" War, what is it good for? "....Edwin Starr.

[bozo]

The last-surviving British soldier of WW1, Harry Patch, died recently at the amazing age of 111.
Predictably, the establishment has been quick to sing his praises, with talk of the " sacrifice " his unfortunate generation was fated to suffer,along with other platitudes seeking to justify the carnage of the so-called " Great War " ( the biggest misnomer ever?? ).
What they will not voice of course is Harry's take on what happened:

" War is organised murder and nothing else "

" It wasn't worth 1 life "

" The politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised murder."

And Harry didn't just talk the talk, he and his mates made a pact to avoid killing the enemy whenever possible, choosing to wound rather than kill.
I don't subscribe to the concept of " war hero "; " war victim" is more apt.
But Harry Patch was truly a hero for the common man.

[Rockthatpiano06]

I completely agree with everything you said! Thanks for posting that I especially hate when (In america) people say that soldiers are fighting so that we can freedoms (such as freedom of speech, ect.). That may have been true in the revolution but soldiers fighting for iraqi's has little to do with my personal freedom of speech or freedom of most things really.

[fr0d0]

Yup, great post bozo.

[Dotard]

The soldiers in Iraq are fighting for the freedom of the people. Iraqi people.

Are they somehow less deserving of freedom than we are? Sorry if it sounds like a campy 1960s super-hero comic book line, but I am of the mind set that where ever people are oppressed, where ever dictators are seeking genocide or ethnic cleansing, where ever people are denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is where we (as Americans) should find our soldiers.

[fr0d0]

..Instead of in Iraq (necessarily) attempting to secure the oil situation.

[Dotard]

..Instead of in Iraq (necessarily) attempting to secure the oil situation.

This statement makes no sense.

[bozo]

The soldiers in Iraq are fighting for the freedom of the people. Iraqi people.

Are they somehow less deserving of freedom than we are? Sorry if it sounds like a campy 1960s super-hero comic book line, but I am of the mind set that where ever people are oppressed, where ever dictators are seeking genocide or ethnic cleansing, where ever people are denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is where we (as Americans) should find our soldiers.

Fine sentiments, but America's involvement in interfering where it sees fit is inglorious, so I have no hesitation in rejecting your premise.
Anyway, do you want to see America policing the world? You'll need to spend all your wealth and build bigger cemeteries for your " glorious dead " if you have your way.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@bozo

Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows "why" US troops are fighting anywhere as individuals. " To free the people" is not a sentiment I ever heard from the several hundred Vietnam Vets with whom I served. ( I am NOT a vet) However, I think it's likely that at least some US soldiers are naive enough and gullible enough to believe that shit.

NATIONS never,ever, go to war on moral principle.Politicians use sentiments such as patriotism freedom and religion to con the poor dumb bastards who do the actual fighting and dying.


I think there is a common misconception of the US as the world's police. US interference in the affairs of other countries occurs only when it is perceived to be in the best interest of the US. That is what powerful nations do. The good news is that that kind of power is only temporary.

[Overmars]

I agree with your post padraic. If you look at all the wars in history most of them started because of some person's hunger for power or wealth, there is no feelings or morality in a war. When it comes to solving the world's problems Americans always self-appoint themselves as the savior of freedom, which in my opinion is only a pretext for political and economical reasons.

[Dotard]

That's nice. Let's just call Dotard and those like him "Dumb Bastards" and that should prove the point that politicos must 'con' their soldiers into going to war. Throw in a couple 'naive's and 'gullible's to emphasize the point.

Good move.

That's one opinion padraic, I just don't happen to share it. Nor did the 'several hundred' soldiers I did serve with.

But then again, they were just a bunch of dumb, naive, gullible bastards right?