was 451 a prediction of what is going on today? when you look at our society people are getting dumber and dumber, the country is always in some kind of war or problem that causes our military to go off to another country, fight and die. also more and more people are being cremated to prevent any prolonged attachment to the dead person.

Personally I wouldn't call it a prediction in the sense you described. Particularly the government using interchangeable wars to distract the people from their real objectivies, has been going on forever. Certainly this becomes progressively more blatant as the situation gets more dire. I'd rather call it a very sharp commentary on the era in which it was written. I'm not sure if that's how RB calls it, but this is my opinion.

Have you read "1984"? I think often of that scene where they were fighting, I believe, East Asia, and suddenly switched to being friends with East Asia and enemies with Eurasia. The speaker switched in mid-speech, and the people, in a very practiced way, destroyed all evidence of the earlier war. Things like this happen in real life all the time!

(I read a book set just before and during WWI about an American woman who married a British guy who didn't know that the American Revolution was a war between England and America, and that there was, in fact, a second such war in 1812. I hesitate to ask, is anyone in England still this misinformed?)

What? There was an American revolution? You're not our colony any more? Why was I not informed?!?

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

jiminut said:

"Particularly the government using interchangeable wars to distract the people from their real objectivies, has been going on forever."

That's a very interesting concept and one which I have often pondered to the point of getting headaches. I've never gone to college and dropped out of high school, so all this pondering of mine has been a one sided solo effort. Could you(or anyone else) share more of your ideas, findings, and examples(past and present) of this concept?

It's not my intention to start a flame-war here, so don't anybody get defensive at what may follow.

While the phrase is interesting, I'm not sure how much historical merit it really has. In spite of the Vietnam War's duration and controversy, the principles felt it was a part of an effort to stop the domino flow of communism. It was fought for that reason.

Fighting proxy wars between America and Russia and China (based in more minor theaters) was not, it seems to me, about distracting from "real objectives" as much as it was about the attempt to spread or stop the spread of competing ideologies of government.

What war was fought as a way to distract people from "real objectives" and what were those objectives?

I know, I know. I shouldn't post this kind of thing . . .

*sigh*

I also don't mean to offend anyone. It is an interesting topic though, and certainly relevant to the story. Mr. Dark asked

quote:

What war was fought as a way to distract people from "real objectives" and what were those objectives?

Stepping as lightly as possible here... I'd start with the most recent, being the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. We realize that the enemies are both metaphors here, but much of the US citizenry accepts these as genuine wars. (Ironically, both are also wars that cannot be won, and yet are being fought, with conventional weapons.)

You mentioned Vietnam. I admit to being sceptical about the reasons it was waged, as well as the duration. With that said, I'll backtrack a little and just say that wars have often been fought against very real enemies, just not necessarily for the reasons stated.

Foreign wars have traditionally had the effect of strengthening the ruling powers (if they survive). However, as the U.S. has grown into an empire, with less genuine threats, we have been led more frequently into questionable conflicts. So I guess my answer to the original question, would be "Yes".

Sorry for the rambling, I also have not gone to college.

Mike

Has there ever been a theory that Vietnam was also an attempt for the WWII generation to relive its glory days by going after a perceived enemy or threat?

I would suggest that the war on drugs uses the term "war" as a metaphor. I don't view it as a war in any traditional sense.

The war on terror is more complex. In Bush's first speech to congress after 9/11, he was very clear that this was not a traditional war with traditional enemies and traditional victories. Again, I would suggest the the term "war on terror" is a metaphor; but that we have had two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) as wars supporting the larger concept of a war on terror.

The objectives of the war on drugs are perhaps debatable, but if the objective is to distract from something else, what are you suggesting it is designed to distract from?

The objectives of the war on terror seem less ambiguous (killing terrorists, taking out governments that support them, restoring or preserving the security of the US, etc.), but the execution of a war that is unprecedented in it's scope, enemies and definitions of victories is probably still being defined.

And, of course, there are "theories" about every conflict. The question is, "what is the history?" not "are there theories?"

I am not a historian, and, as I got older, opposed the war in Vietnam. I've read that 3.8 Vietnamese were killed in that conflict and that 58,000 Americans were killed. As a HS kid, I understood the idea of the domino effect, but didn't see the theory's execution in Vietnam as effective (of course, I was in HS, so what did I really know?).



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 12-12-2004).]

quote:

The objectives of the war on drugs are perhaps debatable, but if the objective is to distract from something else, what are you suggesting it is designed to distract from?

I would actually start to answer this by debating the objectives. Google "black male" + "war on drugs" to see the effect it has on the African American population. There are good sources (i.e. government) that show the disparity between percentage of population, amount of illegal use per population, arrests made, convictions made, and amount of jail time... each number gets dramatically higher for black males, esp. young, as you progress through that list of factors. In other words, a minority of the overall population, a minority of the drug population, but a majority of those arrested, convicted and sent to jail.

So what if the DW has been successful in achieving its true objectives? And we are distracted, looking at a different issue.

quote:

The objectives of the war on terror seem less ambiguous (killing terrorists, taking out governments that support them, restoring or preserving the security of the US, etc.)

We have killed terrorists but created more, taken out at least one govt. that we admit has no relation to actual terrorists, and extended our troops beyond our means. Why? Does this make us safer?

We've now gone beyond a Bradbury discussion or a discussion on the original topic into a personal rant. We did enough of this with the Michael Moore garbage. I won't contribute to it.

Right on, Mr. Dark!

Funny. Putting regurgitating the president's statements on a political issue (i.e., the "War" on terror) is acceptable.

But when someone puts forth an alternative opinion, and points out the overt bigotry inherent in the policies of the topic (Government), this is a personal rant? Fine. Though I am a privileged white male, I am truly sickened at the way we continue to treat minorities in this supposedly free, enlightened country. So, though I came to this board to have intelligent discussions with literate people centered around a writer I truly do admire, sometimes I might rant. I didn't start this and you (Mr. Dark) were asking [me] specific questions that I was trying to answer. I'm done with that.

But one final point is in order here. Your attempt to have the last word (perfectly reasonable, I'm trying it as well), while making derogatory comments about my statements, as well as throwing in an uncalled for slam against a liberal artist (Moore) whom I may or may not give a lick about (I don't), is what I would say is a perfect example of how to "contribute to it." A better tactic (which I will now employ) would be to stay quiet and let this thread fade into Oblivion.

Mike

P.S. I'm new here, and I'm planning on hanging around, at least for a little while. So, once we leave this sad little thread, with its politics (which always bring out the harshest feelings), I'd like to let it be bygones. Can I get an Amen?

"It's not my intention to start a flame-war here, so don't anybody get defensive at what may follow."

Looks like I've done it again. Another fine mess.

Sorry.

Many of us play a part -- myself included.