The poll asks a silly question, at least from the perspective of meaningful polling: The reflex answer is to affirm that no casualty is "acceptable" and that something should be done to reduce whatever number of casualties there are. The accompanying impulse is to choose whatever answer best registers one's disapproval of Americans or anyone being killed, whatever the reason. A differently worded question that addressed relevant policy issues in relation to casualties - should we withdraw?, etc. - might receive very different responses and give a very different impression. Just to give a different reading of the publicâs attitudes, another recent poll showed a firm majority of Americans favoring pre-emptive military action if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. As for the potential effect of media images and commentary on the horrors of war - what can be called war porno - it all depends on contexts. The same images, virtually the same reports, can lead to repulsion and loss of will or to rage and renewed commitment. The Arab media have focused on the most gruesome images of civilian carnage in Iraq and Palestine, but the result hasn't mainly been, apparently, a reduction in support for confrontational positions and actions. If there has been any such reduction, it's likely more the result of recently altered facts on the ground and in the air, perhaps of cumulative exhaustion, rather than of incidental revulsion. In any event, those images aren't featured because they pacify audiences. As for presumably more tender-hearted Americans, even during the Vietnam conflict, when nightly "body counts" and grotesque images were joined to increasingly hostile war coverage in the major American media, and increasingly militant protestors filled the streets in large numbers, the broad American public remained supportive of the war until political leaders essentially admitted that the US was seeking an early exit rather than victory. If a leader can make people believe either that there's a way to achieve victory, or that there's no alternative to fighting, then atrocious images and reports are just versions of what orators used to call "waving the bloody shirt" - as likely to stir up support as to frighten people into running away. On the other hand, if people lose their belief in the cause and its necessity, and if they sense that their leaders have done so, then waving the bloody shirt won't work. In this regard, the Bush Administration may need to launch another propaganda offensive soon, but is probably waiting to get its ducks in a row and in the meantime trying to resist making Bush Sr.'s mistake of seeming to ignore domestic policy. In every age, we act as though we've newly invented the world, but there's been scarifying war reporting in every era, and in many eras, as in many places in the world today, hardly anyone needed to tell the "public" how awful war was, because large numbers of people had direct experience either as soldiers or as non-combatants. The reality of these direct experiences did not stop wars from occurring: It took the real devastation of European economies, populaces, and governments, and occupation by foreign powers, for Europe finally to get over the habit - generally... for a while anyway. As for the future and the potential effects of terrorism and warfare, events of a type that once would have panicked us or shaken us all to the core may, if they continue, instead become part of the background noise of our everyday assumptions. After the shock and disappointment of isolated atrocities and setbacks wear off, attitudes towards consumption will depend more on our sense of whether we're moving forward, addressing things effectively, and so on - and on whether the events and the larger situation have direct, lasting effects on our economic well-being and its underpinnings. Whether the market and the economy can break out until things are better sorted out â both here and abroad, and not just in terms of security â is another question. Now, if someone uses a nuke on us, or comes up with some other "mega-terror" nightmare scenario, then all bets are off, though I suspect we'd surprise ourselves with our resiliency, economic and otherwise. In the meantime, the thought mainly makes me feel like blowing some cash on something...
Shucks aphie, what are you saying, the 'American Way' isn't the one, single best way, now, in the past and for all eternity? Are you trying to suggest that some people pay attention to other aspects of quality of life other than being able to upsize their orders? The AAAs and Kymars of the world -- people for whom the good ole US of A can do no wrong -- would probably disagree. And theirs is the general tone of replies I'm reading on this thread; replies well grounded in the legend of American Exceptionalism. 'Geez, if only the rest of the world could be like America, what a great world it'd be. We'd better do whatever we can to make sure they become like us quick smart, whether they want to or not.' That's what this war was really about. For someone not indoctrinated into Americanism it's as clear as the sun. I pity folks like hapaboy. That kid really believes this whole thing was about 'saving America' or a 'war on terror'. I have to say it, Oh Gawd. I suggest you all read Zbigniew Brzezinski's (that name ring a bell?) 'Grand Chessboard'; we're seeing that doctrine playing out in front of our eyes. 21st century imperialism, pure and simple. Is it a good thing? That's a tough call. But if the goal is real homeland security, the solution's really pretty simple. Just back the F* off from the rest of the world. How much simpler can it really get? The world isn't going to suddenly stop spinning if America stops poking her nose into every country's business (day after day, year after year). It's easy to forget that America isn't required to go around policing the globe. In fact, policing isn't even the word for it. Cops don't make the rules. America is something else altogether; legislator, cop, judge and jury. To me, the scary thought it is, is America even able to stop this kind of behavior? So much for the Great American Way Of Life if it is unsustainable without subjugating the rest of the world to its whims.
Please feel free to name a country that the millions of souls around the world are trying to get into? It's staggering how many people from around the world risk death to get in the country,,,,you never really hear about people locking themselves into a container so they can get in on the Saudi or French dream do you???...Maybe the downtrodden of the world know somthing we dont?
But is the grass always greener on the other side???.....I have to agree with TM on this one......Although this way of life is different than lets say Spain (where they have 2 hour lunches and businesses/stores cease to operate during this time)....people and I mean tons of people always want to come to the US of A the land of mucho opportunity....Why is that alphonso??? ahhh but then we truly have the issue of the "the grass is not always greener on the other side" to contend with...some times its just to late and you need to settle into the American way...."LIVE TO WORK" as opposed to "WORK TO LIVE"...something like that
In addition to the United States, two countries with massive population inflows - signifying large numbers of people "voting with their feet" over conditions and prospects - that come to mind are Afghanistan and Iraq.
Got to agree with you on that one! But do you blame them? If they stay there they are most likely to get bombed by us. US is pretty much safe from US military attacks