Will Iraq War Create a Generation of Anti-War Activists?

will the Iraqi War change the opinions of many younger Americans toward war and the veracity of presidents' statements about the necessity or such wars?

Our last two Presidents should have taught followers of both parties that Presidents lie and should never be completely trusted.

 

I am an anti war activists in this case, but am glad they god rid of a dictator like Sadam, but in the process of this being done is where i think the problem lies....

so here in the US we will have a newer generation with more anti war sentiment but at the same token, i believe, we are increasing the anti american sentiment to the rest of the world

its what we get for doing, or trying to do, something for the better

 

There will probably be a signinficant bloc of people who will remain anti-war, but i think the country is so divided now that if the next democratic president decided he wanted to fight a war, you'd see a lot of anti-war republicans and pro-war democracts.

 

That would be Jane Fonda, no doubt.

 

That's because it'd be a just war that furthers the interests of the United States, but the Republicans would use it for political purposes.

 

I doubt it

US of Apathy

Rocket River

 

Hey move, your blocking my view.

 

If America had mandetory military requirements like many other nations, do you think we would have faught the Iraq war?

It would never happen but a 2 year military requirement after high school would make America a much more grounded place with regards to proactive military engagements.

 

I respectfully disagree with you, CreepyFloyd. Israel is one of the only true democracies in the Middle East, and by the U.S. not fully supporting the country, you risk endangering Israel to unfriendly neighbors that want to do great harm to it. Our support of Israel is what allows the country to survive in an area full of despotic regimes, and Islamic fascists keen on the destruction of Israel. Yes, I agree that Israel can be very intolerant at times, but so can many other countries. I'd rather support a 'racist' Israel than an Iranian or Palestinian radical regime.

 

WTH just happened! Sorry, for some reason one of my posts for another topic ended up here. Ignore post!

 

What I meant to post was that I totally agree with you krosfyah. If we had a mandatory military requirement after high school like they do in many countries--we wouldn't be in such a rush to go to war so often. We would be more cautious about such matters because the military would be much more representative of America as a whole, and therefore the parents and relatives of soldiers’ would be much more hesitant to actually risk losing a loved one in an unnecessary war.

 

i believe there will always be war
point me back to any period in the history of mankind where there wasnt any war?

because Iraq is the current war, that's the main focus, but there is always war, fighting the british, the mexicans, the spanish, the indians, the germans, the koreans, the vietnamese..

wars end and new wars begin

 

I think we have enough border insecurity (drugs, illegals, occasional fanatic) and future jobs lost to non-caucasian nations to fuel the defense industry's appetite for war...let alone whatever rogue nation we decide to focus upon.

 

There is certainly a difference in the involuntary servitude of a draft and a volunteer army. A lot of the anti-war sentiment in the 70's was from those of us who didn't want to be jerked out of the p***y nirvana of college and told to walk the point in ambushland. A lot of us had friends who's only choice was Viet Nam or jail, and many of those were killed and maimed.

The self interest was certainly more immedite. Should Iraq ever approach the Viet Nam casualty numbers though, where almost no one was left untouched, it could leave a more lasting mindset.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/pri...untimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html
Don't deny that some Muslims are hot for jihad

April 2, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

If I were an anti-war leftie, I'd be very depressed by the Iraq anniversary protests. A few hundred people show up hither and yon to see Cindy Sheehan get arrested for the 15th time that week, or Charlie Sheen unveil his critically acclaimed the-World-Trade-Center-was-a-controlled-explosion conspiracy theory. The "Hot Shots! Part Deux" star is apparently an expert in that field, and he'd never seen commercial property break up that quickly since Heidi Fleiss' hooker ring. Anyway, Susan Sarandon's going to play Cindy in the movie, or maybe she's playing Charlie, or both -- either way, they might as well give her the Oscar during the opening titles.


But, while Charlie Sheen is undoubtedly a valiant leader, you couldn't help noticing it was followers the anti-war crowd seemed to be short of on the third anniversary. The next weekend half a million illegal immigrants -- whoops, sorry, half a million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community-- took to the streets, and you suddenly realized what a big-time demonstration is supposed to look like. These guys aren't even meant to be in the country and they can organize a better public protest movement than an anti-war crowd that's promoted 24/7 by the media and Hollywood.

Well, OK, half the anti-war crowd aren't meant to be in the country either, if they'd kept their promise to move to Canada after the last election. But my point is there's no mass anti-war movement. Some commentators claimed to be puzzled by the low turnout at a time when the polls show Iraq increasingly unpopular. But there are two kinds of persons objecting to the war: There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively. And on the day's headlines -- on everything from the Danish cartoon jihad to the Afghan facing death for apostasy -- the fainthearted response of "public diplomacy" is in danger of sounding only marginally less nutty than Charlie Sheen.

The line here is "respect." Everybody's busy professing their "respect": We all "respect" Islam; presidents and prime ministers and foreign ministers, lapsing so routinely into the deep-respect-for-the-religion-of-peace routine they forget that cumulatively it begins to sound less like "Let's roll!" and too often like "Let's roll over!"

Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, gave a typical Western government official's speech the other day explaining that "a large number of Muslims in this country were -- understandably -- upset by those cartoons being reprinted across Europe and at their deeply held beliefs being insulted. They expressed their hurt and outrage but did so in a way which epitomized the learned, peaceful religion of Islam."

"The learned, peaceful religion of Islam"? And that would be the guys marching through London with placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM" and "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS WESTERN TERRORISM" and promising to rain down a new Holocaust on Europe? This is geopolitics as the Aretha Franklin Doctrine: The more the world professes its R-E-S-P-E-C-T, the more the Islamists sock it to us.

At a basic level the foreign secretary's rhetoric does not match reality. Government leaders are essentially telling their citizens: Who ya gonna believe -- my platitudinous speechwriters or your lyin' eyes?

To win a war, you don't spin a war. Millions of ordinary citizens are not going to stick with a "long war" (as the administration now calls it) if they feel they're being dissembled to about its nature. One reason we regard Churchill as a great man is that his speeches about the nature of the enemy don't require unspinning or detriangulating.

If I had to propose a model for Western rhetoric, it would be the Australians. In the days after Sept. 11, the French got all the attention for that Le Monde headline -- "Nous sommes tous Americains" -- "We are all Americans," though they didn't mean it, even then. But John Howard, the Aussie prime minister, put it better and kept his word: "This is no time to be an 80 percent ally."

Marvelous. More recently, the prime minister offered some thoughts on the difference between Muslims and other immigrant groups. "You can't find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad," he said, stating the obvious in a way most political leaders can't quite bring themselves to do. "There is really not much point in pretending it doesn't exist."

Unfortunately, too many of his counterparts insist on pretending (at least to their citizenry) that it doesn't exist. What proportion of Western Muslims is hot for jihad? Five percent? Ten, 12 percent? Given that understanding this Pan-Islamist identity is critical to defeating it, why can't we acknowledge it honestly? "Raving on about jihad" is a line that meets what the law used to regard as the reasonable-man test: If you're watching news footage of a Muslim march promising to bring on the new Holocaust, John Howard's line fits.

Is it something in the water down there? Listen to Howard's Cabinet colleagues. Here's the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, with advice for Western Muslims who want to live under Islamic law: "There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -- Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."

You don't say. Which is the point: Most Western government leaders don't say, and their silence is correctly read by a resurgent Islam as timidity. I also appreciated this pithy summation by my favorite foreigner minister, Alexander Downer: "Multilateralism is a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving internationalism of the lowest common denominator." See Sudanese slaughter, Iranian nukes, the U.N.'s flop response to the tsunami, etc. It's a good thing being an Aussie Cabinet minister doesn't require confirmation by John Kerry and Joe Biden.

My worry is that the official platitudes in this new war are the equivalent of the Cold War chit-chat in its 1970s detente phase --when Willy Brandt and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter pretended the enemy was not what it was. Then came Ronald Reagan: It wasn't just the evil-empire stuff, his jokes were on the money, too. In their own depraved way, the Islamists are a lot goofier than the commies and a few gags wouldn't come amiss. If this is a "long war," it needs a rhetoric that can go the distance. And the present line fails that test.

© Mark Steyn, 2006




Copyright © Mark Steyn, 2006

 

gwayneco, the voters in November will deliver a protest message in the form of kicking the GOP's butt. It may not make for a great photo-op, but it's much more effective. Wait and see.



Keep D&D CIvil.

 

There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively. And on the day's headlines -- on everything from the Danish cartoon jihad to the Afghan facing death for apostasy -- the fainthearted response of "public diplomacy" is in danger of sounding only marginally less nutty than Charlie Sheen.

 

All due respect, but that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I guess you got a kick out of quoting it. Again.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Charlie Sheen sounds no more nutty then Condi Rice does on most days.