You know, coug, I think it's a simple matter that most people want to feel safe. They want the security of their homes and their loved oned. And, pretty much, compared to the rest of the world, it's been easy to feel that way.
Aside from Vietnam, the violence we're accusomted to is on television. And, for sure, the volume goes up when the commerical ad comes in and we hear and get all of that (by the way, which presidential administration screwed up the FCC decible levels--I a pacifist would like to ring the neck of the individual responsible for that--lol!)
I think it's also possible that as much as we're seeing the wresting craze on television, folks come on to public posting forums like this in a similar attitude. Those tv wrestlers, in reality are untouchable; so is the alias poster distant from the opponent. The violence is fake, but we're into it and that stuff, perhaps unbeknownst, creeps into the consciousness.
There's are so many sociological aspects to consider, but time is short to do that here.
What I think it all comes down to is this: The pro-war side doesn't not have the intellectual high ground in this debate. They don't have the sources of reference to support their argument. Even the top advocates, Powell, et. al., have to stretch, weave and tweak this or that to keep the war line into something they think they can call balanced. But it's not balanced. The pro war argument is full of holes, not least of which is the motive for going to war. There's never been one, clear and concise motive for doing this war. Indeed, this has changed over and over and over, to a point where each time it changes more folks become suspect.
Bottom line? The war is fishy, many don't want to admit this. They genuinely support America, and are especially support of those being asked to get in the middle of this, the lower economic class of folks--who've never really had it all that safe anyway--who make up the bulk of the front line fighting units. I know about soldiers. During the Vietnam War I was a counselor who helped many, both on active duty (because the military didn't adequately provide the resources to help folks at home when they returned) and with the veterans who came back so dazed and confused. I was part of a referral service that found doctors, lawyers, clergy, anyone who could help them. And then there was so much need!
I support my country and those soldiers so much I don't want to see this happen again. I don't want my country, the United States of America to be heading what historians will only construe as an unjust war. The war doens't fit the required criteria for justly waging a war:
a) It's not in self-defense.
b) Not all remedies have been exhausted.
c) Waging the war is more dangerous than not waging the war.
I can't find a single nice fit for any of the above categories. And I submit one of the reasons we're seeing more brash type insults heaped from the pro-war side is because there's little to support what they sincerely believe and think their country ought to do. Thus, the debate gets reduced into name-calling, rather than counter-references of intellectual material.
Well, that's my "no-spin" zone to your question. |
