Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For a good view of the young macho kid outlook - watch 'Inside Iraq - the Untold Story' - it's on Netflix instant view. There is a young, maybe 20 year old kid railing on about his hatred of 'them', questioning why he has to wait until he gets shot before he can kill them. That's bad enough, but of course there is the older 40ish officer encouraging his view. The de-humanization of the enemy in order to make it easier to kill seems to be a required component of war, which is why it should be avoided at all cost, and why we should end our occupation of Iraq and Afganistan.
I guess Americans have not had a war at home for too long, they don't remember what it's like to have their own country in ruins. Just think of the fuss about 9/11...
That entire glorification of power, weapons, and the military is alien to most Europeans for instance, probably because of our history.
Or probably since WWII Europeans have had the luxury of pontifcating about the evils of war while the U.S. has been protecting their butts at our expense in lives and national treasure.
Or probably since WWII Europeans have had the luxury of pontifcating about the evils of war while the U.S. has been protecting their butts at our expense in lives and national treasure.
Whatever the US has done in terms of wars since WW II, it did so for egoistic geopolitical reasons.
I am 23 and definitely anti-war. I worry constantly that my son [4] will grow up and want to join a branch of the military. I don't think I could just sit back and let him do it without a fight..
Americans as a society have cultivated a tolerance for violence, because it's seen as part of our heritage. The American Old West is something that is particularly American, and we, as Americans, see the expansion as a struggle, violence an integral part of that struggle. We extend that myth to the extension of American influence around the world. We don't see ourselves as empire builders, but simply as a people fulfilling their destiny, and to achieve that destiny we must struggle. Violence is an integral part of our struggle. It's part of how we see ourselves in a modern world. From Roosevelt's, "carry a big stick," to Reagan's Hollywood rhetoric, to G W Bush's "shock and awe", at some point after the Civil War, intimidation and the threat of violence became a part of our diplomatic message. Prior to the Civil War, we saw ourselves as a country that would persevere, that would resist any incursions, that would stand strong. But after the Civil War we progressed into a country that wanted to influence the rest of the world.
Both of the World Wars were terrible events, but both wars were generally fought far away. And the aftermath of both wars was an economic boon to our country. The fact that we didn't see those wars up close and personal (Pearl Harbor aside), meant that our awareness of the war was crafted by movies and the media. I think the reporting of World War I was much more personal, much more realistic, than World War II. We had people writing from the front, describing sometimes in horrifying detail what they saw, heard, smelled and felt. We were also more focused on those events in a personal way. There was a sense of connection. World War II was covered by the media with a level of professionalism that was absent from World War I. There was a sense that some things shouldn't be made public, there was a greater awareness that knowledge was a weapon, that science was a weapon, that public relations was a weapon. And that made war a little less personal, a little more packaged. By time we got to the Vietnam War, the concept of war itself had become a political tool. We weren't at war with Vietnam, we were advisers. The war wasn't about defending our country, it was about defending the planet. And as the war became increasingly unpopular, as people watched body bags being unloaded from planes on the nightly news, the government was learning a few political lessons of their own.
We can attribute some of the blithe acceptance of violence to video games and television and movies, but I think it's more complicated than that. We have a national identity that has been crafted not just in the past fifty years, but over the past two hundred and fifty years.
Americans as a society have cultivated a tolerance for violence, because it's seen as part of our heritage. The American Old West is something that is particularly American, and we, as Americans, see the expansion as a struggle, violence an integral part of that struggle. We extend that myth to the extension of American influence around the world. We don't see ourselves as empire builders, but simply as a people fulfilling their destiny, and to achieve that destiny we must struggle. Violence is an integral part of our struggle. It's part of how we see ourselves in a modern world. From Roosevelt's, "carry a big stick," to Reagan's Hollywood rhetoric, to G W Bush's "shock and awe", at some point after the Civil War, intimidation and the threat of violence became a part of our diplomatic message. Prior to the Civil War, we saw ourselves as a country that would persevere, that would resist any incursions, that would stand strong. But after the Civil War we progressed into a country that wanted to influence the rest of the world.
Both of the World Wars were terrible events, but both wars were generally fought far away. And the aftermath of both wars was an economic boon to our country. The fact that we didn't see those wars up close and personal (Pearl Harbor aside), meant that our awareness of the war was crafted by movies and the media. I think the reporting of World War I was much more personal, much more realistic, than World War II. We had people writing from the front, describing sometimes in horrifying detail what they saw, heard, smelled and felt. We were also more focused on those events in a personal way. There was a sense of connection. World War II was covered by the media with a level of professionalism that was absent from World War I. There was a sense that some things shouldn't be made public, there was a greater awareness that knowledge was a weapon, that science was a weapon, that public relations was a weapon. And that made war a little less personal, a little more packaged. By time we got to the Vietnam War, the concept of war itself had become a political tool. We weren't at war with Vietnam, we were advisers. The war wasn't about defending our country, it was about defending the planet. And as the war became increasingly unpopular, as people watched body bags being unloaded from planes on the nightly news, the government was learning a few political lessons of their own.
We can attribute some of the blithe acceptance of violence to video games and television and movies, but I think it's more complicated than that. We have a national identity that has been crafted not just in the past fifty years, but over the past two hundred and fifty years.
The trouble with hindsight is that only half the picture is viewed with 20/20 vision. The unseen half is what would have happened if different choices had been made. We'll never know how the world would have been different if, instead of appeasing Hitler, the major European powers had found the backbone to take him out before he plunged the world into murderous hell. Similarly we will never know what would have happened if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue to make trouble in that part of the world. Instead of the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran would we now be dealing with a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran? Would Saudi Arabia also be building nuclear weapons in response? How many more Shia would Saddam have consigned to mass graves? What about the Kurds in northern Iraq?
We can attribute some of the blithe acceptance of violence to video games and television and movies, but I think it's more complicated than that. We have a national identity that has been crafted not just in the past fifty years, but over the past two hundred and fifty years.
You'll have to pardon my lack of articulation of theme in my OP, as I do not mean to suggest or assert that video games illicit violence or acquiesce to it. My position is that they are but a new tool, one geared towards a specific audience in order to sell and glorify war due to its sterile nature. It presents war as an adventure without risk and with the rewards of hero.
I realize a military recruiter is not going to a high school graduation ceremony with pictures of decapitated baby Iraqi's in their wallet, they are going there to sell young minds a product. To sell this product they are going to use every marketing scheme known and devised by used car salesmen, carpet cleaning robo calls, PR firms, and the sides of a NASCAR race car.
Where we differ from our past is that in our past, we were able to say to young men, our nation is in grave danger as it was in WWII when there was a reasonably grave threat in, or we could allow regional sensibilities to guide those who adjoined in the Civil War, as many had a personal stake, to the personal stakes of those colonials facing the British in our founding.
One could write of the moonshine and glory of war, but when so many fought these wars, that word of mouth from soldiers was, "War is hell" but they felt it was worth fighting.
Todays wars are sold like toothpaste because 4 out of 5 Generals prefer using volunteers. They are not sold under the premise of saving our existence, or saving our farms, or protecting our wives and children. Today, we are given a view of war that is clean, nice, and very video game like and the association that is subliminally suggested is that there is a magic button to push if you are "hit" and before you start the next level.
I believe as another poster mentioned, it has been a long time since the US has faced a dire threat to its own lands and has seen the bodies of its citizen strewn in the streets and fields. It has been a long time since large segments of our entire population has engaged in conflict and subsequently shared in its glories and its horror. Todays wars have to be sold, because for the most part, they cannot sell themselves as those who are older certainly aren't buying it. I would assert that if our wars were so just, and were out of such need that necessity, desire and issues of honor would drive people to join, but this is not the case.
Lets say you have a host (this would be the world).
On that host you have 195 different cultures of bacteria (representing the number of countries in the world).
In those cultures, with their "own", they generally prosper and manage to be somehwat peaceful with each other.
Then you start to open those barriers that used to keep those cultures apart, mainly petri dishes.
Those bacteria start to mix in a ever increasing manner.
What do you think would happen? Do you think the bacteria would find an equilibrium through peaceful means? Or do you think it's more likely those bacteria would find themselves in conflicts in an attempt to take over the host?
Nature shows the strongest survive by using up as many of the resources around them until they find themselves in equilibrium but that equilibrium still isn't peaceful. The strongest still prey on their food source. The weaker try and find safe havens.
Taking in to account the fact that the human body has more bacteria than it does cells, I think the eventual outcome is rather predictable.
Quote:
ScienceDaily (June 5, 2008) — The number of bacteria living within the body of the average healthy adult human are estimated to outnumber human cells 10 to 1.
Well human beings are not bacteria, well at least most of them anyway. We have the unique ability in the animal kingdom for a combination of emotion, logic, and social dependency and realization of action-consequence several times removed from the individual.
Nation states behave more like bacteria than do people, as for them, might makes right ultimately, but among people, to act purely in this way one would have to accept that (chuckling) "there can be only one".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why so many younger Americans embrace war
