Full Version: One Nation indivisible?
America is split into blue and red colors on the political map; Republican and Democrats, liberal and conservative. Do our such sharp differences and cultural divisions in America hurt us durring these recent times of war and terrorism compared to the unity that was so predominant durring World War Two? What is so different now compared to the time of the "greatest generation"?
Just prior to Pearl Harbor, we were also very split as a country. Politically, we had the "isolationists" who thought we should stay out of the conflict and not support Europe or any other country, and we had the interventionists (I don't think they had a real name, but that's what they were), who thought that we needed to jump in with both feet to support our European allies.
I think it's healthy as a country to debate going to war.
If you noticed, after 9/11, when the case was made to attack Afghanistan, everyone understood, and you didn't hear a peep about it from the anti-war crowd. But when the case was being made about Iraq, not as many understood, and you had protests and demonstrations against attacking Iraq. The debate was silenced or ignored, and into Iraq we go, hi ho!
Debate is good, as you can tell from this web site. Debate helps clarify, improves understanding (especially if real facts are involved and not hidden under the veil of "national security").
The other thing about the "Greatest Generation" is that it was a shared sacrifice. During the period of '41-'46, not only did we send millions off to fight in war, but we also sacrificed here at home. Rationing of food stocks, gasoline, etc. Everyone felt that they were a part of the war effort. The stakes were clear about Germany.
Now, the only folks sacrificing are those in the military (both active duty and reserves). At home, instead of rationing, we get tax cuts. We don't feel as involved just watching the day's casualties on FOX or CNN.
This isn't the thread to debate about Iraq, just wanted to provide the perspective that we were divided in both times, but the situation and the threat was clearer then, the sacrifices were shared, so bringing the country together was easier.
I think it's healthy as a country to debate going to war.
If you noticed, after 9/11, when the case was made to attack Afghanistan, everyone understood, and you didn't hear a peep about it from the anti-war crowd. But when the case was being made about Iraq, not as many understood, and you had protests and demonstrations against attacking Iraq. The debate was silenced or ignored, and into Iraq we go, hi ho!
Debate is good, as you can tell from this web site. Debate helps clarify, improves understanding (especially if real facts are involved and not hidden under the veil of "national security").
The other thing about the "Greatest Generation" is that it was a shared sacrifice. During the period of '41-'46, not only did we send millions off to fight in war, but we also sacrificed here at home. Rationing of food stocks, gasoline, etc. Everyone felt that they were a part of the war effort. The stakes were clear about Germany.
Now, the only folks sacrificing are those in the military (both active duty and reserves). At home, instead of rationing, we get tax cuts. We don't feel as involved just watching the day's casualties on FOX or CNN.
This isn't the thread to debate about Iraq, just wanted to provide the perspective that we were divided in both times, but the situation and the threat was clearer then, the sacrifices were shared, so bringing the country together was easier.
I say NO. Why? Because such divison in the political spectrum is what a democracy is all about. The ability to voice another opinion.
The "come together" attitude seen in the aftermath of 9/11 was a patriotic one. It didn't change the political attitudes we had, it just put them aside for awhile
The "come together" attitude seen in the aftermath of 9/11 was a patriotic one. It didn't change the political attitudes we had, it just put them aside for awhile
I would say "MAYBE".
I think having two sharp sides of an issue, like on going to war with iraq is a good thing. But i find it unfortunate that we also have the Democratic Primary's going on at the same time; which means we have people who have to do everything they possibly can to distinguish themselves from each other, and especially the president, which leads to ruthless opinionated attacks. I mention the primarys because it seems that no matter what Bush chose to do, they are going to attack him anyway... no matter what. IMO, the same thing goes for people in the anti-war protest crowd.
On one hand, you have knowledgeable people who honestly feel the war is wrong and use their voice to protest, which is totally fine and healthy in our democratic country.
But on the other hand, you have short-tempered people who only protest the war because they hate Bush, and are for the most part 'ill-informed'. Unlike the knowledgeable protestor, you can't have an intelligent conversation with them and no matter what your argument is, they will just spit out some stupid phrase like "Bush is a Dictator!", or "Bush is a monkey with a razor blade". And i believe people like that cause division in our nation, not because they protest, but because they can't be reasoned with and make their decisions without hearing both sides of the issue or know whats going on.
Whether Republicans automatically defending Bush, or Democrats automatically attacking him; I believe when people are quick to jump on the same side of a debate every time, it lowers their credibility.
----
I can understand the "ignored" part, but when has anyone been silenced? Are you referring to individuals silencing others, similiar to what i said earlier, or government silencing those opposed to the war?
----
I totally agree with you. I also believe that WWII was the first time we entered full-force, from a military/economic standpoint, into a conflict of international scale. Although you could argue WWI was the first time, if you consider the amount of troops, late entrance into the war, length of war, etc, you might come to a conclusion similiar to mine.
It was a chance to prove ourselves to the world, that we truley had become the dominant nation of the world, and along with our allies, never be defeated.
I think having two sharp sides of an issue, like on going to war with iraq is a good thing. But i find it unfortunate that we also have the Democratic Primary's going on at the same time; which means we have people who have to do everything they possibly can to distinguish themselves from each other, and especially the president, which leads to ruthless opinionated attacks. I mention the primarys because it seems that no matter what Bush chose to do, they are going to attack him anyway... no matter what. IMO, the same thing goes for people in the anti-war protest crowd.
On one hand, you have knowledgeable people who honestly feel the war is wrong and use their voice to protest, which is totally fine and healthy in our democratic country.
But on the other hand, you have short-tempered people who only protest the war because they hate Bush, and are for the most part 'ill-informed'. Unlike the knowledgeable protestor, you can't have an intelligent conversation with them and no matter what your argument is, they will just spit out some stupid phrase like "Bush is a Dictator!", or "Bush is a monkey with a razor blade". And i believe people like that cause division in our nation, not because they protest, but because they can't be reasoned with and make their decisions without hearing both sides of the issue or know whats going on.
Whether Republicans automatically defending Bush, or Democrats automatically attacking him; I believe when people are quick to jump on the same side of a debate every time, it lowers their credibility.
----
QUOTE
If you noticed, after 9/11, when the case was made to attack Afghanistan, everyone understood, and you didn't hear a peep about it from the anti-war crowd. But when the case was being made about Iraq, not as many understood, and you had protests and demonstrations against attacking Iraq. The debate was silenced or ignored, and into Iraq we go, hi ho!
I can understand the "ignored" part, but when has anyone been silenced? Are you referring to individuals silencing others, similiar to what i said earlier, or government silencing those opposed to the war?
----
QUOTE
The other thing about the "Greatest Generation" is that it was a shared sacrifice. During the period of '41-'46, not only did we send millions off to fight in war, but we also sacrificed here at home. Rationing of food stocks, gasoline, etc. Everyone felt that they were a part of the war effort. The stakes were clear about Germany.
I totally agree with you. I also believe that WWII was the first time we entered full-force, from a military/economic standpoint, into a conflict of international scale. Although you could argue WWI was the first time, if you consider the amount of troops, late entrance into the war, length of war, etc, you might come to a conclusion similiar to mine.
It was a chance to prove ourselves to the world, that we truley had become the dominant nation of the world, and along with our allies, never be defeated.
Would you say then that it is better or worse that we had to prove ourselves as a dominant nation? If we did have to prove ourselves as a dominant nation, why do we not have to now? I think that the division among people, as long as it is intelligent, can be productive and healthy, agreeing with amf, and that it helps to clarify the situation and bring new knowledge to light. Perhaps if we were more aware as to what was going on with the war, and didn't have the shadow of secrecy tainting the information coming in, we would become closer together.
QUOTE
America is split into blue and red colors on the political map; Republican and Democrats, liberal and conservative. Do our such sharp differences and cultural divisions in America hurt us durring these recent times of war and terrorism compared to the unity that was so predominant durring World War Two? What is so different now compared to the time of the "greatest generation"?
What we hear in political debates today is no different than it has ever been. Historically sharp divisions over almost anything are commonplace and there has been worse than merely bad blood over it. Kansas/Missouri. When events occur that threaten us we band together. Remove the 15% of Kool-Aid sucking True Beleivers from each side of our current political spectrum and you have a very solid majority who stand together. and of the 30% who scream and holler and convulse that others do not see the "Truth" of what they say most of those will then fall in line and stand with the others.
Remember
" Arguing with an American is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. Sooner or later you realize the pig likes it" 
Probably one of the sadder things about the loss of so many of that Greatest Generation is that they were only used recently to give war stories of the time. It would be fascinating to read what it was like for those who didn't go. I know about the rationing and the newsclips before movies, but what was the talk like in the diners and bars of America at the time. When political junkies got together what did they argue about.
Do a little research and you'll probably find plenty of opinions that were vehement over us going to war against germany and japan. Even after Pearl Harbor. Wasn't the Bund a strong presence in America for quite some time leading up to the war?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.