<-- forever honor
Out of context: Reply #54
- Started
- Last post
- 59 Responses
- js_0
spk
first of all, yes. I feel that anyone who falls while serving their country in the military deserves a proper tribute. Despite personal opinions about the administration that makes the final decisions, the soldiers are cannot be held responsible for acting on the interest of thier commanding officers. If you have ever served in a military, or spoken with anyone who has .. you will quickly learn that while fighting in any combat situation, you care not for what policies are being furthered, you care only for your life and the lives of the men next to you.
I believe that in a developed society war should absolutely not be a foregone conclusion, and that as intelligent human beings, logic and rationale should prevail in diplomatic situations. Bloodshed is the most absurd form of "pretection of liberties" and the propaganda put out by the Bush administration is deplorable .. noone can attest that. But my extreme disagreement with my President and his staff is to be taken up with him, not with the soldiers that have chosen to serve their country as best they can. I will not be dehumanized to a single lost life in this situation.
I absolutely believe, that each and every major publication that prints a single image of a celebrating Iraqi, or flag waving pro-war American, should have featured directly next to it the children with the burns cover 90 percent of their body, the families with limbs lost and homes destroyed.
And as far as the Boxer Rebellion example ... when will you be able to see the difference in the weapon and the wielder of the weapon. You lumping the soldiers into the same category as the Generals and Commander in Chief is the same as blaming guns and the NRA for murders. I hate to be so cliche, but guns don't kill people, people do. Soldiers don't colonize and impose foreign policy where it is unwanted, Presidents do.
You have to allow your humanity to understand that these were LIVES LOST. These were human beings that died and they did it serving a country they believed in. Now an unintelligent person will assume from that statement that I am claiming that the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are underserving of a similar tribute. (it is this ignorance that has led us to political correctness and the decorum of placing warnings on every opinion stated). The Iraqi civilians AND soldiers all deserve a tribute far beyond what these 64 marines recieved for the price they paid. They deserve an immortal memorial in Baghdad so that all Iraqi's that come after this can pay tribute to their brethren that were forced to willingly or unwillingly give thier lives in the liberation of thier country.
We are not holding a debate as to whether this war was just, or legitamate (i believe that it was neither) .. this debate is about whether those who see this as propaganda are demeaning the 64 lives lost, or is it the creators of this tribute.
I believe a memorial in any form should be taken at face value, and not looked at as a loaded thought weapon. The Vietnam Memorial does not serve a purpose to justify the USA's involvement there .. it is merely a permanent reminder of the lives lost there. Seeing it as anything else is assuming too much.