1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Anti-War Generation

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Dec 13, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Here's a telling <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37271-2002Dec10.html">quote from a Washington Post piece on "antiwar" protesters:</a>

    <blockquote>"Look around. See how many people are here of my age," says the delightfully named Alison Oldham, 73. "A lot of seniors are involved in this because we've seen so much. You look back at the cemeteries in France and everywhere, and it's so sad. War is such a useless thing." </blockquote>

    "Antiwar Effort Gaining Momentum," trumpeted the headline of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61647-2002Dec1.html">another Post article</a>, a week ago Monday. This is a puff piece about a group called Mothers Against War, which has "50 core members"--half the membership of the U.S. Senate--plus "thousands of supporters around the country and the world."

    But it doesn't sound as though many of these mothers are of childbearing age: "Most members of Mothers Against War are grandmothers in their seventies whose lives are already full."

    Far be it from me to disparage the wisdom that can come with age, but the contrast between the youthful antiwar movement of the 1960s and the geriatric one of today is surely worthy of note. Among other things, it's yet another way in which today's war is not "another Vietnam."

    The antiwar Web site Justview.org describes a visit by a group of clueless (and unphotogenic) activists to Tariq Aziz, whom the site misidentifies as Iraq's foreign minister (his actual title is deputy prime minister).

    "Mr. Aziz asked the group about the sentiment of the American public regarding plans for war with his country," the site reports. "He asked about the participation of university students against the war and asked our perspective on the effects of a war on the struggling U.S. economy."

    Justview doesn't reveal the answers to Aziz's questions, but how much do you want to bet the peaceniks unwittingly fed him misinformation: that the antiwar movement is (to coin a phrase) gaining momentum, that war would be terrible for the economy and so on? All of which is for the best. It doesn't hurt the American war effort that the Iraqis are relying on idiots for their intelligence.
  2. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    My generation doesn't know what war means. The only war we've seen was the movie CNN played - otherwise known as the Gulf War. Tune in any time, and see targets get blown up, live, via satellite.

    The older generations DO know what war is. They've been there, done that, have the t-shirt. My generation doesn't really believe that 'in this day and age' we could actually go to war - like, a REAL war, with real bombs and missiles and stuff. One where we would have to fight in, like, hand to hand combat and shoot guns, etc.

    If this thing gets out of hand, it's going to be WW3, for sure. And when that happens, you'll be seeing my generation shitting bricks.
  3. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    It won't become WW3, for a lot of reasons, but not the least of which is that the other side would get their ass handed to them.

    What would happen if Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, all decided we suck and needed to get our butts kicked? Or even if the Chinese stepped in?

    It would be a disaster for them. The combined might of all of those nations wouldn't have a prayer against the Brits and the U.S. alone, let alone if Taiwan, Canada and other minor powers joined up. They know it, we know it, and that's why they won't step in. That's why every day another nation agrees to jump on board the anti-Iraq coalition.

    Every time one of them writes themselves out of the equation by denouncing the current agenda, they take themselves out of the post-war bartering. Example - The French recently have started politically hedging on their anti-war theme... Why? Because they know if/when it happens, they want some say in what happens <B>afterwards</B>.

    Look deeper than the sensationalism... You'll start seeing political language being spoken behind the scenes.
  4. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Thats an interesting comment Misu. To only know war from that perspective must give it a certain level of "entertainment" value. More infotainment from CNN on your screens soon folks. :(
  5. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    Seriously, I can't really speak for my entire generation, but for me, the first time I truly had a sense of what war is really about was when I saw the planes hit the twin towers and saw bodies flying out of windows. That's when it hit me what war is about.

    I swear, I could not sleep for 2 days, and when I finally did sleep, all I dreamt about was being a rescue worker. Took me about a week to normalize myself, and that's only because I forced myself to not watch CNN or read anything about it online.
  6. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Given the re-statement of long standing American policy regarding the option to use *all* weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear, if WMDs are used against us or our allies then that 'infotainment' may go to white noise real fast.

    I have seen war during the Vietnam era on the tv news and it was not pretty. I have seen films of earlier modern wars, pictures of even earlier conflicts, read stories of historical events and know that war is not a contest where if at the end you don't like the way things turn out, just hit the 'reset' button.

    The problem with the Gulf War was that there was a disconnect between the images displayed and the real lives those images represented.

    In the present situation, if things get hot as is likely, real bodies will come back just as in Vietnam and I'm afraid the public will not be ready for the truth that reality presents.
  7. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Yes, at the moment it is a painless exercise to condemn Iraq. That will soon turn to a great deal of pain if hostilites get underway.
  8. jamming

    jamming Banned

    War of the future is somewhat different than war of the past, it won't neccessarily have to be one of taking and holding real estate completely like WW2. It will be more on the Afghan Level, take a place near where you want to be and fortify it , then kill the enemy around it. Massing overwhelming firepower on their concentrations from safety to the point they cannot organize to resist if seen. It is a modification of the traditional war fighting model in an extent that we have not seen today. Small teams with high amounts of protection calling in precision munitions without opposition. We destroyed the combat effectiveness of units of the opposing force without even engaging in ground combat. It will be like the airwar over Kuwait and Iraq of the 90's, but with a whole new scale of efficiency. It actually is mind boggling, but I do not think we will get off with as little casualties as we did in Desert Storm, but is possible we might.
  9. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    I certainly hope it can be done with as few casualties as possible to all concerned. Let only the *real* idiots that deserve to be squashed get taken out.

    The rest should be allowed to get on with their lives. This is not some game that I can watch on CNN and go 'gee whiz, my tax dollars at work'.

    Brave men and women are going in harm's way to defend what I hold dear and I really don't care about the protesters or who is right, wrong or indifferent once the order to go is given.

    What matters most to me is the fact that those troops will salute, carry out their orders to the very best of their ability and they deserve my fullest support.

    I long age knew I cannot give physical support but moral support, I have in abundance.

    They deserve nothing less.

    As for Saadam, he writes his own history with his actions.

Share This Page