Monday, November 11, 2013

Can we please not make any more veterans?

It has been decreed that 11/11 is the time to honor the sacrifices of people who are sent away from their homes and families in order to make rich and powerful people more rich and powerful. Because this horrible way of treating one another is usually downplayed as "conflict" (instead of large scale violent death), promoted as problem solving, or characterized as defending freedom in order to manipulate people into thinking it is the right/honorable/just/necessary thing to do, one is considered a horrible person if one points out that the holiday's outpouring of rhetoric keeps everyone's blinders on and arguably does a greater disservice to veterans than anything else (by perpetuating the brutal paradigm and creating more and more wars and casualties and veterans and broken families and crippling injuries and traumatized lives).

TO THE VETERANS: I am sorry for your suffering. I wish fervently for your healing. I hope you can go forward in peace.

TO THE MILITARY FAMILIES: I am sorry you had to spend so many days worrying and waiting, and my sympathy goes out to those who received the worst news ever. I wish your government leaders had the courage to admit how bloody unnecessary it was to sacrifice those lives.

TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: I wish they hadn't been able to convince you that dulce et decorum est...

TO THE CIVILIAN VICTIMS OF WAR: What the hell can any of us say?

TO EVERYONE:  You should watch this.  At least click that link and go watch the trailer. Go.


Anonymous said...

Eric Remarque in "All Quiet On The Western Front" wrote about WWI. The theme of the book as I stated in my high school English class book report, is "WAR IS HELL". WWI was billed as "The war to end all wars." Unfortunately WWII came about less than 22 years later. These were wars to stop opressors from attacking and overcoming other nations. Ensuing conflicts for whatever their reasons, ie Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan, Falklan Islands, were/are for what? I have never understood how government leaders think. Like it is OK to disrupt families and send men and women to try to kill each other but with what purpose in mind? It is one of the worst sides of humanity. cjn

Anonymous said...

With the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, there have been a lot of Kennedy related things on TV. One interesting item, of which I was aware but had forgotten for the most part. He did not trust his military advisors. He once asked the joint chiefs for the strategic plan (thru an aide's request) and they told him it was classified. After he reminded him that he is the president, they reviewed it with him. One of the things he was told is that 170 nuclear bombs would hit Moscow alone. After hearing this and more, he commented "My God, and we call ourselves the human race." Kennedy worked hard toward reducing the nuclear threat. But having fought in WWII, he was ready to meet force with overwhelming force it necessary. But he didn't consider that as a preferred choice. Unfortunately, leaders since him, except GHW Bush, who also served in WWII, seem to view armed conflict as an acceptable strategy. At least Clinton knew to get in and out, and not hang around indefinitely, when he made the decision to stop an oppressor. I do not understand why other leaders seem to think it's OK to play with lives like they do. They ought to be required to send their sons and daughters into combat. Come to think of it, Joe Biden and British Royal Family have had sons in harms way.