PDA

View Full Version : An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms




Anti Federalist
05-24-2013, 08:27 PM
A memorial day classic, from an Army veteran.



An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms

by Jacob G. Hornberger

May 31, 2011

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/open-letter-troops-defending-freedoms/

Dear Troops:

Yesterday — Memorial Day — some people asserted, once again, that you are “defending our freedoms” overseas.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy.

Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Yet, the countless victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans.

Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms?

It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.

It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”

By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq.

The truth is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S-approved regime.

That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about — to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve.

No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change.

In the process, all that you — the troops — have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed.

In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so?

No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place

President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan — and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process — because the Afghan government – the Taliban — refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office.

In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,” as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.)

Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists — Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 — were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan.

In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.

No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends.

In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms?

All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. military — that is, you, the troops — have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.

That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)

How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you — the troops — are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there?

Consider also what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean — the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism — all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists — that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there.

In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the U.S. government — the entity you are working for — would no longer have that excuse for taking away our freedoms.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war,” she said.

That lady has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam.

Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them

Sincerely,

Jacob G. Hornberger

President

The Future of Freedom Foundation

Anti Federalist
05-24-2013, 08:28 PM
A random response...


If You Can't Face the Truth then Just Curse and Swear

Posted by Laurence Vance on May 24, 2013 05:42 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/138048.html

Someone posted something by Army veteran Jacob Hornberger ("An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms") on a forum to offer a contrary view of Memorial Day and this is the response he received:


From the 101st Airborne during Korea, F__k you ____. You disgust me with your whole thought process. I hope the mods leave this thread here so the whole forum can see what a f__ktard you really are. This has NOTHING to do with honoring our fallen heroes. Instead, you spit on them. F__K YOU! Since you obviously hate America, and despise anyone who defends it, please PACK YOUR S__T and GET THE F__K OUT!

Get ready for the Memorial Day "support the troops" orgy. Hornberger's "open letter" is a good way to present the truth out of the mouth of a veteran.

liberty2897
05-24-2013, 09:06 PM
Since you obviously hate America, and despise anyone who defends it, please PACK YOUR S__T and GET THE F__K OUT!

You have to be able to get a passport for that. I don't despise anyone who defends it, but to pretend that our military is currently doing the right thing indicates a very sad state that we are in. To pretend that our occupation of foreign land is wanted, to pretend that we aren't an empire on a rampage is just delusional.

jmdrake
05-24-2013, 09:46 PM
Great article! This weekend in churches across America, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican, pro war and anti war pastors of all denominations will join in the "Thank you for protecting our freedoms" mantra. I've got nothing against the military. I do believe, however, that it is being misused in ways that in no way protect our freedoms.

Christian Liberty
05-24-2013, 09:55 PM
Great article! This weekend in churches across America, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican, pro war and anti war pastors of all denominations will join in the "Thank you for protecting our freedoms" mantra. I've got nothing against the military. I do believe, however, that it is being misused in ways that in no way protect our freedoms.

I don't have a problem with A military, nor do I have any personal disrespect toward individual soldiers (At least, not the normal soldiers, I HATE military recruiters, I honestly do, I have nothing but disgust for them since they are liars for the warfare state and they're tricking my peers in High School into dying for the regime) but I have a problem with the US Military.

Of course, Jacob Hornberger and Laurence Vance continue to ACTUALLY defend our freedom by speaking the truth.

My dad is the pastor of my church, to my understanding he won't be glorifying this nonsense TOO much [He's not as anti-war as I am but he understands where I'm coming from and he's NOT an apologist for the obviously immoral war in Iraq.... He's probably about where Rand Paul is at politically when it all comes down to it], but most likely someone else will end up praying at some point and I'll still have to deal with it...

As an act of protest I'll be praying for the noble* Afghan troops who are defending THEIR national soveregnty.


*Yes, as an intellectual issue I'm aware that all government's suck. However, I see a HUGE difference between defending one's own and imperialism. I also said "National soveregnty" and not "Freedom" for a reason.

Aeroneous
05-24-2013, 11:03 PM
I HATE military recruiters, I honestly do, I have nothing but disgust for them since they are liars for the warfare state and they're tricking my peers in High School into dying for the regime)

Have you talked with many recruiters? I have good friends who are recruiters, and you have just made one of the most gross generalizations I've ever seen. The average recruiter isn't spouting off lies to get people to enlist. Quite the contrary, the military is trying to downsize at the moment and recruiters aren't struggling to meet their quotas. There is no need to lie anymore, because the information is readily available online and elsewhere. Every recruiter I've ever met has been very matter-of-fact, and just answered the potential recruit's questions. The only slight exception to this is the Marine Corps, whose recruiters tend to use a "glory and honor" type approach. Most recruiters hate to get anywhere near the philosophical questions and foreign policy aspects, mainly because they work 12+ hours a day and just don't have time for that kind of BS with every person that walks through the door.

If your peers in high school join the military, it's because THEY made the decision. Nobody is tricking them into it. Nobody is getting them to accidentally sign a contract. The amount of red tape you have to go through just to get to the point where you can sign a contract is tremendous, and nobody does that without some form of personal dedication to that goal. Don't blame recruiters, blame your friends for making a decision you disagree with.

Christian Liberty
05-24-2013, 11:17 PM
Have you talked with many recruiters? I have good friends who are recruiters, and you have just made one of the most gross generalizations I've ever seen. The average recruiter isn't spouting off lies to get people to enlist. Quite the contrary, the military is trying to downsize at the moment and recruiters aren't struggling to meet their quotas. There is no need to lie anymore, because the information is readily available online and elsewhere. Every recruiter I've ever met has been very matter-of-fact, and just answered the potential recruit's questions. The only slight exception to this is the Marine Corps, whose recruiters tend to use a "glory and honor" type approach. Most recruiters hate to get anywhere near the philosophical questions and foreign policy aspects, mainly because they work 12+ hours a day and just don't have time for that kind of BS with every person that walks through the door.


Most of what I've seen has actually been marines IIRC. They're in my school fairly regularly so I seriously question that they AREN'T looking for people.

The entire system is screwed up, and yeah, I blame my peers for not being better informed as well. People need to be infomred as to what the crap they're doing when they deal with government...

jclay2
05-24-2013, 11:51 PM
Nobody is getting them to accidentally sign a contract. The amount of red tape you have to go through just to get to the point where you can sign a contract is tremendous, and nobody does that without some form of personal dedication to that goal. Don't blame recruiters, blame your friends for making a decision you disagree with.

If people like your friends did not step up the plate to go and recruit at high schools, there would be less kids being fed to the military industrial complex/economic hole digging/slaughter. But of course, it is all the dumb 18 year old's fault who can't even balance a check book, let alone sign over his life to a corrupt fascist state. No hard feelings, but I suggest you get some new friends. You can defend it all day, but when push comes to shove, the system can not operate without these yes men in place.

kathy88
05-25-2013, 05:17 AM
Recruiters absolutely DO lie. My son toyed with enlisting and after he scored a 98 on the ASVAB they descended on us like vultures promising all sorts of higher education. Every time I asked to see something in writing they said they couldn't until he and I signed. I refused and the recruiter said to my son , we'll call you on your 18 th birthday then you can make the smart decision for your future. Maggots.

Uriel999
05-25-2013, 05:41 AM
While some recruiters probably do lie, not all are that way. When I started talking to the recruiters I went in and told them that I wanted to go infantry. They begged and pleaded me to take another course every step of the way as they told me it sucks, its hard and with my ASVAB I could do anything in the USMC I wanted.

To say they are all bad is dishonest. The USMC is a different animal when it comes to recruiting. If recruiters are in your school its because they are looking for those that can hack it. Not everybody can.

KrokHead
05-25-2013, 05:44 AM
At this point the military is just a career for people that can't get a decent job. Since getting a decent job is nearly impossible being a mercenary is a good idea.

Defending our freedoms? Nah. Respect the job? Yeah. Does this job help make the world a safer place? Hell no!

Aeroneous
05-26-2013, 09:27 AM
They're in my school fairly regularly so I seriously question that they AREN'T looking for people.

It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.


If people like your friends did not step up the plate to go and recruit at high schools, there would be less kids being fed to the military industrial complex/economic hole digging/slaughter. But of course, it is all the dumb 18 year old's fault who can't even balance a check book, let alone sign over his life to a corrupt fascist state. No hard feelings, but I suggest you get some new friends. You can defend it all day, but when push comes to shove, the system can not operate without these yes men in place.

No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.

Wolfgang Bohringer
05-26-2013, 10:06 AM
I don't have a problem with A military...

Thomas Jefferson had a problem with A military:



"a bill of rights [must] secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, [and] freedom from a permanent military..." --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789)

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl75.php
(http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl75.php)


A permanent military is prohibited by the federal bill of rights and article 1 section 8 and its also outlawed by nearly all of the state constitutions.

Many of the founders like Jefferson may have been slave rapists but they were smart enough to realize that you can't trust the government with guns.

So when the liberals and conservatives tell you that they're not against the right to bear arms, but we need to make sure that crazed lunatics don't get their hands on guns, the proper response is that our constitutions already bar crazed lunatics (i.e., government employees) from getting their hands on guns.

Grubb556
05-26-2013, 10:57 AM
We criticize past empires for trying to "bring civilization" to the foreign lands, and yet we can't seem to do the same for the present government.

Anti Federalist
05-26-2013, 10:58 AM
///

MrTudo
05-26-2013, 11:39 AM
Excellent article!

Christian Liberty
05-26-2013, 12:22 PM
It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.

You know what? I don't give a crap. Quit. Anyone who tries to get 18 year olds to ruin their own lives and commit murder is a horrible person.






No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.

I don't think the 18 year olds are free of blame either, but hiring a killer is just as bad as being one. Worse if the killer THINKS he'll actually be defending his country's freedom. There may be mitigating factors in his case, but the recruiters know better.

So I'll stick with my original comment. Recruiters are evil...

Thomas Jefferson had a problem with A military:



A permanent military is prohibited by the federal bill of rights and article 1 section 8 and its also outlawed by nearly all of the state constitutions.

Many of the founders like Jefferson may have been slave rapists but they were smart enough to realize that you can't trust the government with guns.

So when the liberals and conservatives tell you that they're not against the right to bear arms, but we need to make sure that crazed lunatics don't get their hands on guns, the proper response is that our constitutions already bar crazed lunatics (i.e., government employees) from getting their hands on guns.

You're right about "Liberals and conservatives." I got this vibe from a conservative who's a cop and attends my church. He's a nice person and one of the strongest Christians that I know, but he's definitely biased by his career (And no, I don't know much about what he does but I know I don't really like the police force and would not encourage anyone to join it.) "Keeping the crazy from getting weapons." I mean, its not entirely untrue, but I agree with what James Madison (The poster, in this case, not the actual James Madison) said when he said something along the lines of: If you're too dangerous to have a gun, aren't you too dangerous to be out of prison?

Where is a permanent military actually forbidden by the Bill of Rights or Article 1 Section 8? I honestly didn't know that if that's the case.

Christian Liberty
05-26-2013, 12:25 PM
Well, we had our Sunday service this morning, it actually wasn't THAT bad. They played a video about a man who went off to fight and left a daughter at home. While the message of the video was technically "These people sacrifice a lot": Honestly if you were really paying attention and actually THINKING you should question war because of a video like that. We had a thing about memorial day on a whiteboard in the hall but it thanked those who FOUGHT for our freedoms, not "Are Fighting" so I just made a mental note that all of those people have been dead for over a century. And we did have a moment of silent prayer for our troops, and as always I prayed that they would be brought home. But it wasn't TOO bad. There were no patriotic songs in church or the kind of absolute glorification that Laurence Vance correctly bashes all the time.

Any of you guys who went to church today... how bad was it?

schiffheadbaby
05-26-2013, 01:19 PM
It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.



No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.

What's the difference between being in the military and being a welfare queen? I guess welfare queen is better because at least doesn't endanger us the way troops do?

SkarnkaiLW
05-26-2013, 04:37 PM
You know what? I don't give a crap. Quit. Anyone who tries to get 18 year olds to ruin their own lives and commit murder is a horrible person.

Where is a permanent military actually forbidden by the Bill of Rights or Article 1 Section 8? I honestly didn't know that if that's the case.

Article I, Section 8. Under the defined powers of Congress.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

I think anyways. The NDAA each year is what is used to bypass this though. Many or perhaps most of the Founders were against standing armies, due to their experiences with the Redcoats.

bolil
05-26-2013, 04:55 PM
Irrelevant

RockEnds
05-26-2013, 08:01 PM
I don't get why people fight over who does or does not fight for our freedoms on Memorial Day. I don't appreciate the fought for our freedoms meme, but two wrongs don't make a right. Memorial Day is about being dead. That's all. Dying in battle and staying dead. Dead men aren't political. They're dead. For whatever reason in whichever war, the government ordered them to battle, and they went. Maybe they were drafted. Maybe they were drug by their ear. Maybe they were chomping at the bit to go. Maybe they were 14 and trotted off with their buddy not having a clue what lay before them. But dead men tell no tales, and these men are dead. Their mother cried. Their wife became a widow. Their children may have ended up in an orphans home. In more recent times, their husband became a widower. They each have a different story which they will never tell but which contains one common thread. They died.

That's all.

klamath
05-26-2013, 08:17 PM
What I find also disgusting is people saying we need a civil war here so we can "FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM". Pretty much all the same liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, Libertarian, anarchist, they all love that line. All you have to do is switch the enemy and you can get any one of those groups to start their indoctrinated "FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM" chant. And they all believe to their deepest heart that they are the only ones right.....

muh_roads
05-26-2013, 08:19 PM
https://cuthulan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/military-welfare1.jpg

Warlord
05-26-2013, 08:32 PM
I like his take down of Afghanistan. BS war. Just like Iraq. Pointless.

qh4dotcom
05-26-2013, 08:36 PM
At this point the military is just a career for people that can't get a decent job. Since getting a decent job is nearly impossible being a mercenary is a good idea.

Defending our freedoms? Nah. Respect the job? Yeah. Does this job help make the world a safer place? Hell no!

It's a career for people who are too incompetent to get a job in the private sector.

qh4dotcom
05-26-2013, 08:41 PM
I don't get why people fight over who does or does not fight for our freedoms on Memorial Day. I don't appreciate the fought for our freedoms meme, but two wrongs don't make a right. Memorial Day is about being dead. That's all. Dying in battle and staying dead. Dead men aren't political. They're dead. For whatever reason in whichever war, the government ordered them to battle, and they went. Maybe they were drafted. Maybe they were drug by their ear. Maybe they were chomping at the bit to go. Maybe they were 14 and trotted off with their buddy not having a clue what lay before them. But dead men tell no tales, and these men are dead. Their mother cried. Their wife became a widow. Their children may have ended up in an orphans home. In more recent times, their husband became a widower. They each have a different story which they will never tell but which contains one common thread. They died.

That's all.

Besides being a day for celebrating perpetual war like Veteran's day, the other problem with Memorial day is that only the military is remembered.

In other countries, everyone who has died gets remembered on their version of Memorial Day. Folks go to cemeteries to leave flowers for their loved ones and they certainly don't celebrate or do barbeques.

XTreat
05-26-2013, 08:46 PM
Hey guys guess what? Recruiters are individuals too! Some are assholes and some aren't, some lie and some don't, I agree with the sentiment that at best they are enablers, but try to remember we are all individuals, even in the military.

James Madison
05-26-2013, 08:49 PM
Besides being a day for celebrating perpetual war like Veteran's day, the other problem with Memorial day is that only the military is remembered.

In other countries, everyone who has died gets remembered on their version of Memorial Day. Folks go to cemeteries to leave flowers for their loved ones and they certainly don't celebrate or do barbeques.

Only a morally dead society can turn a celebration to the end of war into a celebration of it.

Servants of the state are more equal than us mere mundanes.

WhistlinDave
05-26-2013, 09:12 PM
WOW. Must spread some reputation around, blah blah blah. (I know you get that a lot. LOL)

Seriously thank you for posting this. I'm going to be sure to share this letter around. This is something every soldier and every American needs to read.

Christian Liberty
05-27-2013, 09:39 AM
At this point the military is just a career for people that can't get a decent job. Since getting a decent job is nearly impossible being a mercenary is a good idea.

Defending our freedoms? Nah. Respect the job? Yeah. Does this job help make the world a safer place? Hell no!

Why should I respect the job of policing the world and destroying our freedoms?


What's the difference between being in the military and being a welfare queen? I guess welfare queen is better because at least doesn't endanger us the way troops do?

Or kill innocents.

I don't flat out hate soldiers but I don't respect them just for being soldiers. I know Ron Paul was in the military and I have a ton of respect for him but none of that has anything to do with him having ever been in the military.


Article I, Section 8. Under the defined powers of Congress.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

I think anyways. The NDAA each year is what is used to bypass this though. Many or perhaps most of the Founders were against standing armies, due to their experiences with the Redcoats.

Yeah, its technically a workaround but that's obviously not what they intended.

Regardless of what the constitution says (As in, we should amend it if we have to) my personal view is that we should have a very limited army on duty at any given time protecting our borders, and everyone else should be reserve and should have jobs in the civilian sector rather than being "Standing." It should also require, via constitutional amendment, UNANMIMOUS congressional support to go to war.


What I find also disgusting is people saying we need a civil war here so we can "FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM". Pretty much all the same liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, Libertarian, anarchist, they all love that line. All you have to do is switch the enemy and you can get any one of those groups to start their indoctrinated "FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM" chant. And they all believe to their deepest heart that they are the only ones right.....

My statement was actually a mockery of the original line, "If you were actually fighting for our freedom, you'd be fighting DC." But I guess you're a pacifist. I have no idea if we've reached critical mass to the point where we can actually win this country yet or not (Probably not) but I don't support just laying down and letting them take it.

And it is certainly posssible to fight for freedom. That's its so obviously a propaganda line in wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam, and even questionable in wars like WWII or the War for Southern Independence (Not sure it was really "Freedom" the South was fighting for, even though I certainly think the South was justifiably fighting a war of self-defense) doesn't mean its impossible to ever do.

I can't imagine it happening right now, but if a totalitarian country tried to invade the United States and our troops fought to defend the United States against them, they really WOULD be "Fighting for our freedoms." The real question is, are they fighting to protect our freedoms, or are they destroying them. In reality, its the latter, in reality, it may well ALWAYS be the latter. But that doesn't mean violence is always illegitimate. America should not be policing the world. Its not our job, and its immoral. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight if we are attacked.


https://cuthulan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/military-welfare1.jpg

OK, I would never actually say that to a soldier. If it came up, I'd tell them the truth (You don't defend our freedom, what you're doing isn't moral, exc.) but I'd say it more nicely than that.


I like his take down of Afghanistan. BS war. Just like Iraq. Pointless.

I don't like the war in Afghanistan but I don't think it was QUITE as bad as the one in Iraq. At least that one was ever remotely connected to 9/11. The way to tell the difference between a "Realist" (In quotes because I don't really agree with the terminology, we're the real realists) and a neo-con is the Iraqi War, not the Afghan one.


Besides being a day for celebrating perpetual war like Veteran's day, the other problem with Memorial day is that only the military is remembered.

In other countries, everyone who has died gets remembered on their version of Memorial Day. Folks go to cemeteries to leave flowers for their loved ones and they certainly don't celebrate or do barbeques.

You know, I hear you, why are we barbecuing on a day to remember the dead? That said, since its basically a military worship day now anyway, I honestly have no qualms about going to be a barbecue. I'm not happy anyone died but I'm not mourning for an entire day for the imperial system. I guess if I knew someone personally who had died I might feel differently but "The Troops" as a group are honestly... evil? How do I say it?

I think it should be more sad when someone in thee defending country dies than when one of "Ours" dies. Let's just put it that way.

BTW: I still live at home obviously, and I'm going to a barbecue with my family, but if I ever had my own household I would definitely refuse to acknowledge the day there.

Hey guys guess what? Recruiters are individuals too! Some are assholes and some aren't, some lie and some don't, I agree with the sentiment that at best they are enablers, but try to remember we are all individuals, even in the military.

You really AREN'T an individual in the military. You should read what Laurence Vance says about it. I agree that there are different degrees of culpability (Which Vance seems to disagree with, so I think I disagree with him) but that's about it. If I joined the military, knowing what I know, I would definitely be a murderer because I know better. If you're ignorant, like so many people are, I don't think you're QUITE as guilty as you would be otherwise. But you're still guilty since you still chose to join.

Only a morally dead society can turn a celebration to the end of war into a celebration of it.

Servants of the state are more equal than us mere mundanes.

Indeed:sad:

klamath
05-27-2013, 09:59 AM
Why should I respect the job of policing the world and destroying our freedoms?



Or kill innocents.

I don't flat out hate soldiers but I don't respect them just for being soldiers. I know Ron Paul was in the military and I have a ton of respect for him but none of that has anything to do with him having ever been in the military.



Yeah, its technically a workaround but that's obviously not what they intended.

Regardless of what the constitution says (As in, we should amend it if we have to) my personal view is that we should have a very limited army on duty at any given time protecting our borders, and everyone else should be reserve and should have jobs in the civilian sector rather than being "Standing." It should also require, via constitutional amendment, UNANMIMOUS congressional support to go to war.



My statement was actually a mockery of the original line, "If you were actually fighting for our freedom, you'd be fighting DC." But I guess you're a pacifist. I have no idea if we've reached critical mass to the point where we can actually win this country yet or not (Probably not) but I don't support just laying down and letting them take it.

And it is certainly posssible to fight for freedom. That's its so obviously a propaganda line in wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam, and even questionable in wars like WWII or the War for Southern Independence (Not sure it was really "Freedom" the South was fighting for, even though I certainly think the South was justifiably fighting a war of self-defense) doesn't mean its impossible to ever do.

I can't imagine it happening right now, but if a totalitarian country tried to invade the United States and our troops fought to defend the United States against them, they really WOULD be "Fighting for our freedoms." The real question is, are they fighting to protect our freedoms, or are they destroying them. In reality, its the latter, in reality, it may well ALWAYS be the latter. But that doesn't mean violence is always illegitimate. America should not be policing the world. Its not our job, and its immoral. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight if we are attacked.



OK, I would never actually say that to a soldier. If it came up, I'd tell them the truth (You don't defend our freedom, what you're doing isn't moral, exc.) but I'd say it more nicely than that.



I don't like the war in Afghanistan but I don't think it was QUITE as bad as the one in Iraq. At least that one was ever remotely connected to 9/11. The way to tell the difference between a "Realist" (In quotes because I don't really agree with the terminology, we're the real realists) and a neo-con is the Iraqi War, not the Afghan one.



You know, I hear you, why are we barbecuing on a day to remember the dead? That said, since its basically a military worship day now anyway, I honestly have no qualms about going to be a barbecue. I'm not happy anyone died but I'm not mourning for an entire day for the imperial system. I guess if I knew someone personally who had died I might feel differently but "The Troops" as a group are honestly... evil? How do I say it?

I think it should be more sad when someone in thee defending country dies than when one of "Ours" dies. Let's just put it that way.

BTW: I still live at home obviously, and I'm going to a barbecue with my family, but if I ever had my own household I would definitely refuse to acknowledge the day there.


You really AREN'T an individual in the military. You should read what Laurence Vance says about it. I agree that there are different degrees of culpability (Which Vance seems to disagree with, so I think I disagree with him) but that's about it. If I joined the military, knowing what I know, I would definitely be a murderer because I know better. If you're ignorant, like so many people are, I don't think you're QUITE as guilty as you would be otherwise. But you're still guilty since you still chose to join.


Indeed:sad:
Which shows your extreme youth and inexperience. You've got this glorified idea that you just go to Washington Dirty City and shoot the bad guys. The bad guys will end up being your neighbors, and families.
The north fought the war to stop southern independence, while the south fought the war to protect their right to hold 5 million people as slaves. The idea that the south was fighting for the right of secession is a joke as proved by the fact that they left the part in their constitutions about putting down rebellions and the fact that when eastern TN voted to leave the confederacy they sent southern troops there.

Christian Liberty
05-27-2013, 10:04 AM
Which shows your extreme youth and inexperience. You've got this glorified idea that you just go to Washington Dirty City and shoot the bad guys. The bad guys will end up being your neighbors, and families.
The north fought the war to stop southern independence, while the south fought the war to protect their right to hold 5 million people as slaves. The idea that the south was fighting for the right of secession is a joke as proved by the fact that they left the part in their constitutions about putting down rebellions and the fact that when eastern TN voted to leave the confederacy they sent southern troops there.
So what's your solution? Let the tyrants win?

I don't really support going into DC for the record: I support secession. If the Federal Government chooses to make that into a civil war, that's on them.

klamath
05-27-2013, 10:18 AM
So what's your solution? Let the tyrants win?

I don't really support going into DC for the record: I support secession. If the Federal Government chooses to make that into a civil war, that's on them.
Just do me a favor and post just exactly how you think it would all go down? Explain the details. Things like what do you do with the people that don't want to secede? How are you going the mitigate the collateral damage the resulting war would bring? How are you going to pay for the troops in your freedom army and even if they are all volunteer's how are you going to feed and supply them? When the troops start getting weary of war and deserting your rebel army are you going to order that they be shot? When your ranks get thin are you going to draft poor southern farmers to fight your freedom battle?
These and a whole lot of others you need to think about.

Wolfgang Bohringer
05-27-2013, 10:27 AM
Article I, Section 8. Under the defined powers of Congress.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

I think anyways. The NDAA each year is what is used to bypass this though. Many or perhaps most of the Founders were against standing armies, due to their experiences with the Redcoats.


Why should I respect the job of policing the world and destroying our freedoms?
Yeah, its technically a workaround but that's obviously not what they intended.



If you consider the NDAAs in the context of the 2nd Amendment



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


and the state constitutions such as Virginia's (1776):



That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty;


then a scheme of appropriating money every 2 years for over a century in order to maintain a permanent military is the same sort of "structuring" crime as what the IRSS will accuse an American serf of committing if he makes a series of $9,000 transactions.

Its not like I expect any part of the constitution to be considered as anything more than toilet paper by the government and most of society, but it bothers me that you hardly ever hear "Constitutionalists" (good men such as Ron Paul and even Hornberger) point out that our Constitutions are 100% head on opposed to a permanent government military.

It seems that the fear of offending the conservative military welfare queens is so great that we dare not tell them that the authors of our constitutions were forced to compromise with the libertarian anti-federalists and outlaw a permanently armed government.

Likewise, most libertarian constitutionalists seldomly bring up the all important fact that the state and local police agencies are all equally prohibited by our constitutions.

Every time that conservatives bring up the subject of the constitution, we should immediately point out the irony of their even mentioning the constitution when it clearly outlaws their 2 favorite government projects: the military and the cops.

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415593-Where-Do-Cops-Come-From-or-Why-I-do-not-support-quot-private-quot-cops

Shane Harris
05-27-2013, 10:56 AM
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Voltaire

The truth tastes bitter compared to the sweet fiction of propaganda.

XTreat
05-27-2013, 11:07 AM
Why should I respect the job of policing the world and destroying our freedoms?



Or kill innocents.

I don't flat out hate soldiers but I don't respect them just for being soldiers. I know Ron Paul was in the military and I have a ton of respect for him but none of that has anything to do with him having ever been in the military.



Yeah, its technically a workaround but that's obviously not what they intended.

Regardless of what the constitution says (As in, we should amend it if we have to) my personal view is that we should have a very limited army on duty at any given time protecting our borders, and everyone else should be reserve and should have jobs in the civilian sector rather than being "Standing." It should also require, via constitutional amendment, UNANMIMOUS congressional support to go to war.



My statement was actually a mockery of the original line, "If you were actually fighting for our freedom, you'd be fighting DC." But I guess you're a pacifist. I have no idea if we've reached critical mass to the point where we can actually win this country yet or not (Probably not) but I don't support just laying down and letting them take it.

And it is certainly posssible to fight for freedom. That's its so obviously a propaganda line in wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam, and even questionable in wars like WWII or the War for Southern Independence (Not sure it was really "Freedom" the South was fighting for, even though I certainly think the South was justifiably fighting a war of self-defense) doesn't mean its impossible to ever do.

I can't imagine it happening right now, but if a totalitarian country tried to invade the United States and our troops fought to defend the United States against them, they really WOULD be "Fighting for our freedoms." The real question is, are they fighting to protect our freedoms, or are they destroying them. In reality, its the latter, in reality, it may well ALWAYS be the latter. But that doesn't mean violence is always illegitimate. America should not be policing the world. Its not our job, and its immoral. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight if we are attacked.



OK, I would never actually say that to a soldier. If it came up, I'd tell them the truth (You don't defend our freedom, what you're doing isn't moral, exc.) but I'd say it more nicely than that.



I don't like the war in Afghanistan but I don't think it was QUITE as bad as the one in Iraq. At least that one was ever remotely connected to 9/11. The way to tell the difference between a "Realist" (In quotes because I don't really agree with the terminology, we're the real realists) and a neo-con is the Iraqi War, not the Afghan one.



You know, I hear you, why are we barbecuing on a day to remember the dead? That said, since its basically a military worship day now anyway, I honestly have no qualms about going to be a barbecue. I'm not happy anyone died but I'm not mourning for an entire day for the imperial system. I guess if I knew someone personally who had died I might feel differently but "The Troops" as a group are honestly... evil? How do I say it?

I think it should be more sad when someone in thee defending country dies than when one of "Ours" dies. Let's just put it that way.

BTW: I still live at home obviously, and I'm going to a barbecue with my family, but if I ever had my own household I would definitely refuse to acknowledge the day there.


You really AREN'T an individual in the military. You should read what Laurence Vance says about it. I agree that there are different degrees of culpability (Which Vance seems to disagree with, so I think I disagree with him) but that's about it. If I joined the military, knowing what I know, I would definitely be a murderer because I know better. If you're ignorant, like so many people are, I don't think you're QUITE as guilty as you would be otherwise. But you're still guilty since you still chose to join.


Indeed:sad:

Very few of us are not guilty to some degree.

Organized Guilt and Universal Responsibility (http://home.earthlink.net/~lstenmark/Hum2B/ArendtOrgGuilt.pdf)

Anti Federalist
05-27-2013, 09:08 PM
What This Day Really Is

Posted by Lew Rockwell on May 27, 2013 12:16 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/138170.html#more-138170

Writes Simon Black:


Today is the Memorial Day holiday in the Land of the Free.

Curiously, this is the day that the federal government sets aside for citizens to reflect on the sacrifices made by soldiers throughout history to 'preserve our freedoms.'

At least, that's what we're told.

We're programmed to sing the anthem, wave the flag, and cheer at the parade. We swell with pride at the high note, wear the ribbons, and solemnly nod our heads in approval when politicians make speeches about freedom and fallen soldiers.

Wartime Presidents routinely tell crowds that it is the 'hardest decision of their lives' to send soldiers into combat, but that it's necessary to to preserve peace, freedom, security, and democracy.

Yet with each conflict, we are less peaceful. Less secure. Less 'democratic'. And certainly less free.

And with very few exceptions, the true motives for war throughout history have almost always been about resources (oil), power, corporate interests, and imperialistic expansion... all started by politicians who send young people into harm's way from their air-conditioned Ivory Towers.

It's truly ironic that we have a holiday to remember this.

Coincidentally, today is also the anniversary of the day I graduated from West Point years ago. And having spent some time myself on that side of the world, I'm thinking today of the friends and classmates I knew who lost their lives needlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I was in the service, I remember being constantly told by senior officers that our actions were making the world safer.

I realized very quickly that this was completely baloney, and I left the service as soon as I could.

But it's difficult, even after so many years, to choke down the deceit of a day like today... a day to commemorate millions of people, both military and civilian, who supposedly died in support of something that no longer exists.

Politicians want us to turn out for the parade. They want us to stand in a moment of silence. They want us to rally around the flag. They just don't want us to think too much about it.

Because if people do... if they start to peel away at the onion, they'll realize that this purported freedom that so many soldiers fought for is rapidly deteriorating.

Most of all, people will realize that the same politicians who give us this holiday to think about such freedom are the ones responsible for destroying it.

John F Kennedy III
06-11-2013, 01:27 PM
I believe this is bump worthy.

John F Kennedy III
07-11-2013, 10:24 AM
I believe this is bump worthy.