Heading somewhere…

Forgive my tardiness, but a body needs to sleep. And then, adjust to the new time zone, rain, new flipping coffee pot with an attitude, breakfast… Then, process the information provided. Then, reread comments posted on other posts. Then, compare them. Then, scratch head.

Sleep. It does a body (and mind) good.

John McDevitt asked me:

What were you scratching about?”

If you were not tuned into yesterday’s noon post, you may need to flip back there to see what we are discussing. It will only one part of today’s Talk Tuesday. You see, this discussion did not begin in yesterday’s post. In fact, it began with a poem. (For all you artists who think poetry is for wimps and serves no purpose…tune into this.)

Now, the posts will give you a bit to chew, but the comments are where the potatoes, salad and meade are. We are on our way to the dessert.

Break it Down

I asked four questions yesterday, but felt like there was some confusion as to what I was asking. The questions were:

Think about the change in values from the Depression Era parents to the Baby Boomers.

  1. With the condensed (and necessarily politically incomplete) version of the history above, what attitude change caused the reversal of the acceptance of war?
  2. Is economic priority shift the sole cause for the change in attitude toward war?
  3. How does this translate to the war attitudes with which Baby Boomers have raised their children?
  4. To which generation do you belong and what is the pervasive war attitude of the generation:
  • Jones (1954-1964)
  • X (Baby Busters, 1965-1981)
  • Y (Millenials, 1982-1993)
  • Z (Internet Generation, 1994-present)

One, two, three, four...

Let me break it down into more manageable bites (without giving away my answers):

  1. Taking into account the shift in the global attitude toward wealth, credit and family finance (fortunes, disposable income, personal spending); the prevalence of war in the current time (last fifty years in Middle East, Africa, South America, Asia); and current engagement of (or lack thereof) diplomacy as a viable method to preclude armed hostility…which paradigm shift is most responsible for the current acceptance of war? (This question does not assume the answer is one of the ones listed in the post or the question nor that such answer is not a combination of factors.)
  2. This one is pretty clear. Yes or No suffices…for now.
  3. More than one comment points to the monetary angle being pivotal in the declaration and maintenance of war. How does the attitude toward money change the attitude toward war, if it does?
  4. Your generation feels a specific way about war, with obvious exceptions, possibly you. If you do not know what your contemporaries feel, just give your personal attitude. If you do not know which generation is yours, use the years above and this addendum:

Lost Generation (1883-1900)
Greatest Generation (The GI Generation 1901-1924)
Silent Generation (Depression Era 1925-1945)

I thought you said...

Wait a cotton-picking minute!

Before you jump to answering, think about what you read in Philanthropy is not just for old rich people. Some of the comments there contradict some of the attitudes shown thus far. I am left wondering which one is the most pervasive. If you flip-flopped from the Philanthropy post to the World post, let me know why.


John is correct. This is leading somewhere. I will tie together four posts in the focus of Talk Tuesday (which barring a flood or a satellite falling through the sky will be on time @ 2000 EDT, GMT -5). I hope you will be back to see where this discussion leads.

Please, please, please, please….

This post, like the other two, are not not not NOT NOT about the causes of wars. This is not a political forum. The focus of this is very narrow: Why, when and how did our attitude on war change?

(c) Ann Marie Dwyer 2012
Reblogging of this or any other post on Momma’s Money Matters is expressly forbidden.
Copyright and Privacy Policy available in The Office. 
Next Post
Leave a comment


  1. I think attitudes on war changed after the fall of the Roman Empire, after the Christian Crusades and after the big-bazoomba bombs were dropped on Japan. As bruce Springsteen so eloquently sings, “War, huh, good God, y’all, what it is a good for? Absolutely nothing! Sing it again!”

    • I agree with the idea war attitude did change after the atomic bombing of Japan. I might agree about the Crusades, but only in a localized way. The fall of the Roman Empire? Only in terms of the way war is waged, but not the attitude toward whether war is warranted or wanted.

  2. War has been and always will be the battle between those who wish to conquer and those who don’t want to be conquered.

    Trouble is that we have been taught that we are the good guys and ‘they’ are the bad guys, while ‘they’ are willing to die to defeat ‘us’ who are seen as the Great Satan, or the supreme bad guys.

    Trouble is it is true…

    Love and hugs!


    • So for you, the trouble is we learned it is OK to wage war as long as “we” are “right”? Hmm…

      • You see the problem.

        ‘We’ are told we are the good guys by those in control while the ‘enemy’ are told that WE are the bad guys.

        Trouble is that when the truth comes out those in charge are not held accountable especially when the reason to go to war is proven to be a lie, but after the event and, therefore, too late.

        Saddam was supposed to have Weapons of Mass destruction, but the closest they ever got to them were a small stock of gas shells (empty) and a truck equipped to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

        you’ll notice that despite the furore over the matter nobody responsible actually lost their jobs or did time for misleading Governments…

        History is not about who is right, but who is left…

        God Bless!


        • It is a commonly held belief history is not written by the historians but by the victors. I firmly believe it, too.

          So, is the solution more war crimes trials?

          • I don’t think we’ll ever see more ‘War Crimes’ trials as the Victors are the ones to hold them.

            The Hague is now the home of International trials, but even so it has to rely on the Victors to supply the criminals who need to be tried.

            In Crimes Against Humanity trials it is always the defeated Tyrant who goes on trial.

            We have yet to see a trial where the Western defendant is the aggressor.

            Now the West is withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan after squandering trillions trying to impose their idea of democracy on countries that are basically unable to hold together without long-term help because, in the case of Afghanistan, it is a dirt poor country which is essentially an anarchy where Islamist militants are an ever present danger, such as the Taliban who want to wind the clock back 300 years to create a country that is basically an Islamist State where women are no more than illiterate baby carriers.

            They DID control the country for many years before 9/11 made the Americans go to war with them for harboring Al Quada training camps – an impossible task given that American forces are set up to fight nations, not ideas.

            Just because they have been forced into the tribal areas of Pakistan doesn’t mean the Taliban have been defeated – funded by western drug users who consume their main source of income, heroin, and an endless supply of poverty stricken recruits who have no other employment to feed their families, They can keep going for decades while the West is hemorrhaging money trying to battle an idea.

            In Iraq the main reason for the war was OIL.

            This was proven when the US Army set guards on the Oil ministry, but not on explosive stores and the great Museums which were looted as a result.

            Now a puppet government in in power, but sectarian mass murder still goes on with near-daily suicide bombings and murders which are only reported if there is large loss of life.

            Now the West is withdrawing and leaving behind a fledgling democracy which may not be up to the task of keeping their own house in order without foreign military support.

            Unfortunately only time will tell…

            Now we have to wait for Obama to complete the withdrawal from Iraq and the Western powers withdrawal from Afghanistan.

            No doubt this will be painted as a victory, like they did the death of Osama Bin Laden, but Al Qaida is still out there and no army is capable of fighting an idea…

            Love and hugs!


          • The change in warfare in Afghanistan is a similar to the one the Americans faced after the Revolution when they faced the Native Americans. Guerrilla warfare is different in each location based on the terrain and leaders. War is not a static institution.

            I have to wonder how to keep the truth alive. We have seen the holocaust deniers succeed in removing the it from the history books. I know the truth is an illusive creature when looking into the past. I go back to the history is written by the victor. Historians are few and far between. It is another sad state of something which inherently has not a significant profit margin.

    • I am just reading Ian’s comment on the weapons of mass destruction, and I agree that the weapons were never found, but that doesn’t mean that they never existed. In The Gulf War, I figure that it was a double edged sword, sort of damned if we go to war and damned if we don’t.

      Could they really have taken the chance that in the knowing of the likelihood of Sadam having those weapons of mass destruction and not acting, that the dangers of not responding to that threat could have been dire?

      I mean through intelligence if they knew about the possibility of those weapons existing and did nothing and then they were used, then surely in this set of circumstances we were right to go to war? This does not mean that war is a necessity in every instance but one has to weigh up the danger and act forthwith.

      In hindsight one can say almost anything
      I guess, and everyone will form their own

      Have a nice evening Red 🙂

      Androgoth XXx

  3. I’m a baby boomer (Jones), and sadly it appears that most people in charge of declaring war are of the prior generation.
    It’s my belief that Vietnam changed the idea of war for many of my generation and the following generations as well.

    My daughter was born in 93 and shares the same view of wars -and the foolishness of a declaration of ‘military action’ (after all Korea was never declared a war). It’s a need for political polarization, power and greed. A diversion from the problems facing Americans at home.

    We (the baby boomers; me 1961) realized that the treatment of Vets and soldiers during and after the war was deplorable.
    The prior generation was raised on the ideals of WWII -when our country was in real physical danger and so many family members in Europe were fighting for their lives every day.

    Come the late 1950’s and the 1960’s Washington couldn’t get their heads around the fact that Vietnam was something utterly different. A power struggle. And it was all beamed live and in color to our television each night.

    You are so right about the last comment: War (and victory) IS written by the winner. This was the first tenet presented go me in college as I began the journey of a minor in Russian History.

    Bravo for this week’s thinking exercises. Love your challenging mind Red!

    • Glad you are enjoying helping me put the puzzle together. What do you think your daughter’s generation’s view of war truly is? If I remember correctly, she falls in with my oldest children in the Millenials.

      One of these days, I think we may need the history attached to both Korea and VeitNam posted for a #TalkTuesday. I am always disturbed to hear of the convoluted messages written in history books presented to our children. Being the Mean Momma (Nazi-hearted), I have always demanded we have a cogent conversation concerning the volumes which are not contained within the 300-word blurb used to explain the wars between the sanitized pictures.

      Want to venture a guess as to why DC missed the boat when the brains were distributed? They tend to be contemporary to those with the loudest protest.


  4. With…
    And who’ll deny,
    It’s what the fighting’s all about?
    ~Pink Floyd (Us and Them)

  5. Still trying to get caught up after a week with my granddaughter. I stick with what I said in the other post. Other than that — my brain has had a meltdown and is needing some maintenance. . . .


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

CommentLuv badge

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.