"Why do so many Americans view WAR as the end all solution?"

As far as I can tell the only ones who are for war are those who profit from it. That leaves most of us out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 13 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]389677[/snapback]</div>

I don't know. A lot of americans profited from the war against the Indians i mean native americans. Well, it really wasn't a war as much as a long dragged out genocide, but a good number of americans and all their descendants profited from it nonetheless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 13 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]389677[/snapback]</div>

I doubt if the conservatives here on PC are profiting from the war, yet they are for it. Spokane is a conservative city, where most folks support the war, but very few own businesses that profit from it.

This war is becoming less popular as evidence accumulates that we cannot win it. But voices against it were few at the start, and yet virtually none of them stood to profit from it

It's a sad fact that the citizenry of most, if not all, countries, at many times in their history, come down with war fever, and enthusiastically support wars against the enemy of the day. At the start of WW I, the majority of most of the countries involved thought it was a great thing to have a war and teach the "bad guys" a lesson. But only the owners of arms factories profitted from it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 13 2007, 08:06 PM) [snapback]389867[/snapback]</div>

The people who still think we can win the war are the same people who thought terry schiavo would make a medical comeback. Though they might be well intentioned, they still are delusional and can not see the reality with their own 2 eyes.

 

"Terrorism wouldn't be a problem if corporations weren't so hell bent on sucking the world dry of cash."

Huh? I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that was a conclusion of the 9-11 report as a causal factor of terrorism.

Regardless, I don't know if people are generally "for war" per se. I think sometimes legitimately, sometimes not, people don't see an alternative that will achieve what they believe to be a desired end-state. Take WWII - were people for the war, or were they against the mass murder and imprisonment / occupation of Germany's neighbors?

Iraq. Did people want war per se, or was there a genuine concern by the general public about WMDs post 9-11? I would argue there were probably some of both. Of course, knowing what we know now it is clear the threat from Saddam was wildly overstated. But even if the threat had been all it was made out to be, were most people "for war" per se? I think they were looking for a solution that would eliminate the perceived threat. War (wrongly in this case) was viewed (and sold) as the only real solution after other avenues had been exhausted (i.e., the UN). Wrongly in two respects, since the threat largely did not exist and because we now have the benefit of hindsight and know that as a "solution" in this instance war has created less security.

 

I think the problem has to be, to a large part, cultural.

Too many action movies, too many nostalgic memories of great wars of the past with clear cut good guys and bad.

It's too hard to convey to people the intricacies of geopolitics, and the terrible and frightful consequences of war, and far too easy to sell the simple message of Good Vs. Evil. We're the good guys versus the bad guys, so lets go git em!

It takes a fairly mature intellect to understand the world around us, and make rational decisions, and sometimes I'm afraid that the collective intellect of the masses is maybe age 5.

 

I've been listening to the lecture series "The Foundations of Western Civilization, Part II" from The Teaching Company. Roughly speaking, it deals with the modern world, while the first part dealt with the ancient world. The ancients had a whole different perception of life and the individual's place in the world, so I can't begin to understand their motivations. But in the modern world, there seem to be cycles: people can be easily whipped up into war fever by leaders who have selfish motives (power, money, grandeur) if they have not personally experienced war. People who have experienced it are far more difficult to convince to support a war.

Before WW I there was a general arrangement in Europe that led to a century of peace, so that throughout Europe at the start of the 20th century nobody in Europe had experienced a war at home. The world was modernizing rapidly and life had changed drastically. People were dissatisfied and national tensions had been building. Nations had been arming, first out of a general desire for military strength, and then out of fear of each other. There were strong rivalries for colonies, which created tensions between countries, and mutual aid treaties obligating countries to come to each others' aid if one was attacked. People were primed for war: dissatisfied, nationalistic, ignorant of the realities of war, and easily whipped up into a frenzy of anger at real or imagined atrocities by the other side.

America today displays parallels to that time: Macroeconomic figures are excellent, but people's finances are overextended and two-income families can barely make ends meet. Except for veterans of Vietnam, Americans have not experienced war first-hand. America is armed to the teeth and unopposed as a superpower, yet small countries and sub-national groups defy us. Our economic domination of the world, after the two world wars, has been greatly reduced by the economic rise of Europe and Asia. The fuse was ready, and it was lit by 9/11: We were attacked by a group so small and nebulous that our military might is as useless against it as the 18th-century cavalry charge was against the machine guns of WW I.

We have a culture of violence left over from our national roots in the wars that took this land from its original inhabitants, and from our successes in the two world wars, which we entered late and were decisive in ending, and which did not touch the shores of our mainland. I think all of this explains why most Americans were so eager to have a war. Afghanistan was an obvious target, and we even had wide international support for that one, but it ended unsatisfactorily: We toppled the Taliban government, but al Qaeda melted away and bin Laden disappeared, and the American people still thirsted for vengeance. Unacustomed to any sort of critical or logical thinking, they were easily led into the present war by the usual lies, trotted our by every government that wants to convince its people to go to war.

Add to all the above that Americans have never been trained in creative, nonviolent problem solving; most of them have never even been exposed to the concept; and our television culture has promoted for at least half a century the dogma that only violence can make us secure against the myriad of bad guys who are just itching to get us. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a credo we have carried for hundreds of years. Violence, public and domestic, is as much a part of our culture as apple pie. And if you go a little farther back in our history, men were not only allowed, but expected, to beat their wives.

Given all this, America's support for wars does not surprise me. It does, however, disgust and sadden me.

 

Without war, we wouldn't even be a country. Sometimes, negotiations and treaties don't do the trick. Sometimes, war is necessary.

With that said, the war in Iraq was unjust and not our job in the first place. Bush claimed it was to stop the terrorists, but almost every one of the guys that flew planes into our buildings were from Saudi Arabia.. but we see pictures of Bush holding the Saudi "Presidents" hand whilst strolling through the park.. We've got "Oil deals" with The House of Saud, that is the only reason they tolerate us and we tolerate them.

Saddam was a bad guy, but things weren't a total clusterfark when he was in control over there. Now we have this huge mess on our hands and the entire world has pretty much distanced themselves from us.

ps - daniel, flag burning hippies disgust and sadden me. so do criminals.

 

bookmark your question for summer 2009. come back here then to put in your own answer.

Terrorism will be blowing junk up all over in the USA and ya'll be saying.. Dang republican Bush didn't do anything to safeguard our country, he spent it all in Iraq fighting the war and nothing to ready us here at home.

Not a single dumbass on here will finally figure out that Bush was fighting the terrorist enemy on foreign soil so it wouldn't have to happen here in our malls and cities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 24 2007, 11:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

ding ding ding

Better there than here..

 

Will someone please explain to me what what we're doing in Iraq is doing to prevent terrorists from blowing up a mall. (As if that's what they want to do.) In what way does what is happening in Iraq stop a terrorist from poisoning a water supply or crashing a train with toxic waste or whatever?

Because there is no way you're going to kill every terrorist in the world on their soil. First....they are all over the place. Second. For every one that's killed another one, or two, or three take his place. Take out a "leader" and another leader emerges.

So someone please....tell me what's the point?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Feb 14 2007, 12:16 AM) [snapback]390025[/snapback]</div>

The evangelicals are Bush's main constituency (40%) and are the biggest supporters of the Iraq war and of Israeli conflicts.They expect to profit spiritually by bringing on the ''end-times''.
I kid you not.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Feb 24 2007, 10:35 PM) [snapback]396030[/snapback]</div>

This is another thing I don't get.

In what way do you earn points with God for bringing about the destruction of his creation? Seems to me it would royally piss him off.

 

You just quoted some dude from a FARK FORUM and the SEATTLE TIMES.. All credibility = out the window.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 24 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

:blink: :blink: :blink:
(I'm speechless)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb, 07:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

Then why didn't he go after the people who attacked us? Why did he divert our wealth and resources to a country that wasn't a threat?

 

"Why do so many Americans view WAR as the end all solution?"

1. Limited social skills.
2. Little imagination.
3. Limited education.