not honoring war, but honoring soldiers
how do you maintain an attitude that you can salute and appreciate all soldiers especially at veteran's day, even if your philosophy or ideology may oppose the notion of war or the idea that war is part of the solution?
thanks
thanks
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>> It also says a lot about the level of unemployment in the USA - approx 10%
Absolutely true for the last three years or so, but the unemployment rate was half that during the peak of the wars, and yet they still signed up.
Absolutely true for the last three years or so, but the unemployment rate was half that during the peak of the wars, and yet they still signed up.
(The Afghan war is peaking again, of course.)
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>You can donate to veterans organizations that pickup where the 'system' leaves off and push for better treatment of soldiers through legislation.
Whilst I agree with those sentiments, the best way to deal with this is not to send troops to futile wars. Afghanistan will never be 'won'. Every country that has got involved in Afghanistan in the last 200 years has lost big time. And the same will happen in 2014 when the Western troops leave Afghanistan.
The USA armed the people they are now fighting:
"The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter[7] and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
And together with OBL capitalised on the Mujahideen's inclinations.
The USA and other countries, UK included, has not learned from history. The generals always say 'it will get worse before it gets better'. The politicians and public lap up such statements as it's something to hang onto. The generals might even believe their own rhetoric but they know better than anyone that if they don't spout such nonsense their troops will never have the morale to fight their futile war. Gen Westmorland in VietNam made those sorts of stupid statements and we know what happened there - the USA was kicked out by the VietCong. But it is all conveniently forgotten that the USA helped to reinstate Ho Chi Minh back from France into North VietNam and then spent the next 25-30 years fighting him and his forces - again utterly futile.
So the message is, don't interfere in other countries. That's the best way of helping soldiers avoid their problems - for which I have every sympathy. They undoubtedly do need more help with their problems.
Whilst I agree with those sentiments, the best way to deal with this is not to send troops to futile wars. Afghanistan will never be 'won'. Every country that has got involved in Afghanistan in the last 200 years has lost big time. And the same will happen in 2014 when the Western troops leave Afghanistan.
The USA armed the people they are now fighting:
"The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter[7] and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
And together with OBL capitalised on the Mujahideen's inclinations.
The USA and other countries, UK included, has not learned from history. The generals always say 'it will get worse before it gets better'. The politicians and public lap up such statements as it's something to hang onto. The generals might even believe their own rhetoric but they know better than anyone that if they don't spout such nonsense their troops will never have the morale to fight their futile war. Gen Westmorland in VietNam made those sorts of stupid statements and we know what happened there - the USA was kicked out by the VietCong. But it is all conveniently forgotten that the USA helped to reinstate Ho Chi Minh back from France into North VietNam and then spent the next 25-30 years fighting him and his forces - again utterly futile.
So the message is, don't interfere in other countries. That's the best way of helping soldiers avoid their problems - for which I have every sympathy. They undoubtedly do need more help with their problems.
There were active terror training camps in Afghanistan and now there are not. There were active facilities operating to create weapons to be used against western civilian populations and now there are not. Afghanistan has already been won, the question now is will it ever be stabilized enough to prevent the same set of circumstances that caused it to be a threat in the first place from reoccurring. The question is not whether or not it has been a victory, but will it ever be able to be a long term victory or will it need to be invaded over and over again to stop an enemy determined to kill people living in the West. Iraq was a war that needn't have been fought, Afghanistan was absolutely 100% necessary and absolutely successful at it's short term aims. Al-Qaeda was in charge in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda still wants to kill you.
You are living a dream. Afghanistan has not been won in any sense whatsoever. It is a disaster and will remain so. I don't understand where on earth you get such false information - all absolute nonsense. Stop watching Fox News is my advice.
ps. Al-Qaeda was in charge in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda still wants to kill you.
Al-Qaeda was NEVER in charge of Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda was NEVER in charge of Afghanistan.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
It is not just an American perspective, they were training to kill the little Big Rat you carried in your belly while he is minding his own business riding a train too. You are either Muslim or they had active training camps where nut-balls that were being trained to kill you too.
Vietnam is completely unrelated and I am not old enough to have cast a single vote which would have affected it one way or another. From what I understand from what I have read about it they did not have active training camps where people were being taught to kill westerners and they did not have multiple facilities where, with their somewhat crude technology they were doing their utmost to create weapons of mass destruction to be used against people in the west. You should have contacted some of the people alive and making decisions at that time but to invoke it now just seems like throwing all kinds of irrelevant crap into the conversation to muddy and confuse the topic.
Didn't support Vietnam (as a very active, concerned but mute sperm cell.) Didn't support Iraq, as it was carried out (the international community should have been united and diplomatic measures really should have been used for far longer than they were. I like french fries and the french and abhor anti-intellectual saber rattlers who approached Iraq like a football game.) Absolutely positively 100% support the war in Afghanistan, you have a completely different set of reasons and facts with Afghanistan than you do with other conflicts.
I really hope and pray that the tiny little Big Rats of the world are not randomly and wantonly killed by some idiot with a warped mind and a cold heart while he is walking downtown minding his own business and am glad that the only way he could be killed today would be if he signed up for the military in a country that actually does something to destroy the weapons labs that are designed to kill civilians who don't support totalitarian would be leaders. That is not an "American" perspective it is fairly prevalent but not in the majority in your own country.
Vietnam is completely unrelated and I am not old enough to have cast a single vote which would have affected it one way or another. From what I understand from what I have read about it they did not have active training camps where people were being taught to kill westerners and they did not have multiple facilities where, with their somewhat crude technology they were doing their utmost to create weapons of mass destruction to be used against people in the west. You should have contacted some of the people alive and making decisions at that time but to invoke it now just seems like throwing all kinds of irrelevant crap into the conversation to muddy and confuse the topic.
Didn't support Vietnam (as a very active, concerned but mute sperm cell.) Didn't support Iraq, as it was carried out (the international community should have been united and diplomatic measures really should have been used for far longer than they were. I like french fries and the french and abhor anti-intellectual saber rattlers who approached Iraq like a football game.) Absolutely positively 100% support the war in Afghanistan, you have a completely different set of reasons and facts with Afghanistan than you do with other conflicts.
I really hope and pray that the tiny little Big Rats of the world are not randomly and wantonly killed by some idiot with a warped mind and a cold heart while he is walking downtown minding his own business and am glad that the only way he could be killed today would be if he signed up for the military in a country that actually does something to destroy the weapons labs that are designed to kill civilians who don't support totalitarian would be leaders. That is not an "American" perspective it is fairly prevalent but not in the majority in your own country.
resorting to sarcasm will not win an argument.
You're prefectly willing to train terrorists to attack your foes, but bitterly whine when somebody does it to you. And instead of sorting your problems out, you morally complain how badly treated you are and pretend that you are saving the western world. As far as "randomly and wantonly killing" is concerned you're prefectly capable of doing that in Iraq and covering it up at the same time.
It is perfectly obvious from you post that if one doesn't quite agree with you and be grateful for American "protection", one becomes the victim of sarcasm and vitriol.
And lastly if you really want to know why the French are pissed off with you try this for starters :-
http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix
That is a French perspective.
You're prefectly willing to train terrorists to attack your foes, but bitterly whine when somebody does it to you. And instead of sorting your problems out, you morally complain how badly treated you are and pretend that you are saving the western world. As far as "randomly and wantonly killing" is concerned you're prefectly capable of doing that in Iraq and covering it up at the same time.
It is perfectly obvious from you post that if one doesn't quite agree with you and be grateful for American "protection", one becomes the victim of sarcasm and vitriol.
And lastly if you really want to know why the French are pissed off with you try this for starters :-
http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix
That is a French perspective.
>>You're prefectly willing to train terrorists to attack your foes
Since you used the word "you" I assume you meant me, and since you meant me and you are a reasonable person I have absolutely no doubt that you had some source of information that lead you to a conclusion so could you please share it with me so that I may know why it has been decided that I should support the training of terrorists?
>>It is perfectly obvious from you post that if one doesn't quite agree with you and be grateful for American "protection", one becomes the victim of sarcasm and vitriol.
>>Why, behenderson, do you always see things through an American perspective with American morality? Is it solely because you are an American?
Your criticism of my response to your criticism has been noted.
Could you please, in future, try to ascribe to me only ideas or positions that I actually hold or possess? I responded sarcastically to the thought that I supported Vietnam and you have now made me a Reagan supporter, not simply a Regan supporter but a Regan supporter who actively supported the training of the elements that in the future became the Taliban. Sarcasm seems a somewhat benign response to my made up negative attributes.
Since you used the word "you" I assume you meant me, and since you meant me and you are a reasonable person I have absolutely no doubt that you had some source of information that lead you to a conclusion so could you please share it with me so that I may know why it has been decided that I should support the training of terrorists?
>>It is perfectly obvious from you post that if one doesn't quite agree with you and be grateful for American "protection", one becomes the victim of sarcasm and vitriol.
>>Why, behenderson, do you always see things through an American perspective with American morality? Is it solely because you are an American?
Your criticism of my response to your criticism has been noted.
Could you please, in future, try to ascribe to me only ideas or positions that I actually hold or possess? I responded sarcastically to the thought that I supported Vietnam and you have now made me a Reagan supporter, not simply a Regan supporter but a Regan supporter who actively supported the training of the elements that in the future became the Taliban. Sarcasm seems a somewhat benign response to my made up negative attributes.
>>And lastly if you really want to know why the French are pissed off with you try this for starters :-
http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix
Yeah that whole US intervention in WWII thing really turned out to be a bad deal for the French didn't it? My grandfather was exposed to Mustard Gas and died at a very young age leaving my father, after his mothers death shortly thereafter an orphan, but I can certainly understand how you'd be pissed that although he was killed by Germans while extricating them from your country that you would be much more swayed by the fact that some obscure civil servant at one time floated an idea that was never acted upon.
You see, when he explained it to his son, my father, he explained that he was rescuing the french from tyranny, but you are probably right, he probably left his home fought and ultimately died because he wanted to take over a croissant stand in mons, not because he wanted to come to the aid of your countrymen. Dear old Dad was dumb enough to fall for that lame excuse and was left with the impression that his orphaned state served some higher purpose. I can understand how you'd be pissed.
http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix
Yeah that whole US intervention in WWII thing really turned out to be a bad deal for the French didn't it? My grandfather was exposed to Mustard Gas and died at a very young age leaving my father, after his mothers death shortly thereafter an orphan, but I can certainly understand how you'd be pissed that although he was killed by Germans while extricating them from your country that you would be much more swayed by the fact that some obscure civil servant at one time floated an idea that was never acted upon.
You see, when he explained it to his son, my father, he explained that he was rescuing the french from tyranny, but you are probably right, he probably left his home fought and ultimately died because he wanted to take over a croissant stand in mons, not because he wanted to come to the aid of your countrymen. Dear old Dad was dumb enough to fall for that lame excuse and was left with the impression that his orphaned state served some higher purpose. I can understand how you'd be pissed.
>>that some obscure civil servant at one time floated an idea that was never acted upon.
Please recheck your American history - obscure civil servant indeed! The Garlan incident is just one of them, including support for Vichy and the St.Pierre&Miquelon affaire. See "American Diplomacy in the Second World War" by George Gaddis Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddis_Smith)
You may hold positions on this and that as may be, but you are giving us the false impression when you write things like :-
"There were active terror training camps in Afghanistan and now there are not."
as if somehow this is again due to American altruism and effort. As patrick pointed out, Afghanistan is a politcal mess, with leaders turning up in Europe with 52 million dollars cash to be deposited in a safe account. And as the incidents during WWII in France have shown, politicians and leaders are very willing to play out their preducies and silly ideas even to the detriment of their own citizens. The individual contributions from the GI Joes are well respected in France. But we don't trust your moralising political leaders as far as we could throw them.
Please recheck your American history - obscure civil servant indeed! The Garlan incident is just one of them, including support for Vichy and the St.Pierre&Miquelon affaire. See "American Diplomacy in the Second World War" by George Gaddis Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddis_Smith)
You may hold positions on this and that as may be, but you are giving us the false impression when you write things like :-
"There were active terror training camps in Afghanistan and now there are not."
as if somehow this is again due to American altruism and effort. As patrick pointed out, Afghanistan is a politcal mess, with leaders turning up in Europe with 52 million dollars cash to be deposited in a safe account. And as the incidents during WWII in France have shown, politicians and leaders are very willing to play out their preducies and silly ideas even to the detriment of their own citizens. The individual contributions from the GI Joes are well respected in France. But we don't trust your moralising political leaders as far as we could throw them.
BigRat
The point I pick up on in your earlier post is
>>> went through nine months pregnancy and eighteen odd years of growing up with the boy, just to see him be killed or maimed in some far off war of somebody else's making, there is no comfort
You have my greatest sympathy, you do not say how long ago but I am of the opinion that time will not diminish that loss and whatever the circumstances it is only right to hurt and of course such experiences have to factor in your perspective.
War or in the wider scope conflict tends as I stated to be state instigated in scope and the individuals who are sent to do the bidding of the authorities will in todays societies more often than not be someone who needs a job and finds themself waging war but always with the perspective that the authorities afford them hence fighting terrorism as against protecting religious beliefs being two potentially and opposite perspectives of the same incident.
Both can be right in isolation, (nationalist sense) even whilst in the wider purview one or both are wrong, (not that I approve of killing someone without very, very strong justification).
I do believe though that the concensus has been it's those that send the soldiers out that might be subject to vilification whereas those who risk the ultimate price deserve our appreciation as long as they believe they are doing the right thing.
And yes your loss is important but I am referring here to sacrifice rather than loss.
Chris
The point I pick up on in your earlier post is
>>> went through nine months pregnancy and eighteen odd years of growing up with the boy, just to see him be killed or maimed in some far off war of somebody else's making, there is no comfort
You have my greatest sympathy, you do not say how long ago but I am of the opinion that time will not diminish that loss and whatever the circumstances it is only right to hurt and of course such experiences have to factor in your perspective.
War or in the wider scope conflict tends as I stated to be state instigated in scope and the individuals who are sent to do the bidding of the authorities will in todays societies more often than not be someone who needs a job and finds themself waging war but always with the perspective that the authorities afford them hence fighting terrorism as against protecting religious beliefs being two potentially and opposite perspectives of the same incident.
Both can be right in isolation, (nationalist sense) even whilst in the wider purview one or both are wrong, (not that I approve of killing someone without very, very strong justification).
I do believe though that the concensus has been it's those that send the soldiers out that might be subject to vilification whereas those who risk the ultimate price deserve our appreciation as long as they believe they are doing the right thing.
And yes your loss is important but I am referring here to sacrifice rather than loss.
Chris
>>The individual contributions from the GI Joes are well respected in France. But we don't trust your moralising political leaders as far as we could throw them.
By your parents I am sure, by you, I see absolutely no evidence of it, quite the contrary. The title of your linked Article is absurd, had the United States wanted to take over France it would have, the Russians certainly took over the countries in their zones and they were not as Strong as the American Forces were at that time. Our moralising political leaders came to Frances aid in WWI and WWII with a substantial loss of human life. You have the gaul to act indignant for imaginary slights, the simple fact is that the Soviet Union took over all governments under their control and not only did the Americans not do the same, they prevented the Soviets from taking over the lot. You had been taken over by a totalitarian regime that was of your own making because of policies your government enacted post WWI, they were killing your citizens at will, the United States and it's Allies removed them from your country, had more than enough manpower to take over your country and did not. If that, as you so crudely claim, was their objective, why then were you left you free, and protected from the Soviets who absolutely would have taken you over had we simply pulled out and left?
So my simple question to you is this. If America had wanted to take over France why didn't they? Why after WWI and why after WWII. They had the manpower and the weaponry why did this evil plot never come to fruition? The reason is this, because that was never their intent. Had control of France been their intent it would have happened. You are pissing and moaning about a scenario that you believe could have been, but in fact never was. The manpower was there to force the issue, but was never used. Why? Because , what actually did happen to you was what was intended to happen to you. My family has contributed a Grandfather to a cause that was primarily to the benefit of France and it's allies. What exactly have you contributed to the United States that even comes remotely close and what exactly is the incredible slight that you have endured that rises to the level of a grandfather?
Honestly, if you want to know where my marginally militaristic attitude comes from it was because my father was a master sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. With his parents dead that is how he paid for Medical School. He is, was and always will be the strongest Republican in the family. You're countries need played a role in creating him. He is a Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who does not care for the direction Republicans have taken, but will be a Republican till the day he dies. I have absolutely no doubt that there are lots of people who served in the French military, who you disagree with politically who are very much like him. Because it is not an "American" attitude, it is my attitude. I have a friend who emigrated to the United States when he was in grade school from Belgium. His parents are staunch Republicans. Your attitude is not French, it is not Belgian it is yours, and it is very often reactionary and anti American for the sake of being anti American. I don't take the bait, you don't speak for Belgium, you speak for you.
By your parents I am sure, by you, I see absolutely no evidence of it, quite the contrary. The title of your linked Article is absurd, had the United States wanted to take over France it would have, the Russians certainly took over the countries in their zones and they were not as Strong as the American Forces were at that time. Our moralising political leaders came to Frances aid in WWI and WWII with a substantial loss of human life. You have the gaul to act indignant for imaginary slights, the simple fact is that the Soviet Union took over all governments under their control and not only did the Americans not do the same, they prevented the Soviets from taking over the lot. You had been taken over by a totalitarian regime that was of your own making because of policies your government enacted post WWI, they were killing your citizens at will, the United States and it's Allies removed them from your country, had more than enough manpower to take over your country and did not. If that, as you so crudely claim, was their objective, why then were you left you free, and protected from the Soviets who absolutely would have taken you over had we simply pulled out and left?
So my simple question to you is this. If America had wanted to take over France why didn't they? Why after WWI and why after WWII. They had the manpower and the weaponry why did this evil plot never come to fruition? The reason is this, because that was never their intent. Had control of France been their intent it would have happened. You are pissing and moaning about a scenario that you believe could have been, but in fact never was. The manpower was there to force the issue, but was never used. Why? Because , what actually did happen to you was what was intended to happen to you. My family has contributed a Grandfather to a cause that was primarily to the benefit of France and it's allies. What exactly have you contributed to the United States that even comes remotely close and what exactly is the incredible slight that you have endured that rises to the level of a grandfather?
Honestly, if you want to know where my marginally militaristic attitude comes from it was because my father was a master sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. With his parents dead that is how he paid for Medical School. He is, was and always will be the strongest Republican in the family. You're countries need played a role in creating him. He is a Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who does not care for the direction Republicans have taken, but will be a Republican till the day he dies. I have absolutely no doubt that there are lots of people who served in the French military, who you disagree with politically who are very much like him. Because it is not an "American" attitude, it is my attitude. I have a friend who emigrated to the United States when he was in grade school from Belgium. His parents are staunch Republicans. Your attitude is not French, it is not Belgian it is yours, and it is very often reactionary and anti American for the sake of being anti American. I don't take the bait, you don't speak for Belgium, you speak for you.
Correction - Gunnery Sergeant.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>> If America had wanted to take over France why didn't they?
because Cordell Hull and pres. Rooseveld were no longer in office.
It has nothing to do with "America" or "The United States" but a lot to do with SPECIFIC politicians and their wierd phobias - here specifically the idea of Rooseveld, that Britain and France were nasty colonial powers and that the US was the champion of the under trodden. This is why, together with General Marshalls praise for Vichy France (when America was a neutral) the US continued with an anti-colonial stance which was only changed after China went communist. The US refused to help the French in Indo-China until 1950 and by then it was too little too late. The changeover from an anti-colonial to an anti-communist policy, which literally meant a change from anti-colonial to pro-colonial, is well documented in Smith's books and papers.
There has always been a sort of dishonesty and naiviety in US foreign policy. During the fifties the rhetoric against "evil" Russia was poured out incessantly, although both Britain and the US were violating Russian air-space, which continued until the U2 incident. Somehow other nations had to live with this deceit. A similar situation occured with Iraq - weapons of mass destruction - where the UN was presented with fake pictures, as if the other nations had no spooks of their own who could see that this was simply not true. I've always put this down to the fact that foreign policy is made in the White House by the current encumbant without any continuity from the State Department. IMO a weakness of the American system.
because Cordell Hull and pres. Rooseveld were no longer in office.
It has nothing to do with "America" or "The United States" but a lot to do with SPECIFIC politicians and their wierd phobias - here specifically the idea of Rooseveld, that Britain and France were nasty colonial powers and that the US was the champion of the under trodden. This is why, together with General Marshalls praise for Vichy France (when America was a neutral) the US continued with an anti-colonial stance which was only changed after China went communist. The US refused to help the French in Indo-China until 1950 and by then it was too little too late. The changeover from an anti-colonial to an anti-communist policy, which literally meant a change from anti-colonial to pro-colonial, is well documented in Smith's books and papers.
There has always been a sort of dishonesty and naiviety in US foreign policy. During the fifties the rhetoric against "evil" Russia was poured out incessantly, although both Britain and the US were violating Russian air-space, which continued until the U2 incident. Somehow other nations had to live with this deceit. A similar situation occured with Iraq - weapons of mass destruction - where the UN was presented with fake pictures, as if the other nations had no spooks of their own who could see that this was simply not true. I've always put this down to the fact that foreign policy is made in the White House by the current encumbant without any continuity from the State Department. IMO a weakness of the American system.
ASKER
that was deep thinking and lot to ponder on.. thanks for your candor...
>>because Cordell Hull and pres. Rooseveld were no longer in office.
Wouldn't have made a bit of difference, it wasn't what the American people wanted, it wasn't what they fought for, and there never would have been the political support to allow it. It is little more than a fairy tale portrayed in that trashy article as though it were an all emcompassing evil plot that had widespreas support worded simply as an all emcompassing "The US" that somehow wipes out the contributions that my family has made on your behalf to such a degree that the net result of the efforts of WWII lead you to say this:
"And lastly if you really want to know why the French are pissed off with you try this for starters"
You have zero appreciation for what was actually done and what it cost.
Wouldn't have made a bit of difference, it wasn't what the American people wanted, it wasn't what they fought for, and there never would have been the political support to allow it. It is little more than a fairy tale portrayed in that trashy article as though it were an all emcompassing evil plot that had widespreas support worded simply as an all emcompassing "The US" that somehow wipes out the contributions that my family has made on your behalf to such a degree that the net result of the efforts of WWII lead you to say this:
"And lastly if you really want to know why the French are pissed off with you try this for starters"
You have zero appreciation for what was actually done and what it cost.
anushahanna - Thanks for the points - all 6 of them - Patrick
It also says a lot about the level of unemployment in the USA - approx 10%