|
Edited on Mon Nov-20-06 10:13 PM by HypnoToad
WW2, we all saw and agreed with the terror that was Hitler and his ilk. It was also the aftermath that really opened up the middle class; the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle was a reality for many because people had living wages. WW2 brought Americans together. WW3, "the war on terror". It's a bunch of terrorists who want us all dead. The shrouded menace with no unified voice, apart from saying they want us all dead. Not everyone agrees the war is necessary. And politicians love to claim the other party is using the war to their benefit (e.g. vote for Dems and terrorists win). We also see offshoring and the spitting on the middle class. The "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle has long since been relegated to a sarcasm-influenced joke, never mind the more colloquial use of the term "beaver" that didn't exist in the late-1950s...
In WW2 there were rations. Even chocolate became a currency amongst soldiers. People were told to do their part and to ration for the common good. In WW3, there seem to be no rations; everything just costs more but nobody is saying "we need to ration" or pretty much anything else except "support your economy and buy buy buy with your masturcard!" and "support our troops" bumperstickers and lawn signs...
WW2 also, to my understand me so correct me if I'm wrong, seemed to give vets their just due for putting their lives on the line for the common good. In WW3, vets are deemed dispensable and unworthy of any benefits or compensation. If fighting terrorism is a noble cause, why have vets' benefits been cut time and again?
I dunno what to think. But please correct me where I'm wrong.
Edit: Spelling
|