"It is such twisted thinking that leads those who refuse to examine the content of their minds to bleat about the soldiers who “fight for our freedom.” What nonsense. Shall we next be told that Sunset Boulevard hookers are peddling virtue?"
~ Butler Shaffer
Why would someone be "proud" to be a Vietnam veteran? Certainly, one shouldn't necessarily be ashamed, particularly if they were conscripted. But what is there to be proud of? The US government lost the war. It was a war that, by all historical perspective, should not have involved the intervention of the US government and its military. In other words, the operation was misguided and a failure. What is there to be proud of?
Why is a soldier who is killed or captured in war considered a hero? It would seem to me that the first objective, when striving to be a successful soldier, is not to be killed or captured. It is impossible to achieve your goal of destroying your enemy when you are dead or locked up under his control. Instead of a "hero," shouldn't you be considered a failure?
Why does a US soldier say he is fighting for freedom when he, as an enlisted individual, is not free?
Why is it that military failure is never blamed on the military, itself, i.e., the individuals who make up the military? When confronted with the question of why the military lost the Vietnam War, or why the military did not protect the country (or even make an effort) on 9/11, or why was the military on that same date unable to even protect its own building – the answer is always, "it was someone else's fault." Members of the military can never seem to find fault in their own actions as reasons for their collective failures but always seem to find someone (or thing) else to blame – be it politicians, war protestors, insufficient financial and asset support, etc.
Why do militarists proudly point out soldier's benevolent acts toward civilians suffering the effects of war when it is the soldiers that caused the suffering in the first place?
Why do soldiers claim to be fighting for democracy (majority rule) in Iraq when the American democratic majority, for whom they claim to fight for, clearly has said they do not want the American military in Iraq?
Why do soldiers, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, violate that oath when partaking in illegally executed wars?
Why are soldiers who refuse to fight in violation of that oath considered "deserters" or "traitors?"
Why are soldiers considered the "best and the brightest" when they fail to understand the clear language of the US Constitution, heed to authority without question, and are unable to grasp the clear evidence that the leaders that command them are ignorant, corrupt, and deceiving? Shouldn't they be referred to as the "clueless and easily deceived?"
Why do soldiers claim "they fight for you" when "you" never requested the soldiers or anyone else do such a thing? Isn't that a rather arrogant claim to make? I certainly don't recall making such a request. "Excuse me, sir; do you have a signed contract that quotes me agreeing to your services?" And if soldiers do "fight for me" why am I not allowed any input on how they go about doing that? Instead they receive and accept orders from elsewhere.
Why do soldiers claim they "answered their country's call?" How do millions of people "call" you? In reality, the only parties that called were the draft board and/or the recruiter.
Why do soldiers claim they defend "the country" when the largest threat to "the country" (the permanent regime located in Washington D.C.) is not only ignored but protected? If "the country" truly is "the people" and the role of the military is to protect "the people," why does the military not protect "the people" from its government?
Attempts to answer these questions without the use of expletives, slogans, revisionist history, clichés, or slander are welcome.
July 24, 2008
