Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I have seen four wars and three skirmishes start for the US and the feeling of the nation and my own personal feeling about the beginning of war for the US was radically different in each instance. It appears now inevitable that the current "War
against Terror" will become a full fledged war and so I will have witnessed five. To dispose of the skirmishes I put Granada, Panama, and Kosovo in that category and write them off as not having raised significant emotion with me. But the others:

WWII--The start of WWII was so dramatic that it was an experience of a lifetime. No matter what modern geopoliticians and historians tell you WWII was not expected--not by the common people of the US at least. It was a horrifying event that riveted all of the people in the US to one objective and one goal.
Win the War. Yes we hated Japanese, and Germans and Italians.
We were not interested in any diploimatic solutions to the war---what we all wanted was pure revenge. There was a feeling of oneness and togetherness that I( had never seen before or after in the US. Yamamoto was right when he said "I fear we have awakened a sleeping tiger". Although we did not suffer like the people of France and UK and the Benelux countries we did have to make sacrifices and the person who did not do it willingly was quickly ostracized in society and very possibly put in jail. Patriotism was the order of the day.

Korea--I was well aware of the events that led up to the Korean War and we could see it coming. It was an unpleasant and unwanted War and even though the public didn't like it there was no shortage of support for our armed forces. That was carried over from WWII. Military historian John Keegan calls the Korean War "The Forgotten War".

Vietnam---The Vietnam War slipped up on me. I was devoting all of my attention to "climbing the Corporate ladder". I became a Vice President in a defense and Intelligence oriented company on 11 June 1969 right in the heart of the Vietnam War. I was amazed that by the time I noticed it we were deep into the War.
When Jane Fonda did her thing and the peaceniks marched in
Berkeley I was amazed and disturbed. How could this many traitors have infiltrated the US and be posing as US citizens. Whether I like to admit it or not I was of an older school of "my country right or wrong" and I guess that I still am. I have not forgiven Jane Fonda and doubt that I ever will.

Gulf War---Once again I was busy with a career and work---trying to make the first ESMS system on AWACS work. It dawned on me that the reasons for the Gulf War were not pf Sterling quality even though there was a lot of sterling involved. But even though the war was not simon pure it was quick and efficient and accomplished what was planned. Neither I nor the American public had to question it much.

War On Terror- That name will change with time---it is too clumsy. Immediately after WTC I felt a bit of that same galvanic charge go through the US that went through it after Pearl Harbor and some of that galvanic tension has remained until today. We have dawdled too much getting started on this war. It is inevitable and can be handled as quickly as the Gulf War was
if we will just get about it.

I just thought perhaps you might want to know the change in my feelings about each of the conflicts.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 6985

I agree with you on the "War on Terror," that it would be resolved quickly.

At least your perspective on WWII isn't the same as my dad's: he claims it ended because they found out he was being born (he was born November 7, 1945).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Obviously the Japanese just could not bear the thought of your father bringing his weight to bear against them in the conflict.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

It is interesting Oxsan (you're one of the forum posters who make me feel guilty about putting anything in here - can you stop sounding wise and indulge in sub adolescent tomfoolery every now and then please - thanks )

I myself have seen the UK forces go into action several times in my comparitively short life.

The first one was the Falklands'crisis'. I was 9 years old when that happened - it was a very strange experience. The whole country seemed to be behind it - although there was ample opportunity to waver - when the Sheffield was sunk, and the many subsequent ship losses in San Carlos Water (Coventry, Ardent, Antelope, Antrim and most horrifically of all the bombing of the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram in Bluff Cove when hundreds of Welsh and Scots Guards were killed or horrifically burnt).

It did seem odd to a nine year old that we were fighting over the Falklands at the time - but Britain was awash with patriotism - union flags hung everywhere (even in Scotland where I grew up)and there was definitely an air of the blitz spirit. I think we always knew we would win and for all her faults Thatcher was a superb wartime leader. I think many people in Britain were actually proud (rather foolishly so) that we could still sort this sort of stuff out on our own (although a missile man, you'll appreciate that the subtle US proivsion of the 9L model of the sidewinder helped immensely with knocking Arg Mirages out of the sky).

I guess no matter the fact that none of us had ever heard of The Falklands before we all felt this was a just war and we needed to help these 1500 odd people who watched the BBC, ate Yorskhire pudding and considered us the motherland. I allowed myself to be proud of the men who had gone all those miles to defend these people.

Then there was the Gulf (pt 1 as it will be shortly annotated). I spent most of this in bed with glandular fever so I got grandstand seats for the first live on TV war. Whilst the flag waving of the Falkalnds was muted in comparison, I think we all felt this was another 'just' conflict. There were a few anti war protests but the fact that there had been a naked aggression and invasion of another sovereign state and we had the UN, and several countries actively involved (the French - yep the cheese eating surrender monkeys - and the Syrians which was surprising) on our side made the whole enterprise seem like a glorious coalition of the world versus Saddam. When the air war was launched we had a huge debate at school (the illness hadn't kicked in for me yet) and I found myself being in the minority at the time - I was pro war (pause for shock from certain members of the forum) and I suddenly saw that a number of folks weren't willing to accept that war was the answer.

Despite my current left leaning political views I look back on this and I think I would still support a gulf war in these circumstances.

Then we had Kossovo and Sierra Leone. Kossovo was something we can all be proud of (and certainly something that should be waved in the faces of the faces who would say that the Western powers are embarking on their current crusade is anti Muslim). With no possible economic or political subtext the Western powers intervened to prevent the massacre of a MUSLIM minority by a despotic regime. I was proud that we did this - it was our 'back yard' we needed to do something. I think the only shame was that we needed the help of the US to do this - there should be no reason that EU states should have to rely on them to sort out European problems. Hopefully we can rectify this soon.

Sierra Leone is a somewhat unheralded UK intervention, yet it was again something I and my fellow Brits can be proud of.

All of these conflicts enjoyed great popular support in the UK. It's interesting the Jane Fonda/ Vietnam situation you refer to in your own memories doesn't really seem to crop up in my comparitive experience. Truth is in the Uk there has never been an extensive anti war movement as there is now. And despite me being a leftie I find it hard to argue any of the cases above that I have been through in my three decades.

As you all know I have a few arguments with this one (and the rest of my fellow Brits have as well). I am not sure if it is a evolution of society being more peacenik and less likely to submit to blind patriotism or if (like my personal experience) we are simply not unapposed to war, but this one makes us uncomfortable.

Sad to say now the timetable has been set apparently, this will be the first time UK troops will not be fighting in my name in my lifetime. It is a strange and troubling feeling.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weasel Spoor
Then we had Kossovo ..... With no possible economic or political subtext

---

Last edited by philjit on 03-09-2003 at 03:17 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

You've turned into Sir Humphrey Appleby

I think these reasons you outline for the Kossovan intervention are far outweighed by the basic humanitarian issues and the fact that it was humiliating that Milosevic had rubbed EU leaders' noses in it - Srebenica was a particular humiliation. I think that many EU countries finally saw that they needed to clean out their own backyard. I mean the Germans sent troops overseas for the first time since 1945 for God's sake.

I guess of course that my phraseology sucks - there are always political interests involved - I just don;t think those behind the Kossovan intervention were that self serving. Which is probably why the US population are always bitching about it

Anyway - no thread diverting - what are your memories of the atmosphere of the nation when we have gone to war previously? Isn't this current atmosphere bizarre to say the least?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weasel Spoor
You've turned into Sir Humphrey Appleby

---

I thought as much.

quote:

---

Anyway - no thread diverting - what are your memories of the atmosphere of the nation when we have gone to war previously? Isn't this current atmosphere bizarre to say the least?

---

well.. I was seven when the Falklands happened. I remember it really well. The place was buzzing with a very strange excitement and intrepidation. Quite surreal for a seven year old. I used to help my big borther on his paper round during that war and we delivered to a Cul De Sac called Goose Green and I always thought of 2 Para whenever we delivered.

I can remeber at school being shown the Flaklands on the map and thinking, wtf? or words to that effect that meet with a 7 year olds vocabulary. Remeber the Adrian Mole joke? When he is trying to find it on a map and then realises it is under a biscuit crumb. I remeber the Belgrano going down, it was all very strange. The one thing I vividly remeber was the stark contrast between Thatcher and Michael Foot.

On the one hand you had Thatcher in an amphibious landing craft rising out of the waves like Boudica on her chariot riding to slaughter the argentine masses (remeber that great phot opportunity she did?) and on the other hand you some old git in a donkey jacket smoking a pipe and taking his dog for a piss on Clapham Common. I kind of rememebr the Sheffiled and stuff and always recall hearing Thatcher on the wireless.

As to the Gulf War, I remeber that very well. I had a radio in my school blazer, the headphones went down my arm and hooked under watch. I would sit in lessoons and rest on my arm listening to the World Service and Radio 4. That war was very surreal because it didn't really happen if you get what I eman. It was stage managed media wise from beginning to end and marked a very significant change in what war actually meant.

Todays war is extremely surreal its true. I can;t sum it up really. This country is very war like as you know, but we just don;t seemto have our hearts in this one. We will of course change the minute the shooting starts, we always do. The Mirror will suddenly change tack, and all will be blghtey and kicking the cunts in the bollocks and so on. I think it will be horribly media managed though which is a shame.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I think that the US was solidly behind the UK intervention in the Falklands. There was no charge of "Imperial Britain" floating around the countryn over here. We looked at it as more of protection of Falklanders who were of your own cultural heritage.
I also never heard any criticism or rebuke of how you acquired the Falkland Islands in the first place from either the media or from individuals. We felt that you did well in the Falklands and we applauded you. m mYou didn't really need us or we would have been there with you.

Weasel Spore, your request that I start indulging in sub-adolescent tom-foolery is a clear indicator that you have not been reading all of my posts to date thoroughly. I consider that as a direct slight and if I knew how to put one of those little yellow smiley faces on the message I woiuld do so, (I I). (I: See that you shape up.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

You guys are right about the media management. I too wish that we would use the WWII paradigm of war reporting. There woiuld be some media personnel killed but they would learn to protect themselves quickly. I thought the heighth of oddity was when we had the TV media on the beaches of Mogadishu with the Marines storming ashore with their rifles at high port unable to see anything in front of them because of the kleig lights for the
TV cameras shining in their faces. m I think the policy should be
"strictly limit the number of media people but leave them on their own to go where their ideas took them. Of course a few would get killed--maybe a lot.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan

Weasel Spore, your request that I start indulging in sub-adolescent tom-foolery is a clear indicator that you have not been reading all of my posts to date thoroughly. I consider that as a direct slight and if I knew how to put one of those little yellow smiley faces on the message I woiuld do so, (I I). (I: See that you shape up.

---

Do my best suh!

Maybe it's because my attempts at deep intellectual musing only come up to your standards of sub adolescent tomfoolery that I feel so inadequate in here.

More to the point - Christ, it's 7:15 on a Sunday evening and I am not in the pub. What the hell is wrong with me?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weasel Spoor
More to the point - Christ, it's 7:15 on a Sunday evening and I am not in the pub. What the hell is wrong with me?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

I am on my laptop at home - all free thanks to my bountiful employers.

Funkyrooster is on his way to Swindon to teach Colonels and Majors the beauties of the UN. Ought to tickle some Asylumites that one!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
but for action without UN sanction it is still miserably low.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Ha

And the rest. I have arrived, and am busily boning up on the intricacies of microeconomics and game theory in order to remind myself what the Rational Actor Model actually means in relation to regime interaction. I have to command a seminar on it tomorrow so I should really get to grips with it now, I think

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

I certainly thought that the French and Germans and Russians would fall into line, at worst abstaining, but the timetable and the tough talk from Bush and Rumsfeld in particular might make that too difficult for them to do. I still sort of think that they will, but the quality of the diplomacy from all sides has been execrable (and bearing in mind that the US and the UK are taking something of the role of supplicants in this, our failure is more damaging). Ideally, I think that most people would favour the French plan for longer inspections backed by troops, followed by direct military action if deemed necessary after that.

The Blair argument of 'the UN must vote with the US and the UK or make itself irrelevant' is pretty weak, given that it will also be irrelevant if it caves under that kind of pressure. If Blair was part of an event that broke up the UN, he would be villain number 1, I think. As it is, going in without UN approval may cost between 5 and 10 junior members of the government, and there is also a chance that he may lose the Leader of the House and also Clare Short (Overseas Development Minister, not an important post but seen as an important person by the party (she is also widely seen as an honest and forthright woman)).

The sadness for me is that if the US does become more unilateralist, that the UK will have to get tighter into Europe (the prospect of going with the US on a unilateralist track, against EU feeling, is not a very viable one). Which would suit Blair, of course, as he is a europhile (and hardly a natural ally of Bush, either, so that relationship could well become uncomfortable even if Blair survives the fall-out from whatever is to come).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Inside
Bear in mind that I have listened to several radio commentators (talk radio in America seems to be dominated by conservatives and no, I dont listen to Rush) here that claim that when the US and UK decide when the time is right to go, the French and Russians will consent or at least abstain.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

Man, its like the Cold War all over again. World powers fighting over a third world country (with resources all participants need) to see who will blink first. The only thing is that Britain and America rarely blink when pushed into a corner. There is no way Bush can blink on this one, no matter what the UN thinks. I'm with Phil on this one, its about strategic interests and securing those interests for ourself and our allies. Humanitarian reasons be damned. The Iraqi people just get the side bonus of not being dropped in vats of acid because the administration has opened its mouth about the 'regimes' oppression. Americans are fully expecting a 'free' democratic Iraq at this point.

I do support the war, if the liberation of the Iraqi people is a side issue, so be it. At least its packaged in the securing our national interests deal.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

The reason that I can't see Bush backing down (ie, delaying the invasion, not giving up on it completely) is that he has painted himself into a corner with his rhetoric; even if he wanted to, it would be political suicide to do so.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

Thats what I was trying to say. He is wavering on invasion (which screwed me on the war-kickoff date thread) dates but the war is a forgone conclusion. 200,000+ troops deployed means there is slim chance of any back down, for his political future or America's prestige. We will not leave until Hussein is gone, thats a choice the administration made months ago. Right or wrong, we said it, we are the Super Power and there isnt a possibility of backing down from the stated goals at this point. We drew the proverbial 'line in the sand' and made our enemies cross it.

Last edited by Dead_Inside on 03-09-2003 at 09:02 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

IMO

The UN is already irrelevant and nothing that anyone can do will revive it.

Bush doesn't want out of the corner where Phil says he has painted himself. He is right where the Majority of the American people want him.

What I hear all around me is "No damn international organization
is going to make decisions affecting the security of the US."

With France in its dominating role (and I have heard little criticism of that ) I doubt the viability of NATO. Since France is a semi-member of NATO only I expect to hear France pump to incorporate NATO into EU minus the US. Possibly not a bad move for the Europeans. If they do though the next big push will be a trade war with the US initiated by France in the name of the EU. Ths amalgamation of EU and NATO will give France dominance overEastern European new entrants.

Bush would be impeached if he backed down from Saddam now on any excuse.
I think that it is an honouraqble pursuit for France to attempt to dominate European policy and diplomacy. But it isn't very honourable to conceal what you are trying to do. "Adieu" is one of the few French words I know. Am I worried about not having
France at my side? No.

Do I trust the French? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
IMO

The UN is already irrelevant and nothing that anyone can do will revive it.

Bush doesn't want out of the corner where Phil says he has painted himself. He is right where the Majority of the American people want him.

What I hear all around me is "No damn international organization
is going to make decisions affecting the security of the US."

With France in its dominating role (and I have heard little criticism of that ) I doubt the viability of NATO. Since France is a semi-member of NATO only I expect to hear France pump to incorporate NATO into EU minus the US. Possibly not a bad move for the Europeans. If they do though the next big push will be a trade war with the US in