Afghanistan versus Iraq.

The support was not much different during the two actual wars with the previous governments....It has been the after-war...with the terrorists (insurgents?) that has given the press and the anti-war crowd the time to mount their disinformation campaign. That is why they were finally successful in Vietnam....because that war was just so darned long.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
The support was not much different during the two actual wars with the previous governments....It has been the after-war...with the terrorists (insurgents?) that has given the press and the anti-war crowd the time to mount their disinformation campaign. That is why they were finally successful in Vietnam....because that war was just so darned long.

That's the popular lie that many in the military constantly tell themselves.

War is politics, and it's the "aftermath" as well, it's all part of the ugly whole.

Just like the War for Southern Independence didn't really end in 1865, it continued with the guerilla campaign of Jesse James and others; and of course the yankee reign of terror commonly called Reconstruction.

[Moneyguy1]

War produces profits for related industries and reduces surplus population in two ways: First by reducing the young adult male populationwhich leads to a second reduction; fewer children in the next generation. (Dead people cannot reproduce).
'
Let's not even think of the collateral damage such as London, Dresden, and other Cities during WWII.

Modern "warfare" has changed to reflect the realization by the less powerful that they cannot slug itout toe-to-toe with the big boys, but must be more subtle in their approach, using strealth, deception and subterfuge.

I cannot find one instance in written history where war made a lasting, permanent improvement in the civilized world.

Anyone?

Did Vietnam actually resolve anything or does the aftermath still affect our society, reflected in the current attitude toward war, drugs and perhaps morality?

I really do not know, but I have my suspicions.

[fintstone]

The Vietnam war stopped the spread of communism.

Our enemies came to the realzation that they could not defeat the American soldier in the battlefield. The only way to defeat us was to enlist our press and use an anti-war movement to defeat us from within.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fintstone
Our enemies came to the realzation that they could not defeat the American soldier in the battlefield. The only way to defeat us was to enlist our press and use an anti-war movement to defeat us from within.

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it. Some learn from the past and actually capitalize on it...The Democrat party...Does anybody think for a minute that the left propagandists, better known as the Democrat mainstream, have not employed the same tactics they used from Vietnam to undermine Iraq?...Jay Rockefeller actually wrote a "company" wide memo articulating the plan to undermine the war in 2003.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I cannot find one instance in written history where war made a lasting, permanent improvement in the civilized world.

Anyone?

Did Vietnam actually resolve anything or does the aftermath still affect our society, reflected in the current attitude toward war, drugs and perhaps morality?

I really do not know, but I have my suspicions.

War has always enable one group to dominate another; and enriched a few at the expense of many. And killed millions, the warfare totals of the 20th century alone were at least 100 million.

That's all it's ever done; that's all it will ever do.