Posted on 09/11/2005 8:35:10 PM PDT by jmc1969
Edited on 09/11/2005 8:42:44 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Staunch supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq have become more vocal with their concern over the way things are going.
Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University, said he sees a marked shift.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What would you call it, then?
The war on terror, the war against the Islamo-fascists responsible for 9/11 (UPI: please review the photos of the WTC jumpers)is not about the Republican Party. It's not about Hagel, McCain, Warner and the rest of the RINOS. It's not about who is the latest Republican to raise the white flag. It's about the future and safety of America.
God bless our troops and our President and those elected officials who stand behind them through thick and thin.
God bless America.
OK, I know this is wrong but why is it every time I see the title "Professor" before someone's name my automatic thought process says "idiot".
I don't know.
Heck, I thought someone had MOONED the traitors!
Yeah, lots of commie professors are seeing bad things about Bush. I'm shocked.
WHile it is little consolation for those who have lost loved ones, there were five times the number of Allied casualties on D-Day (one day!) that we have had in the entire Iraq war.
Maybe we should remember 9/11/01! Some people seem to have forgotten.
As for the general population, this is no hardship, our lives have not been as greatly changed.
Prices of some things are up, but we have no rationing now (unlike WWII).
A fraction of the people are directly involved in the prosecution of the war, with a small fraction of the number of soldiers serving.
We have not quit making new models of automobiles for the public, (check the model years, there were 1941 models, and 1946/7 models, but there were not many 1942,3,4,or 1945 model cars.
Everything was about the war effort, from rationing to scrap drives. (BUY WAR BONDS!) Even books were printed with special typesets and cheaper paper as part of the war effort.
Most people nowadays do not even personally know a soldier involved in the fighting in Iraq.
If we are "war weary", then we are truly just a faded shadow of the generation which grew up during the Great Depression.
On the other hand, radio, the movies and print media were constantly delivering a flag-waving, pro-war effort message.
There was a concentrated campaign to keep the civilian morale up, something that is largely non-existant today.
And while rationing created hardships, it also gave the people on the home front the sense that they were in the war along with the GIs.
There was a concentrated campaign to keep the civilian morale up, something that is largely non-existant today.
And while rationing created hardships, it also gave the people on the home front the sense that they were in the war along with the GIs.
All very good points.
So, I guess the question is one of when it became acceptable, if not fashionable for our media to be against the war effort?
Certainly, this had happened, for the most part by 1968, but did this begin during Korea?
Was this the New Left's backlash to the McCarthy Era--the hearings of the Committee to investigate un-American activites?
Many of those so-called "witch hunts" have actually been vindicated over time.
Or is it just that the MSM, print, and others have become so saturated with Socialists?
Perhaps the bottom line is that this may be the reason for the slide on the MSM's viewership, and the decline in print media as well as folks leave those media behind in the quest for the other side of the story.
Just like WW II, it's global. And it's for all the marbles -- a matter of life and death for our society.
But unlike WW II, it's not a war that requires total mobilization. This war won't be won with resources and manpower. Instead, it will be won (or lost) with ideas...and propaganda.
Like every war, the War on Terror is a deadly serious business. At least, it should be...
I don't remember the media being particularly against the Korean War. A certain percentage of the public was ambivalent, or worse, about it because they couldn't see how it was in our national interests and because the memories of WW II were still so fresh.
But the virulent blame-America-first , anti-war movement really was born when the Baby-Bopomers reached draft age.
They thought they were too important to get their asses shot off.
The inflation of BA degrees rendered the Baccalaureate degree to the former level of a High School Diploma.
Universities welcomed the influx of funds, and those who taught the new horde of 'social scientists' welcomed the increase in prestige and grant money which came soon after.
Naturally, one of the purposes of study is to promote further study, especially when endowments are involved.
Much of the psychobabble and social serpent-speak heavily interlaced with the liberal antiwar, antigun, anticonflict, criminal mollycoddling mindset comes out of this era.
Although this is a bad enough result, the deferment turned the Universities into a hotbed of antiwar activity, and Liberal domination of many Universities' curricula really came into its own; a philosophical paradox, considering the capitalist nature of those who ultimately funded through tuition and fees much of this change.
Perhaps, if in the future, our nation finds itself in the position of reinstating the draft, the deferment can be limited to fields essential to the national security or of strategic importance. That might swing the pendulum back.
Had those who protested served, things might have been different. I am just not sure I would want them to cover my back when the chips were down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.