[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike


History
See other History Articles

Title: There Are Too Many Veterans
Source: Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance126.html
Published: Nov 12, 2007
Author: Laurence Vance
Post Date: 2007-11-12 06:41:23 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 2404
Comments: 251

We have too many veterans. We have too many living veterans. We have too many dead veterans. We have too many wounded veterans. We have too many disabled veterans. We have too many veterans who have fought in wars. We have too many veterans who have never fired a shot. Any way you look at it, we have too many veterans.

Veterans Day began as Armistice Day – a day to commemorate the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I, "the war to end all wars." A few years after World War II, the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Veterans Day has now become a day to honor, not just those who have served in the military during wartime, but those who have served during peacetime or are serving now. It has also become a day – even though we have Armed Forces Day – to recognize all things military.

Why?

Why do most Americans hold veterans and current members of the U.S. military in such high esteem? Why is there such a military mindset in the United States?

One reason people feel this way is because they falsely believe that those who serve in the military are somehow defending our freedoms. They are convinced that it is the military that stands between a free society and subjugation by some foreign power. They think that it is because of the military that we still have our First Amendment rights. It is inevitable that whenever I write about the military I receive an e-mail or two from a current or former member of the military who closes his rebuke (which usually argues that I have the freedom to write the "trash" that I write because of the U.S. military) with this simplistic cliché: "If you can read this e-mail, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a Marine." Has anyone ever thought this through? Are we are supposed to believe that the German army that couldn’t cross the English Channel to invade Great Britain and make its population speak German was going to cross the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States and make us all speak German if it wasn’t for the Marines? Or was it Japanese that the Marines kept us from speaking? Or perhaps it was Spanish because of the tremendous threat we faced from Spain during the Spanish-American War? Were we in danger of having to speak Russian during the Cold War? Looking at the history of U.S. military interventions, there is one thing we can thank the Marines for: We can thank the Marines for helping to carry out an evil, interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Thanks a lot, jarheads. Semper Fi and all that jazz. Our freedoms, our liberties, and our Constitution that all Marines swear to uphold are under attack by our government. The state is a greater enemy than any foreign country or ruler. If the Marines are to really defend our freedoms, then they should be deployed to Washington D.C. After they oversee the closure of most federal agencies and expel the bureaucrats from the city, they can protect the Constitution (with fixed bayonets) from its daily assault by the members of Congress. In that case I would even say with you: "The few, the proud, the Marines."

Another reason the military is held in such high esteem is that most Americans wrongfully assume that the military is actually engaged in defending the country. They don’t know about the hundreds of U.S. military bases on foreign soil. They don’t realize that there are thousands of U.S. troops stationed abroad to defend other countries. They have no idea that the United States has troops in 150 different regions of the world. Instead, they think that it is because of the military fighting terrorists "over there" that we don’t have to fight them "over here." The threat of a conquest of America by foreign invasion is nonexistent. And if we were attacked with nuclear weapons, even the Marines would be helpless to defend us. Although the purpose of the U.S. military should only be to defend the United States from genuine attacks and credible enemies, it has primarily been used to intervene in the affairs of other countries. When all of the troops come home and start guarding our borders and patrolling our coasts then, and only then, can we say that the military is defending the country. Even the Coast Guard, which actually patrols our coasts, is tainted – thanks to another unconstitutional, unwinnable war that the government is engaged in that is more destructive than the "enemy" we are fighting: the war on drugs.

Still another reason for the military mindset is that members of the military are viewed as "public servants." Members of Congress like to brag about how they have been in public service their whole life. Some policemen and firemen have jumped on the "public service" bandwagon as well. But if you want to be a policeman or a fireman, fine, just don’t expect us get excited about the fact that you have a job. And plenty of jobs are just as dangerous. Veterans are looked upon as special because they "served" in the military. It didn’t take any special education, experience, or accomplishments to land a job in the military – they just signed on the dotted line. We don’t bestow any special honors on bricklayers, mechanics, and accountants; yet, we see plenty of bumper stickers that say things like: "My son is in the Air Force." We never see "My son is a plumber" or "My son is a garbage collector" or "My son is a waiter"? And why not? The people in those occupations don’t drop bombs on anyone. They "serve" some important needs of society. Shouldn’t we honor them as least as much as soldiers?

It is unfortunate that some of the most vocal defenders of today’s military are Christians. It is even worse that churches fawn over current and former members of the military on Veterans Day. In response to my recent article "Should Anyone Join the Military," I was chastised by two detractors.

The first asked if I could read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. I was also told that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. It is not hard for me to read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. America is not Israel, and the U.S. military is not God’s army. And telling me that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people is like telling George Bush that he is the decider. There is no denying that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. But George Bush is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, and God didn’t command the U.S. military to kill anyone.

My other detractor appealed to Alphonsus Liguori and maintained that as the sword maker has no control over the product, so "the soldier does not commit an actual sin unless he chooses to break a moral law while in the military." It is "the leaders or military officers who sin when they issue immoral orders." Military service is "morally neutral." But what kind of morality is this? It certainly isn’t Christian. What kind of morality says that it would be okay to kill someone in an unjust war in his own country who was no threat to you or your country because you are wearing a military uniform? Oh, I forgot: Just don’t break a moral law while you are killing him.

It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.

#2. To: Ada (#0)

It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.

I'll second that. Nothing is more revolting than the legions of American "Veterans"- most of whom never heard a shot fired in anger- and did little more than jack off for 2 to 4 years on the American tax payer dime - demand that we kiss their ass and "thank them." For what? Eating, drinking? Going to titty bars? Taking drugs? Supporting child prostitute pimps in the Phillipines and a dozen other places aroudn the world? Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.

The veteran scam is a drain on this country. They are even more parasitical than the welfare recipients I am sure many of them bitch about. Oh- you sat on your fat ass on Diego Garcia drinking Mai Tai's for two years while you spent 4 hours a day moving shit around and another 4 hours hiding from your CO to avoid another duty? And I am suppossed to pay for you to go to college and pay for your health care the rest of your life? I have support your below market home owner's mortgage rates?

Get lost. My dad is a "Veteran". You know what he did for the 4 years he spent in the great noble US Army? Sat on his ass smoking cigarettes, playing cards and burying excess gasoline and paint and other supplies so it would look like they were doing what they were suppossed to be doing. Not that anyone would have cared one way or the other.

Standing militaries for most countries are a necessary evil. There is NO REASON for this country to have one- at all. There is no peer enemy that could hurt the US in this HEMISPHERE! There is no reason the US should be spending 100 billion on its military much less 1 trillion! Give me a break. SO sick of this shit.

And if I see another banner on an overpass "thanking" some dipshit for his "service" in Iraq I am going to puke. Thanks for what/ Killing some innocnent raghead who just doesn't want you there? For being an idiot and thinking that war has anything to do with "defending" America?

Ughhh.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-11-12   8:02:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Burkeman1 (#2)

Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.

You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think.

The very fact that we have (or had) a strong military is what kept other nations from bullying this country around.

There is something to be said about "Peace through Strength". Just as a school yard bully targets the weaker kids, and leaves the "tough" kids alone, this country has been able to discourage those nations that would have liked to bully us around.

It is those that you disparage as "jack offs" that gave this Nation her strength, and kept the bullies at bay.

In this day and age where China is building up her military by leaps and bounds, has a blue water navy and subs capable of sinking US carrier fleets, has anti-satellite technology that can disable our ICBM's, and ICBM's of their own with sophisticated guidance systems, we should really be concerned about our military strength, and support those that ARE there as a deterent against outright Chinese aggression.

Then again, China could win a war against us without even firing a shot simply by dumping the US dollar and bankrupting this country. We can thank the treasonous dealings of the corporate elite and their puppets in Washington for that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:13:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)

You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think.

OK, in which war?

WW1 - No threat to America.

WW2 - Again, no threat to America. (The bombing of Pearl Harbor was provoked by the blockade, and of course was set up to get us in that war by Roosevelt.

Korea - Still no threat to America.

Vietnam - No threat.

Grenada- No threat.

Panama - No threat. (Jimmy Carter even gave the Panama Canal away, which is now creating a real threat with China taking it over)

Afghanistan - No threat.

Iraq - No threat.

Iran - Of course, no threat.

Bosnia/Serbia - No threat.

The real threats have only been dealt with by non-military members: the border patrol, the coast guard, and occasionally local police departments and the FBI.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-11-12   14:26:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: RickyJ (#33)

OK, in which war?

It's the wars that DIDN'T happen that I was referring to. In other words, I was speaking of the DETERRENCE against wars, rather than actual recent conflicts.

And I would disagree with your assessment of WWII, where Hitler DID want to spread the Third Reich across the entire globe. He may very well have pulled it off if we didn't join the war when we did.

If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China and the rest of Asia, building up reinforcements on both fronts, the Axis powers could have launched invasions of South America. From there, they could have pushed northwards up through Mexico, and carried out an invasion of the US from both coasts and from the south.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:34:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)

Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:37:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: robnoel (#39)

Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?

Are you trying to say that Hitler would have left us alone if we had just stayed out of WWII? I'm not the one drinking "cool-aid" pal.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:39:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: FormerLurker (#42)

Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: robnoel (#44) (Edited)

Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world

In the real world, the US fought against the Axis powers in WWII. In your world, we shouldn't have. Looking at the possibilities and probabilities of your world takes more than just a glancing utiopian afterthought, it requires a serious look at various factors.

I doubt you've seriously thought it through.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:47:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: FormerLurker (#45)

Heres a little history lesson they did not teach you in public schools

As the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected. Others knew better. One, for instance, was General Hugh Johnson, who said: "I know of no well informed Washington observer who isn't convinced that, if Mr. Roosevelt is elected (in 1940), he will drag us into war at the first opportunity, and that, if none presents itself, he will make one."

Roosevelt had two opportunities to involve America in World War II: Japan was at war with China, and Germany was at war with Great Britain, France and other countries. Both war zones presented plenty of opportunities to involve the American government in the war, and Roosevelt was quick to seize upon the opportunities presented.

His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt's public efforts to involve America, while ostensibly remaining neutral, started in August, 1940, when the National Guard was voted into Federal service for one year. This was followed in September by the Selective Service Act, also for one year's duration.

But the key to America's early involvement occurred on September 28, 1940, when Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty. This treaty required that any of the three nations had to respond by declaring war should any one of the other three be attacked by any of the Allied nations. This meant that should Japan attack the United States, and the United States responded by declaring war against Japan, it would automatically be at war with the other two nations, Germany and Italy.

Roosevelt now knew that war with Japan meant war with Germany. His problem was solved.

He had made secret commitments to Winston Churchill and the English government to become involved in the war against Germany and he knew that the only way he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get us into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep us out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack.

Roosevelt moved towards the Pacific theater first, knowing that, if he could provoke Japan to attack America first, America would automatically be at war with Germany as well. He also knew that, should Germany attack America, Japan would have to declare war on America. So Roosevelt attempted to get either nation to attack the United States first. Japan was to get the first opportunity.

In October, 1940, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox sent for Admiral J.O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the American fleet in the Pacific. Knox advised him that the President wanted him to establish a patrol of the Pacific—a wall of American naval vessels stretched across the western Pacific in such a way as to make it impossible for Japan to reach any of her sources of supply; a blockade of Japan to prevent by force her use of any part of the Pacific Ocean. Richardson protested vigorously. He said that would be an act of war, and besides, we would lose our navy. Of course Roosevelt had to abandon it.

This scene in history poses two rather interesting questions:

1.

Why did Roosevelt, the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, including the Navy, not directly order Admiral Richardson to do as he wished? Why did he choose to use his Secretary of the Navy to almost politely ask him to create the naval patrol?

Is it possible that Roosevelt did not choose to use his supreme power because he knew that this was indeed an act of war and that he did not want to be identified as the originator of the plan. If Richardson had agreed to Knox's proposal, and Japan had attacked an American naval vessel, Roosevelt could have directly blamed the admiral for allowing the vessel to get into the position of being fired upon by the Japanese Navy in the first place.

Roosevelt wanted a scapegoat and Richardson refused.

2.

Why did Roosevelt not replace the admiral with someone who would do exactly as he wished?

It is possible that Roosevelt realized that Richardson now knew about the plan, and since he did not approve, he would be in a position to clearly identify Roosevelt as the source of the idea should the second admiral agree to it.

Roosevelt did not want to jeopardize his carefully constructed image as a "dove" in the question of whether or not America should become involved in the war.

It is important to remember that, in November, 1940, just after this incident, candidate Roosevelt told the American people: "I say to you fathers and mothers, and I will say it again and again and again, your boys will not be sent into foreign wars."

Richardson later appraised his situation at Pearl Harbor and felt that his position was extremely precarious. He visited Roosevelt twice during 1940 to recommend that the fleet be withdrawn to the west coast of America, because:

1.

His ships were inadequately manned for war; 2.

The Hawaiian area was too exposed for Fleet training; and 3.

The Fleet defenses against both air and submarine attacks were far below the required standards of strength.

That meant that the American government had done nothing to shore up the defenses of Pearl Harbor against an offshore attack since the naval manuevers of 1932 discovered just how vulnerable the island was.

Richardson's reluctance to provide Roosevelt's incident for the United States to enter the war, and his concern about the status of the Fleet, led to his being unexpectedly relieved of the Fleet command in January, 1941.

The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor...."

In March 1941, President Roosevelt was still hoping for an incident involving the United States and Germany, according to Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior. He reported: "At dinner on March 24, he [Roosevelt] remarked that 'things are coming to a head; Germany will be making a blunder soon.' There could be no doubt of the President's scarcely concealed desire that there might be an incident which would justify our declaring a state of war against Germany...."

Roosevelt and Churchill had conspired together to incite an incident to allow America's entry into the war. According to Churchill:

The President had said that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces.

The United States Navy was taking over the convoy route to Iceland.

The President's orders to these escorts were to attack any U-boat which showed itself, even if it were two or three hundred miles away from the convoy....

Everything was to be done to force "an incident".

Hitler would be faced with the dilemma of either attacking the convoys and dashing with the United States Navy or holding off, thus "giving us victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. It might suit us in six or eight weeks to provoke Hider by taunting him with this difficult choice."

But Hider was attempting to avoid a confrontation with the United States. He had told his naval commanders at the end of July [1941] to avoid incidents with the United States while the Eastern campaign [the war against Russia] was still in progress .... A month later these orders were still in force.

Churchill even wrote to Roosevelt after the German ship the Bismarck sank the British ship the Hood, recommending in April, 1941: "... that an American warship should find the Prinz Eugen (the escort to the Bismarck) then draw her fire, 'thus providing the incident for which the United States would be so thankful,' i.e., bring her into the war."

Hitler was not as wise in other matters. He attacked his "ally" Russia on June 22, 1941, even though Germany and Russia had signed a treaty not to declare war on each other.

With this action, the pressure to get the United States involved in the war really accelerated. Roosevelt, on June 24, 1941, told the American people: "Of course we are going to give all the aid that we possibly can to Russia."

And an American program of Lend-Lease began, supplying Russia enormous quantities of war materials, all on credit.

So with Hitler pre-occupied with the war against Russia and refusing to involve himself with the Americans on the open sea, Roosevelt had to turn his attentions back to Japan for the incident he needed.

The next step was to assist other countries, the English and the Dutch, to embargo oil shipments to Japan in an attempt to force them into an incident that would enable the United States to enter the war.

Japan, as a relatively small island, and with no oil industry to speak of, had to look elsewhere for its oil, and this was the reason for the proposed embargo. It was thought that this action would provoke Japan into an incident. Ex-President Herbert Hoover also saw the manipulations leading to war and he warned the United States in August, 1941: "The American people should insistently demand that Congress put a stop to step-by-step projection of the United States into undeclared war... ."

But the Congress wasn't listening.

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:54:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 46.

        There are no replies to Comment # 46.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]