What do you think accounts for the difference in perception between World War II and the War on Terror?
World War II brought the entire nation together to work, ration, save, pray and sacrifice. The War on Terror seems to be far more divisive. Do some research first if you like – I intend to keep this one open for a while.
And please, nothing along the lines of "Bush is a doodie-head." This is a serious question.
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after.
Also, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us.
Terrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best.
Also Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today.
(I can stop here but… some other thoughts)
Sometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair).
Iraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists.
The mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.
Someone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The two have little to do with each other yet we hear this again and again with no explanation as why invading Iraq gets you revenge for 9/11. Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia, base in the Sudan, possibly living in Afgahnistan; What does Iraq have to do with it?
Filed in: war on terror
The press has turned into a force even stronger than government. What they want goes, whether's it's pro-abortion vs ANTI-CHOICE, peace activists vs WAR HAWKS.
And they don't like war.
References :
as being someone who took part in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom i think its because we have 270 million people in thw US and 15 news networks that have someone on the ground looking for ratings, and not to worried about patriotism, during WWI and WWII we didnt have a network newsman/woman on the ground with a camera man desribing the things going on all we had was a camera man there recording what was happening and noone really knowing what was happening. and these 270 million people would rather beleive what the press says then let the goverment and the military do their job. everyone is worried that this war on terror and the war in iraq is going to turn into another Vietnam. in vietnam we lost over 50,000 troops and that war took something like 10 years or something like that. the war in iraq has taken what less then 2500 soldiers. i feel for the familys and the loss of life but cmon we were attacked first when they hit us in one of the most loved places NYC. i dont care what anyone says they struck first when they tried to blow the WTC up in 96.
References :
The War on Terror is more like the Vietnam War.
It was useless and unnecessary. We were lied to, plain and simple, to get us to agree to go to war.
In Vietnam, they didn’t lie and no one wanted to fight. No one believed in the cause.
Our government wanted us to believe in the cause.
They may have gotten more support, however, if they’d said “We need some oil. They’ve got some oil. Let’s go conquer us some oil.” Great, because I’m all for conquering stuff.
Or perhaps if he’d said “That man made my daddy look inept in the 90s. I will, therefore get my daddy’s revenge!” Cool, because I’m all for revenge lol.
Now we’re in it, and we can’t leave. GOOD JOB. Good job indeed.
Out country’s going to h*ll, with our meddlesome antics.
References :
The differences between the two wars is that the world economy was in a slump and people wanted to sacrifice for their country in the 1940's. Now people can see what is happening in the world at the click of a mouse button, so in a way the media is partly to blame for changing the way people see wars in general.
Also the war on terror is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, it also gets alot more media time then WW2 did in it's time.
References :
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after.
Also, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us.
Terrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best.
Also Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today.
(I can stop here but… some other thoughts)
Sometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair).
Iraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists.
The mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.
Someone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The two have little to do with each other yet we hear this again and again with no explanation as why invading Iraq gets you revenge for 9/11. Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia, base in the Sudan, possibly living in Afgahnistan; What does Iraq have to do with it?
References :
I don't think that there's a mystery here. America's involvement in the Second World War was necessary and not at all contrived. True, it is pretty well established that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that isolationist holdouts would support American involvement, but overall, the Axis powers demonstrated a clear and present danger to the world. The problem was not only that Hitler was very vocal about his ambition to control the world; in addition, he had demonstrated that he might actually be able to pull it off.
Compare this to the so-called War on Terror. At best, the Bush administration's case for entering into this war was questionable and at worst, pure fabrication. There was never any doubt about Sadaam's bad character, but if you contrast him directly with Hitler, for example, he comes off looking more like a toothless dog than a menace to world peace. When America invaded Europe, Hitler had been invading and WINNING throughout a huge hunk of the continent. By contrast, when America invaded Iraq, Sadaam had already been fairly well hobbled by sanctions, continuous inspections, and ten years worth of bombings. (A lot of people don't realize that we continued to bomb Iraq after the first Gulf War.) Sadaam's single act of imperialist aggression had been his invasion of Kuwait a decade prior and even the atrocities happening in his own country had recently been more attributable to Uday and Ebay than to Sadaam himself. (Sadaam's more recent activity had been playwriting; dramas he would force into production and then command people to attend and applaud.)
If folks would look carefully at what actually occurred during the invasion of Iraq, they would not need to argue over the existence of WMD because they would see from what Sadaam actually did that he had nothing but attitude. The rhetoric given to the American people was that Sadaam's secretive behavior meant that he actually had something to hide, but in fact he remained cryptic and resistant because no self-respecting dictator can be expected to willingly reveal his vulnerability. Psychologically speaking, Sadaam would have thought it would be better to be attacked and even overthrown than to admit to weakness. But he was, in fact, very much weakened. Those famous drones that were supposedly capable of delivering nuclear weapons to far flung targets turned out to be little more than balsa wood and bubble gum; the much-discussed storehouse of missiles had been depleted to a couple of sad little SCUDs that couldn't even hit Kuwait when they were fired.
Imagine the following scenario and I believe the support discrepency will become clear. Imagine that it's D-Day and that the American forces are not greeted with the anticipated hostile fire but with deserted beaches. Instead of taking months, the march to Berlin happens in a couple of days because there is no resistance. Instead of the ferocious opposition the American people had been led to expect, Hitler's armies have quietly disbanded to blend in with the general public who, as it turns out, are doing relatively well. It's no picnic to be a Jew in Germany, of course, but Hitler lacks the resources to persecute people in other parts of Europe.
Next, imagine that the Allied forces arrive in Berlin and do not find the fearsome tyrant presented in the newsreels and cautioned about by FDR, but some delusionary drug addict, (which Hitler actually was by the end of the war)who is already being plotted against by members of his own inner circle. Finally, imagine that as the American forces settle into Berlin and other German cities, it becomes increasingly clear that Hitler's military resources had been hugely exaggerated by the FDR administration–that, in fact, Germany had never really recovered from its humiliation in the First World War, much less been able to build a military force capable of endangering the entire Western world. Meanwhile, American soldiers are being picked off in twos and threes by Nazi factions and maybe by Soviet forces who recognize a good opportunity when they see one.
If all of these things had happened in WWII, how long do you think that FDR could have sustained support for his war? Support for the "War on Terror" is diminishing because the fact that Bush bamboozled the American people has become painfully obvious. I'm pretty sure that the Bushies believed that we would never find out that the war had been a put-up job. By all accounts, it appears that they were convinced that American troops would be welcomed enthusiastically and this, of course, was a fatal error.
References :