I went to see Across The Universe last night with a fellow Beatles fan. I cannot find words to describe how truly beautiful and glorious it was – possibly the best movie I’ve ever seen in theatre.
[It was extremely hallucinogenic, emotional, and I cried through out it. I highly recommend it.]
However, a movie recommendation is not why I decided to write today. I write today because one of the elements of the movie began to itch at me as my friend and I discussed the movie on the way home:
Why aren’t kids more motivated to revolt and protest the Iraq War like kids did back in the Vietnam War era?It’s like complacency is really stylish or something, my friend said. And I think that statement is pretty true.
We’re complacent, so why should we worry about the troops being killed overseas? Why should we care what the Iraqi’s think or do?
None of it affects us in the short term, and that is definitely the problem. No one realizes that the holy war of 10,000 years that is being fought out in the Middle East is extremely important. We need to put it to rest and find a peaceful medium for both the Middle Eastern countries in conflict with us, and ourselves. Instead of just hoping it’ll go away, we need to do something. We don’t get drafted, so we aren’t affected.
We don’t watch the news, so we don’t see the footage.
We don’t care enough about the world to want to protest for peace.
We’re simply the average teenager, with nothing good to say.
Why does it have to be that way? Why doesn’t anyone get mad about the current war?
It’s the same story as Vietnam:
The Southern Vietnamese wanted the U.S. in Vietnam; Northern Vietnam fought the U.S. just like some Iraqis want the U.S. in Iraq because the U.S. got rid of Saddam Hussein, and so the U.S. is kind of a hero; the guerilla forces of smaller, militant groups of the minority want the U.S. OUT – they are sick of the supposed imperialism
Thousands of young people were killed for a war that dragged on and on for no reason in Vietnam… Why are people still dying in Iraq? This war HAS become pointless.
I’d like to know why no one is up in protesting arms [posters, flowers, pins, and foghorns], crusading for today’s war to end.
If anyone wants to start something, you let me know.
Your ever favorite Mary V Anton said,
September 25, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
I completely agree, Lizzy. I think we should start something, because this is something that has been bothering me for awhile now. I think that we need to be more passionate about a war that really has become pointless. It IS like Vietnam…except without the protesting that teens were so passionate about in the 60’s. Yet another thing that makes me wonder about people today…it’s not the first time, though. So let’s start something…yes? Love, Mary
Andrew Quinn said,
September 26, 2007 @ 5:32 am
“Thousands of young people were killed for a war that dragged on and on for no reason in Vietnam… Why are people still dying in Iraq? This war HAS become pointless.
I’d like to know why no one is up in protesting arms [posters, flowers, pins, and foghorns], crusading for today’s war to end.”
Maybe people learned their lesson from Vietnam – instead of changing strategy, fully committing to the war effort, and striking a victory deep into the heart of Asian communism, we gave into fast-food culture and whiny public opinion. The result? Utter chaos when we left, a genocide in the wake of our departure, and having to deal with a MORE threatening Cold War scenario from then on. We could have won Vietnam, but we were undermined by American liberals and moronic short-term voters. We paid the price for thirty-plus years, and the Cambodian blood is still on our hands.
The Iraqi War is not pointless. I think we can both agree the debate about going in is irrelevant now. Apart from the moral duty to clean up our own mess, having a somewhat stable, democratic Iraq in the middle of the middle east would provide us a great ally for decades to come as we fight terrorism as well as an example to its neighbors in terms of spreading liberty and freedom – the real antidotes to terrorism and oppression.
Regardless of what Iraq meant before we invaded, now that we have it has become the central battlefield of the GWoT. If we secure the country, it’s a moral and strategic blow to terrorists everywhere. They gave us all they had and lost. If we lose, we just show more weakness and demonstrate we can be outlasted. Not good.
Just remember, Lincoln’s approval ratings during the Civil War were lower than Bush’s now; likewise, Truman was hated during the Korean War. We wouldn’t have an America today if past Presidents had followed fickle and shortsighted popular opinion when it comes to military matters, and thank god this President is equally steadfast, if a little misguided in his efforts.
Andrew Quinn said,
September 26, 2007 @ 5:35 am
“No one realizes that the holy war of 10,000 years that is being fought out in the Middle East is extremely important.”
And I’m sorry, but this is a lie propagated by the liberal media. It just is.
Shi’ites and Sunis coexist peacefully in every other major Iraqi nation. There is no millenia-long feud suddenly erupting in Iraq. The reason for sectarian violence there is because for the last twenty years Hussein’s minority Sunni party oppressed the majority Shi’ites. That’s all. It’s recent, political, and fixable.
Andrew Quinn said,
September 26, 2007 @ 5:35 am
** major Iraqi nation = middle eastern
startyourrevolution said,
September 26, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
Pardon my misuse of a preposition; in regards to the holy war, I meant the holy war which has been raging throughout the world for the past ten thousand years. Ethnic nationalism. All that. I know that the liberals are ridiculously blaming the religions for the isolated conflict in Iraq; I’m talking about the fact that because our cultures and religions (or lack thereof) are so different, that there has been this ongoing conflict. That’s my concern.
I agree that it is irrelevant and pointless to argue about the motives for the war now; however, I want the troops out as soon as possible. However, this does not mean I want them out NOW; I mean that they should be brought back slowly after Iraq is established as its own state so that there is no more chaos and so they can be successful and content as a people. My issue is with how we are going about doing such (“helping” them establish themselves). Perhaps its my staunch anti-war belief, but I really don’t think staying in Vietnam longer would have solved anything.
It’s a pointless venture now. We should be moving towards calling it a reconstruction effort, and yes, we do need to clean up our mess. But when is this about us? What if Iraq does not want a democracy like the United States? What if we’ve got a whole different idea of what they want? What if we’re off? The benefits for the United States should not matter at this point; we should be looking out for Iraq right now. Alliances will come with time if we aren’t greedy or overbearing. Remember that their culture is different from ours, and that liberty and freedom aren’t always defined as we define them.
Sorry, but I think Lincoln was a hypocritical, wishy washy individual who probably deserved his low approval ratings. Think about the way he handled slavery; by telling each specific group (North, South, border states) what they wanted to hear, he stayed in power in the Union. Freed slaves only in the Southern states until after the war in order to appease the border states. How ethical, really.
Truman was hated a lot during the Korean “conflict” [not an actual war because Congress did not declare war - it was an excecutive command] because he sent troops into Korea, he had to take over steel mills in order to prevent workers from striking [Congress had passed the Taft-Hartley Act, causing complications with unions, strikes, etc.]. This pissed off the steel mill owners, and a lot of old time propaganda helped with that. I guess the propaganda deal can be seen today also (after all, all news is subjective).
We’ll see what happens next; voting to block a democratic resolution this week (I think) might shake things up.
Andrew Quinn said,
September 27, 2007 @ 3:13 am
“Sorry, but I think Lincoln was a hypocritical, wishy washy individual who probably deserved his low approval ratings.”
A wish-wash would have ended the Civil War rather than sustain the DESTRUCTION in the press and public opinion Lincoln took for staying in the war after more than 3/4 of the Union residents wanted an end at any cost.
Lincoln, for his many faults, was a resolute and strong leader. Like Bush.
startyourrevolution said,
September 28, 2007 @ 3:52 am
You didn’t even address the ethics issue; he was a wish-wash in regards to his slavery ethics, and that pisses me off more than anything. He was justified in war, if it was to save the Union and to end slavery (even though by ending slavery without giving the South a safety net into which they could fall, he left the South in a mess), but the fact that he claimed that he was fighting slavery throughout the country and then didn’t even free the slaves completely… didn’t get the message to many slaves that they were indeed free… etc… I feel like he was an ethical hypocrite in many senses.
Stephanie said,
February 24, 2008 @ 9:15 am
I want to start a revolution and a protest but i dont know where to start or how to get people to help any tips
s.m.valcarcel@gmail.com