end veterans day
why we need to abolish veterans day 12 november 2007
armistice day started after world war I as a remembrance of the end to the great war, the war to end all wars. 21 years later the world started another great round of bloodletting. after world war II the US changed the day to veterans day. a day to honor the sacrifice of all veterans.
i think it is time to end this day. since world war II the US has converted into a warrior nation in denial. war is seen as a normal, good state of affairs, yet people are offended when a politician suggests that we need the draft, so that everyone has to serve. 99% of the population never join the military, yet the people of the US deeply distrust leaders who do not want to wage war after war after war(1). we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year, more than the rest of the world combined, to maintain a massive military presence around the globe. we have a shoot first – don't bother to ask questions foreign policy, while at the same time veterans are left to fend for themselves, often homeless, mentally and physically injured for life.
veterans day is a sham. if we had policies that avoided rather than encouraged war and actually treated veterans with respect, i would be all for it. right now it feels like a chance for pompous blowhards to beat their chests and say how much they care. dick cheney was the guest of honor at the nation's main celebration yesterday. perhaps this is because cheney cares deeply - about the profit margins of military contractors.
(1) while in office, jimmy carter was despised as a weak leader. his weakness was to be the only full term post world war II president to never lead the nation into a war. he did try a small police-like action to release the iranian hostages and even after that failed and after losing re-election he did not attack, he negotiated the release of the iranian hostages. even though reagan ended up with the credit all he actually did was bribe the iranians to delay the release until his inauguration. even as george w bush's popularity is in the tank over iraq he is still universally praised for invading afghanistan. his stated purpose for that war was to capture the leaders of al qaeda, and then peripherally to depose the taliban. 6 years later al qaeda appears to flourish and the taliban are not in control of the country but are far from vanquished. the fact that bush's invasion short-circuited diplomatic efforts that appeared to be leading to the taliban handing over bin laden is never mentioned. it's all in the press of the time, if we can trust anything put out by the new york times.
armistice day started after world war I as a remembrance of the end to the great war, the war to end all wars. 21 years later the world started another great round of bloodletting. after world war II the US changed the day to veterans day. a day to honor the sacrifice of all veterans.
i think it is time to end this day. since world war II the US has converted into a warrior nation in denial. war is seen as a normal, good state of affairs, yet people are offended when a politician suggests that we need the draft, so that everyone has to serve. 99% of the population never join the military, yet the people of the US deeply distrust leaders who do not want to wage war after war after war(1). we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year, more than the rest of the world combined, to maintain a massive military presence around the globe. we have a shoot first – don't bother to ask questions foreign policy, while at the same time veterans are left to fend for themselves, often homeless, mentally and physically injured for life.
veterans day is a sham. if we had policies that avoided rather than encouraged war and actually treated veterans with respect, i would be all for it. right now it feels like a chance for pompous blowhards to beat their chests and say how much they care. dick cheney was the guest of honor at the nation's main celebration yesterday. perhaps this is because cheney cares deeply - about the profit margins of military contractors.
(1) while in office, jimmy carter was despised as a weak leader. his weakness was to be the only full term post world war II president to never lead the nation into a war. he did try a small police-like action to release the iranian hostages and even after that failed and after losing re-election he did not attack, he negotiated the release of the iranian hostages. even though reagan ended up with the credit all he actually did was bribe the iranians to delay the release until his inauguration. even as george w bush's popularity is in the tank over iraq he is still universally praised for invading afghanistan. his stated purpose for that war was to capture the leaders of al qaeda, and then peripherally to depose the taliban. 6 years later al qaeda appears to flourish and the taliban are not in control of the country but are far from vanquished. the fact that bush's invasion short-circuited diplomatic efforts that appeared to be leading to the taliban handing over bin laden is never mentioned. it's all in the press of the time, if we can trust anything put out by the new york times.
posted by nic rossouw at
8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home