Friday, September 4, 2009

My buddy Leo's letter.

We ought to be impressed, I suppose, by the attempts of certain letter writers to use ten-dollar words to lend an air of expertise to penny-ante observations.

Although I loathe discountenancing cognitive dissonance, I would instead suggest that there is little, if any, similarity to the protests of grassroots patriots protesting policies of a past presidency which in other, civilized, countries be considered criminal, to the annoying 'astro-turf' theatrics of a manipulated minority preventing honest debate of health care reform.

A reform, I might add, that will benefit even the 'teabaggers' who so adamantly oppose it (obviously I am not referring to the fat-cat heath maintenance organizations that would stand to lose it all).

And while I admit that we are far from perfect, there has not been much from the other side of the aisle to benefit anyone other than Big Business and their deep-pocketed lobbyists.

But I humbly apologize if some of us protesting the illegal invasion of another non-threatening country, acted in a way that was not courteous and/or tasteful.

On behalf of my fellow peace activists, I accept the deserved rebuke and we will mend our ways.

Leo de Vogel, Corvallis

Editor's note: In a political context, "astroturf" refers to orchestrated campaigns by special-interest groups masquerading as a spontaneous "grass-roots" movement.

135 comments:

  1. It would let me send a link for some reason. If someone else want to link this letter in another post I can delete this.

    Oh, and GOOD letter!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like some of Buzz's comments sometimes, but he obviously doesn't get Leo's use of irony.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey! I like this! Why can't we just copy and past all the letters here? Who's going to care?

    Oh, and I like Leo's letter, too!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nobody got the irony, I'm afraid and the conversation has degraded into bickering over definitions...oh, big surprise, TruthTeller is in the house!

    Yes, very nice letter Leo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I pushed the damned button and a page of utter nonsense was removed...get sick of the LieTeller.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Irony aside... Does this mean he will put away the "Invaders are NEVER heroes" sign?

    My Grandfather, (who is a D-day survior, who "Invaded" Normandy, and later Iwo Jima) sure as hell was a hero! So long story short, I could give a crap less what your buddy Leo has to say about that, or his ironic apology!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leo served in the infantry, so I doubt your assumption applies to him.

    You should have more respect for your elders, they have more experience than you or I.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe Leo's dad died in a concentration camp. And, I do believe Leo served in the military (as Ajai mentions).

    I think it's a bit far fetched to compare D-Day to the unwarranted invasion of Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's an interesting discussion in the comments, which I'll sum up so you don't have to read it if you don't want. JDR is good at explaining how the corporate media is not the true left, if not necessarily how. TT says Chomsky ain't liberal because he has money. That is not feasible, that's where class warfare come, from right there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Invaders are NEVER heroes"... That's what the sign reads. Drive by and take a look for yourself!

    At D-day our troops "invaded" Normandy. I take offense to the sign as they were in fact heroes!

    Set aside your feelings on which war you see as worth while or not. Our troops at times have invaded and have been heroes! I compare troops and their high level of professionalism and sense of duty; not which war they fought in!

    I served my Country in the U.S. Army too. Our Military has a hard enough time with their jobs let alone people holding signs at home!

    I do feel for Leo that his father died, and am proud that he served as well. I just take offence to the idea that because you don't agree with a conflict then the troops are somehow not up to snuff and they are not heroes because they simply "invade"!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a word though, 'invade,'. Those are things we ascribe meaning to. I don't necessarily agree with generalities, but you have to take a few leaps to find offense.

    First; it is not his sign, second; the sign refers to the Iraq war. Certainly there is more that was heroic about Normandy than the idea that it was an invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I also think it matters if a war is legal or not. I'm just a rule-of-law kind of guy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So are you saying that because of one sign you won't listen to any anti-war protestor, ever?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hate the President or his advisers who advised. Speak out against the President and his policies, but please don't hate the troops, or trvialize their loss or their sense of duty and/or honor...

    One of my favorite books/play, and movies was "A Few Good Men". This quote is fitting I think:


    "Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?

    You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

    I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

    You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

    We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline.

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

    I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nobody is above accountability in the USA. One does not get a free pass because of ones job.

    However, that is beside the point. Nobody here has ever said they 'hated the troops.'

    ReplyDelete
  16. Has it ever occurred to you that we protested this war because we like the troops, and we don't want them to die for nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ajai, I have listened to Leo, Leah, and the crowd becuase they get news coverage. I listen to them because I drive by them. I see their signs, I hear them on the news, I see their names in print. I just don't agree with them, and I support my troops in other ways that's all.

    I do believe they have the right to be there and write whatever sign they wish. I just am offended by the content of the sign, yes.

    I happen to believe that they (the troops) who "invade" are heroes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That is not the only sign. You may not agree with us but we were correct about the Iraq war from the beginning. I'm sorry it's painful, but it's the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I gather you thought the war was the right thing? It's not about heroism, its really not. It's perfectly possible for a hero to be in a wrong war.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It has nothing to do, (for me) with whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. Those questions at this time are simply irrelevant to me now. We did go in and we're still there. The question is how do we get out, and what do we do from here... These questions (Again) have nothing to do with the troops!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Again, if you want to protest by all means go for it. That is your right. Protest the President and his policies where the war is concerned. Keep your "Bush lied" posters out there in full view. If it were me I would leave the disreactful remarks about our "brave" soldiers out of it...

    ReplyDelete
  22. It actually has a lot to do with that. No amount of right turns will fix the wrong course.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Man, I haven't stood on that street protest in years. It got boring when everyone started to agree, including the soldiers.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Disrespectful remarks are nothing compared to sending one to a place to suffer and/or die. That's true disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would have to agree with COE.

    I have never seen the signs in question, but if that is what is written on them, it is an insult to those who serve.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Disrespectful remarks and signs are something, when one is sent to a place to serve and possibly die.

    How is that not akin to the insults to our Vietnam War Vets?

    Complain about the war. Encourage an end, but do not downplay what our men are doing there now...

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'I have listened...'

    And they don't say they hate the troops, they warned us not to go into Iraq, or said we should leave when they did not listen.

    That's kind of the idea of protesting a war. If you disagree you support the war effort, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  28. This letter was not about the sign. This letter did not mention the sign. The sign is irrelevant to this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Please stop telling me to stop insulting the troops. I have never done anything of the kind. I don't say that to you.

    I find that disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'it is an insult to those who serve.'

    You mean like Leo or Leah, the people you insult?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Complain about the war. Encourage an end, but do not downplay what our men are doing there now..."

    Well said MO3, This is my issue exactly. I have no issue with the fact that you are out there with signs protesting a war.

    I tend to agree that it was a mistake, and yet I can do nothing about it now.

    I choose to support my troops by doing other things like sending gift packs and letters thanking them for their service. You choose to stand out there with a sign. That is your right and I am all down with it. Just because I do it in a different way doesn't make me wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ajai - you are taking it to personal again.

    I felt a sign such as that was disrespectful, not you.

    I would never try to insult anyone - including Leo or Leah - mine would be one of "there are certain people responsible for the invasion, those would not be the heros that fought or died in this war".

    You have made clear that the sign is not the issue. I disagree- but you are right, the letter is quite different that driving down the road reading a sign such as described.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I served, as well as family and firends, and the sign is offensive to me...

    ReplyDelete
  34. That's not what I do. You sure assume a lot about other people.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "But I humbly apologize if some of us protesting the illegal invasion of another non-threatening country, acted in a way that was not courteous and/or tasteful."

    How is this not rellevant to the sign?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is not Leo's sign, so I'm not sure why you pick on him. But I guess because you saw that sign once you you think that discredits all anti-war protesters.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yeah, sure, that's me... Pfffffffftttttt...

    I only bring it up because I have sent letters to the GT editor and have gotten responses from Leo in support of said sign... So to me he takes some ownership of it...

    ReplyDelete
  38. That's something you will never hear from the people that orchestrated an cheer the illegal invasion and occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "It sounds like an apology."

    Wait a minute I thought it was an ironic, or dare I say, sarcastic apology.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "It is not Leo's sign, so I'm not sure why you pick on him."

    Nice dodge, I ask again, how is the sign not rellevant?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Do not get me wrong, the gentleman wrote a very good letter concerning protesting a war he felt we should never have been in, but I felt he was taking jabs at people who did not feel like wise and wrote letters to the editor with opposing views (whom I believe, btw, can sound Glenn Beck about their support of the invasion)...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow, you can put the reasoning for invading a country and starting a war behind you, but you still hold onto one letter to the editor in the GT?

    It reminds me of a Maya Angelou quote I heard today: "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

    Emotional arguments are interesting, but it doesn't change the content of this letter.

    ReplyDelete
  43. He took a jab at one particular letter from Kevin Taylor. It was in kind.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ajai - The reason why I stated that you were taking it personally, was because I was not posting about you.

    I would never indicate, unless I read it or heard you speak of it, that you were ever insulting our troops...

    I am honestly trying to figure out, again, where I offended you....

    ReplyDelete
  45. I am not offended.

    Yes, you were not posting about me. You were posting about a straw man, you are merely conversing with me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 'Wait a minute I thought it was an ironic, or dare I say, sarcastic apology.'

    The VOCABULARY is ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I do not question his letter. I question the signs that are held up - which are not in the letter, but I assume come from first hand information.

    I do not question his right to write the letter in response to Kevin Taylor (whomever he is).

    My issue is the message. Are we sending a message to those who serve or are now serving that they are not heros?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I guess I won't get an answer...

    I was, and am offended to this day about the sign and the following responses to my bringing to issue. By the way I still see the sign so it's not a one time thing... Couple that with a condesending, and fake apology; shockingly I am still offended. If that bothers you Ajai I suppose I'll just have to live with that fact.

    I agree and suppose chasing our tails' is doing us no good, as you really are not seeing my point, and I suppose I not yours. I agree that this is an emotional issue for me. If I have not handled this debate well then for that I am sorry. No disrepect was meant.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 'A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]'

    The false proposition is that Leo hates or disrespects the troops. The purpose of a war protest is to protest the war.

    ReplyDelete
  50. That's where my issue lies Ajai... The sign is offensive to me as a former U.S. Military member, and a supporter of our troops. It implys that the troops are not heroes simply because they are serving in a conflict that is not popular, and because they "invaded".

    Again, I have no problem with protesting of the war. Protest all day long, I am only saying respect the troops currently and those who came before. You say they are there because they respect the troops and want them brought home. Yet these signs are saying the opposite...

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am sorry. I am aware of the "straw man argument", and am in disagreement that it applies here....

    ReplyDelete
  52. Wait, how many signs are we talking about?

    Anything that distracts you from seeing the point, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If I am in a group of people holding signs against Obama, and 5 of those signs read "death to the president", and chants the same, then I am associated with that group.

    If I am going to protest Obama's policies, I would not place myself with people who hold signs making that sort of statement - because I would never advocate Obama's death.

    Drastic comparison, but, yet, the same argument.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well, it's a straw man because you are saying that someone is saying we hate the troops. Whoever that is is not here, thus it is a false argument that you have set up with yourself.

    Nobody hates the troops.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How many signs does it take when a group of people gather in peaceful protest about policy?

    How many signs does it take to associate all with one holding a sign in a group?

    ReplyDelete
  56. We did illegally occupy a non-threatening country, and bombed many innocent civilians. I guess I do regard that as more important than our need for hero-worship.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Who said anyone hated the troops in that grouping of people?

    But, who says that damage is not done when we fail to call men and women who meet their duties to their country - "Never being heros" for serving their country?

    ReplyDelete
  58. WE did the same in Vietnam, Ajai - and those vets suffered.

    We should not have been there. The fact that we are, and men and women are serving bravely.

    We can attack the power, without downplaying the bravery.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I do think it is brave, but serving ones country does not necessarily make one a hero, there are many who serve their country that are not heroic.

    Again, does it matter? I guess you win the argument because we are talking about what makes a hero instead of about the horrible treatment these heroes got from there leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I thought we were discussing a sign and our feelings as to if it was appropriate.

    This is not an argument. It is a simple discussion as to how we as citizens might go about getting our point across.

    ReplyDelete
  61. People held sign that said 'Support the Troops,' and they cheered as they were sent to die.

    I guess for the sign to seem appropriate one would have to see it from the perspective of the dying Iraqis, who some thought 'would greet us as liberators.'

    I also think the letter involves many greater points that have been missed as we've spent some sixty messages talking about one random sign.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Tell you what: if there is a letter against health care, I will talk about there concerns about health care, not all the racist Obama bashers.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 'We should not have been there..'

    That is the main point.

    ReplyDelete
  64. 'I do not question his right to write the letter in response to Kevin Taylor (whomever he is).'

    Go down to COEs post 'Coming home to roost,' you can read the exact letter he was responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In this context he was defending antiwar protesters from criticism. It's hard to answer condescension without sounding condescending.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "I guess you win the argument because we are talking about what makes a hero"

    Many things make a hero! Being sent to a war zone and serving with duty, and honor in my book makes you a hero. I make it a point when in an airport to shake hands and thank every service member I see... I am not cheering them on to their deaths, I am thanking them for their willingness to serve and protect my freedoms here at home.

    "Instead of about the horrible treatment these heroes got from there leaders."

    Hence the purpose of the protest(s). Protesting the leaders and the people who sent them to "invade". Which is what Leo and his crowd are doing and THAT IS FINE... My issue and question is, Why take shots at the troops with disrepectful signs?

    ReplyDelete
  67. COE: How am I insulting anyone?

    "I could give a crap less what your buddy Leo has to say about that, or his ironic apology"

    "I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

    Notice, nobody here talks about you, or to you this way.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 'Why take shots at the troops with disrepectful signs?'

    I don't know. Maybe WE'RE ALL invaders.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ajai, I am sorry, you are correct with my first comment... If I offended you I am sorry. Forgive me.

    The second comment was a quote from a movie... I was using it as an illistration of the other side of thinking with in the military (as I see/saw it) about nay sayers back home...

    ReplyDelete
  70. My issue and question is, Why take shots at the troops with disrespectful policies?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Thank you, apology accepted.

    I hear what you are saying, even if you don't think I don't. I will try to listen.

    Signing off now, pleasant dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Oh, one more thing: in A Few Good Men, Jessup was the bad guy.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Let us never forget that we should have listened to the antiwar protesters. Let us keep in mind that the majority of them world wide are not anti-troop, but were the only ones to act in the troops best interest. Saying we were against the soldiers, or unpatriotic, or unAmerican, is part of how the former administration duped the public into supporting this illegal invasion. New revelations come about the lies that led us into the war, and about how the administration used an elevated state of panic for political game. Guess who was correct about that the whole time?

    It is simply not enough to declare, 'well were there now...' Not acknowledging a mistake is the way to keep repeating it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The people who insult the antiwar protesters are complicit in the crime and folly of this war.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Therefore, those who were brave enough to protest this illegal invasion are the only ones without blood on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The best way to show respect for the troops is not to stroke their ego with hero worship but to keep them out of harms way unless it is absolutely necessary not to.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wow, you guys have been busy!

    I have to agree with Ajai when he said, "Nobody is above accountability in the USA. One does not get a free pass because of ones job."

    The sentiment that you quoted, COE, from A Few Good Men is true, yet some people are hypnotized by it and are led to believe that every war is of this quality. Iraq is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the freedom of Americans. On the contrary in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Who said that THE sign was directed at the troops? How do you know that when the sign says 'Invaders' they aren't talking about the US as a whole? I think, COE, with all due respect, you are putting an interpretation and meaning to the sign that may not even be there and holding it too tightly.

    I am offending by the fact that our government attacked a soveriegn country without reason. If I were in the military, I would be more concerned with this than a sign that points out that invaders aren't heros.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "WE did the same in Vietnam, Ajai - and those vets suffered."

    You may think that they suffered because of the war protests, but the war may have gone on longer had the protests not been so loud. I hate to say this, but I think that the troops feeling unpopular at home helped put an end to that conflict. It saved many of the troops lives by bringing them home.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "We should not have been there. The fact that we are, and men and women are serving bravely.

    We can attack the power, without downplaying the bravery."

    I'll take a huge risk by saying this, I know. Yet, I think it should be said. Let's not pretend that EVERY single soldier in a war is brave. There is much bravery, to be sure, but some people sign up for the military because of job and money benefits. If it was all about bravery, why would the military need to advertise about the fringe benefits of signing up?

    I mean no disrespect to those who truly go into the military for somewhat altruistic reasons, but signing up for service doesn't automatically make one a hero. Further, I don't think people like the infamous guy from Blackwater, who (allegedly) only wants to go to war to kill Muslims, is in any way, shape, or form a hero.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Wow...interesting points!

    I must take a slight exception to COE's point about Normandy. Normandy had ALREADY been invaded by another country. Our mission there was to liberate those who were occupied.

    That's a little different than what happened in Iraq or Vietnam. Perhaps the sign Leo holds could be written better to ensure folks understand he (nor any of those protesters) hold the troops, themselves, accountable for the Iraq war. If you have read interviews from Leo or spoken to him, I think you would agree that Leo, in fact, very much supports the troops and believes they are being mis-used.

    Keep in mind, many protesters are veterans.

    ReplyDelete
  82. For an interesting inside perspective on many of the recent wars, read 'Where War Lives' by Paul Watson, Canadian Pulitzer Prize winner for the photo of the US soldier of Black Hawk Down, without which the Somalia debacle would have never made it into the living rooms of Americans.

    Included in this are such ideas as how to sell the vision of the US as liberators and why sometimes administrators don't answer the humanitarian call. It's sickening, we didn't go into Rwanda because of Clinton's shame over Somalia...

    Humanitarian liberators, my ass.

    BTW, Watson is not a radical, but reports on what he saw and how different it was from what went into the press.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Also worthwhile is the original Winter Soldier documentary, available at the Corvallis library:

    http://www.wintersoldierfilm.com/reviews_012872_nytimes.htm

    Where much of the behavior of military personnel was NOT heroic.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "I'll take a huge risk by saying this, I know. Yet, I think it should be said. Let's not pretend that EVERY single soldier in a war is brave. There is much bravery, to be sure, but some people sign up for the military because of job and money benefits. If it was all about bravery, why would the military need to advertise about the fringe benefits of signing up?

    I mean no disrespect to those who truly go into the military for somewhat altruistic reasons, but signing up for service doesn't automatically make one a hero. Further, I don't think people like the infamous guy from Blackwater, who (allegedly) only wants to go to war to kill Muslims, is in any way, shape, or form a hero.
    "

    If you read my previous postings on another thread - I in no way include Blackwater (one infamous guy or all of them) as being inclusive in my belief of what heros are.

    I do not include them in my hero catigory, and barring the investigations into the CIA (which I feel is wrong) - Blackwater should be held accountable. The Iraqis clearly did not want them their because of their tactics. THAT says a lot in and of itself.

    There are rules of engagement, and they were, or felt that they were, above those rules.

    Anyone who makes a choice to serve their country - I do not give a bloody damn if it was for financial gain, or a feeling of commitment to a horrific regiment that included genocide - are heros. For whatever reason, they DID step up, risk their lives (or are risking their lives) for someone other than themselves.

    So, yes, as you say, I "pretend" that they are heros, just as I "pretend" that proud men over came Hitler in a war that was not ours, from our country, that was not under attack by Hitler for the rights of others to live freely.

    We did not step into the depths of Rwanda - for that I am pissed.

    I am pissed that when Iraq killed hundreds of Kurd villagers (feeling they were expendable)with the testing of biological warfare, we failed to take action.

    The choices that our commanders in chiefs make - literally hold no logic with me.

    That does not change the fact that men and women, when called to duty - go. They go - they serve their country, and I will continue to "pretend" they are brave in doing so.

    I am a Sabra. That being said, the son of a man who died at the hands of a dictator in a concentration camp, and served (I assume America) in other wars - it makes no sense to me that he would choose to be in the presence of a sign that reads "Invaders are Not Heros"

    Is this war right and were we lied to? I think probably so. Many other countries (Iran and North Korea, to name two) were of higher threat to US security than Iraq.

    Given this persons personal history, I would think that what would be ever present in his mind whilst signs are being waved is "What message am I sending".

    ReplyDelete
  85. Vicki - I do not "think" that Vietnam Vets suffered because of their treatment - I know.

    If we are to learn from our mistakes - THEN LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES !!

    Or we continue to repeat our mistakes until the lesson is learned.

    I agree with Tom - change the wording of the sign.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I could think a a very good reason why someone with knowledge about concentration camps would say invaders are not heroes. But that would be my own interpretation.

    People will always find offense if they are looking for it. No mention of the troops, the INVADERS are us, and we did not liberate a country, we occupied it. We are not heroes.

    Owe, and you assume incorrectly, but it doesn't matter. He has a right to his opinion, and it is the correct opinion, irregardless of personal vendettas.

    ReplyDelete
  87. momofthree,

    Interesting points...lots of passion!

    I wonder, are they only heroes if they serve in the American military or do you believe anyone who serves in any military makes them heroes by virtue of serving their country?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tom - that would depend on if you call the likes of Humas, Taliban, or rebels in Sudan, Rwanda, or Samalia "military" and not terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  89. MO3 I agree with all your points, and I think you have stated them very well!

    Tom, Have you ever watched "Band Of Brothers"? Yes, this is from WWII, however I believe the ideals within the U.S. Military are roughly the same at the troop level or NCO level! I still remember my battle buddy's name from basic training...

    There is a line at the end when Major Dick Winters is being interviewed. He is telling a story about his Grandson asking him if he was a hero during the war. Here is the link to the interview (with other soldiers from Easy Company too):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GUZR0MGQMw

    He says, No, but I served with a company of them.

    Having been a soldier I can say I am not stroking anyones ego nor am I hero worshipping, or wiping blood off my hands. I am simply thanking the troops in a way a soldier understands and appreciates!!!

    It has also been said that the heroes are the ones that didn't make it back... I tend to agree. This is why I don't believe cutting and running does any justice to those who did give their lives. Were their lives given in vain?

    Tom, I have already stated that to me a hero (in this context) is someone who serves with duty and honor... War or peace time. Of course you don't have to serve in the Military to be a hero, but given the context of the discussion that's for another day.

    A main theme from Band Of Brothers is loosely taken from William Shakespeare's play, Henry V:

    "From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he today that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother"

    With that, I cannot say it better than I have or MO3 has said; so I think I will bow out of this little debate.

    I can no longer add anything to it. I have said my say and at this point I feel like I am chasing my tail.

    Thank you for the respectful debate even if at times I was not compeltely respectful. Again I am sorry for my emotional response early in the dicussion... This is a subject that goes deep for me.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ajai - you keep accusing me of assuming - where I have always given careful thoughtfulness to your feelings....and even apologized when I felt I trod on your feelings (when what I've said has never been anything personal)

    I'm not attacking Leo. I do not know Leo. I am voicing an opinion about a sign.

    You are correct that people will always find offense IF they are looking for it....

    Eggshells are always difficult to walk on.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ahh, the St. Crispin's Day speech, one of my favorites. It is always stirring when delivered by the right actor.

    We don't belong over there. Cutting and running was always the only inevitable outcome.

    People are what they do not who they are. A hero is heroic. Is a soldier that rapes a girl and then burns her and her family still heroic just because they are a soldier?

    And who really needs to cast these roles? There are no heroes or villains...there is bravery and there is fear, there is compassion and there is cruelty. Sometimes a person does sacrifice and gives more of himself, stands up to adversity and works for a greater good. However, we are not children, and this is not a fictional universe. These are not supermen, they are people.

    Bravery is worthless without moral correctness.

    Militarism has created more despair, destruction, and death than terrorism ever will.
    Militarism is simply terrorism with a bigger budget.

    ReplyDelete
  92. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

    We all hold assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Here's the whole speech, I thought we might all enjoy it:

    This day is called the feast of Crispian:
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
    Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember with advantages
    What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
    Familiar in his mouth as household words
    Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
    Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remember'd;
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition:
    And gentlemen in England now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sorry I couldn't let these go by without comment at least.

    "Militarism is simply terrorism with a bigger budget."

    Tell that to France, Holland, Poland, and a host of other Countries during WWII and throught world history... Am I a former terrorist? If militarism is simply terrorism. I mean, I was in the Military after all...

    This is where I get confused. You make statements like these and then say you don't hate our troops... Which is it?

    "Sometimes a person does sacrifice and gives more of himself, stands up to adversity and works for a greater good."

    B-I-N-G-O you got the definition of a hero, (for me) in the context of a Military service member... Or should I say terrorist?

    ReplyDelete
  95. How about Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?

    I don't cast roles or assign those labels.

    Words are pregnant with interpretation.

    If one is at the receiving end of a bullet does it matter what the source calls themselves?

    The outcome is the same.


    Arundhati Roy says it better.

    'Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is
    committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's
    resistance movements - or whether it's dressed up as a war of
    retribution by a recognised government.'

    http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/arundhat.htm
    http://www.safecom.org.au/arundhati-roy.htm

    ReplyDelete
  96. A couple more:

    http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/roy.htm

    http://tinyurl.com/nfxevk

    ReplyDelete
  97. From the last post of Roy's:

    "Terrorism is vicious, ugly and dehumanizing for its perpetrators as well as its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don’t believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence."

    ReplyDelete
  98. You still didn't answer my questions about France, Holland, or Poland. Deflect, and distract, huh?

    "How about Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?"

    What about them? Tragic, yes. From a U.S. strategic stand point during a ongoing Military conflict (War) it was needed. How many lives (on both sides) would have have been lost if not for the bombs?

    How many lives were lost during the fighting in Europe? Do you think that played a role in the decsion making process?

    Can you imagine if we would have had to "invade" (there's that word again) the main Japanese island and fought on to Tokyo?

    On a side note I believe it also unlocked the realization that the Atom bomb is an awesome weapon... Of course I don't mean "awesome" in the surfer term of cool, or neat. This of course had the effect of causing, or forcing Japan to their sueender and thus ending the war!

    I would add though that a pandora's box was opened if you will. We haven't nor has anyone else used one since. Do you think there is a reason for that?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I'm not sure what your question was, but much of Europe was terrorized by a military in that era, so those countries would probably appreciate the sentiment.

    As far as Japan goes, if many must die in order for others to live, how does one choose which innocent people to kill?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Read my post... I said from a Strategic stand point. With that times technology it was the prudent thing to do given the loss and struggles we endured in Europe (liberating entire Countries), the islands leading to Japan (Iwo Jima) and the impending "invasion" of the main Japanese island(s).

    In todays terms and with todays technology we do (attempt) to target only military targets. Does it always work? Of course not. That's war and it's hell! In 1945 we did not have that option or capability.

    We also fire bombed their cities. Again tragic and yes innocent people died. The argument could be made that we had to jump it up notch in order to get Japan to the table.

    We could also spend a month talking about the culture of Japan during that time. Average citizens were trained and conscripted (willingly and not) into service. It was a serious thing to protect the homeland. It was seen as their duty and one they would carry out until death. There were even mass training of people (with pitch forks) to attack our tanks and "invading" forces.

    It was a different time. With a different set of issues. Some of which we do not have today. We (terrorists) have better capabilities to target high value military targets and with best intentions do not have to choose which innocent(s) to kill...

    ReplyDelete
  101. Machiavelli wrote:


    "One should never allow chaos to develop in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war but instead puts it off to his disadvantage."

    ReplyDelete
  102. Take a look at Jake Rademacher's documentary “Brothers at War.”

    After reading "War as You Have Never Seen It"
    by Bruce Bialosky I checked it out and had to post a part of Bruces thoughts.

    "There is a scene where Jake interviews SPC Christopher Mackay. Mackay, sitting in the middle of a desert with no bed or toilet, was asked why he was willing to suffer these discomforts. He replied, “My niece, both of my nieces, they’re gonna have an education; they’re gonna have a life and it’s because of me being over here that they’re gonna be able to continue their life. You know, same with like if you have kids or anybody else has kids I mean, we’re out here for them you know, we work for them.” Jake then asked Mackay if it was worth it if it costs him his life. Mackay replied “Yeah it’d be worth it. That’s why I’m here, I’d give my life for America any day; wouldn’t think twice.”

    Moving words from one of America's finest "Terrorists"...

    ReplyDelete
  103. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anRyWT9nQg

    "It's not just Bush it's the Soliders too... Fascist war is nothing new"

    "Build a bon fire and put the soldiers on the top, put the fascists in the middle and burn the whole lot"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXGTOGA9QNg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0W3pVn_MY

    The shouting down is not exclusive to the right...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XwEW0mhi4I

    ReplyDelete
  104. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZCr9pcErsM

    ReplyDelete
  105. "If we are to learn from our mistakes - THEN LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES !!"

    So you think that the population as a whole is going to say, 'Let's not treat our soldiers poorly and support them, regardless of the reason for this war...remember Vietnam' when our leaders didn't remember Vietnam and got us into a war we shouldn't be in and it turned into a quagmire? Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Is a soldier that rapes a girl and then burns her and her family still heroic just because they are a soldier?"

    Precisely. I don't give a rip whether the soldiers that participated in Abu Graib, for example, captured/killed terrorists themselves...not heroes.

    And, again, that is not to say that I don't think some, perhaps even most, of the men and women who volunteer for military service are not brave. I'm just saying they are not all brave by any means. The soldier who signs up with hate in her heart to go and kill gooks or towelheads...not heroic.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I didn't get a chance to see all the youtube videos, COE, but saw the first three. I do have a problem with the radicals that physically attacked the two men, that is not acceptable.

    The effigy burning I have less of a problem with. On one hand I think it disrespectful. On the other hand, I think they are sending a message to young men and women who would potentially give their lives for a poor reason. Perhaps that individual will think twice before signing up to go to Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wow! Hard to keep up with all of you!

    Can we agree on the hero thing? I mean, I know it's just a word, but I'm thinking that to be a hero, you have to have done something significant. Maybe wearing an American military uniform is enough, but doesn't that take away from the guy who throws his body on a hand grenade to save those around him?

    A hero, to me, has more to do with your actions and less to do with your clothing.

    Is that fair?

    ReplyDelete
  109. COE, interesting videos, particularly the one from NBC (you know, that "liberal" media).

    At any rate, I'll agree there are nutcases on both sides of the political spectrum. I'll assume you don't align yourself with the Fred Phelps of the world and you can assume that most "liberals" don't align themselves with radicals.

    K?

    ReplyDelete
  110. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't think either one of those were warranted. If nothing else, one has to agree that the Nagasaki bombing was unnecessary.

    Oh, and thanks for the link to the Band of Brothers video, COE. I actually own the series.

    ReplyDelete
  111. This hero/terrorist thing is interesting and, I would say, it's all about perspective. Pretty sure those nuts who flew the planes into the twin towers are heroes to someone. And, I'll bet those same people think our "heroes" are their terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The real issue is about policies, not about people. What policies are most likely to help create peace on earth?

    I must say, I'm not a pacifist, I can see where violence, in terms of defense, may be necessary. But, I also think we should use violence (even defensive violence) as a VERY LAST RESORT.

    The "violence" we used against Hitler, it seems to me, was necessary. The violence we used against Saddam, in my view, was not. And, I am less and less convinced that we should be in Afghanistan. I really wanted us to "get" bi laden, but I don't like the price our troops are having to pay for my need for vengeance.

    ReplyDelete
  113. 'Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.'

    'A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.'

    'Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.'

    'If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. '

    'Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.'


    'Politics have no relation to morals.'

    'Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself.'

    * Main Entry: Ma·chi·a·vel·lian
    * Pronunciation: \ˌma-kē-ə-ˈve-lē-ən, -ˈvel-yən\
    * Function: adjective
    * Etymology: Niccolo Machiavelli
    * Date: 1572

    1 : of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
    2 : suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith

    — Machiavellian

    Niccolo isn't a role model for me. However, I do like this quote:

    'It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.'

    ReplyDelete
  114. 'Pretty sure those nuts who flew the planes into the twin towers are heroes to someone. And, I'll bet those same people think our "heroes" are their terrorists.'

    Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  115. 'You still didn't answer my questions about France, Holland, or Poland. Deflect, and distract, huh?'

    No, I'm just not sure what the question was.

    'Read my post..'

    I did, and I responded.

    My Grandfather worked recon in the South Pacific during World War II.

    "It was a different time."

    Exactly.


    "We (terrorists) have better capabilities to target high value military targets and with best intentions do not have to choose which innocent(s) to kill..."

    Yet innocents are killed. Please remember that you are calling yourself a terrorist, I am responsible for what I actually say, not for what people make up and attribute to me.

    'In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'

    Eisenhower

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  116. As insane as it is, there are rules to war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "I think it made it very difficult for us to take the position after the war that we wanted to get rid of atomic bombs because it would be immoral to use them against the civilian population. We lost the moral argument with which, right after the war, we might have perhaps gotten rid of the bomb.

    Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

    But, again, don't misunderstand me. The only conclusion we can draw is that governments acting in a crisis are guided by questions of expediency, and moral considerations are given very little weight, and that America is no different from any other nation in this respect."

    Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand

    ReplyDelete
  118. "The effigy burning I have less of a problem with."

    Really? You have less of a problem with people burning an effigy of a U.S. Solider while shouting, "It's not just Bush it's the Soliders too... Fascist war is nothing new"

    And...

    "Build a bon fire and put the soldiers on the top, put the fascists in the middle and burn the whole lot"

    WOW, I don't know what to say to that... I really am speechless...

    "On one hand I think it disrespectful."

    You think?

    "On the other hand, I think they are sending a message to young men and women who would potentially give their lives for a poor reason."

    Liberty, Freedom, and securing the rights for future generations by dying for ones Counrty a poor reason? Again, WOW!

    The message I get is: We hate the troops, we hate our President, and we hate our Country!

    ReplyDelete
  119. "Please remember that you are calling yourself a terrorist, I am responsible for what I actually say, not for what people make up and attribute to me."

    Are you chanelling Barefoot? :)

    Ajai said: "Militarism is simply terrorism with a bigger budget."

    COE said: "Am I a former terrorist? If militarism is simply terrorism. I mean, I was in the Military after all..."

    Am I or am I not a former Terrorist? In your opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  120. "Liberty, Freedom, and securing the rights for future generations by dying for ones Counrty a poor reason? Again, WOW!"

    This is NOT what Iraq is about. Again, that is my point here. It is criminal that our military has been misused for nation-building of other countries and people defend the military as protecting Americans' freedom.

    Back to the effigy, no I don't agree with the quotes you put in your most recent post. However, when they said something to the effect of 'Hey, GI, go to Iraq and you're gonna die' I'm down with the effigy burning because I think too many young and innocent Americans have died over there for a poor reason. That is what I was getting at with the mixed feelings of that incident.

    COE, I respect the fact that you served in the military and I thank you. I believe that you served in the spirit of defending the US. Obviously we need a military for DEFENSE purposes. However, I don't believe in 'My country, wrong or right'.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I wouldn't know, did you ever terrorize anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  122. You don't really have to answer. I'm not one to get hung up on labeling people, I was speaking by definition.

    Arundhati Roy:

    "If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terror and the logic that underlies terrorism are exactly the same. Both make ordinary citizens pay for the actions of their government. Al Qaeda made the people of the United States pay with their lives for the actions of their government in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has made the people of Afghanistan pay in the thousands for the actions of the Taliban and the people of Iraq pay in the hundreds of thousands for the actions of Saddam Hussein."

    "The U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq—mostly volunteers in a poverty draft from small towns and poor urban neighborhoods—are victims, just as much as the Iraqis, of the same horrendous process that asks them to die for a victory that will never be theirs."

    ReplyDelete
  123. I like Ms. Roy. Not only a great political commentator, but a great author as well.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Yes, "The God of Small Things, ' changed the way I view the world.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Likewise...one of my all time favorite reads.

    ReplyDelete