my cousin is off to iraq

[trebblekicked]

today my 19 year old cousin shipped out. they had a party for him in pittsburgh and i got to talk to him, which was nice. my family is pretty politically polarized (nice alliteration, if grammatically incorrect), but everyone was on their best behavior for his farewell.

this brings the grand total of friends and family in iraq to five. two are remf's, the other three (including my cousin) are seeing or going to see combat.

who else has friends and family involved in the conflict?

[blackfox]

My family is all too old for service, perhaps thankfully.

I wish your cousin, and by extension, all serving in the Armed Forces luck...with the phase of fighting the US seems to be entering (city pacification), casaulties will undoubtably be high.

Five is a lot TK...

[zimv20]

best of luck to your cousin and the other four.

[miloblithe]

My brother in law is currently back from a short stint in Afghanistan. Previously, he was in Iraq for a long stint, mostly in Fallujah before the US lost control there last spring. He'll probably be heading back to Iraq early next year. That's it for my family and friends, who are mostly a little too old.

[Chip NoVaMac]

My prayers go out to all that are serving in the military today. I may be old fashioned, but those in "harms way" deserve special prayers.

Depending on the reports that you want to believe, the Iraqis that were wounded and left behind for 1 to 3 days deserved better. And the one "executed" by the Marine deserved the same. For if we are to demand/prescribe religious values among those that vote, we need to demand the same that "shoot".

It seems that we have created a "killing machine", that has little regard for human life. I can not truly judge the Marine in this case. Or that our weapons can "target" the "enemy". That is up to God IMO, and my belief. Much like I view Truman's dropping of the A-Bomb. God will be the "final" judge. We have no place, based on "those without sin" principle, to judge others.

Looking at a movie like a movie like "Red Dawn:; one can only look at the motives to "protect" a way of life. I truly defy those on the "Right", to take and not use any measures to win the "hearts and & minds" of the populace, to take similar actions. Are they legal, under the "rules of war"? Probably not. You can no tell me that "villagers" would not try to gain the "upper hand" by doing what was outside the "rules of war".

The "rules of war" were developed during a time that we "accepted" that those we waged war against were "equals". That was before "smart bombs" and "targeted missiles".

IMO we agreed to war in Iraq based on the premise that it would be a "clean war". We as as an American people have been spoilt by the concept of a "clean war". To this day I have a personal problem with "Gulf War" veterans. Many of my friends lost their fathers during the Vietnam War, and their fathers were never given the "honor" that the Gulf War vets were given. Is it a difference between a "popular" war verses a "political" war.

My Dad, I believe, thought that he was fighting a "political" and a "moral" war during WWII (and in Europe, many many not find fault with that). And after the attack of Pearl Harbor, he truly felt that he was "protecting" the "values" of the US.

I might be considered a "Leftist". but I do believe that we need to look at the benefit of the "whole" verses the few. We in the US consume a majority of the resources of the world, even though we are the "minority".

In some ways it seems that those that "preach", need to look at their words. Maybe then they would look at the minimum wage. maybe then then they would look at the "true" meaning of equal rights under the law.

I am just feeling that we are moving toward the '50's verses the 2010's.

[MacDawg]

today my 19 year old cousin shipped out. they had a party for him in pittsburgh and i got to talk to him, which was nice. my family is pretty politically polarized (nice alliteration, if grammatically incorrect), but everyone was on their best behavior for his farewell.

this brings the grand total of friends and family in iraq to five. two are remf's, the other three (including my cousin) are seeing or going to see combat.

who else has friends and family involved in the conflict?

Good luck and Godspeed to your family and friends trebblekicked.

[Backtothemac]

I have three family members, and four friends there. I love them all, and praise their sacrifice.

[skunk]

I have three family members, and four friends there. I love them all, and praise their sacrifice.
I don't mean to diss anyone, but what is their sacrifice exactly?

[trebblekicked]

I don't mean to diss anyone, but what is their sacrifice exactly?

for the record, i don't find your comment offensive, but i doubt others won't.

the obvious answer is they're putting themselves in harm's way. that may be true, but it's a pretty glaring prerequisite. all of my friends entered the military knowing the situation (all but one enlisted post 9-11), and they all treated the danger as a simple reality of the life.

the real sacrifice that i have seen is their voice. of the five i know, only one openly supports the iraq war, another keeps his views to himself, and the other three oppose it. they are able to set aside their personal beliefs and do what their country says it needs them to do.

whether that's a personality strength or weakness is in the eye of the beholder. it just threw into light the fact that it takes a certain kind of person to be a soldier. not necessarily better or worse, but still something that i'm not.

<EDIT> thanks, everyone, for the kind words. i will post updates on his experience. and to anyone else with family and friends abroad, my thoughts are with them as well.

[skunk]

Thanks for the answer. Most issues around this "War" being about as moot as they come, I appreciate and share your ambivalence.

[Backtothemac]

I don't mean to diss anyone, but what is their sacrifice exactly?

Since you clearly say you are not meaning to "diss" I will attempt to answer without "dissing".

The sacrifice is giving up their choice. See, as a soldier, it doesn't matter if you are pro-war, or anti-war, you have to do what you are told. You leave your family behind, your friends behind, and you do what you are told.

And it isn't exactly easy work. You follow orders, you kill when you are told to without question. It is a sacrifice to the individual when they serve, and yet it is a very rewarding experience.

[zimv20]

I have three family members, and four friends there. I love them all, and praise their sacrifice.
i hope they all come through okay.

i wonder, when did they join up? post-9/11? post iraq invasion?

[Backtothemac]

i hope they all come through okay.

i wonder, when did they join up? post-9/11? post iraq invasion?

Two family members before 9/11, one after iraq invasion.
One friend before 9/11, one after, one after invasion.

Thank you for the kind words. They will be home I know they will.

[skunk]

The sacrifice is giving up their choice.
This is in itself a choice.

See, as a soldier, it doesn't matter if you are pro-war, or anti-war, you have to do what you are told. You leave your family behind, your friends behind, and you do what you are told.
Not strictly true: cf. Nuremburg.

And it isn't exactly easy work. You follow orders, you kill when you are told to without question. It is a sacrifice to the individual when they serve, and yet it is a very rewarding experience.
Can be. Many Vietnam vets might not agree.

[Backtothemac]

This is in itself a choice.


Not strictly true: cf. Nuremburg.


Can be. Many Vietnam vets might not agree.

Man, do you always have to find the negative in everything? My father was in Vietnam for four tours, and doesn't have negative things to say. He did his duty, and served his country. He served the people of Vietnam. He did so with Honor, and to this day has friends from that country.

[themadchemist]

Man, do you always have to find the negative in everything? My father was in Vietnam for four tours, and doesn't have negative things to say. He did his duty, and served his country. He served the people of Vietnam. He did so with Honor, and to this day has friends from that country.

Right, and that's excellent. But do you know many thousands of vietnam vets suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? I think it is unfair to characterize war as this peachy, rewarding situation. skunk makes a valid point--war isn't always satisfying; serving isn't always rewarding.

I wouldn't want to do it. I don't see the reward in following orders to take someone else's life, especially if I believe the cause is unjust. I can't fathom how anyone could in good conscience do something so drastic on a matter that he/she didn't agree with, unless he/she just didn't trust his/her reasoning as much as that of government/military officials.

Oh well, the problem with military recruitment is that service is made out to be this wonderful, character-building experience...It is clear that there's a little more to it than that.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Man, do you always have to find the negative in everything? My father was in Vietnam for four tours, and doesn't have negative things to say. He did his duty, and served his country. He served the people of Vietnam. He did so with Honor, and to this day has friends from that country.

Very well and good, but there are many others that saw the horrors of what we did there as a military.

My Dad served 20+ years from WWII on. He never had to see Vietnam, but in the end he questioned the "duty" part of being there. At some point we need to address the damnation that our leaders are placing our troops in.

Blind faith like yours, or even my Dad's beyond WWII, does no one any good.

My God, the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is no more. Have we not learned anything about getting along with others? I am thinking that you have a bunker some where....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Right, and that's excellent. But do you know many thousands of vietnam vets suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? I think it is unfair to characterize war as this peachy, rewarding situation. skunk makes a valid point--war isn't always satisfying; serving isn't always rewarding.

I wouldn't want to do it. I don't see the reward in following orders to take someone else's life, especially if I believe the cause is unjust. I can't fathom how anyone could in good conscience do something so drastic on a matter that he/she didn't agree with, unless he/she just didn't trust his/her reasoning as much as that of government/military officials.

Oh well, the problem with military recruitment is that service is made out to be this wonderful, character-building experience...It is clear that there's a little more to it than that.

Well thank God for the NRA! These individuals should be drafted today! But I forget that most would be too chicken-**** to shoot at much more than a rabbit.

I am thinking that anyone that wants to belong to the NRA should be in the military. Regardless of age. That should reduce the ranks a bit. Put their muzzles wear their mouths are.

At the same point put the anti-abortionists there too. Since they are wanting to preserve life, maybe we won't have a Marine kill unarmed combatant like we did yesterday.

Has anyone noticed that the military is supposed to be for the defense of the nation? But yet we are the only offensive military? But yet all in the name of God an country of course.

Don't mind us as we create problems around the world that our military will have to go into.

We want to bring democracy to the world while denying others in our own nation full rights.

We allow other countries that we bring "democracy" to the right to one vote to one person; but demand that the Electoral College "vote" for our leader.

After all this, God Bless the USA. We need all the blessings we can get.

[Backtothemac]

I am thinking that you have a bunker some where....

Why because I love my country and those who stand up for it in our military?

[Backtothemac]

Right, and that's excellent. But do you know many thousands of vietnam vets suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? I think it is unfair to characterize war as this peachy, rewarding situation. skunk makes a valid point--war isn't always satisfying; serving isn't always rewarding.

I wouldn't want to do it. I don't see the reward in following orders to take someone else's life, especially if I believe the cause is unjust. I can't fathom how anyone could in good conscience do something so drastic on a matter that he/she didn't agree with, unless he/she just didn't trust his/her reasoning as much as that of government/military officials.

Oh well, the problem with military recruitment is that service is made out to be this wonderful, character-building experience...It is clear that there's a little more to it than that.

Your right, there is more to it, Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition. The ability to defend your country is the greatest honor that a citizen can have.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why because I love my country and those who stand up for it in our military?

No, because some of your comments sound like the Cold War.

Going off to Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, or Iraq is not in the direct defense of our nation. I hope I did not include any UN or NATO actions in my list. That is a different matter.

I love my country too, and I resent anyone like you that might try to cast a different light on that.

I respect those that join the military. And I see it as my obligation (now that I am too old to serve), to save their lives from the lies and profits from the greedy that are to afraid to serve themselves (hitting to close the GWB administration for you?).

It is up to those at "home" to "protect" those "overseas". One death based on lies is one too many.

[Backtothemac]

No, because some of your comments sound like the Cold War.

Going off to Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, or Iraq is not in the direct defense of our nation. I hope I did not include any UN or NATO actions in my list. That is a different matter.

I love my country too, and I resent anyone like you that might try to cast a different light on that.

I respect those that join the military. And I see it as my obligation (now that I am too old to serve), to save their lives from the lies and profits from the greedy that are to afraid to serve themselves (hitting to close the GWB administration for you?).

It is up to those at "home" to "protect" those "overseas". One death based on lies is one too many.

So what about Korea, Europe in WWII. Were those actions just? What about Afghanistan was that just action, the first gulf war, was that a just action?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Your right, there is more to it, Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition. The ability to defend your country is the greatest honor that a citizen can have.

The "Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.' begins with the values of the leader, in this case GWB. He has no honor IMO because he looked for every opportunity to get out of duty.

I would have respected Kerry in any military action, since he had been there.

The country has to treat all equally in order deserve the respect you demand. The leaders also need to tell the truth. To send our youth to a certain death on false promises deserves damnation in Hell.

Why did we not take all these troops to Afghanistan to UBL? Maybe because there are profits to be had by him being around?

This does not mean that I think any less of our troops out there. I hope they live up to "Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.". What we have seen they are not up to that challenge to a small degree. But in this war, this very important. For we are the "aggressors".

[Backtothemac]

The "Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.' begins with the values of the leader, in this case GWB. He has no honor IMO because he looked for every opportunity to get out of duty.

I would have respected Kerry in any military action, since he had been there.

The country has to treat all equally in order deserve the respect you demand. The leaders also need to tell the truth. To send our youth to a certain death on false promises deserves damnation in Hell.

Why did we not take all these troops to Afghanistan to UBL? Maybe because there are profits to be had by him being around?

This does not mean that I think any less of our troops out there. I hope they live up to "Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.". What we have seen they are not up to that challenge to a small degree. But in this war, this very important. For we are the "aggressors".

And what about Clinton? Would you have respected him? He did the same thing that GW did. You know what, Clinton was my commander in Chief, and I served because it isn't about the honor of the CIC, it is about the honor that comes from serving your country. I did not like Clinton's policies, nor some of his decisions, but he was my CIC and I respected him 100% for it regardless of his service as a young man.

[Chip NoVaMac]

So what about Korea, Europe in WWII. Were those actions just? What about Afghanistan was that just action, the first gulf war, was that a just action?

In WWII, we had an attack that justified our actions. Not that we should have not come to the aid of the world at that point. In Korea, it was a war of profit; like today. It was a "war" without declaration, and without victory. Just like Vietnam.

The Gulf War was about the oil. Afghanistan was a "just" hunt for those that took down the WTC, and tried to take out the Pentagon, and an unknown target.

No one that I know faults the actions in Afghanistan. In fact many of us "over age" were willing to go. Iraq is now the focus, despite all your bravado. We have a responsibility to those troops that they are not putting their lives at risk for lies.

May God watch over them, and truly guide them.

[Chip NoVaMac]

And what about Clinton? Would you have respected him? He did the same thing that GW did. You know what, Clinton was my commander in Chief, and I served because it isn't about the honor of the CIC, it is about the honor that comes from serving your country. I did not like Clinton's policies, nor some of his decisions, but he was my CIC and I respected him 100% for it regardless of his service as a young man.

Good for you. But he did not put you in harms way like GWB on lies. No WWMD, no threat to the Nation. Give it up GWB won. Blind faith is not good. Ask those under Hitler's "spell".

I was brought up my a Father that served 20+ years in the military. Have you by the way?

I had an opportunity to join the Navy during the Reagan years, but I did not see the "reason" behind it. I was fearful of a man that was a figure on the silver screen, than on the war front. I was 43 at the time of 9-11. I was not desirable at the time, though to go hunting for UBL - I would have.

In the end blind faith only goes so far. I respect your position on some issues. But being in the military you should have learned that you need to respect the rights and opinions of others.

[SPG]

I hope your cousin comes out of this safe and that he or she is strong enough to get past the emotional and psychological scars that so many suffer from this experience.
I really don't know what authority I have to comment on something like this as I sit on the couch sipping wine with my wife as others sit in Iraq taking sniper fire and try to avoid getting blown up driving down the road.
I feel genuinely sorry for them. Seeing the photos of the amputees at Walter Reed nearly brought me to tears, reading about the daily deaths that get little more than a numeric mention in the context of another story burns me up. I feel in some way responsible, that if only there was some way for me and all of us to have done something more in the run up to this war that calmer, more rational voices would have prevailed and we wouldn't be watching our young people die and know without seeing the countless thousands of Iraqis who have died for this pointless blunder. How did this happen?
I don't support this war, and I have a hard time with the people who blindly say things like support our troops and my country right or wrong. Sometimes our country is wrong. And in those cases we need to stand up and say so because the men and women who are sacrificing their youth and sometimes their lives for this country deserve nothing less. How do you send a young man to sacrifice his life for something that you know is wrong? How do you face a leader who has sent over a thousand young men to die for false reasons?

[Chip NoVaMac]

today my 19 year old cousin shipped out. they had a party for him in pittsburgh and i got to talk to him, which was nice. my family is pretty politically polarized (nice alliteration, if grammatically incorrect), but everyone was on their best behavior for his farewell.

this brings the grand total of friends and family in iraq to five. two are remf's, the other three (including my cousin) are seeing or going to see combat.

who else has friends and family involved in the conflict?

Despite some of my ranting, I do hope for your cousins safe return, along with all the other troops.

For they serve us all, whether we want them to or not.

May God bless him and all others for a safe return home.

[SPG]

"The sweat-soaked young Leatherneck stood over the torn body of a Viet Cong guerrilla with mixed emotions flitting over his face. For Cpl. Pleas David of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, it was a day he would never forget. David had just killed his first man. 'I felt kind of sorry for him as I stood there,' said David, a lanky 17-year-old. 'And he didn't even have a weapon.' . . ." The unarmed "Viet-Cong" was walking along a paddy dike when the four Marines approached him with leveled guns. The frightened Vietnamese saw the guns and threw himself on the ground. As the Marines ran towards him he jumped up and tried to escape. "I let him get 250 yards away and then dropped him with two shots from my M-1," the A.P. quotes the young Marine, adding "The man had been hit squarely in the back. No weapons were found with him. . . ." The Marine was congratulated by his buddies. "Maybe the Viet-Cong will learn some respect for marksmanship. When we see them we hit them," one boasted. Another declared that " David is a good example. . . . Don't think we are killers. We are Marines." (New York Post, April 30, 1965.)

It is official U.S. military policy to shoot and ask questions later. Thus, in an operation thirty-five miles outside of Saigon, U.S. troops rushed a peasant shack believed to harbor VietCong. One U.S. Lieutenant hurled a grenade through the door but the inhabitants tossed it back out. According to the A.P., "Another American soldier charged the shack, pulled the pin on a grenade and gave the fuse a few seconds count-down before pitching it in. Following the explosion the G.I. leaped into the shack with his M-14 rifle blazing. Three men and a baby died. Two women were wounded. Shrapnel took off the lower half of one woman's leg." (November 16, 1965.)

Not all G.I.'s enjoy making war on women and children. Some have written agonized letters home. Marine Cpl. Ronnie Wilson, 20, of Wichita, Kansas, wrote the following letter to his mother:

Mom, I had to kill a woman and a baby. . . . We were searching the dead Cong when the wife of the one I was checking ran out of a cave. . . . I shot her and my rifle is automatic so before I knew it I had shot about six rounds. Four of them hit her and the others went into the cave and must have bounced off the rock wall and hit the baby. Mom, for the first time I felt really sick to my stomach. The baby was about two months old. I swear to God this place is worse than hell. Why must I kill women and kids? Who knows who's right? They think they are and we think we are. Both sides are losing men. I wish to God this was over.

But those American G.I.'s who react with shock and horror to their bloody mission are a distinct minority. Most American soldiers in Viet-Nam do not question the orders that lead them to raze villages and wipe out men, women and children for the "crime" of living in Viet-Cong-controlled or infiltrated areas. Extermination of the (non-white) enemy is to them a dirty but necessary job, and few grumble about it. Some have even come to enjoy it. Warren Rogers, Chief Correspondent in Viet-Nam for the Hearst syndicate, reports that:

There is a new breed of Americans that most of us don't know about and it is time we got used to it. The 18 and 19 year-olds, fashionably referred to as high-school dropouts, have steel in their backbones and maybe too much of what prize fighters call the killer instinct. These kids seem to enjoy killing Viet-Cong. . . . (New York Journal-American, September 16, 1965.)

Of course, war has always been described as evil, but does this mean that America must add to it? Our military advisers teach Vietnamese modern techniques of killing each other. Our weapons aid in more thorough destruction of themselves. Rather than liberating a people, it seems that these techniques and weapons result in innocent civilians, women, and children being beaten, burned and murdered. . . .

More than any other single factor, our air war in Viet-Nam is turning the rest of the world against the United States.

All war, of course, is hell. There is no such thing as a "clean war," in Viet-Nam or anywhere else. But even in warfare there are certain observable norms of decency which cannot be disregarded. These were laid down after World War Two in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, under which the Nuremberg Trials of top Nazi civilian and military leaders were held. Our actions in Viet-Nam fall within the prohibited classifications of warfare set down at Nuremberg under Article 6 which reads: The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
a.) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
b.) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war . . . plunder of public property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c.) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before, or during the war. . . .

Under the provisions of Article 6 the United States is clearly guilty of "War Crimes," "Crimes against Peace" and "Crimes against Humanity," crimes for which the top German leaders were either imprisoned or executed. If we agree with Hermann Goering's defense at Nuremberg that "In a life and death struggle there is no legality," then no action can or should be taken against the government leaders responsible for the war in Viet-Nam. But if Americans still believe that there is a higher law than that of the jungle, we should call our leaders to account. Otherwise we shall have proved Albert Schweitzer correct when he wrote:

It is clear now to everyone that the suicide of civilization is in progress. . . . Wherever there is lost the consciousness that every man is an object of concern for us just because he is a man, civilization and morals are shaken, and the advance to fully developed inhumanity is only a question of time. . . . We have talked for decades with ever increasing lightmindedness about war and conquest, as if these were merely operations on a chessboard; how was this possible save as the result of a tone of mind which no longer pictured to itself the fate of individuals, but thought of them only as figures or objects belonging to the material world? (The Philosophy of Civilization.)


The issue at stake in Viet Nam is not, as President Johnson constantly claims, what will happen if we leave. It is what will happen to us as a people, and to our judgment in history, if we stay.
Link (http://corrente.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_corrente_archive.html#110063946132926401)

[Zaid]

Your right, there is more to it, Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition. The ability to defend your country is the greatest honor that a citizen can have.

I respect your opinion though i very strongly disagree with it. Cant help thinking of the last lines of Wilfred Owen's WWI poem

...
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

[stubeeef]

I thank your cousin for his courage and duty, I will hold him in my thoughts and prayers, as I do all in harms way.

Is it a sacrifice to leave a wife and child to go get a MBA, far from home? I would say so. (Ya it is not the same)
Anytime you leave friends and family for something you must sacrifice something else. Wether you use economics as the model or common sense.
Many of these men and women will sacrifice their future, or the possiblility of an innocent one.
Irregardless of how YOU feel about Iraq, many feel the need to HELP.
If you (generically) believe that alienating a friend to protest the war is a price you will pay, then you have sacrificed that friendship for what you believe. The table has 2 ends, those that feel a need to join the military, potentially, sacrafice family time and even their lives for what they believe.

[Backtothemac]

Good for you. But he did not put you in harms way like GWB on lies. No WWMD, no threat to the Nation. Give it up GWB won. Blind faith is not good. Ask those under Hitler's "spell".

I was brought up my a Father that served 20+ years in the military. Have you by the way?

I had an opportunity to join the Navy during the Reagan years, but I did not see the "reason" behind it. I was fearful of a man that was a figure on the silver screen, than on the war front. I was 43 at the time of 9-11. I was not desirable at the time, though to go hunting for UBL - I would have.

In the end blind faith only goes so far. I respect your position on some issues. But being in the military you should have learned that you need to respect the rights and opinions of others.

Look, I do respect the rights of others don't even think you want to go there with me. You can just PM me if you would like to carry this on further. As for my family. Yea, between my Grandfather, father, sister, brother, me, we have over 78 years in the military. So yea, I grew up in it. See serving isn't just about wartime, it is about enforcing peace as well. that would have been the "reason" behind it.

You were afraid of Reagan?

I am starting to see the point of United states of Canada and Jesusland.

[themadchemist]

Your right, there is more to it, Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition. The ability to defend your country is the greatest honor that a citizen can have.

I'm sorry, but you've had a spoon too much of jingo soup. The ability to defend one's country might be the greatest honor a citizen can have--but empire-building and violent aggression isn't something of which to be proud.

Duty: What about the duty to defend the ideals of this country, say equality and truth? The socioeconomic structure of the country forces the poor into the military...And hey! We go to war on bad facts. That's both equality and truth out the window.

Honor: See truth. Also see torture. And let's throw in tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

Country: Doing something that antagonizes the world while not serving us any benefit is not serving the country.

Values: I think I took care of it under duty and honor.

Tradition: It's looking like this wasn't the best tradition ever...Kind of like Festivus.

[takao]

Look, I do respect the rights of others don't even think you want to go there with me. You can just PM me if you would like to carry this on further. As for my family. Yea, between my Grandfather, father, sister, brother, me, we have over 78 years in the military. So yea, I grew up in it. See serving isn't just about wartime, it is about enforcing peace as well. that would have been the "reason" behind it.

how many relatives of you died fighting for their country in an unjustified war or found out later that it was unjustified and wrong ?

[Backtothemac]

how many relatives of you died fighting for their country in an unjustified war or found out later that it was unjustified and wrong ?

Hm, that is a tough question. One as of right now, by other opinions. I don't think the war that they died in was unjust, nor their family, nor did they. But other will think it was unjust.

[themadchemist]

You were afraid of Reagan?


Hey, there was a lot to be afraid of...We're still dealing with the effects of his foreign policy. And apparently, people didn't learn the lesson that trickle down doesn't work. Wasn't it Cheney who said that Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter? I cite the BBC (BBC Business News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430565.stm)), which suggests that the high deficit spending of the Reagan era was accompanied by low investment by Americans and a stagnating standard of living. Moreover, deficit spending threatens to weaken the dollar and lower expectations and confidence in the US economy, according to the same article, which quotes such sources as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman (anyone ever wonder why almost all of the great economists are named Friedman?).

[skunk]

And the lower the dollar, the more expensive it is for US companies to buy abroad, and the cheaper it is for foreign companies to invest in the US. Which is why you own so little of your economy.

[Ugg]

And the lower the dollar, the more expensive it is for US companies to buy abroad, and the cheaper it is for foreign companies to invest in the US. Which is why you own so little of your economy.

I have a feeling that a good percentage of American corporations are going to be snapped up by non-Americans over the next four years. Especially by those who have an endless amount of petrol dollars to spend. I fully expect that oil will based on Euros before too long due to the volatily of the dollar and gw's attempt to bankrupt the US, of course that won't happen until the Sauds are the next ruling family of the US.

Have you noticed that neither Japan nor the EU have done anything to prop up the dollar since it began its precipitous slide three years ago?

[blackfox]

Have you noticed that neither Japan nor the EU have done anything to prop up the dollar since it began its precipitous slide three years ago?

I always was crap at Economics, but I believe in the short term, the weak dollar is a benefit to the US, as it helps with our abysmal trade deficits by making our goods more attractive by virtue of being cheaper.

Beyond the short-term, it is a disaster (of huge proportions) waiting to happen.

[stubeeef]

I always was crap at Economics, but I believe in the short term, the weak dollar is a benefit to the US, as it helps with our abysmal trade deficits by making our goods more attractive by virtue of being cheaper.

Beyond the short-term, it is a disaster (of huge proportions) waiting to happen.

You are correct, good job.
In reality, despite what is being said to the press, the US needs a weaker dollar to promote recovery. Without the much anticipated post war rebound, the government has been working aggressively to ensure that the US does not fall into a recessionary spiral. A strong US dollar in the near term would counteract some of the efforts that the government is currently undertaking, which would not be in their interest.

from here (http://www.dailyfx.com/article_rr_005.html)

also

Although it may have longer-term consequences such as deterring foreign investors away from the US markets, the shorter term benefits of stimulated growth and the possibility of a pick up in the corporate sector leading to increased approval ratings may be more attractive to the government in the near term. Ultimately, this means that the US economy needs a weak dollar for recovery.

[Ugg]

I always was crap at Economics, but I believe in the short term, the weak dollar is a benefit to the US, as it helps with our abysmal trade deficits by making our goods more attractive by virtue of being cheaper.

Beyond the short-term, it is a disaster (of huge proportions) waiting to happen.

Weak currencies are bad. Period. gw & co are gambling that a weak dollar will increase exports and slow excess imports. It's not that simple anymore. What does the US export? Increasingly it's services rather than goods and much of what US companies sell is made abroad anyway. Apple is a great example of this. Also, the only way to strengthen the dollar would be to decrease the deficit. Something gw will not do in his last term in office.

Back on topic, defending one's country cannot be the highest honor available if the country's policies are indefensible.

It won't be too many years from now until the streets of the US are littered with the living corpses of those for whom this war, like all wars, was too much. Where will all you supporters of this war be then? Are you going to go out and embrace them, take them home for dinner, clean them up, help them recover? Or, are you going to treat them like the empty shells of the Vietnam war?

I can't say that I understand why anyone would want to volunteer under gw unless the reason is bloodlust pure and simple. I can say that I hope with all my heart that those who have been forced to fight this war come back safe and sound and that this country will support them when they return and not abandom them like has been done in the past. For the families of those who didn't come back, they have my most heartfelt sympathy. For those who've been injured, I hope this country will support them and allow them to lead the fullest lives possible without penalizing them for having fought in an unjust war.

[stubeeef]

Weak currencies are bad.

Very overstated. It is used by numerous countries to make their goods more attractive price wise. But to say they are bad. Period. Is simply not true.

Politics cannot be ignored, either. The Bush administration's official line has been to support a strong dollar, but the reality is that little has been done (or even said) to shore up the greenback. The reason: A weaker dollar makes U.S.-made goods more competitive overseas. And rising American corporate profits juice the economy and stock market...did we mention this was an election year?

Market watchers express varying degrees of concern when discussing the dollar. But most agree that while it will likely remain depressed against the euro for at least another year, it's not at a panic level that would prompt foreigners to bail out of Treasurys. "The dollar's not weak, it's just weak relative to where it was a couple years ago," says Scott Wren, senior equity strategist at A.G. Edwards & Sons.

Wren, a former currency trader, points out that when the euro was introduced back in 1999, it traded at around $1.18. That means in five years' time, the dollar is down about 10% against the euro — and that's nothing, according to Wren. As the Federal Reserve gradually tightens monetary policy, the dollar will find its support as it has in previous economic cycles, he says. It's going to take some time, possibly one or two years, but Wren doesn't envision any doomsday scenario. "We by no means expect the dollar to fall out of bed here," he says.

From here (http://yahoo.smartmoney.com/sectorpatrol/index.cfm?story=20041111&afl=yahoo)

[pseudobrit]

Last I heard my brother is supposedly due to ship out of Iraq sometime after Christmas, back to his base in Hawai'i and then he'll get a few weeks leave.

After that, he'll probably have to head back over.

Best of wishes for your cousin and to all our troops over there.

There is no glory in war.

[skunk]

Except if you're a general.

[themadchemist]

Very overstated. It is used by numerous countries to make their goods more attractive price wise. But to say they are bad. Period. Is simply not true.


Yes, you are right, weak currencies and a low cost of living make India and China attractive for outsourcing. Who knows? Maybe in 15 to 20 years, India and China will be outsourcing jobs to us! Yay!

Of course, this is an unlikely eventuality because our cost-of-living is ridiculously high. It would take a serious cultural shift that would be very difficult to effect in order to lower our cost-of-living significantly.

So this is my worry. The currency falls. Inflation rises. Wages don't keep pace with inflation. Poverty rises incredibly. At the same time, interest rates shoot up (look at Nixon).

It's already happening, as far as the currency. A lot of Chinese investors are pulling out of the dollar for fear that it will crash. Certainly, the Euro is going to become the international currency sooner rather than later (the Bush administration is only serving to expedite the process). Once oil starts trading in euros and costs 60 bucks a barrel, that's when we'll be in real trouble. The only positive externality I can see is that it will no longer be economically feasible to shut out alternative energy sources and we will be FORCED to invest in the shift away from oil.