Just a quick thread on Pearl Harbor to remember the veterans of World War II, and those that died for our freedom in that war -- over 400,000 in about 4 years. (Compared to just 1,000 in 2 years of the current war.) A couple of my older uncles survived that war and one of them is permamently disfigured, but they are such fine and honorable people. I wanted to take a moment to remember that group of folks. (By the way, if you haven't seen "Band of Brothers", by all means, check it out!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RayRay,

It's just too bad the US had to have Pearl Harbour happen before they decided to get off their asses and join the war.

Yeah, I had to recently defend "Saving Private Ryan" and Spielberg's treatment of the bookends as not being hollow and sentimental. While I find them the most awkward parts of the film, my point was that a generation of Americans placed themselves on an altar of sacrifice to help rid the world of a great danger. Some of them survived, and maybe we should ask them what they think of the bookends before they're all dead and gone. Perhaps those bookends can be accepted as a tribute to those veterans and not just Spielberg being a needy director (wong, where are you when I'm being your straight man?)

Seriously, whatever you think about any current military operations, fallen soldiers are always heroes in my book, and that generation won't be here that much longer. Thanks to all of you for everything, literally.

I add my admiration and respect for those who serve and have served. On a blog I visit from time to time, frequented by political and moral philosophers, there was recently a lot of debate over the meaning of the term "support the troops."

I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq. I think its an unjust war. But I fully support the troops who are over there, many of whom may agree with the war, and many of whom don't, but all of them are there with little to no say in the matter. I respect and appreciate those people, even if I have a beef with those who sent them there in the first place.

My heores are the ones who were put in jail for refusing to fight in both world wars. I could never kill another human being. I also put a lot of stock in Neitzche's saying "I mistrust and avoid all systemizers. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." Anyone who gives up their right to free thought and action is a tool. The world wars were a bit different and their sacrifice was more honest. Today, either people too poor to do anything else or gung-ho war bastards are fighting. The people of Flynt and the like whose only option is death I feel sorry for. Everyone else is a cold blooded murderer. Freedom, my ass.

Hey, FH, your opinions are totally valid. I believed the way you do now in the past. I wouldn't kill anyone unless I was trying to disarm them from killing my family or friends...or maybe even somebody just there. I'd never kill anyone intentionally, that's for sure. It's just that the older I get and the more perspective I have on the past and the present, I realize that if those oldtimers hadn't literally saved us, you and I wouldn't have the choice to badmouth anything or maybe even be alive because we'd be placed in the cement slab of "all dissidents and undesirables."

quote:

---

Originally posted by RayRay:
(By the way, if you haven't seen "Band of Brothers", by all means, check it out!)

---

Yes, "Band of Brothers" is great. Especially since the reruns have been playing on the History Channel almost completely unedited. Oh yeah, and on a simmilar note, I recently saw "Saving Private Ryan" on USA, 100% unedited/uncensored! It's great! I'm so glad that public TV is moving in that direction!

Anyway, about this topic, It's great to remind us of this historic event. Just be sure to stay away from the movie "Pearl Harbor."

Michael Bay = Crap!
Ben Affleck = Crap!

Michael Bay + Ben Affleck = SUPER CRAP!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
I realize that if those oldtimers hadn't literally saved us, you and I wouldn't have the choice to badmouth anything or maybe even be alive because we'd be placed in the cement slab of "all dissidents and undesirables."

---

Probably. The problem isn't specifically with America but humanity's fascination with THE BOMB. Why all the weapons, countries, religions, rascism, the endless list of vain, meaningless crap humans fight for? Humans are seriously flawed. It's kinda funny that Hitler was all but democratically elected at the time...much the same was as Bush was almost elected.

Your posts are really interesting, whether they be political or musical or other. They do tend to wander a bit. I think you have plenty to say, but the sooner you figure out where to say it, the more discussion we'll get going.

I have to mention that Hitler was "elected" in a totally different way than Bush. We ACTUALLY could have not elected Bush. Looking at the climate in Germany at the time, I think Hitler was AUTOMATIC. I still stand by my Bush comment about having a choice. FH, I think we all appreciate your posts!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
My heores are the ones who were put in jail for refusing to fight in both world wars. I could never kill another human being. I also put a lot of stock in Neitzche's saying "I mistrust and avoid all systemizers. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." Anyone who gives up their right to free thought and action is a tool. The world wars were a bit different and their sacrifice was more honest. Today, either people too poor to do anything else or gung-ho war bastards are fighting. The people of Flynt and the like whose only option is death I feel sorry for. Everyone else is a cold blooded murderer. Freedom, my ass.

---

I think you're totally wrong-headed here Filmore. I'm not a war-monger. But I'm also not a raging pacifist, either, because unlike you, I'm pretty sure that I could kill someone in self-defense. If you want to make these accusations about soldiers, you need to make them about the police, as well. The accusation that all who are in the military "give up their right to free thought and action" is false. The accusation that those fighting are "gung-ho" bastards is false. The claim that all of those who aren't gung-ho are merely too poor to have done otherwise is false.

I will reiterate, however, that I don't support this war. WWI and WWII might have been "more honest", as you say, but that doesn't mean that someone who is in the military today is a cold-blooded murderer. I also admire those people who refuse to fight for principled reasons, but I don't think it is fair to admonish all of those who don't as murderers and gung-ho bastards. I've got a multiplicity of friends who serve and have served, from all walks of life: philosophers, lawyers, accountants. I refuse to pass judgment on them.

You quote Nietzsche, Filmore, so I'll counter with a bit from Beyond Good and Evil, slightly edited for space:

"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work...: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wants to impute guilt...Men were considered 'free' so that they might be judged and punished--so they might become guilty: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within consciousness...."

The metaphysics of free will is the "metaphysics of the hangman" he says in Twilight of the Idols.

It is in the act of judging ONESELF, and not passing judgment on others, that one pulls oneself by the hair "from the swamp of nothingness into existence."

This is supposed to be a memorial, so I offer my condolence to those who lost someone on that horrible day. But, I think I will stay out of the debate.

I could probably kill in self-defense but I wouldn't try to (I am 6'7, 270 so that doesn't come up much). The police, except for the volunteers, are merely the local military and I feel the same way about them: corrupt from top to bottom. You defended soldiers that they can be neither war-mongerers or the poor. So what are they then in this day and age? There's no one that's a threat to the US. No one. If stopping terrorism was really their concern, take the $400 billion a year defence budget and put it into clothing, feeding, educating, and curing all the people of the world, not one person excluded, which it would pay for many times over and all the people of the world would rejoice in praise. It'd also be an idea to buy up all the weapons the US and Russia have ever made and destroy them. But seriously, anyone in this day and age who is still trying to fight for liberty and freedom is a victim of propaghanda and, if you haven't seen the Iraqi civillian casualties compared to the US soldiers', a murderer...unless, of course, they come home and protest for being misled which they might now that people are being ordered to their 3rd tour of duty and reservists are being called up who haven't seen action since the 60s. The people of Pearl Harbour got unfairly schooled, that's true, I've seen the Arizona or whatever with my own eyes, but the artocities of the aftereffects there were amazing as well like we all know about THE BOMB and how many innocent civillians that killed not to mention the allied's habit of bombing hospitals, churches, schools, and non-strategic cities in Germany if they had bombs left after a run. Compare the amount of 9/11 casualties to the number of dead Iraq children...something doesn't add up. John Wayne is dead, it'd be nice of we could move on. It'd be so nice if we could work toward peace logically instead of guns a blazin'.

quote:

---

You defended soldiers that they can be neither war-mongerers or the poor. So what are they then in this day and age?

---

You are putting too much blame on the soldiers. They are the only ones who are doing the right thing, obeying orders. What else can anybody do? These people aren't all poor, or rednecks that want to shoot people, many of them are people who care about doing something good in their lives. I also, do not support this war, but I support the troops that are there. I support that they are risking their lives everyday fighting a war that many don't agree with. Seems like you should put more blame on the decision-makers rather than the followers.

You make a good point when you said:

quote:

---

take the $400 billion a year defence budget and put it into clothing, feeding, educating, and curing all the people of the world, not one person excluded, which it would pay for many times over and all the people of the world would rejoice in praise.

---

But it has become apparent that this will not happen during the current administration's reign.

There are VERY few instances when going to war is okay, WWII was one of them, what is going on in Iraq certainly isn't okay, but blaming the troops solves nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
You are putting too much blame on the soldiers. They are the only ones who are doing the right thing, obeying orders. What else can anybody do?

---

I understand the point you're making. I just disagree that obeying orders is the only thing you can do. I think disobeying orders would be doing the right thing here, practice a little civil disobediance. Why not protest?

quote:

---

I think disobeying orders would be doing the right thing here, practice a little civil disobediance.

---

That would be nice. But if nobody joined the armed forces, then our best friend, the draft, would be reinstated. I'm sure that you do not want this to happen. So quit your belly-aching about how the soldiers are "either people too poor to do anything else or gung-ho war bastards are fighting." They are saving you from having to participate in the war.

There have been many protest regarding the current war, they haven't seemed to work. Protest generally don't help in these matters,the Vietnam War went on regardless and so has the one in Iraq

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

a) I'm from Canada (The Far North) so I wouldn't have to worry about it and b) if I was ever drafted, I wouldn't go. I'm not a tool. Protests are actually more effective than the republican fundamentalist controlled media would have you believe.

Not to beat a dead horse.

But why does it always fall upon the United States' shoulders to use are deficit and our money to help others?
I honestly wish they would dink that money into our own ghettos and into our youth first.

I have always felt that way though...fix our situation first...and then work outwards.

I dont see canada putting up any money to help anything?At least in reference to what u are saying...if the u.s has to put up money to help feed, clothe and help everyone.

Then why shouldn't you?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

We don't have the budget. We've only got the population of New York state, man. The annual military budget of the US is more than our GDP. We give a lot on foreigh aid but the fact is the US spends $380 billion a year on defence and the next place country is Russia with 70...seventy. I wish we had that kinda money. Our national defense is 7...just seven. And we use that all up buying obsolete US crap for war games. We've got nuthin. We honestly can't afford it and we're already getting taxed to the balls. But it would take roughly 50-100 billion a year to care for all creature on the earth and that money would pay for itself in as many years...and that includes the homeless in both our countries as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
. You defended soldiers that they can be neither war-mongerers or the poor. So what are they then in this day and age?

---

First off, remind me never to get into it with you. At 6'7" you'll squash me like a bug.

I agree with most of what you've said here, and I think looking for peaceful alternatives to violence should be the rule and not an exception. I was only responding to a false dichotomy that you had set up...that anyone in the military was either gung-ho or poor, which is false. I never set out to deny that there ARE soldiers who are gung ho or poor. I was only replying to what was (I think) merely an overstatement on your part.

But I'm with you on most fronts. For the record, after the first Gulf War (and problems involving looting and pillaging), the US government put into place a program encouraging military person to "augment" superior orders with their own moral judgments...an immoral order can be denied based on a soldiers subjective moral assessment of the situation. It sounds great in theory... I'm not sure how this has worked out in PRACTICE, however.

William James, who was a pacifist, made an interesting claim in his paper "The Moral Equivalent of War." In it, he says that the structure and discipline of the military is good for people, but war itself is bad. He advocated a non-military civil service draft, to give people the structure and discipline that they need without war. I wonder if he was on to something...maybe people need to do civil service to better understand the meaning of being a part of society...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
We don't have the budget. We've only got the population of New York state, man. The annual military budget of the US is more than our GDP. We give a lot on foreigh aid but the fact is the US spends $380 billion a year on defence and the next place country is Russia with 70...seventy. I wish we had that kinda money. Our national defense is 7...just seven. And we use that all up buying obsolete US crap for war games. We've got nuthin. We honestly can't afford it and we're already getting taxed to the balls. But it would take roughly 50-100 billion a year to care for all creature on the earth and that money would pay for itself in as many years...and that includes the homeless in both our countries as well.

---

We are still by far the richest country in the world. Our government spends an over amount of money on war, not leaving any for the people. We have how many nuclear bombs? Enought to destroy the earth several times. Why do we need all these weapons? It is absurd! We are insuring that many people will die by making all of these weapons. As a part Quaker, I say, why cant we have peace in this world? If we just cut the us budget for the army in half, we would be able to say so many innocent lives across the world instead of having to destroy them will all our high-tech weapons. BUSH is an idiot. He thinks the world is a risk board. Only about war, he wants to conquer the world. He just doesnt understand the value of a human life and that war is not a game at all, it is very serious. I could go on and on and on and on and on about how stupid Bush is with the war and the army and how stupid war is altogether. Just the concept of war and killing people makes me sick. It sounds prehistoric. I cant believe we are so stupid that we fight so much still today. Cant humans just get along as if we were one big nation?