See other Resistance Articles
Title: Thank A Vet?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance216.html
Published: Nov 11, 2010
Author: Laurence Vance
Post Date: 2010-11-11 06:22:29 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1498
Comments: 121
We’ve all seen the bumper stickers: "My son is in the Air Force," "If You Can Read This in English, Thank a Marine," "Proud Vietnam Veteran," "Fly Navy," and of course, "Thank a Vet." Why should we? Why should we call them heroes, give them military discounts, grant them veterans preference, express our support for them with ribbons on our cars, honor them with a holiday, hold military appreciation church services for them, and thank them for their "service"? Veterans Day began as Armistice Day to commemorate the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. It had nothing to do with honoring current and former members of the military like Veterans Day is celebrated today. And if the sole purpose of Armistice Day was to honor World War I veterans, it should never have been celebrated since no American soldier did anything honorable by intervening in a European foreign war. And it doesn’t matter if he was drafted or not. Britain’s last World War I combat veteran, Harry Patch, died last year at the age of 111. He boasted that he hadn’t killed anyone in combat. "War isn’t worth one life," Patch said, it is "calculated and condoned slaughter of human beings." In his autobiography The Last Fighting Tommy, Patch wrote that "politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder." In the last years of his life, Patch warned some young naval recruits that they shouldn’t join. Frank Buckles, age 109, is the only American veteran of World War I still living. When asked while being honored for his service at a 2007 Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery what he thought about being there while the United States was at war, he replied: "I’m no authority, but I’m not in favor of war unless it’s an emergency." I think that Buckles is more of an authority on the horrors of war and the folly and wickedness of war than the current members of the Joint Chiefs. It is only because World War I did not turn out to be the "war to end all wars" that the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Although I believe World War II to be neither necessary nor good, I come not on this Veterans Day to criticize the "greatest generation," who, it turns out, were also great at pillaging and carousing. For reasons I explained in "U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them," World War II marks the permanent establishment of the American military as the president’s personal attack force to kill by his decree Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Grenadians, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Serbians, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Yemenis, and Pakistanis. Next on the list is Iranians. Sometimes these presidential decrees are rubberstamped by a congressional authorization to use force, but they are always preceded by presidential lies and warmonger propaganda. So why should a Vietnam veteran be proud? He was typically young, ignorant, deceived, and drafted. He may have fought obediently, valiantly, selflessly, and fearlessly, but since he had no business fighting in Vietnam in the first place, I have nothing to thank him for. And I certainly can’t thank him for preventing the Viet Cong from turning America into a socialist republic. Besides, LBJ beat Ho Chi Minh to that anyway. Many Vietnam veterans have written me and expressed shame, remorse, anger, and resentment – not pride – for having been duped into going thousands of miles away from American soil to intervene in another country’s civil war. In fact, I have found that it is those who are not Vietnam veterans who are the most vociferous defenders of the war in Vietnam. The most undeserved and oftentimes disgusting outpouring of thankfulness I have ever seen is over those who have fought or are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The praise and adoration of those fighting in "the front lines in the war on terror" reaches its apex on Veterans Day, which has become a day to defend U.S. wars and recognize all things military. These soldiers certainly have done nothing worthy of thanks. Sure, they have rebuilt infrastructure – after bombing it to smithereens. They no doubt removed a brutal dictator – and unleashed American brutality in the process. And yes, they have rescued orphan children – after blowing their parents and brothers and sisters to kingdom come. What is there to thank our soldiers for? They are not defending our freedoms. They are not keeping us safe from our enemies. They are not protecting us from terrorists. They are not guaranteeing our First Amendment rights. They are not defending U.S. borders. They are not guarding U.S. shores. They are not patrolling U.S. coasts. They are not enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies. They are not fighting "over there" so we don’t have to fight "over here." They are not avenging 9/11. They are not safeguarding the American way of life. Oh, and they are not ensuring that I have the liberty to write what I do about the military. What, then, should we thank our soldiers for? Should we thank them for fighting an unconstitutional war, an unscriptural war, an immoral war, an offensive war, an unjust war, or a senseless war? Should we thank our veterans for helping to carry out an aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and interventionist foreign policy? Should we thank the military for sucking $1 trillion out of the federal budget? But, some will say, these soldiers are just doing their jobs. They can’t help it if the U.S. military sends them to fight in an unjust war in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are just following orders. They didn’t enlist in the military to kill people. What would any sane man think about a doctor who takes a job at a hospital knowing that the hospital instructs its doctors to euthanize old and sickly patients – and then says he was just doing his job, following orders, and didn’t take the job to kill people? Why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass on committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem? But, someone else says, the military has lowered its recruiting standards and is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Many soldiers are ignorant about the true nature of the military and U.S. foreign policy. Why should we fault them for their ignorance? Why should they be criticized for unjustly killing Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis? They are just following orders. Let’s go back to the doctor I mentioned. Suppose that after he takes a job in ignorance at what he thinks is a reputable hospital he is instructed to euthanize old and sickly patients? What should he do? I don’t know of anyone who would say anything else but that he should quit his job or at least refuse to euthanize anyone. Again, why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass on committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem? But, comes another reply, soldiers have a term of enlistment. They can’t just quit their jobs. Doctors can walk away from their jobs at any time. Then I guess it all comes down to morality: Be a mercenary and kill for the state or refuse to do so and suffer the consequences of dishonorable discharge and/or imprisonment. It is high time that Americans stop holding veterans and current members of the military in such high esteem. It is scientists, engineers, inventors, businessmen, industrialists, software developers, and entrepreneurs that made America great – not veterans of foreign wars. It is doctors, iron workers, taxi drivers, bricklayers, writers, electricians, and cooks that positively contribute to society – not soldiers. I would like to be able to thank a vet – on Veterans Day and every other day of the year – but I’m still searching for a reason.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: ndcorup (#19)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
The one who posted this article, as well as all those who are in agreement with its contents, are as guilty as the bastards who sent all those young men (and most lately women, too) to war. Do my panties have to be in a wad for me to think that way? Hardly! I know too well who are the guilty parties and those giving credence to the subject writing are adding fuel to the fire of the elite. By the way, save your words that are designed to either change my mind or have me look ignorant. I have lived too long, seen too much, studied and researched history too intently, and suffered too many years at the hands of the guilty to think any other way than I do.
ghost... If you read the walk up to that, the gist was the best and brightest always die in war. That is untrue, always has been and anyone that is interested can view the statistics for the past many wars.
It doesn't matter if none of those wars were necessary. It doesn't change the fact that our Military is necessary. Vance and Rockwell and their sort amount to unnecessary noisemakers with enemy accents. No doubt, keeping us safe from our real enemies and their cadre of serpentine propagandists is not at all what they'd really like to see our Military tasked with doing.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Best and brightest has intrigued me. That is a contradiction it itself, if we have the bottom of the social order doing the dying, surely they are NOT the best and brightest. From experience, when my turn came, the best and brightest managed to skip out on a government mandated service to kill people. Out of thirteen young men, five hustled into college and were exempted. One became a doctor, two engineers, one a pro ball player the other a farmer. They were the best and brightest, never went, sat on the sidelines. We of the riff raff went except one that was homo sexual. Three were wounded, one twice. Yes, we were the hated riff raff that have now become the hated veterans.
Ada, Make all these eeevil military industrial complex dupes go away, then come speak to me about drawing down our forces. OK?
I have NO hate for the "riff raff that have now become the hated veterans". As to the "best and the brightest ... doing the dying", those sending them never identified them in such terms. They were merely identified as "expendable".
While the Balltle of New Orleans was a win, the War of 1812 was not. We were lucky to get a draw out of it. We can thank Napoleon for that. I don't know what a bone smoker is but Manifest Destiny was certainly repugnant.
I doubt if there are many here that truly understand how the "riff raff" are indeed determined to be expendable. To write off thousands with the stroke of a pen is beyond the intellectual comprehension of far too many people. I did not mind being seen as the riff raff of society, we knew our place in the social order, however to be used by society as cannon fodder and then be written off here on this forum, as someone not worthy of any consideration, is rather difficult to accept.
A few years prison would do anyone a lot of good. So I agree with you. And thanks to veterans who won the wars for banksters, prison or the military are the only choices millions of young Americans have these days. In fact, as you well know many who served were given that choice by sentencing judges. But, we should never fail to be grateful for the marines who served in Haiti (?) or those who served in The Philippines(?) or the brave troops who attacked Granada, which had a socialist govt for years, but two weeks before Granada nationalized the banks that laundered drug money destined for the final wash at the Federal Reserve via Miami or Chicago. Smedley Butler pointed to at least 100 wars and conflicts that were unnecessary. So, even if some wars since 1812 were arguably in America's interest (I disagree but I won't dispute it because it's not necessary to making my point) is that any reason to pile up young American bodies without daring to question the need for those losses? Old men who romanticize their military experiences should be told if they helped enslave half of Europe for over 40 years. They are Soviet war vets who fought on the wrong side. George Patton was either a brilliant visionary or a traitor, and those mindless vets would have followed whoever won the debate to attack the USSR while we had the chance. Both sides couldn't be on solid moral ground. And if simply following orders was enough to vindicate vets there wouldn't have been any Nuremberg trials.
The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses._Solzhenitsyn
Romanticize???? That is a stretch of the imagination , rather new to me. I dont know of anyone that ever viewed military life in such a light. The blood and gore, the death and dying were rather realistic teachers, one never romanticized then or later about the dead.
You can't expect much more from someone who obviously doesn't understand how so many were "used by society as cannon fodder". Furthermore, it is UNACCEPTABLE to be "written off here on this forum as someone not worthy of any consideration".
I don't see those at the top as any real measure of the best and brightest. Too many of them are the actual riff raff and many at the bottom could be much brighter and better than them, if not artificially held back by the imploders of our economy, our society in general, as well as our governmental cohesion Constitutionally.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
That was a tongue in cheek for those that have not a clue of military life.
i don't think you meant Cyni here as i know that's the last thing he's ever done. i still make a distinction between enlistees and draftees and even in vets from wars past including VN as they had no access to the internet or any alternative media as they do today.
"But, but, but they're protecting my freeedums!" I AM a Veteran and I agree, and I imagine a lot of others would too. It is like I have repeated to the Freeptards and Dildoheads sending young men and women to die in an unjust cause does not make it just. What the schmucks at Freeptardia and the slobbering drooling mind numbed Dildoheads really mean is SUPPORT OUR POINTLESS WAR. I've posted it before but Mark Twain and Smedlely Butler both nailed it. One, Twain, was mostly opposed to war throughout his life (he spent about 2 days as a Confederate before taking a powder) the other was a career Marine Major General who was twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valor. Both reached the same conclusion best expressed by Butler after his retirement: "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
i don't think you meant Cyni here as i know that's the last thing he's ever done. i still make a distinction between enlistees and draftees and even in vets from wars past including VN as they had no access to the internet or any alternative media as they do today. The military is sold, and sold heavily, as a rite of manhood. "Real Men" serve in the military and "wimps" do not. That of course is a lie but many believe it. Many, such as myself, join for the right reasons - to serve. Naivete of the young, the desire to pursue adventure, and all of the writing glorifying military service, causes many to believe that it is a GOOD thing to do. That it is apparent to many older and wiser that it is a con job should not make those who serve a target of opprobrium unless their individual actions merit it. The opprobrium is not upon the young man or woman who has been indoctrinated into the view that it is their duty and then following the call of duty have their desire to serve perverted to foul ends but upon the perverts who use that noble streak to create a weapon of oppression and crass gangsterism. In part, the failure to make the distinction between those who naively join believing all the hogwash they've been fed and those who join for baser reasons, this lack of understanding of why men choose to serve, creates a breach between those who have and those who have served for the right reasons and those who have not served in discussing the matter of war. And yet they should be natural allies - as was shown by Smedley Butler. War and the causes of war do not rest in the hands of naive young men and women it lies in the hands of those who knowingly send them into conflict misusing their lives and energy to further criminal ends. To the guy in the ranks it is duty which dominates, and that is the only force which holds them in place. For those who pervert that desire to serve and do ones duty there lies the guilt. Certainly if I knew what I now know, which I did not know then, when I raised my hand to swear that oath to serve I would never have done so. That knowledge is also not known by most of the kids who choose to serve today. Yes, some do know, but even then all of our textbooks, the media, and our so called leaders promote the call to war, to service, and to uniform. That some still give that greater weight is not necessarily a sign of poor character but quite the contrary. Of course many of the good and decent who once volunteered no longer do, because they are aware of how their energies would be spent. And so the military, and the politicians which control the military, have had to lower standards seeking the naive, the criminal, and the stupid. That is the reality. Ending that cycle is not done by recriminations and catcalls, which raise defensive shields against the message, but by education, and the determination to counter the apathy, and avarice, of those who have been content to see the wars rage - as long as it is not their son or daughter spilling their blood, or getting their head blown off.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
IMO, it's a way for lower class kids who haven't the luxury to attend some useless university to garner government benefits and health care bennies going into the future. It's critically important to make a distinction between those who were drafted and the current volunteers. The draftees deserve our unswerving respect as do some kids today, however misguided.
And that is true. What we need is a return to the Peace Corps as Kennedy set it up and put that useful youthful energy to work, and train them, doing good around the world. That would be much more productive in terms of national defense as it would help to prevent wars and the causes of war before it becomes a war. However, to the Banksters who are the ones really pushing it War is "profit center" or as Smedley Butler put it "War Is A Racket", and to hell with, as Cyni puts it, the "riff-raff". Part of the problem is that non-war industries have been moved to other countries and we are being set up to be the enforcement arm of the "New World Order" of Banking Fiends.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Actually that's just another government job, IMO. I'd rather slap a 20% tariff on transnational (formally American) products coming into America. It's tough medicine, and we'll all be paying more for our crap at WalMart, but 'made in America' products instantly become 20% cheaper. Just a thought.
Why not both? We do need to maintain a presence in the world, and it would be, as much as it would help others, promoting our interests in a positive way. Although I prefer it done by a private group why not have a channel to direct that youthful altruism in a way that benefits all? Just like the military it would be a term of service not necessarily a lifelong pursuit.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Slovak did not desert because he was against war and killing. He deserted because he was "too scared" to serve in a rifle company (his words). As if every other Joe in his unit weren't scared as well. He was given an opportunity to throw away his statement and return to his unit by every single officer that spoke with him as his case went up the chain of command. He didn't think they would kill him butt instead would send him back to prison, where he was most comfortable. He thought wrong. You are correct that he was riff-raff. Slovak was a career criminal who had been in and out of prison since he was a kid. He was classified 4-F due to his criminal record until 1943 when they needed warm bodies, at which time they reclassified him to 1-A and drafted him. Had he went back to his unit and served, the chances are very good that after the war was over that he would have went right back to being a criminal and the tax payer would have had to pay for his imprisonment. Good riddance to bad trash as far as I am concerned.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
Well, I'd disagree and suggest that America was great when it was an isolationist, xenophobic nation. A nation, by definition, is a boundary guided by language, culture and border. Those deep into conspiracies can trace the point in American history where we strayed, but I'm more inclined in stopping the puppet masters and their programs as they present themselves now. I give you Jan Brewer and the state of AZ, aided by Joe Arpaio.
I'm a Vet and I don't want anyone to thank me for anything. There is no reason TO thank me. No one forced me to join and my time in Panama, Kuwait/Iraq, Somalia, Haiti or Bosnia had nothing at all to do with "keeping us free."
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
A WELL-ARMED isolationist, xenophobic nation.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
Rather harsh sentence by someone that was not there. Of course you already know that he was shot for a reason OTHER THAN DESERTING, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY INVOLVED.
Not intending to be Maudlin, but words from the past say it well ---"ALL gave some, SOME gave all". Most of us that served knew some of the last category. And by now, most of us are immune to the slugs who demean us.
Hey man, thanks for your service and thanks for still being alive.
Well, I'd disagree and suggest that America was great when it was an isolationist, xenophobic nation. A nation, by definition, is a boundary guided by language, culture and border. Those deep into conspiracies can trace the point in American history where we strayed, but I'm more inclined in stopping the puppet masters and their programs as they present themselves now. I give you Jan Brewer and the state of AZ, aided by Joe Arpaio. And I would respectfully disagree. When America was largely isolationist Steamships were the state of the art, Telegraph was the primary means of communication across the Atlantic, and those crazy kids in the Bicycle shop were still experimenting with gliders. As well we were never completely isolationist. It was tariffs levied to protect northern manufacturing and banking interests which helped drive us into a Civil War. Not that I am opposed to tariffs per se, but when they are levied out of political motivation to the disadvantage of other citizens then they cease to be revenue collection become an adjunct to Crony Capitalism. We now live in an age where communications technology instantly connects Hong Kong, London, and New York in a Global web. While Tariffs and Imposts are, I believe, important in both raising revenue and leveling the competitive playing field between domestic industry and foreign competition it is nevertheless competition which forces innovation and efficiency. So, there is a balancing point. Illegal immigration, and protecting our borders, is not the same thing - it is only a superficial similarity. As well it is nonsensical regulations levied in the interest of the most powerful lobbies which is hobbling American industry as much or more than foreign competition. American business should be able to compete on a level playing field and regulations need to be formulated for the protection of people from fraud, and pollution, and nothing more. However, that is not what they do. They are, in many cases (take the AMA for example), structured and arranged so as to establish a preference for one group over another. The matter of real reform is not a subject I can attempt more than outline in a forum post, but it would revolve around the key principle of "rational self interest" not "special interests" which is what we have now.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
From the tone set here by quite a few, it is easily recognized that regardless of how we got there, our service is to be demeaned, we were truly expendable. Earlier I mentioned Eddie Slovik. His trial for desertion started at ten AM and at eleven forty AM he had been convicted and sentenced to be shot. All of this "justice" was administered by desk officers that had never seen or heard a shot fired in Europe. Sloviks "legal adviser" was not an attorney. Later is self shame the desk officers admitted it would have a shorter trial except they argued whether Slovak should be shot or hung. Slovak was a nobody, petty criminal, Ike ON HIS OWN DECIDED TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM AND SO HE DID. The trial officers were horrified and several confessed their shame, after the fact. But, so what, the world was better off without such trash.
He was shot for a variety of reasons: Lt. Col. Henry J. Sommer, the division judge advocate: “The accused is an habitual criminal. He has never seen combat, has run away twice when he believed himself approaching it and avows his intent to run again.…” Maj. Frederick J. Bertolet, assistant staff judge advocate, ETO (European Theater of Operations): “If the death penalty is ever to be imposed for desertion it should be imposed in this case, not as a punitive measure nor as retribution, but to maintain that discipline upon which alone an army can succeed against the enemy.” An official comment, undated, from C. Robert Bard, a colonel in the judge advocate general’s office, provides the following: “During the period 1 January 1942 through 30 June 1948, 2,864 Army personnel were tried for desertion.…Of these, forty-nine were sentenced to death. Only one was executed.” Over a six-and-a-half-year period, then, reasons were found by those in higher authority to void the death sentences of forty-eight men found guilty of desertion. Only in Slovik’s case was no reason found. SIovik, guilty as many others were, was made an example—the sole example, as it turned out.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
Eddie Slovak demeaned himself. He attempted to game the system and lost. They even offered to allow him to recant DURING HIS TRIAL. He refused. He dug his own grave and it is not being disrespectful to the military to say so.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
I beg to differ. All of the above were the state of America, not of the world. It was our benevolence that allowed erstwhile lesser nations to share in develop (for a price as well they should). As for tariffs, it isn't a matter for debate unless you disagree with our Constitution. I lose you on illegal immigration. It's illegal and makes a mockery of our immigration policy. It will be illegals who bring down unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, but I'm a voice in the wilderness. God help all those American citizens who rely on them, or soon will.
Might as well draw our troops out of South Korea. Not enough of them to stop the Yellow Horde from crossing the 38th parallel. The South Koreans may or may not be able handle them but its their problem and not ours.
Out of thousands, he was chosen by IKE, to set an example. Ike went against the advice of his staff. One may avail themselves of books written by those on the court martial board that were horrified that an example was to be made of one that was from the bottom step of society. I have never before come across anyone else, military or no, that rushes to such harsh judgment about an event, and they display so little knowledge.
Au contraire, mon ami. The US holds treaties around the world based on UN resolutions/US treaties with sovereign nations; in fact, US military forces in South Korea are under UN jurisdiction. If a US troop is killed, their remains are brought back to the USA in a coffin with a UN flag draped over it to this very day. Ada... Those few troops in South Korea are bait, they are expendable and will be written off in any land war. The rank and file may or may not be aware of that. It has been done before, sacrifice American lives, write them off. In case of a land war with North Korea alone, the latest troop requirement for our army to save ourselves is...690,000 grunts on the ground within sixty days. Of course we will have other Americans willing to go to their aid, wont we??? Or do we subscribe to writing off 30,000 sub standard Americans as no loss?
Honestly, I think the only people proud of serving in Vietnam are the people that would also be proud of stabbing you in the back. Those that can admit they made a mistake I have much respect for, than those that act like they did nothing wrong and are proud of what they did.
God is always good!
Ahhhhhhh! Now that I have a nice hot cup of tea, grown in India and packaged in France, I can continue. First, to get it off the table, I do not disagree with you on illegal immigration, and would like to see the so-called H-1b Work Visas sharply curtailed. Both are driving down American wages, and act to the detriment of the common man. I am, rather than an advocate of "free trade", an advocate for fair trade i.e., what is fair to the people of the United States. Of course fairness is a matter of perspective too. The American Steel Industry collapsed because of two things: 1. Tariffs that isolated the U.S. Steel Industry and protected them from bad business decisions. 2. Inflexible Unions opposed to modernization because it would put "Union Members" out of a no longer needed job. When the Tariffs were lifted U.S. Steel producers collapsed and the "Union Members" were ALL put out of work as entire plants closed. So, both were short sighted as despite their great advantage of short shipping routes to their customers the customers were able to buy a better product for less on the open market despite much higher shipping costs. The lesson is that Tariffs are not a panacea. Protectionism, and isolationism, are no longer viable in world of producers and markets. That does not mean we have to allow vast inflows of goods brought about as a result of near slave labor and no environmental regulation. Both from self interest and as an ethical matter. So, tariffs should be high enough, and no higher, to equalize the difference. That preserves competition while at the same time protecting domestic industry and jobs. Another long term objective, something that is like waving a Cross wrapped in Garlic to a Vampire so far as our Bankster Masters see it, is the encouragement of employee ownership. Not communisim but businesses owned and run by the people who work in them. There are, at least, two good reasons to encourage it: 1. Employees who hold a real stake in the business have self interest in seeing that the business succeeds. 2. It encourages local ownership, and discourages selling out to a foreign interest. If they sell out they're selling themselves out. 3. It empowers the workers making them more self-sufficient. However, the Banksters have, in the past (Pan-Am Airways comes to mind) a distinct aversion to financing employee takeovers, and have been reluctant to float the loans necessary to do it. A good case study is a small steel mill near where I live. The major corporation that owned it decided it was not profitable enough to keep open. Problem was it was the only major employer in the community in which it was located and closing it meant large scale unemployment for the community. So, the employees bought the plant mortgaging their own homes and taking on 60K of debt per household. A year later the mill was flourishing and was more profitable than ever. Within a couple of years the debt was retired and the employees all owned their own share free and clear. The solutions to our problems are not just erect a wall and pretend no one else exists. It just is not going to work in an interconnected and interdependent world. What is needed is a dose of rational self interest. It was commented under Reagan that a rising tide lifts all boats, and I believe that to be true, but only if we drive a stake through the heart of the Bankster Vampires sucking the lifeblood from the planet.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Those books were written years after the fact - after the men had a chance to reflect on what they had done. I gave you a link from an article by Cpt. Benedict B. Kimmelman who sat on the jury. In that link were quotes from the JAG and the assistant JAG. No one was "horrified" at the time the event took place. Kimmelman didn't become "horrified" until after the Battle of the Bulge when he was captured and in a German POW camp and reflected upon what he had done. The men on the firing squad were also not "horrified." One stated, ""I got no sympathy for the sonofabitch! He deserted us, didn't he? He didn't give a damn how many of us got the hell shot out of us, why should we care for him?" The other soldier said, "I personally figured that Slovik was a no-good, and that what he had done was as bad as murder." I have never before come across anyone else, military or no, that rushes to such harsh judgment about an event, and they display so little knowledge. Just because I do not agree with your portrayal of Slovak as a poor victim does not mean that I have no knowledge of the matter.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
Sorry to disagree but your knowledge of that affair and how the military works is abysmal. Especially for someone that was once a part of the system.
Comments (70 - 121) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#30. To: Cynicom (#18)
... as riff raff most likely you and I are mucking up this thread in particular and the forum in general.
#31. To: ghostdogtxn (#28)
Or is it all bullshit?
#32. To: Ada (#12)
You might wish to examine our participation in all foreign and domestic wars and decide for yourself whether any of them were necessary.
#33. To: Phant2000 (#30)
By the way, save your words that are designed to either change my mind or have me look ignorant.
#34. To: Ada (#21)
#35. To: Cynicom (#33)
(Edited)
Yes, we were the hated riff raff that have now become the hated veterans.
#36. To: Flintlock (#24)
#37. To: Phant2000 (#35)
They were merely identified as "expendable".
#38. To: ghostdogtxn (#29)
A lot of my clients say the same thing about prison. They go in and they have no skills and a bad attitude, and when they come out often times they have learned machine shop or welding or carpentry or even computer skills.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)
Old men who romanticize their military experiences should be told if they helped enslave half of Europe for over 40 years. They are Soviet war vets who fought on the wrong side.
#40. To: Cynicom (#39)
Romanticize????
#41. To: Cynicom (#18)
The best and brightest rise to the top, the riff raff remains at the bottom
#42. To: GreyLmist (#41)
I don't see those at the top as any real measure of the best and brightest.
#43. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)
Old men who romanticize their military experiences should be told if they helped enslave half of Europe for over 40 years.
#44. To: Esso (#2)
Boy, that ought to get a lot of Pavlov's sheeple's panties in a twist.
"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. ...
...There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. ...
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. ..."
Smedley Darlington Butler, Maj. Gen, USMC (Ret.)
#45. To: christine, Cynicom, HOUNDDAWG, all (#43)
(Edited)
Old men who romanticize their military experiences should be told if they helped enslave half of Europe for over 40 years.
#46. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#45)
#47. To: Jethro Tull (#46)
IMO, it's a way for lower class kids who haven't the luxury to attend some useless university to garner government benefits and health care bennies going into the future.
#48. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#47)
What we need is a return to the Peace Corps as Kennedy set it up and put that useful youthful energy to work, and train them, doing good around the world.
#49. To: Jethro Tull (#48)
#50. To: Cynicom (#18)
Eddie Slovak was against war and killing, he deserted time after time, so he was shot. No loss, just more riff raff.
#51. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#49)
Why not both? We do need to maintain a presence in the world, and it would be, as much as it would help others, promoting our interests in a positive way.
#52. To: Ada (#0)
#53. To: Jethro Tull (#51)
Well, I'd disagree and suggest that America was great when it was an isolationist, xenophobic nation.
#54. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, All (#50)
Good riddance to bad trash as far as I am concerned.
#55. To: Cynicom (#37)
"I did not mind being seen as the riff raff of society, we knew our place in the social order, however to be used by society as cannon fodder and then be written off here on this forum, as someone not worthy of any consideration, is rather difficult to accept."
#56. To: ndcorup (#55)
#57. To: Jethro Tull (#51)
Why not both? We do need to maintain a presence in the world, and it would be, as much as it would help others, promoting our interests in a positive way.
#58. To: ndcorup, All (#55)
And by now, most of us are immune to the slugs who demean us.
#59. To: Cynicom (#54)
Of course you already know that he was shot for a reason OTHER THAN DESERTING, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY INVOLVED.
#60. To: Cynicom, ndcorup, All (#58)
(Edited)
#61. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#57)
When America was largely isolationist Steamships were the state of the art, Telegraph was the primary means of communication across the Atlantic, and those crazy kids in the Bicycle shop were still experimenting with gliders. As well we were never completely isolationist
#62. To: Jethro Tull (#34)
Make all these eeevil military industrial complex dupes go away, then come speak to me about drawing down our forces. OK?
#63. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#59)
He was shot for a variety of reasons:
#64. To: Ada, Jethro Tull, cynicom (#62)
Might as well draw our troops out of South Korea. Not enough of them to stop the Yellow Horde from crossing the 38th parallel. The South Koreans may or may not be able handle them but its their problem and not ours.
#65. To: Ada (#62)
Might as well draw our troops out of South Korea.
#66. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
So why should a Vietnam veteran be proud? He was typically young, ignorant, deceived, and drafted. He may have fought obediently, valiantly, selflessly, and fearlessly, but since he had no business fighting in Vietnam in the first place, I have nothing to thank him for.
#67. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
#68. To: Cynicom (#63)
One may avail themselves of books written by those on the court martial board that were horrified that an example was to be made of one that was from the bottom step of society.
#69. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, All (#68)
Just because I do not agree with your portrayal of Slovak as a poor victim does not mean that I have no knowledge of the matter.
.
.
.