Nihil Obstat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I like In Flanders Fields. In Flanders Fields By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 November 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1257560797' post='1997442'] I like In Flanders Fields. "Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields." [/quote] I don't like the poem. Its main message is, "We couldn't kill them all, so pick up where we left off." It promotes the idea (which most people who have seen the senselessness of war regrettably believe) that dying in a muddy, rat-infested trench for no good reason while trying to kill people who never threatened you is an act that has some intrinsically noble and sanctifying properties. ~Sternhauser Edited November 7, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='06 November 2009 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1257561219' post='1997459'] I don't like the poem. Its main message is, "We couldn't kill them all, so pick up where we left off." As if dying in a muddy, rat-infested trench for no good reason had some intrinsically noble, sanctifying properties. ~Sternhauser [/quote] I disagree. I see it as honouring those who died for what they believed in, and telling the next generation that their sacrifice should not be in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 November 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1257561543' post='1997465'] I disagree. I see it as honouring those who died for what they believed in, and telling the next generation that their sacrifice should not be in vain. [/quote] Sacrifice? What does "sacrifice" mean? It means "to make holy." What are soldiers making holy by slaughtering other men, something they would never have done had a State not told them to? Dying for what you believe in is as honorable as your belief is true and your intellect and will are prudent and properly ordered. The Muslims who slaughtered innocents on 9/11 died for what they believed in. They very likely had a noble intention and a sincere will. But what they did was not good. Nor was it conducive to their ultimately-desired ends. Dying in a war does not make you a hero. It does not make you an instant saint. It makes you a victim. ~Sternhauser Edited November 7, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='06 November 2009 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1257561907' post='1997475'] Sacrifice? What does "sacrifice" mean? It means "to make holy." What are soldiers making holy by slaughtering other men, something they would never have done had a State not told them to? Dying for what you believe in is as honorable as your belief is true and your intellect and will are prudent and properly ordered. The Muslims who slaughtered innocents on 9/11 died for what they believed in. They very likely had a noble intention and a sincere will. But what they did was not good. Nor was it conducive to their ultimately-desired ends. Dying in a war does not make you a hero. It does not make you an instant saint. It makes you a victim. ~Sternhauser [/quote] So what it comes down to for you, is whether or not they worked for a worthwhile cause, am I right? It's not the dying that's worthwhile, it's what they put into it. Am I correct in saying that? I'm not saying there's inherent value in dying, but there is inherent value in being willing to die for an objectively good cause. Clearly these men were willing, because they did. So you'd have to ask yourself whether or not World War One was a worthy cause or not. Who attacked whom and for what reasons? Was meeting the attack with force justified? The war certainly wasn't glorious. It was disgusting and horrible, but was it necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I got to meet someone at the Canadian Legion whose grandfather was on one of the troop transports my father's squadron kept from being sent to the bottom of the Atlantic by a German U-Boat. He was appreciative of my dad's sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [url="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2009/11/06/obama-gives-shout-out-congressional-medal-honor-winner-who-isnt"][b]Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't[/b][/url] [url="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html"][b]Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting [/b][/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 November 2009 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1257562179' post='1997480'] So what it comes down to for you, is whether or not they worked for a worthwhile cause, am I right? It's not the dying that's worthwhile, it's what they put into it. Am I correct in saying that? I'm not saying there's inherent value in dying, but there is inherent value in being willing to die for an objectively good cause. Clearly these men were willing, because they did. So you'd have to ask yourself whether or not World War One was a worthy cause or not. Who attacked whom and for what reasons? Was meeting the attack with force justified? The war certainly wasn't glorious. It was disgusting and horrible, but was it necessary? [/quote] They were so willing to go and fight and die that over two million men had to be enslaved to fight in World War One, under threat of imprisonment, and death, if they resisted imprisonment. Tell me how conscription differs from slavery. War is almost [i]always[/i] founded on a lie. The State told us that Santa Anna made an unwarranted attacked on United State troops in Tejas. It was a lie. (The State also didn't tell us that the United State offered to reinstall Santa Anna, and to give him a handsome sum to be its own puppet dictator.) The State told us that "Lincoln and the Army of the Lord was marchin' down to free the slaves, alleluia," and not going to war to secure taxes from those who dared believe in the Constitution of 1792. To force a "Union" made at gunpoint. The State told us that the Spanish were continuing to commit atrocities in Cuba, and that those dastardly Spanish blew up the U.S. Battleship Maine. (Remember the Maine!) Who cares? Those who stood to profit by promoting the lie-based war got what they wanted. The State repeated the lie that the baby-butchering, maiden-ravishing bloody-handed Huns were ravaging Belgium, and didn't tell us that in addition to a few civilians, the Lusitania was mainly carrying small arms and ammunition to the British. But that's all right. It was useful. A propaganda poster of a beautiful blonde woman drowning underwater with a baby in her arms literally caused riots on the streets of Boston. The people demanded war. A nice emotional plea to get people to soberly consider the ramifications of war. It worked for those in power who stood to turn a buck. The State told us that the U.S. was taken completely off guard on December 7th, 1941. The media failed to mention that the Dutch and Americans had broken the Japanese code. The State failed to mention that since 1933, every final exam in the Imperial Naval Academy included the question, "How would you execute a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?" I personally own a letter written by a paratrooper's father, dated December 8th, stating, "We knew it was only a matter of time." The letter went on to state all the reasons they knew the attack was coming. (In a nutshell, Empires don't like competition from other Empires.) The State told us that slaughtering scores of thousands of Japanese women and children was "necessary." Posterity fails to note that MacArthur, Nimitz and Halsey all said it was a crock: that Japan was totally militarily defeated, and air and ocean superiority had been attained. Isn't war supposed to be a macrocosm of the principle of self-defense? Neutralize the threat, period? No... war is about glory for those who love it. (And for those who profit by it.) The State told us that American warships were attacked by torpedo boats at the Tonkin Gulf. Another lie. Who cares? Honeywell, Lockheed, McDonnell, Colt and tens of thousands of other corporate heads got what they wanted. It got them the Viet Nam war. The State repeated the lie of "Nayirah," an alleged nurse at Kuwait City hospital, testified before Congress, weeping, while describing how those horrible Iraqis had tossed dozens of babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor. They failed to mention (except for NBC) that "Nayirah" was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United State, (surprise!) and that she never worked at the hospital, was not near Kuwait when the Iraqis invaded, and that the entire event never happened to begin with. Based in part on this lie, military pilots were literally told to "put some hate into their hearts" as they raked what is now called "the highway of death" with cannonfire. But who cares? They got their war. The people who needed to made their money. And now, the United State was "forced" to go to war with a country that was [i]just about [/i]to use nuclear weapons against its neighbors and the United State. The State, with Bush as their mouthpiece, said "The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," but that occupying a country the size of Tejas, filled with even 15% of a population that hates the foreign intruders' guts, is somehow going to prevent terrorists from coming across any porous border they want, whenever they want. War is a racket, as two-time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler said. I'd rather take the mushroom cloud rather than continually feeding the sausage grinder. But then, I am "without authority." Those in the State know better. They know they just need to make the lie shiny and pretty, play a little emotion-tugging music, and people will be rattling sabres in no time. If the past 10,000 years of history have failed to teach men that wars are never fought for the reasons the State and its politicians tell them, I consider their ignorance and subsequent willingness to pick up a rifle and die at their behest to be a grave character flaw, not a "noble attribute." ~Sternhauser Edited November 7, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Was the First World War justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' date='06 November 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1257535881' post='1997256'] ...when you think about it, on 9/11, prez bush was reading to a bunch of little kids when he was told about the attacks...he calmly went back to reading not to disturb the little kids...because of this reaction, he was mercilessly attacked by the haters in the media and the dems... obama went from schmoozing some guy in the audience and accepting laughter and applause to trying to be solemn and serious in his comments about the shooting at Ft. Hood...it was not natural...a very cold response...was it him being insensitive? [/quote] I didn't see Obama's response, but this was my reaction regarding comparing this to Bush reading to kids during the 9/11 attacks. [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1257560797' post='1997442'] I like In Flanders Fields. In Flanders Fields By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. [/quote] I need to get my poppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 November 2009 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1257565588' post='1997537'] Was the First World War justified? [/quote] Not how it was waged. Ultimately, even if the cause were just, it cannot be waged unjustly and still remain a just war. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 06:10 AM' timestamp='1257595854' post='1997675'] Not how it was waged. Ultimately, even if the cause were just, it cannot be waged unjustly and still remain a just war. ~Sternhauser [/quote] Was it just the conscription in your mind that makes it unjust, or is there any more to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhetoricfemme Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I'd been watching the news all afternoon to keep up on the shooting, and heard at some point that the president would be addressing the situation. When he finally spoke, I was honestly confused as to whether or not he knew what had happened yet. I wasn't sure how he couldn't have known, but was thinking that, you know, anything can happen... It was incredibly disappointing when he finally addressed the massacre, and I couldn't fool myself anymore. A moment of silence would have been nice. Even if he couldn't find charismatic or elegant words, he could have found softer and more meaningful words and inflection to address the situation. But maybe he was being honest in that it didn't mean much to him; it certainly wasn't a priority in his speech, to say the very very least. End story: they deserve better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='rhetoricfemme' date='07 November 2009 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1257626433' post='1997822'] ... A moment of silence would have been nice. ...[/quote] Not a "shout-out"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhetoricfemme Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='07 November 2009 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1257627555' post='1997827'] Not a "shout-out"? [/quote] Yeah sure why not. He's president he knows what's best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now