Thanks to a Hero - unrelated website topic
ThisOldManPlayed1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, while traveling to Chicago on business, I noticed a Marine sergeant traveling with a folded flag, but did not put two and two together.
After we boarded our flight, I turned to the sergeant who'd been invited to sit in First Class (across from me), and inquired if he was heading home.
No, he responded.
Heading out I asked?
No. I'm escorting a soldier home.
Going to pick him up?
No. He is with me right now. He was killed in Iraq. I'm taking him home to his family.
The realization of what he had been asked to do hit me like a punch to the gut. It was an honor for him. He told me that, although he didn't know the soldier, he had delivered the news of his passing to the soldier's family and felt as if he knew them after many conversations in so few days.
I turned back to him, extended my hand, and said, Thank you. Thank you.
Upon landing in Chicago the pilot stopped short of the gate and made the following announcement over the intercom.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to note that we have had the honor of having Sergeant Steeley of the United States Marine Corps join us on this flight. He is escorting a fallen comrade back home to his family. I ask that you please remain in your seats when we open the forward door to allow Sergeant Steeley to deplane and receive his fellow soldier. We will then turn off the seat belt sign."
Without a sound, all went as requested. I noticed the sergeant saluting the casket as it was brought off the plane, and his action made me realize that I am proud to be an American.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
44 comments
Latest
I saw on FOX NEWS today a story about a 12 year old girl with a pen pal in Iraq. A soldier. Also a story about an organization that has sent thousands of care packages to the troops there and in Afganistan. we had a woman in my office that took up a collection of paperback books to be sent to the troops. I gave her at least 50.
I remember the University of Berkely back in the 60's,with their anti war shit and saw the City council of Berkley denounce our invasion of Afganistan. The same hippies of the 60's are now running the city council, including the Mayor.
Now it seems that we have a spinless legislature. But there is good news. Chelsea Clinton recently visited Iraq for a first hand view. She was interviewing a soldier and asked him "What scared him the most about being in Iraq"? He replied " Little lady, there are only 3 things that scare me about being here. Osama, Obama, and your Mama"...
It's guys like him, who are willing to make a sacrifice for this country who are why we are as free as we are. But I despise the current administration for sending our boys over there to be slaughtered with no clear idea of what "winning" is.
But I didn't DO anything to become an American. Mom and dad happened to be from here, and happened to be living here on that fateful day forty-odd years ago when I popped outta da womb. I would have offered a variety of things to make America better, and I keep trying to find a venue that will take me. But generally I'm not wanted or can't afford to offer what amounts to "my special gifts" to this land. I'm still trying.
When I was of military age, two things held me back from getting into active duty. The first was an easy decision -- they didn't want me! I am generally physically fit (more so then than now!) but I also have asthma. Exercise-induced. The worst kind for anyone on the front lines. The second was a cultural thing. At the time (the mid-80s) the military was contracting, and it was viewed by the people in my high school and college as a "last chance" for people who couldn't get better jobs. Military kids were all drop-outs or drug-addicts who needed to find more discipline; according to my high school counselors, for example, I wouldn't "fit in" in the military because I ALREADY had success in my life, I was getting straight-As at a college-prep school, etc.
This cultural "shunning" of the military as a low-brow option -- a place where only the "dumb kids" go -- is not something I agree with. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe (now that I know) that the Navy is full of nuclear submariners who can't pass high school algebra! But it was prevalent in my life, and in the lives of nearly all the folks I knew, from the time I was a toddler well into my adulthood. We just thought that if you "had to" sign up it was because you were some kind of ... loser ... who needed a second chance.
I don't hear very much about this idiotic point of view any more. Have people's minds changed? I know very well that the people older than me whom I knew back then, haven't changed their mind about how the military would have been a "mistake" for me. Maybe it would have. I keep thinking if only I'd circumvented that asthma (something I didn't know could be done) and gotten a good five years under my belt I wouldn't feel so guilty about taking time off now and again after a given job bored me to tears. I could tell myself "I paid some time!" in the mirror. I can't tell myself that. So I feel those folks did me a disservice. I wonder if they're quieter now merely because they're more embarrassed about their point of view -- it's no longer "cool" to disparage people who join up, or to assume that they're all flunkies -- or whether they've become more supportive of the military as a "career-oriented option."
Again, I'd like to repeat, I personally don't think that enlistees are "losers." I just want to point out, that all my guidance in my formative years came from people who DID. And I think many, if not most, of America's culture, is founded upon some kind of assumption like that. You can EITHER go to law school, OR go to the military, is kind of how it goes. You can EITHER get a high-falutin' college degree from MIT in math and then run fancy computers as a wealthy CEO in Silicon Valley, OR you can join the Navy and really "waste your life" not learning anything except how to mop a ship's floor. That's how America tends to pigeon-hole members of the military.
The only real escape from that negative pigeon-hole, it seems to me, is the few members of the military who do something extremely technical (as mentioned, nuclear submariners, for example) or who attend one of the academically challenging service academies: West Point, Annapolis, etc. Aside from them, don't we still think a soldier is a "grunt" and don't we societally treat him (or her) as more disposable than, for example, a C++ programmer? And don't we assume societally that a guy who does one of those things can't do the other?
Surrounded as I am by knee-jerk red-necks in Mississippi, you'd think my experiences would have been different. They sure do like their guns, for example. But they shudder to think that their little pampered Baptist children would ever "have to" do something as "embarrassing" as "fail out into the military." And assuming as they do that school success means an escape from the prison that they perceive the US military to be, they invent very easy state schools that pass their children and give them degrees no matter how poorly they do on tests ... but that's a different issue.
I wonder, should I post this? Is this a hot-button issue? Again, I repeat, *I* don't think all enlistees are flunkies. Sure, a small percentage might be -- but the majority? Naw. I'm just reporting what I perceive as a "societal system" that other people perceive, about the military. Women love a man in uniform, but only if he's also a doctor or lawyer. That whole "Officer and Gentleman" thing? Ever notice that the girls who catch the officers are trailer-dwelling high-school drop-outs working in a factory town? They're not high-society urbanized girls no no no.
Funny how our culture works, the whole come-here-go-away we have about soldiers. Disposable humans.
I was very proud of our navy and our country for the honor bestowed on this man, and it was probably one of the proudest moments of my life. I wish everyone in our society could somehow have the opportunity to serve in our military, it was the best thing that ever happpended to me. It changed my life. Volunteering for and serving in the military ws the smartest thing I've ever done. I feel sorry for people like Book Guy, they will never realize what they've missed and how distorted their views really are.
I remember seeing a new TV program on Fox news. I thought maybe it was news. But then I heard the announcer saying something like "and today at Fort Dix, terrorists plans were stopped. They wanted to gun down as many soldiers as possible saying the pizza delivery people had free access to the base. Democratic senator Ford Pelixa (forgot name they used) immediately said we should withdraw all forces from Fort Dix." Obviously it wasn't just the news. Thought some humor could be used here.
BG - I always welcome people's comments about current events, no matter whether I agree with them or not. Glad you responded.
As we all know, the Middle East action is very controversial, whether you agree with this military action or not. But, I am very proud to see that everyone "SUPPORTS THE TROOPS", since they are being directed by politicians and "SERVING THEIR COUNTRY".
"FREEDOM" comes at a price and that has been proven over the past hundreds of years, since we have become a nation. We had to fight for our independence (to be free) of British rule. Americans have fought in foreign wars so others would be free. Americans continue to fight so that "OUR FREEDOM" is not jeopardize and so that "OTHERS" can enjoy the aspects of "FREEDOM" as we have for hundreds of years.
Agree or disagree.... the point is "FREEDOM" is sacred and many sacrefices have been made by AMERICANS and OTHERS to ensure as many people in THIS WORLD can live FREE of oppression, dominance, and terror.
I ask all of us to take ONE MINUTE (60 seconds) out of our day today in rememberance of our fallen BROTHERS and SISTERS, so they can continue to rest in peace. God bless.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=1100…
BG, Being born in America isn't what being an American is about. America is an idea, anyone who signs on to that idea can be a proud American. I fear far too many native born, while they will always be citizens, will never be Americans. When you can say it with pride, and understand how blessed you are, and understand that you owe these blessings to the sacrafice and courage of others, then you might understand the pride a lot of us feel. Together, as Americans, we've built something that has never existed anywhere else, any other time. It's worth fighting for, worth dying for and we've fought and died to defend it. Being proud of that is not too tough.
Geez, I thought I'd made that clear ...
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot
exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the
candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through
the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.
Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory that
Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this
great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living
in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government
welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already
having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
I was just questioning the nature of the WORD itself (hence the OBVIOUS quotation marks). I'm very happy the USA is what it is, and in that sense I'm "proud" to be a part of it. But I didn't make it that way, and I didn't serve in any function that would have preserved or improved it, so I don't feel I can take very much credit for it. Therefore, I'm not "proud" of it being the way it is.
You apparently can't comprehend because you, like many who aren't schooled in religion, don't get the idea of grace. Coexistant with original sin is the concept of original grace. Unique grace, given to man by God, unearned, given by favor alone the capacity to choose our own way, which includes the possibility of choosing poorly. But the choice, the ability to choose, makes the choice so much more important, and so much more meaningful. Mercy, a concept totally absent in nature is ours alone. The choice to give mercy, a choice that in other religions belong to the gods alone, is given to us, by grace. By grace alone we can choose to do good. Among the choices we can make is that there are concerns greater than ourselves. To be blunt, some things are worth dying for. That is the religious background, and despite what you may read the founders of our country were profoundly religious men.
They also were well schooled in the classics, the virtue of the citizen. America is a creation of the best of both, but requires from some "grace". Not of god, but of the citizen who recognizes the great gift he has been given. No man can "earn" that precious gift, he can only show himself appreciative, and in some cases, the cases we honor on this day, worthy of the gift so many purchased at such a great price.
I just wanted us to honor our fallen heros, even if it were for the weekend only.
I wasn't in favor of entering Iraq but I was outvoted by overwhelming support from the general public, the media and almost every member of congress. But it's a democracy and I support the democratic choice. Let's be real - we're there and we should finish the job, anything short of that is a disgrace and makes a mockery of the sacrifices our troops have already made. The best way to honor our fallen troops is to support the war.
Nobody was ever shot as a traitor in the USA for opposing government policy in a peacable verbal manner. Thank God, we are still open to that kind of dissent.
I think one can quite easily support the troops and oppose the war. I keep two ideas in my head and it's not difficult: A. We should never have invaded Iraq. Now that we have, we should do what we can to end this dang thing as fast as possible rather than escalating and continuing to make the same mistake over and over. B. The ladies and gentlemen of the US's armed services are remarkable people, important to me, and they deserve high accolades. They are the best military in the world, bar none, they do a wonderful job, and I sympathize with the fact that they are in harm's way.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say, that SUPPORTING the war is giving encouragement to the enemy. By invading, exacerbating, etc., we have created a situation in which al Qaeda can more effectively recruit (in Iraq and elsewhere), in which imbalances of power are more likely to threaten our national interest, in which oil prices skyrocket, etc.
I think we agree, you and I, FONDL, that initially we shouldn't have gone over there and waged major battle. But the fact that we have done so, does not mean we should continue to do so. To honor our fallen troops in the best way, let's go about picking policies that will MAKE FEWER OF THEM by KILLING LESS AMERICANS and killing less Iraqis at the same time. To "support" to me suggests, "I agree with the ongoing policies." I don't.
So I support the troops and oppose the war. The reason I do so is that I value the troops and I don't value what they're being asked to do. In fact, I'm pretty sure that supporting the war somehow devalues what they could otherwise be doing -- which would (I hope) have been something that was IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS and morally upstanding, rather than CONTRADICTORY TO THEM and morally repugnant.
As FONDL correctly pointed out the overwhelming majority was for the war. Those who supported it have a moral obligation to see it through to victory, and those who were outvoted have a responsibility to respect the decision of the majority and to not undermine our efforts to win.
The left and the media have done everything in their power to portray this war as a failure from the start. By making the war practically impossible to wage politically they have undermined the effort. Now they wish to act as if the waging of the war and every decision was made in a vacuum and that they are in no way responsible. Probably when they get their wish and we leave too soon and mayhem results they'll take that as a sign they were right and blame Bush for that too.
I agree, "the left" has had trouble with this invasion from the start. And "the media" is a weird conglomerate of strange interest groups in the info-tainment business, not very trustworthy any more.
But that doesn't excuse doing a bad job in Iraq, any more than having already done a bad job excuses doing more of a bad job. If you're screwing up, DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Geez, it ain't rocket science ...
FONDL, You said, "we're there and we should finish the job". What is the job and how do we know when we've finished? Actually I don't care what your answer to this question is but I'd like to hear something that makes sense from our government.
As for buisness interests, that's a fantasy. Almost all the oil producing nations have nationalized oil companies in that area. We don't have any buisness interests.
ok, my two cents. sorry for the rant if you weren't interested.
March 2007 Import Highlights: Released on May 30, 2007
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in March 2007 has been released and it shows that four countries have each exported more than 1.10 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of five countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 67 percent of United States crude oil imports in March while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 98 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for March were Canada (1.780 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.621 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.290 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.216 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.036 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.696 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.523 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.501 million barrels per day), Kuwait (0.288 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.209 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10.348 million barrels per day in March, which is an increase of 1.299 million barrels per day from February 2007.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in March, exporting 2.305 million barrels per day to the United States, which was a slight decrease from last month (2.448 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.749 million barrels per day.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-07 Feb-07 YTD 2007 Mar-06 Jan - Mar 2006
CANADA 1,780 1,840 1,825 1,716 1,732
MEXICO 1,621 1,358 1,475 1,697 1,722
NIGERIA 1,290 1,061 1,156 1,114 1,191
SAUDI ARABIA 1,216 1,185 1,325 1,322 1,356
VENEZUELA 1,036 1,115 1,033 1,183 1,197
ANGOLA 696 451 570 510 465
IRAQ 523 325 464 476 487
ALGERIA 501 392 484 281 228
KUWAIT 288 158 208 111 111
BRAZIL 209 103 174 123 114
RUSSIA 193 49 92 34 25
ECUADOR 191 178 214 242 281
COLOMBIA 108 73 107 170 156
LIBYA 105 63 59 40 45
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 79 41 58 0 10
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-07 Feb-07 YTD 2007 Mar-06 Jan - Mar 2006
CANADA 2,305 2,448 2,407 2,254 2,276
MEXICO 1,749 1,507 1,611 1,801 1,823
NIGERIA 1,346 1,102 1,198 1,195 1,249
VENEZUELA 1,285 1,359 1,277 1,530 1,516
SAUDI ARABIA 1,244 1,207 1,342 1,364 1,393
ALGERIA 727 555 691 404 523
ANGOLA 708 464 586 522 477
IRAQ 523 325 464 476 487
RUSSIA 455 241 351 221 246
VIRGIN ISLANDS 349 312 363 299 297
KUWAIT 305 168 217 118 115
UNITED KINGDOM 292 268 251 299 231
BRAZIL 234 151 214 193 166
ECUADOR 191 185 217 242 287
KOREA, SOUTH 164 80 120 27 51
Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.
AN: You got Canada right but missed on the UK. Gas cost more in the UK than here. Notice how little of our oil comes from the middle east oil cartel. So why is the price so high? Wall street investors in the futures market worried about oil getting shut off from the middle east. We are getting ripped off by Wall St and the oil companies(record profits). These figures come from the U.S. government.
Now then, to the "unschooled in religion ... grace" bull dookie. Don't expect me to be unable to cooperate in a rational discussion merely because of my lack of religious agreement with you, you unAmerican FFFF. Expecting religious conformity is about as contrary to the notion of this nation as any other single demagogic concept. I spent nine years in church school. I CHOOSE to reject that which is the opiate of many members of the masses.
Anyway, that having been said, I'm not sure what we're all arguing bout any more. I tend to vote middle, prefer Libertarian over Authoritarian, can't generally identify myself as "Left" (as in Howard Dean, for example) or "Right" (as in Newt Gingrich, for example), find the free-loaders (the whole "public treasury ... welfare tenement" argument) to be as despicable as anyone else finds them to be, and wish that I had up to now offered something more positive to the growth and development of this great land than I have up to now actually accomplished.
I wanted to help make America great. I feel I have failed in adding my efforts to the general pool. Sometimes I'm "angry" that I was "denied" the chance to help out; sometimes I'm just apathetic that I can't seem to find a niche where my gifts are welcomed and go rewarded.
And I really like the business about the 200-year trajectory of a democracy. Very interesting. I'd like to know what examples the learned Scottish professor was basing his discussion on, aside from Athens. What other democracies had there ever been?
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to continue to pretend that the "insurgency" isn't all-out conflict, or simply adhering to our current path. We can figure out better measures. The age-old religious and cultural conflicts, in the context of limited resources (the fields of the "fertile" crescent have long since been plowed dry) and burgeoning population, lead to Malthusian disaster. We need to think up viable solutions that don't just involve the old models of "friendly government" and "bring democracy to the oppressed." That ain't enough. We gotta get at it from the roots, or sumpin' ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ty…
Snopes indicates that Professor Olson didn't do that research at all. And Tyler didn't exist, though there is a professor Tytler, who didn't say any of the things attributed to him. You can read all of it at the Snopes link.
As for the definition of "morally obligated" I think that is fairly clear, let's not argue about angels dancing on pinheads. I think we can agree that we're both aware of what I mean, and further agree that we now bear a responsibility we can't just vote away without consequences for Iraq and ourselves.
The insurgency, IMO, is not an all out conflict. Most Iraqis are not taking up arms and fighting each other. Our old friends al Qaida are hell bent on making it so, but so far the violence, while extensive, is being carried out by small factions on each side. And as for the supposed trump card of calling it civil war QED we must not be involved, I don't buy it. We had apparently no problem unilaterally intervening in a civil war in Kosovo. We're still there by the way, and Clinton most definitely lied us into that one, swearing up and down and guaranteeing that our troops would be out within a year, the kind of thing Bush never did. We probably should have stepped in Darfur, but the calls for intervention are clearly to stop the killing in a civil war.
So having rejected your contention that the insurgency is an all out conflict I now will reject your contention that we're "simply adhering to our current path." Depending on what you consider a path (now I'm arguing about definitions) we either are or aren't. If by path you mean an overall strategy of seeing a stable Iraqi democracy put in place to pressure the other nations in the middle east to change based on the Iraqi example of a free society, then we are. If you mean tactics, surge, no surge, draw down, whatever, we've clearly changed plans almost continuously. I'd contend that many of the mistakes and delays come from too many plans competing and being hashed together as a compromise plan rather than as is often the contention, not having a plan (as if all it needed were to have the "right" plan, then everything would have gone perfectly of course). The first planning started in 1998. We were going to fund the INC as a government in exile and give them money to undermine Saddam, leading eventually to the US policy proposed under Clinton, of regime change. But the CIA and the state department didn't like the guy running the INC, so they never gave out the money, despite congressional pressure to implement the will of the congress. Then came 9/11, and a sense of urgency about leaving potentially dangerous dictatorships in place. I think that Iraq was more dangerous after 9/11 not because of anything they did, but because al Qaeda had demonstrated a way to hit back. I don't think Saddam would have sat idly by while we sought to hunt down terrorist groups (which as mentioned above he had a history of supporting). He would do as he always did and take advantage of a new situation to his benefit. He'd never met the terms of the cease fire, never ceased his hostilities, and was actively using the UN humanitarian programs to enrich himself and obtain prohibited items. The UN was so complicit through bribes and slush funds that there was no way we could count on the UN to take any serious action, as was demonstrated. Many seem to think that if only we hadn't invaded we wouldn't have any concerns about Iraq now. It sounds nice but it is literally impossible to prove one way or another, hence it is wishful thinking and not really an argument. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It would be nice to go back, and seeing how things worked out, try some of the other alternatives, but again, wishful thinking. There were not perfect decisions available, we had to choose based on what we knew at the time. Should have stopped the looting? Well would shooting unarmed looters have been a better alternative? Should have had more troops? We tried, but France saw to it that Turkey wouldn't allow our troops to stage from Turkey. Should have waited? Well that assumes that keeping 160,000 troops deployed in the field ready to strike didn't present its own set of problems. Shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi army? Well it kind of disbanded itself. The officer corps was largely Sunni and Baathist, and intact, but the largely Shia conscripts had simply quit and gone home. What would have been the reaction if we went our, or let the Iraqi army, Saddam's tool of repression, go out and grab back the conscripts as deserters? So, yes, it would be nice to have the Iraqi's handle their own security, but then we "planned" to have an intact army and police force, not to have to rebuild them from scratch. Some plans have to change to adapt to new conditions (called reality, which despite some claims does change and can be changed, it isn't a synonym for "status quo). Some plans take time. I think that up until the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque (carried out by al Qaeda by the way, specifically to foment a sectarian war and drive us out of Iraq) the Shia were largely cooperating with the US by not taking revenge on the Sunni and Baathists and allowing the US to handle security while the Iraqi military was built up. After the bombing many apparently felt that it was time to strike back. things were looking bad and getting out of control faster than the Iraqi army could take over and help us. Now, with the surge we've changed plans again and first reports are that the Shia are largely cooperating again, refraining from going after the Sunni and Baathists where security is established. Will the new plan work? Maybe. Maybe it will take time. Maybe it'll be stopped by a vote of congress, who sadly have mostly decided that the most important driving factor in the war is domestic politics, i.e. getting it off the table before the next election. Maybe al Qaeda, seeing that the war will be decided by the will of the US congress will pull off their own Tet to try and influence the congress to do exactly what they want, to leave Iraq and allow them to turn it into their next safe haven from which to strike us.
As for the fertile crescent the biggest problem isn't the population or the farmland. They have the most sought after resource in the world in abundance. The biggest problem is that oligarchs control everything, hoard the money, and spend it on repressive regimes and weapons to guard against other repressive regimes that want more power. These repressive governments keep getting more repressive because they have to continually keep down a population that more and more wonders why they are poor while they are floating on a sea of oil and Americans are rich while they continue to import most of their oil. The answer, you're oppressed, by the Jews and the Americans, not by the government that hoards the wealth and uses it to fund ideological homicidal maniacs who prey on the dissatisfaction to build their own fascist ideology on the one hand, and to make sure that those same maniacs are not operating in their country on the other. In the long run these governments will not survive, for reasons I've mentioned on another thread. Our choice is to step back and allow it to happen in new, different, and possibly deadly ways, realizing that with the resources they have they can buy whatever means of delivering death and destruction they want, or to confront the poisoned ideologies and defeat them now rather than later at a higher cost.
For my encore I'll discuss global warming, Mac versus PC, and Yankees versus Red Sox.
By the way, it looks like the quote you mentioned is an evolutionary bastardization of a real sentiment, kind of like the parlor game where you form a big circle and one person starts off a story that travels the circle until it gets back to the start to see how much it's changed.
http://lorencollins.net/tytler.html
Being schooled in religion is the problem. Get it out of your head and you'll be able to think clearly, therefore get more correct answers and fewer incorrect ones, therefore be more likely to come up with the correct answers about Iraq. Religion is dogma. Spirituality, I do'nt reject; but when questions of policy, law, or even "morality" (yup, I know what you mean by that) come up, religion has to be the last supporting argument, if used at all. If it's central to the argument, then it's impossible to defend or debunk any given proposition, because the well of discourse has been poisoned by unassailable assumptions.
Note, I'm not questioning whether the assumptions are right or wrong. They simply don't belong in any discussion of politics, not in the USA. If you can't figure out how to get them out of the discussion, you're still failing to get religion out of your head. And if you insist that secularism is, somehow, "Just another religion," then you're free to leave this secular nation and let the "real Americans" (I don't include myself) try to run things -- and try to save things from the religionists who would (in my view) destroy our history by lying about it, destroy our institutions by subverting them to religious rule, and generally impose dogma based on religious teachings rather than based on rationality.
I don't buy that relativist stuff. There's religion, then there's irreligion. The latter is appropriate at all times over the former.
The rest of the discussion is devoid assumptions of or appeals to religion as a foreign policy tool or justification for any policy, moral or otherwise.
I do "feel like I belong" and so I feel "proud to be an American" in that sense. I vote, I don't commit crimes, I work in a manner that contributes positively in some small way to the economy, I use very little "voluntary welfare" and probably am more of a tax-benefit than a welfare-burden to the government as a whole (depending on how you slice it, of course: I use roads, for example, and yet don't pay the taxes which truckers have to pay; but I do pay the same amount of auto licensing and insurance fees as an average citizen pays, etc.). If a Frenchman were to say, "La France, we have ZOOOO MOOOCH to be proud of!" I would be able to say, "Sure, you gots some good stuffs. But we gots some good stuffs too. Here's our stuffs: " and then I could list lots of it.
I had wanted, however, to point out the following:
pride is a detrimental emotion
Old religious practicioners would have simply said pride is a sin. I catch people out sometimes, in their sloppy thinking, when they say something like "We have to give black children in America something to be proud of." No, we don't. We might need to provide some more positive role models whose skin-color makes it easier for those children to identify with (though I question even that assumption; why can't we have them identify with, say, Albert Schweizer? Because he's Jewish? Not a good reason to reject him!). But we don't need to "give" them anything for "pride." Pride is a sin, and giving might be simply enabling their dependence.
Likewise, when some yahoo from Poughkeepsie who's never been overseas says, "We have to be proud to be American! We have to support the war in Iraq!" I wish to point out his faulty thinking. What he means as, "Proud to be American" is, "intent on conquering others." And further, there is no logical sequitur between his first and second sentences. In fact, one might actually state they contradict -- to be proud of the USA, one might want the USA to perform things one thinks of as laudable; hence, to stop invading smaller nations, for example. One might not think that way, but in no manner does his first premise necessarily lead to his seconding conclusion. He doesn't even notice his weak reasoning.
Why doesn't he notice? Pride. It clouds the mind. He probably can't even name the things we OUGHT to be proud of -- beacon of hope, economic freedom, lack of oppression, experiment in civil liberties, equality in genders (more so than anywhere else, at least), etc. etc.. He is more likely thinking, "We kicked their butts in World War II and therefore WE'RE PROUD AND BETTER." That's really a weak syllogism. In fact, argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force) is one of the weakest logical fallacies of the lot. "I'm right because I have more might" doesn't even make sense to nine year olds. But that's what "Proud to be American" generally is at its roots.
I don't mean to accuse anyone here of being that simple-minded. I got off on a tear, then a tangent, then a derailment, then chat overlap. I just meant initially to make that simple point. Pride's a sin, it clouds thinking, and most yahoos whose usual recourse is to a knee-jerk "Proud to be American" aren't actually proud of anything WORTH being proud of -- a war effort they participated in (they didn't; they're still shopping, not growing victory gardens) or democratic principles of free thought that they exemplify through their careful reasoning and sane participation in the public discourse. France has a lot to be proud of. But Poughkeepsie is unlikely to admit that truth. Their thoughts are clouded by false pride.
I don't reject TRUE pride in America. Pride for what it stands for, that we are all part of; and legitimate pride for the people who did contribute in a tangible, real, large way, to the furthering of its intents and purposes. But I do reject what most yahoos mean when they use that quick offhand and very very weak syllogism.
First, The word "troops" includes the military leadership who set mission, policy, objectives etc. If you support our trooops by definition you support their mission, policies, objectives, etc. If you know any military people well, ask them if they think people opposing the war are supporting them.
Second, since the beginning of time, top political leaders have always overstated the case for going to war because they recognized the importance of having the public's support. This administration has done nothing new in that regard. If you're bothered by the way the administration has tried to manipulate the facts, try reading history sometime.
Third, I'm not surprised that the lengthy quote that I posted is a hoax, an awful lot of stuff circulation on the web like that is. But that doesn't invalidate the main point, which is that we are increasingly becoming a society where nearly half our citizens are dependent on government handouts, and that portion keeps growing. And those people overwhelmingly vote democratic. What happens when that portion reaches more than half, as it almost certainly soon will?
Fourth, someone asked what is the purpose of the war? I think the President was very clear on that point when he sent troops to Iraq - the purpose is to put pressure on the terrorists to keep terrorism from American soil. Seems to me it's working pretty well.
And finally, since the war in Iraq started, over 100,000 Americans have been killed on our nation's highways, more than 30 times the number killed in Iraq. And most of those deaths weren't accidents at all, they were caused by someone ignoring speed limits. Why don't I ever hear about that from my "balanced" news media but they duly report each and every war casualty?
"Since the beginning of time, top political leaders have always overstated the case for going to war because they recognized the importance of having the public's support. This administration has done nothing new in that regard. If you're bothered by the way the administration has tried to manipulate the facts, try reading history sometime." That others have historically done wrong, does not justify that current leaders continue to do so. Since the "beginning of time" disgruntled unhappy populations have often REJECTED leaders who have misled them, lied, propagandized, killed for no reason, engaged in fruitless pursuits, ruined a nation's reputation, destroyed the population's security ...
"the main point, which is that we are increasingly becoming a society where nearly half our citizens are dependent on government handouts, and that portion keeps growing. And those people overwhelmingly vote democratic. What happens when that portion reaches more than half, as it almost certainly soon will?" Agreed, totally. The premise, of our historical movement toward "dependency" (as the hoax-mail puts it) is a true phenomenon, and it disturbs me greatly as well. I am soon to become an inner-city junior-high-school teacher. I have "volunteered" for this position largely in the hopes of doing some small part to stem this tide. I intend to impose responsibility and self-actualization on students who otherwise might never come to understand it.
"someone asked what is the purpose of the war? I think the President was very clear on that point when he sent troops to Iraq - the purpose is to put pressure on the terrorists to keep terrorism from American soil. Seems to me it's working pretty well." It also kept all the tigers out of my bedroom! Your argument from absence (the war is happening; terrorism is not; therefore, the war is preventing terrorism) is another obvious logical fallacy (I pointed out the -ad-baculum- a few posts back) called the -ignoratio-elenchi- or, "ignorance of the point." We aren't arguing that the war did or did not prevent terrorism in this thread. Were we to do so, we could quite easily point out that animosity toward the USA among common folk in Middle Eastern states is on the INCREASE largely because of the war in Iraq, that recruitment among al-Qaeda-style groups is at an all-time high perhaps because of the war in Iraq, that Osama bin Laden's main opponent in Middle Eastern politics (Saddam Hussein) over the past two or three decades has been removed and consequently his minions are more free than ever to perpetuate their machinations because of the war in Iraq, that the general American citizen's freedoms and rights are abrogated MORE because of the insecurity created at home and abroad because of the war in Iraq.
"since the war in Iraq started, over 100,000 Americans have been killed on our nation's highways, more than 30 times the number killed in Iraq. And most of those deaths weren't accidents at all, they were caused by someone ignoring speed limits. Why don't I ever hear about that from my "balanced" news media but they duly report each and every war casualty?" Because deaths in the military are matter of national policy, can be avoided, were caused by deliberate and culpable acts, and are an irregular, abnormal, and noteworthy event; whereas deaths on the highways are ACCIDENTS (as you yourself already know) and therefore have different (though equally important) causes and remediations. Shall we keep silent about American deaths, and then claim it is more patriotic for our sons and daughters to die in ignominy and secrecy? How un-American is THAT? Next you'll be saying they shouldn't be given heroes burials at Arlington because that would increase disfavor about the war. Your argument -- comparing highway fatalities to wartime fatalities in Iraq -- engages in a third logical fallacy, the -petitio-principii-, or "begging the question." Were we to discuss that premise, we would have to first define whether we were talking about highway-drivers or battle-soldiers, thus eliminating either one portion or the other of your comparison. Apples to oranges. Indeed, both are important; but the one bears no relation to (and is entirely independent of) the other. We could entirely eliminate highway fatalities through some effective law or enforcement change or other, and yet still be trapped in the quagmire that is Iraq. Raising them is nothing but obfuscation.
The war may or may not be just. In my experience, those who try to justify it must resort to logical fallacies, -ad-hominem- support of generals and politicians rather than -ad-principiam- support of policies and plans, and overall chest-beating. Because I have yet to hear a valid defense for the war presented in sane, intelligent, non-contradictory sentences, I therefore must conclude that none can be concocted. I would dearly love to think that the TROOPS whom I love so dearly (30% of my high school class is involved somehow in the US military; and I wanted to be, as well) are not dying FOR NO REASON other than ill-conceived desire to bluster and conquer. Were there gain, I might support the means to that gain. There is, however, only loss. Loss of internal security, international standing, resources, lives. Show me what good it does, and I might wish to support the process that creates that good. So far you're failing, largely by engaging in irrationality.