+1 Draugnar and fiedler

As much as I don't care for war, you SHOULD pay respect to those that defend you, give up huge portions of their lives--and sometimes their life itself--so you can sit at the computer you are and type this sentence that essentially calls them mercenaries and rapists in return.

Again, do I endorse the WARS? No. Do I endorse the ACTIONS? Not always.

But do I respect the actual MEN who protect the nation and die for it so can have the freedom tpo sit there, in your cozy chair, and write about how evil all of them are?

YES.

Nietzsche may have said the state is a poison, and to an extent I think he's correct.

But that a state is necessary is, to an extent, a necessary evil whether Nietzsche was not privy to that fact or not, and to have a state you must have those who are willing to defend and die not for the state, but for the people win that state.

This comes down to a question of PEOPLE, Tolstoy...I'm not brainwashed int loving the idea of a state--again, as Nietzsche said, it is to a great extent a poison--and defending the state against all attacks...

But do I think the people who spend 365 days a year making sure that other people may remain free and safe deserve at least one day of acknowledgement?

Yes--I don't deify them, Tolstoy, I don't worship them, don't blindly follow a party mantra because of any alleged glory.

I simply take a day to respect those PEOPLE AS PEOPLE.

Is that so horrible a thing to ask?

Yes obiwan, you stated that we should salute those who had the conviction to fight at all. Shall we salute those in the SS, those in the Iranian National Guard, soldiers fighting for the Khmer Rouge or those who fought in the Banana Wars? People who fought so we could sit here today at our computers and call them murderers and rapists.

Obiwan, for a smart guy I'm surprised you completely missed my point. The last time American soldiers fought to defend Americans' freedom from a foreign country that had an intention of taking it away was the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Our modern military does not 'keep us free'. If anything, history tells us that standing armies are the greatest enemies of freedom. The Founding Fathers thought so, and a ban on standing armies in times of peace was one of two amendments in the Bill of Rights that just barely didn't make the cut. Costa Rica thinks so as well, which is why they abolished their military after a series of coups in the 1950s. Even if the army, navy, and air force were all disbanded tomorrow, an invasion of the United States by a foreign power intent on taking away what few freedoms we have left would still be a massive undertaking, unprecedented in scale in all the history of warfare. If our big bad military can't pacify a bunch of illiterate goat-herders in Afghanistan, I certainly don't see Russia or China shipping and supplying an army of tens of millions across an ocean and conquering most of a continent populated by a very literate, technically advanced, and well-armed population.

And I'm not the one who said everyone in the military is a rapist or murderer - that was someone else. It's not something I believe. Putting on a uniform doesn't make one an evil person necessarily, just a pawn of greater forces (although it's certainly going to make evil impulses easier to express, as many of the atrocities committed by uniformed armed forces throughout history demonstrate).

And as for "Veterans Day" itself, I find it very silly to 'thank' or 'respect' people for something they did not and are not doing. Doing so just makes The State's future unnecessary wars that much easier to sell. If people know they're going to get emotional support from the community for enlisting to fight wars - no matter how stupid, pointless, or evil they are - it just makes signing on the dotted line that much easier; that is not something I want to encourage. And none of this was the original intent of the holiday, which was to celebrate an end to (a) war.

@largeham:

You're arguing along a line that's obvious and really utterly absurd--as if I'll say "yes" to that.

The SS and the rest of those...we think of them all today as evil governments and people, and while "evil" is a highly subjective term I think most here will be OK with it if I call Hitler and his SS evil. (If not...well, perhaps you're more of SSReichsFuhrer's sort of crowd, not mine...)

Those men committed atrocities, and so I don't honor them, of course not.

Do I honor American troops who committed atrocites? Do any of us point to the Abu Grahib troops as examples of those we intend to honor with Veterans Day?

NO.

You are over-generalizing about our troops, about all troops...and as such, despite your criticism of our doing so, you yourself seem to be treating these men much more along their title as troops--as you seem to allege we are doing and hnoroing with the day--than as actual people.

Not all veterans deserve to be honored.

But "All Veterans except for joe Smith, jhn Smith, john Jones, Tim Russell, Pete Jackson, etc. Day" sounds a little cumbersome for a title, don't you think.

OBVIOUSLY we're not honoring war criminals today.

I expect the answer HERE for you would be a list of how many war crimes Americans and other troops have committed--to which I again say I'm not honoring them.

I expect THEN you'll make an argument that all troops committ war crimes and rape and pillage and are wicked and cruel.

So I'll make my point simple.

This is, for me, "Edward Roth day," my grandfather, and remembering and honoring the fact he took years out of his life to fight in France and Germany so he could go home to his Jewish family, marry his Jewish wife, and have Jewish kids that would one day lead to me.

If THAT'S not satisfactory for a day of rememberance out of the year...then I'm sorry.

Everyone's celelbrating their own "Edward Roth Day" (and my other grandfather served in Korea as a medic, so kudos to him as well.)

Maybe it's "Jack Wilson Day."
Or "Henry Wilhelm Day."
Or "Carlos Gonzales" or "Matt Wong Day."

But it's SOMEONE'S day, a PERSON...not a statistic or a title or a cause.

It's about the PERSON.

No, I was just pointing out your generalisation, and that it implied that we should honour every soldier no matter what he did. And no, I would not say that all soldiers are murderers and rapists, just that war brings out the worst in most people and governments will encourage that, if they can get away with it.

@Tolstoy - One date after 1816 for you: December 7, 1941. Do you really believe we should not have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Then here's another one for you: September 11, 2001. Are you saying we shouldn't have followed through and tried to find the people responsible? And I don't want to hear some whacked out "the government did it" theory. The fourth plane was aimed at the White House. I really don't think the government would try to assassinate the PResident as an excuse for the President to commit forces to a war. That's beyond stupid logic.

@Tolstoy,

I'm saying that, while technically true, it isn't a productive or realistic stance to take. Would there be no war if everyone dropped their weapons? Yes, but is that going to happen? No.

Would we all like to live in a world with no war? Yes (A vast majority anyway). So, let's try to find realistic ways of coming close to that war, not slandering soldiers who 1) Didn't decide to start the war 2) Joined the military for reasons and are affected by war in ways you don't understand and 3) are keeping you safe directly or indirectly, whether you care to admit it or not.

@Draug

In fairness, if the US hadn't completely dicked up the middle east in the first place, the chances of 9/11 would have been greatly reduced.

True, abgemacht, but that still doesn't mean the people of the WTC in New York deserved to have a couple of jets smashed into their buildings and rain down hell.

I'm not saying you implied that, I know you didn't but I'm just saying...

Also, PLEASE, let's not go hog-wild and turn this into a 9/11 flame thread...

So what's the excuse for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor?

Not to say that the US deserved Pearl Harbour, but they aren't the innocent, violated victim as propagandists would have you believe. The US had consolidated its presence in the Pacific during the 1930s and had also conducted a series of war games near the Japanese coast which simulated in all but name a war against Japan (look at Fleet problem and war plan Orange). Both countries had engaged in a naval arms race, and Japan felt that America had treated them like second class citizens. The Japanese government felt that America had intervened in Russia's favour in 1905/06, and Woodrow Wilson (along with Billy Hughes) had helped block Japan's Racial Equality Proposal in 1919 at Paris.

@Fagnaur - The Japs attacked the american fleet at Pearl Harbour because it was easy and fun. Obviously, they changed their attitude after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You americans are such cheaters. Why couldn't you all just MAN UP and retaliate conventionally?

BUCK-BUCK-BUCK-BUCK-BUCKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH....
Chickens...
lol.

@maplejoke - Doolittlle's Raiders and their Raid over Tokyo. Comventional combat that proved nothing in Japan was unreachable and struck fear in the heart of the Emperor.

Draugnar,

If our government had followed Jefferson's advice of "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none", then Devember 7th and September 11th never would've happened.

That is a gross simplification of history.

@ Tolstoy

So the Taliban was welcomed? LOL By whom? The fanatical muslims and sheep fuckers? Women really loved getting their faced caved in for showing exposed skin and gays loved getting a stones thrown at their skull during that time and wish they could go back to such "simpler times". (sarcasm off)

Afghanistan was and still is a tribal society, there was no widespread appeal for anyone thing, but most tribal leaders did not like the Taliban, hence the Northern Alliance, alliances are not made out of individuals...(but they were not angels). But to presume the people begged for Taliban rule and were upset that it was overturned is beyond the point of stupid.

I don't think the fight over there is worth fighting anymore, but to pretend that the NATO did the people a disservice is an asinine comment.

Jefferson, as great as he was--and he WAS great--lived in the 18th century and was talking about a new, fledgling nation that had just been created.

Roosevelt ran a 20th century national that was one of the larger ones on the planet, and thus one of the larger TARGETS on the planet, and as such, when you're a target, people will inevitably attack you, and so inevitably you then need and seek out friends to protect you, that's basic human nature, Hobbes went so far as to give that as a reason for creating a government--because in a State of Nature, all out for themselves, even the strongest person is susceptible to attack, hence HE seeks allies, hence the others do as well, and so we get Leviathan, a state that serves as essentially an "alliance" between 300 million people who agree not to attack each other and that if people in Hawaii are bombed folks from New York will come and help, and vice versa.



Jefferson wasn't wrong at all, not saying that.

But he made his statement in relation to a nation that was radically different from the one Roosevelt had, and the late 1700s-early 1800s was radically different, as far as what America was, than the 1900s.

In 1700 America is a dream.
In 1800 America is an infant, in no position to fight.
In 1900 America's come of age and must grow stronger, as TR saw and FDR later had to act upon.

And in 2000...

Well, sadly so far it's been a nightmare...but NOT because we've had allies--it's because we've abused them...remember the Trans-Atlantic Alliance? Remember when Europe and Canada didn't think we were arrogant scum?

obiwan - arrogant scum is a little harsh!, here in australasia we generally quite like Americans, and I'm sure if they are being honest most of europe and canada would admit to a secret wee crush on yas as well.

A secret crush?

Aw, well, geez...thanks, guys, lots of love...not in front of the Chinese, though! ;)

Dude, China loves us. That's why they loan us so much money.

Tolstoy-

The fleet was in pearl to deter (along with trade embargos) the Japanese from furthur attacks on China in which japan was committing Genocide. As far as negotiating peace with Japan in late 44/early 45, they never would have accepted anything that would have made them give up their war gains.

At Yalta, Russia had the upper hand in the negotiations as the western allies wanted it to declare war on Japan, and Stalin did not honor many of his promises he made at yalta to the western allies.

As for Patton shooting his was to Moscow, you could have doubled the western allies casualties in WW2 if that would have happened. The war weary soldiers and civilians would never have gone for it anyway.

As for Smedley Butler, I agree that industry has and will use wars for profit and I find this disheartening and pathetic, and this was how Pearl harber also came to be from the Japanese industry and military.

Also remember that, to the Japanese Emperor, negotiating peace would have been admitting defeat without the fight and would have cost him "honor" in front of his people. It took an act like the dropping of the two bombs to allow him to accept defeat and surrender. Anything less than a decimation of his population would have cost Hirohito politically.

@tj: I'd highly recommend reading (for starters) "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid. The Taliban were indeed welcomed by a great many Afghans, who were tired of a quarter century of unrelenting warfare and banditry. For all of their faults (and there are certainly many), the Taliban bought peace and order to a society that was absolutely starving for both. The Taliban executed many of the greedy and corrupt warlords who had ruled their independent fiefdoms with brutal impunity since the Soviets withdrew, usually to the cheers of local townspeople. I recall reading that one was quartered with a tank. Our government thought it would be a great idea after toppling the Taliban from power to put many of these warlords (like Rashid Dostum) right back in power, which did not win us any love from the Afghan people (for the most part).

@Otto: The fleet was in Pearl to deter a Japanese attack on the Phillippines and (to a lesser extent) the Dutch East Indies/Singapore. The Sino-Japanese war had been going on for four years, and despite several opportunities to gin up an excuse to intervene militarily, the United States showed absolutely no interest in directly involving itself in a land war in Asia to save people who weren't white. And a negotiated peace with Japan was entirely possible. the Japanese put out feelers for precisely this after Leyte Gulf, which were ignored - much to the chagrin of many Allied officials like Forrestal, who thought an intact Japan would've been more helpful in the fight against communism than a broken one.

And Stalin needed no encouragement to attack Japan after Germany was defeated. Russia had a big interest in helping the Chinese Communists and seizing Port Arthur - things that couldn't really be done without attacking Japan's greatly reduced army in Manchuria. The fact that Roosevelt felt the need to bribe Stalin to do something he already wanted to do was just proof of the former's naivete. And we are in complete agreement about starting WW3 in 1946 - but this is just further proof that the purpose of the American military isn't to 'spread freedom everywhere'.

"quartered with a tank"
- forgive my ignorance - wouldn't you need at least 2 tanks?

The Japanese people knew they were defeated. Having B-29s drop (conventional) bombs on you every night tends to make that impression on people. The Japanese military knew it as well - read these post-war interrogations: http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/index.html . The only thing in question was the terms of that surrender; the Japanese thought they could force some favorable terms by putting up a good enough fight. Unfortunately for a great many people, they were wrong.

Draug, I'm curious. If 'al-Qaeda' or Communist China or Zeta Reticulans or whomever started dropping nuclear bombs on American cities, would that make you want to surrender, or fight?

Fiedler - I think the body tears at the limbs before the midsection, so you only need one tank if you have strong enough rope. I could be wrong (he might've been only halved or thirded - been a while since I read about it).

ok so if you tie the midsection to a post and all the limbs to the tank, yeh I guess that would work. good times!

@ Tolstoy: "Brutal warlords"
- I'm a little tired of people bad-mouthing the feudal system. It's a perfectly valid system of government in certain circumstances. Brutality is not necessarily integral.