The anti-war folks and their arguments are a throw-back to the Sixties. Some nostalgic older boomers want to remember the good ol' days of 1965-69 and the younger generation wants to experience all the fun they missed out on way back when. And the '60s were a blast so I don't blame the youngsters for trying to replicate an experience that their fashions, music, etc., are increasingly copying.
I remember the '60s well, or as well as I can given the prevailing smoke and haze. Those of us who were fortunate not to have gone to Vietnam had a grand time while the poor soldiers whom we lambasted were spilling their blood in a senseless enterprise.
We had our slogans--"Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"--and it looks like the neo-protestors have their own, less ingenious, one--"No blood for oil!"
The problem is that Vietnam was totally unjustified--no significant US interests were at stake. If anyone thinks that none are at stake in Iraq, then there's nothing I can do to help.
Silly to try to replicate the past, though I think this is what's going as this nascent anti-war movement takes hold. At the end of the day, there are no personalities like we had back then--RFK, MLK, et al.--so this movement's leadership will be limited to writers like LeCarre and a few brain-dead Hollywood celebrities.
Pathetic. |
