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

Who Supports War?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 9, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1106/p01s01-ussc.html">Surveys are finding</a> that young people are the age group most in favor of going to war with Iraq, with older generations being less supportive of military action. While this may seem far removed from the peace movement of the 60's, surprisingly Gallup polls taken the late 60's and early 70's reflect similar findings - despite all the flower children.

    Americans aged 18 to 29 back US military action by a 3-to-1 margin (69 percent to 23 percent). In contrast, support falls to 51 percent among those aged 65 or older, 31 percent of whom oppose a war against Iraq, according to three surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.


    Additonally, the young are far less likely than their elders to feel that the U.S. would suffer significant casualties in the event of a war with Iraq. So why is this? Does it come down to a question of bravery or foolhardiness by the kids? Is it fear or wisdom on the part of the seniors? GA seems to house people from a broad cross-section of age groups. I'd like to hear your opinions on this, particularly in relation to your age. Did you have a different opinion earlier in your life?
     
  2. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    18-29 year olds didn't get to go to Vietnam and didn't get to watch the play by play of it on the evening news. I am not pro war per se, but I am very much in favor of whatever it takes to insure that Iraq has no wmd's. I am also very much in favor of insuring that North Korea has none of the same.
     
  3. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    Again Coot has expressed my opinions better than I...

    The young are foolish yet brave. They have only seen the easy war in the Gulf.
    Easy only, as it was quick and decisive.

    The long war of Viet Nam was vividly brought forth on many years of poignant photos. Many of us "oldtimers" have not forgotten what war is really like down in the trenches.

    That the United States has the best trained and technically advanced military in the world also may have something to do with the younger favoritism and the older reluctance.
     
  4. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    Whether we agree or disagree with the decision, the country of Iraq is about to receive some good ol' 'American Diplomacy'.


    Who's next?
     
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Bruzzes is right, but we must remember that even for us, the relative short-timers in that conflict, we endured there from 1958 to 1975. With the official time frame being 1965 to 1972, this was twice the time frame of the last big war, WW2. The interesting thing there is we won almost every major battle in South Vietnam and lost the peace afterwards.

    The final death throws of the South Vietnam was not original begun to conquor the South. This was started just to influence our 1976 election process, to get a more maliable government in place, to the Norths liking. The Viet Minh were no longer providing field forces in the South, the ones left were almost completely gone over to the South through the redemption program, these people suffered mightly after the North won. The South initially held and when the North broke through one of the regular division of the South, Saigon appealed to us for additional airstrikes from the Navy and Air Force, which Gerald Ford an Unelected President hoping to be elected refused. He refused because of two reasons, one to try and get elected in 76 and two because he did not feel he had the right to commit those air assets without being elected. It was a failure of our will and many people died because of it.

    From which comes the Powell Doctrine about when fighting a war we must be sure before we commit the first troop we have the peoples support and will to do whatever it takes to finish it. Interestingly, when the Documents of the Archives of the Old KGB was opened scholars found that there were several payment of funds to various Anti-War Groups. Not that I am thinking that all that were opposed were in the employ of the KGB, but that the people who were anti-war were more effective with money in their organization's coffers.

    As to the Veterans of that War, it is postured that the Communist Russian and Chinese were diverting so much funds to fight that war they were unable to continue their investments into infra structure repair that bit them on the ass in the late 1980's. So when Ronald Reagan pushed them with new spending and after the problems in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union lost its own will and became the Russian Republic of today. So we indeed owe those gentleman and women of the military of the Vietnam Era a debt of gratitude for their place in continuing the pressure on the Soviet Union during a time when they had no outlet, they might of found it easier to fund and invade in Europe. IMHO this is from my reading some of the documentation and being trained by those who fought there and their passing along the things they knew.
     
  6. Stanley Engel

    Stanley Engel Registered User

    Vietnam might be the wrong war from which to make comparisons. Better ones would be the 1991 Gulf War or the present fighting in Afghanistan. In both cases, American losses were, or continue to be, quite low.

    We will learn in the next few weeks how well Saddam's military will resist the Armed Forces of the USA. My guess is that they will quickly crumble just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

    No one is expecting the new war to end as decisively as did WW2 aboard the USS Missouri. I think we all expect prolonged fighting to root out all Saddam supporters. The US can handle that just as it has in Afghanistan. We shall soon know for sure.

    However, my expectation is that there will be extreme Arab/Muslim anger against the US such as the world has never seen. There will most certainly be massive anti-war/anti-American demonstrations throughout Europe. There could be attacks against Americans a la Bali. Governments now considered secure might fall.

    I also believe that Iran will feel pressed between American forces in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. The Teheran Mullahs hated the Taliban as well as Saddam but that scarcely translates into love for the US. An Iranian nuclear program is likely underway already and that country has a much larger industrial capability than does Iraq.

    So it seems that the US must be constantly vigilant against all possible nuclear threats and not just limit itself to Saddam. States with nuclear capabilities include Egypt and North Korea. Neither of those states must get nukes and neither should Saudi Arabia, UAE or Turkey-our so-called "friends".
     
  7. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Stanley, one war at a time :thumbsup:
     
  8. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I believe one of the factors contributing to this imbalance in support of the war can be attributed to the "video game generation", combined with increasing use of high-tech military equipment.

    Quite frankly, there is little difference between guiding a bomb on a computer screen to its target versus doing the same on a video game. Young people are comfortable with the technology and believe that wars can be won solely with the use of such technology.

    After all, body bags aren't a very common element in most video games.
     
  9. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    This is something new?
    I suspect this phenomenon has existed since the civilization of the human species on this planet.

    When young, I too, muttered phrases like; "This needs to be taken care of; you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, watch out, you may be next".
    Bluster, exuberance, ideals, or naievte? I dunno.

    But, what I do know is that once you've been one of these warriors in the 'thick of things', you do not wish this experience on anyone, least of all your children.

    It makes me question the politicians that can't seem to to come up with a peaceful solution, despite the billions upon billions of dollars we contribute to them and their staffs.

    Do not mistake my words for pacifism. If we absolutely have to do it, so be it, sign me up.
    But, I know for a fact that being a warrior, trading bullets, is no longer my first choice on how I want to spend today.
    Young folks are gung ho.
    Old folks, that have been there, say "well, ok if we have to, but let's think about this for a minute".

    No shit, this is a revelation?
    Did someone actually pay someone to notice this?
    Just my opinion,
    Regards,
     
  10. Stanley Engel

    Stanley Engel Registered User

    Why? WW2 counts as a single war, but America was simultaneously at war with Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania and Bulgaria. If the US gets hit by nukes it wouldn't matter if they were manufactured in Iraq. Iran, Egypt or North Korea. So how about One War on Terror with lots of separate fronts.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I can't retort, nor will I. Excellent point, one that is certainly unprecedented. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    What I find interesting is how the rhetoric on the issue of kids moves around pending on who's side you are on.

    If you are a war monger, you dispell teenager's opinions because they are too young to understand that diplomacy is not the answer for everything.

    On the other hand, when you have the pro peace camp, they disregard the youth because they are too young to understand the atrocities of war.

    Could we be fooling ourselves and focusing on the age factor rather than educational background, upbringing, and finally, demographics?
     
  13. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Yes its possible. Its the standard put down by an older to a younger person. In the event of war the young are the ones to be in the thick of the fighting, they will be the ones shot at and killed. Their opinions should be listened to. We all have opinions regardless of age.
     
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I have to agree to Omar here. I may disagree with Techie's views on Israelis being terrorists, for instance, but I would die for his right to state his opinion.
     
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I would remind Omar that we are taking time to discuss this with Technie. The answers seem to come from different worlds, but are both accurate. Truly dismissive would have been to ignore his questions. Youth, having come relatively recently to the understanding that disagreements can be reasoned through, are still ready to insist everything can be settled through discussion. They assume that both sides want a reasonable conclusion. At the same time they have that righteous indignation that causes some to say go to war when wrongs are committed. Any youth who has the patience to dig through these discussions with patience and civility deserves to have his questions answered. Since we are all different your mileage will vary.
     

Share This Page