Veterans Day, 11 Nov 2003

[haggis]

I regret this post and I apologize for an action made in emotional hastiness.

I started this thread during a moment of reflection about four men, three deceased, one KIA, who brought focus and maturity to my life.

Normally, I think of each of them and what he contributed to my life without the treacley self-absorbing tearfulness 11/11 notoriously visits on old G.I.s.

I’m sorry.

<small>[ 11-19-2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[Valerie]

thank you for sharing - and most importantly, thank you for serving and helping to protect and preserve our way of life, which is taken more and more for granted each day.

my grandfather passed away last year on veterans day - he was 92 - i really miss him

he served in WWII in the south pacific

[piqaboo]

In memory of Leonard Lewis, who served in Italy (WWII).

[OperaTenor]

Donald A. Boydston, Sgt., US 3rd Army, WWII.

[shostakovich]

Nice idea, Haggis.
I salute my grandfather, a marine in WWI, and
my father, an infantryman who died in WWII.

Wars after WWII have mainly shown the futility of war. When the UN was created in good faith, it seemed that organization might be given the power over nations that our federal government has over states. We are no closer to that goal than we were 50 years ago.

A good start would have been a single simplified international language for all the world's people to share. And we're no closer to that, either. (The feeble attempt to introduce the metric system into the US in the 70s demonstrated the power of inertia even in an "enlightened" society.) When people rise to become world leaders, they seem to be taller in their own minds. Unfortunately, it's only because their brains are in their feet, and too numb to be useful.
'Nuff said.

[The Great Carouser]

The following is a poem by (Alfred) Joyce Kilmer who died serving his country in WWI. I hope that here it will be "better late than never"

Memorial Day

"Dulce et decorum est"


The bugle echoes shrill and sweet,
But not of war it sings to-day.
The road is rhythmic with the feet
Of men-at-arms who come to pray.

The roses blossom white and red
On tombs where weary soldiers lie;
Flags wave above the honored dead
And martial music cleaves the sky.

Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel,
They kept the faith and fought the fight.
Through flying lead and crimson steel
They plunged for Freedom and the Right.

May we, their grateful children, learn
Their strength, who lie beneath this sod,
Who went through fire and death to earn
At last the accolade of God.

In shining rank on rank arrayed
They march, the legions of the Lord;
He is their Captain unafraid,
The Prince of Peace . . . Who brought a sword.

[dai bread]

WW2 is the reason so many of us wonder what has happened to the U.S. in the intervening 58 years.

As for the U.N., our man on the spot, Peter Fraser, tried desperately to can the veto when the outfit was being set up, but failed. The Security Council needs drastic revision to reflect political changes over 58 years, and I believe the whole U.N. organisation could do with a good dose of Rogernomics (i.e. a purge!). It also needs its own standing military. See any pigs flying by, anyone?

BTW, the Aussies have just consecrated a memorial in London to their dead in European wars. Ours is due to be built close by.

[barfle]

Stanley C. Fuller
Michael J. Bradley

Two friends of mine, with their names on the big black wall.

I miss you both.

[shostakovich]

Dai Bread, it's interesting you think the UN should have its own standing military. Wouldn't it be nice if they had the ONLY army, navy, and air force in the world? They would be charged with settling all border issues between nations.

Then individual countries would only need their police, national guard, and coast guard. Nuclear weapons or other "weapons of mass destruction" (a term I suspect Bush's speech writers came up with, so he wouldn't have to embarrass himself saying "nucular") could be abandoned. Imagine the costs of unnecessary "defense budgets" being put to better use.

Unfortunately, it would require a shift of power from nations to a real UN. Aye, there's the rub.
No real UN, and no world leaders willing to give up power. The human race is "in for a long slog" --- or a sudden end.
Cynic

[Shapley]

Shos,

Unfortunately, the majority of nations aren't beg fans of freedom or democracy. Handing over our security to them is a frightful thought, and not one I'll sign on for. Even the "world court" is fraught with danger to freedom-loving peoples, as it places too much power in the hands of people who do not wield it well.

I'm afraid the world will have to be filled with more peaceful people before it will become a more peaceful place.

The term "Weapons of mass destruction" has been around longer than George W. Bush. I believe it dates back to the Great War, if not before.

V/R
Shapley

[Marye]

Reading Barfle's message made me weep - the black wall is so utterly tragic, Barfle. Such loss. Reading Shos's messages made me hope ... reading yours Shap I am reminded just how much I fear the U.S.

[dai bread]

Shos & I can dream, I think. Neither of us expects any action in the reform of the U.N., unfortunately. If the U.N. had had its own military it could have helped enormously in the Balkans and in Rwanda, where duck-shoving and procrastination caused enormous suffering.

Your point about "freedom-loving peoples" is taken, Shapley, though the terminology is subject to misinterpretation by people who are not used to Americanisms. Under the Bush administration in particular, use of that expression has come to mean "do it my way or else".

The World Court is hampered by lack of U.S. participation. As far as N.Z. is concerned, the Court awarded us 13 million $ compensation against the French for the "Rainbow Warrior" affair, so we quite like it. The fact that the French subsequently gave it and us a one-fingered salute by rewarding the saboteurs involved just points up the lack of real power of both N.Z. & the Court. O.K., so the French probably don't like it, but at least they paid the money.

In the meantime, a bit of idealism doesn't hurt. We just have to keep our feet firmly planted on the ground, and learn the lessons of history so that we don't have to re-live it.

[Jeff Dutton]

Originally posted by Marye:
... reading yours Shap I am reminded just how much I fear the U.S.

I don't follow you, Mary. What in Shap's note caused you to react that way?

[EJA]

A couple of observations / questions:

What makes us think that the same self-interest that now characterizes national government leaders would not also characterize world government leaders? I.E., what would prevent a world government from becoming corrupt, as virtually every human government in history has, and if it did, then where would we go?

What would be the reason for having one army in the world? The whole purpose of an army is to fight other armys. The only purpose I can see for such an army is the coercion / oppression of the populace. Once again, a single point of control for such power scares me more than multiple points of control.

In the innevitable event that a world leader became corrupt, what would make him / her any more inclined to give up power than national leaders are now?

My opinion is that a single world government is extremely dangerous to freedom, human rights, and all that we hold dear. Moreover, I think that the current UN is a pathetic joke and would like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

[shostakovich]

Hi Ethan. In my idealistic view of the UN, with the only equipped military in the world, it would control the world, and, therefore, not need to become corrupt. Lazy or sloppy, maybe, but with no need to increase its power.

Its military would consist of people from all nations, working together (and using that common language that doesn't exist yet).

Its non-military leaders would need to be thinkers instead of knee-jerkers. I think you can find some of those in every nation.

The function of the UN military (with a mixed and rotating personnel) would be to prevent wars between nations. At first the nations would be allowed to be internally whatever they are. Eventually, the leaders (thinking people) could determine what policies, laws, ideas work well in the individual countries, and RECOMMEND improvements around the world, using EDUCATION.

I could go on with my idealism, but it would only be based on my own fantasy. At the present time, we're a LONG SLOG away from the coming to pass of the above.

Idealistic Cynic (a combination that leads to perpetual dissatisfaction)

<small>[ 11-13-2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[dai bread]

Originally posted by EJA:
<A couple of observations / questions:

What makes us think that the same self-interest that now characterizes national government leaders would not also characterize world government leaders? I.E., what would prevent a world government from becoming corrupt, as virtually every human government in history has, and if it did, then where would we go?>

At one time I thought that the checks & balances built into the U.S. system would have provided a perfect model for an expanded U.N., but recent developments leave me in doubt. I'm not referring to just the Bush administration either. Corporate activity leaves a lot to be desired. I don't need to spell out what & who.

<What would be the reason for having one army in the world? The whole purpose of an army is to fight other armys. The only purpose I can see for such an army is the coercion / oppression of the populace. Once again, a single point of control for such power scares me more than multiple points of control.>

The point of a U.N. military (not just an Army) is to keep brushfires down. Europe, which should have dealt with the Balkan affair, dithered shockingly, largely because of all the different governments that had to be consulted. Nobody is suggesting that a U.N. military will automatically consign other armed groups to history.

<In the innevitable event that a world leader became corrupt, what would make him / her any more inclined to give up power than national leaders are now?>

What will make George Bush & his cronies give up power? You think refusal couldn't happen in the U.S.? Some of us are not so sure any more.

<My opinion is that a single world government is extremely dangerous to freedom, human rights, and all that we hold dear. Moreover, I think that the current UN is a pathetic joke and would like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

You're right, Ethan. A single world govt. is dangerous. That's why we who support the idea don't want to rush it. I for one am quite happy to let it happen as & when. The current U.N. does need reforming. I think everyone's agreed on that except those who are feeding off the carcase.

And Jeff, the bit in Shapley's post that Marye didn't like was probably the reference to "freedom-loving peoples" that I commented on earlier. I didn't like it either, but I'm used to it and take it at face value. As I said earlier, it's a phrase that is open to misinterpretation.

<small>[ 11-12-2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: dai bread ]</small>

[dai bread]

Sorry about the bold type, people. I'll have to experiment further.

[barfle]

Unfortunately, I find more and more that the United States is not populated by freedom-loving people. We are no longer the self-sufficient rugged individualists with live-and-let-live attitudes that the founding fathers apparently were.

We expect more and more to be done for us by others ("health care" and "homeland security" being the causes of the day), and are willing to give up our liberties for those comforts. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said words to the effect of "those who are willing to give up a little liberty for a little security will end up with neither."

I'm far from being a supporter of the present administration, but I'm afraid they are simply a reflection, not an icon, of public opinion. And it saddens me.

[Shapley]

It was Bob Dole who said "A government that takes control of the economy for the good of the people will eventually take control of the people for the good of the economy", although he may have been quoting an earlier source.

We see this, to a smaller degree, in health care issues. The government decided to make health care "more affordable" decades ago, by establishing Medicare and Medicaid. They may have been noble in intent, but the effect was that medical costs have skyrocketed since their inception. Thus, reforms, both in Medicare and Medicaid and in the medical services they pay for, are being demanded, and limitations on the services offered are proposed.

They want the medical beaurocracy to determine what services you may recieve, not just what they will pay for. Right now you can recieve treatment over and above what your insurance , HMO, Medicare, or Medicaid program will pay for, you just have to pay for it yourself. The HMO's are not blocking the door to the hospital, they are just unwilling to pay for services beyond the terms of their contract, which is not a foriegn idea.

A centralized government would do no less. They would determine what services you could receive, and what services you would be expected to perform, and they would have the power to require you to comply. I, for one, do not think for a minute that they would fail to do so. Of course, we would be "educated" so that we understood that this slavery was for the betterment of all, even if all didn't appear to be better off.

BTW, there are freedom-loving Americans around, but we're all branded as "radical extremists".

V/R
Shapley

"Radical Extremism - catch the fever!"

[barfle]

I didn't mean to imply that there aren't a bunch of us around, but I have to keep in mind a statement made by George Will one day when he was on "The McLaughlin Group" (aka "The Yelling People"). As I recall, this was shortly after the elections in 1998. He said that the election was basically a poll of how much government the people wanted, and it turns out to be quite a lot.

It's quite clear that the medical care issue is a classic example of the "slippery slope" that, once you are on it, you cannot help but continue in the same direction. The government has been getting deeper and deeper into health care for the past 40+ years, with no end in sight. We're not going to get out of this situation easily, and unfortunately I see a lot more good money being thrown in after all the bad that's been wasted so far. I don't see it bankrupting the country in my lifetime, but I wonder just how bad things are going to get for generations X, Y, and Z.

To be sure, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 required a response. However, we're getting awfully close to the old "Alien and Sedition Acts" that violated several of our Constitutional rights. The current administration has not kept their oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..."

Freedom doesn't mean freedom to agree with the administration, it includes (no, it REQUIRES) freedom to disagree with them. At first blush, it seems incongruous to defend flag burning, but in a free country, flag burning (as long as it's not someone else's personal property) is a freedom that needs to be defended.

It's been a long time since I've seen the government repeal a law, though. That means that almost every day that congress is in session, they add to the restrictions and intrusions placed on freedom-loving people.

And it's still sad.