Fair comment, Ian. There's plenty of Plaid Cymry would agree with you, too.

Rememberance day is, for Brits too, a very quiet affair with a minutes silence at 11:11.

When I was a teen, the white poppies began showing up among the red ones too.

Regards, C

I find that Canada's participation in WWI even more astounding than the WWII events.

At the outbreak in 1914, Canada was not consulted when Great Britain declared war on Germany. Canada had a population of about 8 million and a standing army of 3110 men (that's not a typo).

At the conclusion of WWI on 11:00AM on November 11, 1918, Canada had contributed 619,636 men and women to the war, leaving 66,665 dead and 172,950 wounded.

All in a grotesque meatgrinder of a stupid war waged by ambitious politicians.

Why the men who instigated it were not executed then fed to pigs and had their estates confiscated and families exiled is beyond my understanding.

Part of understanding peace is recognizing war for the obscenity it is--instead of glorifying it in movies and video games. And promising sure and swift retribution to those who would force their fellow human beings into such degrading insanity.

Canada's WWI history is indeed astounding. Including that a citizen army was able to win battles the professional armies weren't able to. But as you say, WWI was a war that should have never, ever, happened. And if it had not happened, neither would have WWII.

Why the men who instigated it were not executed then fed to pigs and had their estates confiscated and families exiled is beyond my understanding.

Do you really believe "the sins of the fathers are vested on the sons?"

Signs point to yes.

but agree with you re "there is no destiny...etc." Memorial Day is, or should be, a day of sorrow for the folly of those in power and those who are required to pay the price thereof. My opinion is that those in power should burn in hell for all eternity for the grief and pain they have caused. I would buy tickets to watch them crucified. Harsh, but nonetheless my feelings...

_{"I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken."}

The ones who deserve this remembrance are the innocents and the conscientious objectors.

Soldiers are opt-ins. If they wind up paying "the ultimate price", it was only what they had coming to them. If their torments follow them for the remainders of their lives, well, they should have thought of that.

We'll not end war until we take away the ability of scoundrels to wage war. Making GW's hitmen the moral equivalent of Murder Inc's hitmen, or Pablo Escobar's hitmen, would be a good start. Taking away any ludicrously misplaced hero status for them is at least a step in the right direction.

Real men don't kill people. This is what we should be teaching our children.

As part of my reunitng with my own home town, I attended last year's Veteran's Day ceremonies and had similar feelings. My next door neighbor for 53 years and WWII vet invited me and I was thankful and proud to to be his guest.

...frequently uses the line that '9/11 shattered the myth that our oceans protect us from those who would do us harm'. That myth was shattered in 1812 when the White House was burned to the ground. What the oceans have protected us from is the reality of the myth of American exceptionalism. There's nothing new with this administration (beyond a spectacular combination of incompetence and hubris). Read how Polk fomented the war with Mexico. Or how we "got" Hawaii. Or Puerto Rico. Or bases in the Phillipines. Or Guantanamo. And that's all well before WW I and WW II. It's only gotten worse since then.

Most of those soldiers died because they thought they were fighting for good and justice. Many were. Others were really fighting for United Fruit.

"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street..."
SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, (1881-1940) MAJOR GEN U.S. MARINES

In no way is this post meant to impugn the integrity or honor of those that serve with each.

I knew someone would be.

And yet I acknowledge that Americans have soared to heights - but look up the Scottish influence on your Constitution and Bill of Rights sometime...or look up the tale of the Scottish heroes of the Black watch who were bombed by US friendly fire as they advanced inland from the Normandy beaches - killing more on that day than died on 9/11. If you're going to impune my view as being superficial and lacking in perception, then at least go to the trouble not to commit that very error so glaringly.

And yet you miss my point - that even in the midst of those accomplishments, the US is the most militaristic of all Western powers in these times. Those great accomplishments came despite that, not because of it. The "ideologically mutant cretins" in charge only got to be in charge because your nation's nationalistic fervor was there to be played for votes in the first place. Or did you forget about the millions who voted for them...twice?

Regards, C

Very few Americans can catch this point. We are submerged in the national myth, the idea that our nation is an exception, that we ourselves as a people are not susceptible to the same faults and foibles as everyone else in human history. We see ourselves as a people of peace, yet our nation spends more money and effort on it's capability to kill other people than anyone else. We lambast our current leadership, yet we ignore the fact that if the Iraq war were not a disaster, there would be little opposition to it at home.

We are a people enamored with soldier-heroes, magic weapons, tragedy, and triumph. We "support the troops" as holy men; paladins of truth, justice and the American way who are either successful or betrayed, their motives or deeds never to be questioned. We consider "collateral damage" a sad but acceptable fact of our adventures overseas, necessary to achieve our goals and prevent losses of our own. We fool ourselves into thinking that war is a fundamentally creative activity, that conflicts bear the fruit technological innovation, freedom, progress, and peace. We believe all these lies of war, because, as you wrote, we have barely experienced the salted earth that industrial warfare leaves behind.

Sadly, I don't think there is a solution to this.

but I find some of your comments misguided. I'm aware that the US is the most militaristic right now but I don't find any reason to insult the memories of those that fought in prior wars. Or should the US have sat on the sidelines of WWI and WWII? Now that would be nationalistic. They should have just said screw'em, like why should our boys die because Europeans couldn't contain their neighbors and leaders.

ps..and no I don't think decimating Hiroshima & Nagasaki was right and note it as the beginning of the decline of America

...there has been a distinct qualitative difference in the use of the military by the 2 prevailing political parties.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Hi Tina,

I think you're misreading me. From the original post:

Which isn't to say that great and good nations must not oppose oppression or should stand aside against injustice - far from it. But to believe that this is done out of some "calling", out of divine right rather than bleak and reluctant realization that there are no other options but armed struggle, is to make a dangerous assumption of infallibility which will inevitably lead to hubristic wars of choice and the deaths of thousands for no good reason. The lesson of the last five years, if there is one at all, is surely just that.

Regards, C

PS America was a late arrival for both world wars, sitting on the sidelines for years and carefuly considering before admitting the necessity of action. I don't know what dates you learn in school but they ran from 1914 to 1918 and from 1939 to 1945. I personally think that's more moral than Tonkin Incidents and WMD intel fixed around the policy.

"in their frenzy of worship for "might is right" and 'manifest destiny'"

Examples, please. (And not just a few right wing gung-ho nuts. There are Neo-Nazis in Europe, but most do not think of Europe as Neo-Nazi.)

That's how many still support Bush. That isn't just a "few right wing gung-ho nuts". Thats 100 million people.

What was his approval rate on the eve of the Iraq war? 85%, more? How many Dem leaders voted for it? Yet anyone who wanted to look could find the holes in the narrative.

Regards, C

Parade? Your comments say "no" to me. These are solemn and respectful commemorations of the service of our veterans (plus a chance for anybody with any kind of uniform to get out and march with their group) and not glorifications of the wars they served in. I've been to plenty of Memorial Day Parades and have never witnessed any of the warhawk "tub-thumping" you mention. You can't get to the b of your argument because the a is wrong. If you want a topic to start a diatribe against American military policy, pick one that fits and leave our Memorial Day alone.

Doug, only now after many years as a member, your ire has finally gotten up by the misinformed anti-American-story-telling club on Agonist? More power to you.

Here's a little more support for your case:

I'd like to point out these figures that undermine the picture some folks like to draw of the U.S. as a militaristic society desirous of empire:

WWI
Draftees 2.8 million (72%) out of 3.5 million armed forces
WWII
Draftees 10.1 million (63%) our of 16 million armed forces
Korea
Draftees 1.5 million (54%) out of 1.8 in theatre, 2.8 million total armed forces
Vietnam
Draftees 1.9 million (56% / 22%) out of 3.4 million in theatre, 8.7 million total armed forces

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/draft.htm

Also on point:

"The official percentage of draftees in WWII, Korea and Vietnam actually understates the effect of conscription since many guys enlisted knowing they'd soon get drafted anyway."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000862.php

Same folks also tend to forget that a large portion of 19th and 20th century American population was formed of diaspora from the "old world" and its imperial/aristocratic complex monkey business. They came for the meritocracy, stupid, to be "selfish" individualists and not to have to do stuff like fight other people's wars or kowtow to tribal bosses.

If Americans are such bloodthirsty imperialists, how come they need "Remember the Maine" and Gulf of Tonkin to get them to support presidential adventures? How come their Congress supported saying "no more monkey business in Nicaragua," leading to the covert Iran/Contra deal? How come the majority were OK with "cutting and running" from peacekeeping operations in Somalia and Beirut when soldiers were attacked? Where were was the bloodthirsty revenge after the attack of the U.S.S. Cole?

For those that fall for the Howard-Zinn-style story of America, I will just point out that it is unfortunate that we don't have the figures to compare how many Native Americans were directly and indirectly slaughtered by Spain vs. how many died by the hand of the young United States. In those days, mostly everyone that saw the relatively empty land of the Americas saw it as untapped "manifest destiny," and many of them were still "Europeans." It's a false narrative to put it on the shoulders of "Americans;" you want to bitch about man's inhumanity to man or even the evils of Western civilization, I'll buy that much more easily.

Something that foreigners like cernig apparently don't understand: most Americans are not the same as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, they are just entertained by the characters they play. They get jingoistic only when attacked on American soil, and yes, they get teary-eyed about those who promise life and limb to protect that soil, especially when they would not do so themselves; so sue them.

Ask FDR, who would have liked to get involved in WWII much sooner, and still had to drag many guys kicking and screaming into the conflict, with a huge war propaganda machine to boot (those propaganda jobs happily taken by very practical cynical Americans who figured better making a movie here than "over there" fighting in the old country.)

Sure, Americans are patriotic, patriotic isolationists--they don't really much care what people are doing "over there."

Reminder: You can't have it both ways: Americans can't be woefully ignorant of and uninterested in the rest of the world and want to own and occupy it, too.

...never President. I like that world much better already.

You are correct. Most Americans are not bloodthirsty imperialists. Most people, everywhere, would just like to get along, and leave others alone, too.

It's not the people. It's not even those who join the military. It's the leaders. And the bowdlerized history that makes past leaders look good. And gimmicks and tricks to get the people roused to arms. Or covert action when the people see through their lies.

As far as Indian relations: not a whole lot of people know that the Russians came down the West coast to N California. They traded with, befriended and got along just fine with the Indians. Saying "we were better than the Spaniards" does not win you a peace prize. It doesn't even make a good slogan.

was entirely volunteer.

Your point?

Regards, C

EOM

... just what is your point? After this broad brush BS:

misinformed anti-American-story-telling club on Agonist

..you got some 'splainin' to do.

Reminder: You can't have it both ways: Americans can't be woefully ignorant of and uninterested in the rest of the world and want to own and occupy it, too.

Ah, no, actually he can have it both ways, they aren't mutually contradictory. Most great conquering nations have had populations that didn't know squat about the rest of the world. Knowledge of other people; real knowledge, tends to blunt militarism in the masses.

Do you believe that the US military is a force for good? Or is it an imperial force? This belief that the current band of schmucks are the problem are forgetting a few minor details such as Vietnam. In fact, there is no war in history that America's entry is completely untainted with guilt; where America was not part of the cause and I include WW II in that.

The current American brand of militarism relies on the belief that the American military is a force for good. Nothing will change until we all realize that it is not. The only way to end these wars is for young men and women to stop volunteering for the military and then they must, in mass, refuse to honor any draft.