America is eager to fight another dramatic and heroic war and I am supposed to be sorry for myself because I spent my twenties parting instead of giving everthing to my country... Let me tell you that I better be shallow and and a slaved consumer than an honorable citizen at war. I may not have honor or dreams but my generation didn't killed millions guided by utopias and dreams and I am proud of that.

Are these old men telling me that I should admire the forties generation? There's nothing to admire unless you're an animal motivated by honor who thinks that an idea is enough to justify death.

Dani,

I think you’ve totally misconstrued what these “old men” are saying. Maher’s and Burn’s complaints are with the fact that we who have not actually joined the military were not asked to sacrifice anything when Bush and his neoconservative henchmen sold Americans on the current war. That made it easy to go along, didn't it? See the “Chickenhawk College Republicans” (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/07/) talk about why they still are cheerleading for this war. Almost all of them say that ‘if we don't fight 'em there, we'll be fighting them here’. As I said then, if that is what they believe, then they should be fighting them there. It isn’t a matter of being “motivated by honor” so much as motivated by a collective commitment to national survival and a recognition of one's responsibilities. But Maher and Burns, and not even most of the college Republican worms, really believes that bullshit justification for the war in Iraq. The dead-end war supporters are now just ‘tough guys’ who are willing to let other people die until they find a way to affix the blame for the fiasco in Iraq on people who are against the war.

With respect to your comment, “I am supposed to be sorry for myself because I spent my twenties part[y]ing…?” Since it seems likely that you also thought the current war was stupid from the outset, the answer is no. Be careful, however. George Bush spent his twenties partying too – and appears to sleep very well in spite of sending troops to die, kill, and/or get maimed in service of his “war president” delusions of grandeur. Let’s hope you retain your distaste for unnecessary war when you are in your fifties and the little assholes in the college Republicans have worked their way into positions where they can launch another series of futile wars.

why is it an "amazing" sacrifice for soldiers to fight the unnecessary wars? Bush's war against the Iraqis is a violation of international standards and law. Over a million civilians have died, almost 4 million refugees have been created, America continues to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese, four thousand American soldiers have lost their lives. Not to mention the blowback that we'll all see in our lifetimes.

We should not be characterizing the choice to serve in this war as amazing, but rather, incredibly stupid. There is no honor in this war. Soldiers and Marines should have sat out this one, revolted against their superiors, refused to deploy. And we should have supported them.

Good interview. I'm still digesting the line at the end about it being a noble sacrifice to fight unnecessary wars. I'm not sure exactly how he meant for that to come across, or if he even means it.

It isn't clad in iron, but as a general rule, those presidents who personally have experienced war tend to be far more reluctant to engage in one, than those who have not.

There's something extremely important to be gleaned from this.

The viking king Magnus Barefoot was criticized by his advisers for risking his life, fighting up front in his battles. His response was classic: "The king is yours for glory, not long life."

Risking your life for a leader like that -- yeah, I can understand that. Glory, honor -- all of that stuff, yeah I get that... Risking your life for a rich, pampered, murderous neocon who prances around on a carrier deck in a flight suit -- you know, not so much...

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And floundering like a man in fire or lime.-- Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

-Wilfred Owen (1893-1918)

analysis

Every time I clink on the video to try and play it it takes me to this site: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1114

John,

Look, I'm against this war as much as the next person. From the beginning, it was obviosly a bad idea. But I still mean that the guys fighting are brave, and do make a huge sacrifice. And I'm not on TV like these guys, so I don't have to say this stuff, like Ken and Bill here. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if they said that these guys weren't brave? Talk about not supporting the troops! It would be foot-in-mouth disease all over again, and Bills show would be cancelled again.

But, back to my point. What you said, John, was all wrong. Of course it is an amazing sacrifice for the soldiers. What they go through every day, is beyond words. And you sit here and tell them they are stupid for joining and should have protested when they got the order? Jesus. Thankfully, there are people who join the army. I'm sure as hell not gonna fight for anything, so all hail those who do. Orders suck, but you follow them, so be it if it takes you to Germany or to Iraq. If soldiers protested everytime they got a order they didn't like, what the hell kinda army would that be? Damn, the post is a little rambelling, but I hope people can understand my point anyway. I just had to write a long post cause I thought what you said, John, made no sense at all.

Melissa, Would you agree that THEY, ie, the Iraqis are also brave for fighting to defend their 'homeland' (a word that the Americans reserve for Departments of Security and other propaganda)?

Aren't THEY (by your logic) also brave for giving up their lives to kick out the occupying forces?

In fact, the Iraqis are fighting for more than our soldiers, wouldn't you agree? They are fighting for their very existence.

What does it mean to be brave anyhow? That sounds like another hollow word, like honor, that's used to club the masses into submission and conformity.

I use THEY and the implied WE to point out the labels that are often used to dehumanize entire groups of people. Fact is, there is no THEY and there is no WE. The people of Iraq are humans, have families, jobs, experience emotions and losses just as the people of America.

Metissa, You use the phrase "support our troops."

If you really supported the troops and really cared about them, why would you want more of them occupying a country and terrorizing its people (and dying when those people blow the soldiers up with IEDs)?
That doesn't make sense.

Noam Chomsky, someone that you've never read, has written on this slogan of 'support our troops.' I paste it below:

The U.S. pioneered the public relations industry. Its committment was to "control the public mind," as its leaders put it. They learned a lot from the successes of the Creel Commission and the success in creating the Red Scare and its aftermath. The public relations industry underwent a huge expansion at that time. It succeeded for some time in creating almost total subordination of the public to business rule through the 1920s....

Public relations is a huge industry. They're spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its committment was to controlling the public mind....

...The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floor all have the same interests. We can all work together and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community, so they control the media and have massive resources... Mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, "Support our troops." Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?... The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention....

That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is carefully thought out. The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what democracy ought to be: It ought to be a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you're watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That's all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there's got to be something more in life than this, but since you're watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all that's going on over there....

So that's the ideal. Great efforts are made in trying to achieve that ideal. Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it. The conception of democracy is the one that I mentioned. The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their rage and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think. Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them.

The text following the blockquoted section above is all Chomsky, all his genius.

Reeading the memorable poetry of Wilfred Owen reminds me of Siegfried Sassoon's jaw-dropping "They" (1917)

THE Bishop tells us: ‘When the boys come back
‘They will not be the same; for they’ll have fought
‘In a just cause: they lead the last attack
‘On Anti-Christ; their comrades’ blood has bought
‘New right to breed an honourable race,
‘They have challenged Death and dared him face to face.’

‘We’re none of us the same!’ the boys reply.
‘For George lost both his legs; and Bill’s stone blind;
‘Poor Jim’s shot through the lungs and like to die;
‘And Bert’s gone syphilitic: you’ll not find 10 ‘A chap who’s served that hasn’t found some change.’
And the Bishop said: ‘The ways of God are strange!’

Noam Chomsky, someone that you've never read, has written on this slogan of 'support our troops.' I paste it below:

John: It would appear from your words that having read Noam Chomsky excuses you from any responsibility to think for yourself. What a truly pathetic and unintentionally ironic post this was. I imagine Mr. Chomsky would cringe at the sight of this. And how exactly do you know what Metissa has and hasn't read? Do tell.

METISSA, If you support the idea that soldiers just(have to) follow orders no matter what, Then would you agree that the Nuremberg Trials were a complete farce?! Please do tell..

I have a really, really hard time believing most children think that the US fought with Germany during WW II. I mean, I've read how anti-Communist the media of the last forty-fifty years was, but that it was so effective to convince today's kids that the Nazis were with the U.S.? Ooook.

Wow. Tony D, did you just compare the involvement in Iraq to Nazi Germany? I can see that taking an argument to an extreme is a way to make a point, but it is quite uninteresting to sit here and do so. Did I say "No matter what"?? No, that was your wording. As a general rule, yes, soldiers should follow orders. You actually want to debate me on that??? Band of Brothers would have made a terrible miniseries if Easy company had said: "No, I don't want to jump down there! They're shooting at me, I could die" when faced with the beaches of Normandie.

And John what a fantastic job of cut and paste you did. In fact, I do think that the Iraqis are brave to defend their homeland. They are just doing what they think is right. What is your point? That war has many sides? Sure, its complicated shit.

As for the Noam quote. I figured out all by my self that the phrase "supporting the troops" is used as propaganda. Its a disgusting way of turning any serious discussion into nothing. In fact, thats why I used the phrase only as a side note, to characterize what the media would say to Bill and Ken.

The NYT had a snarky review criticizing Burns for not mentioning the Allies contribution to winning the war. That would also be a good film. It just wasn't the film that Burns made. He focused on one aspect, which is legitimate.

It would be nice to see another film, this time about the Allies: The Soviet Union, Britain, China, Canada, and the others.

Particularly, it would be good to review the determining Soviet effort in Hitler's defeat. The Soviets may have lost more soldiers in just the battle of Kursk than the U.S. lost on the whole Western Front.

There are probably Soviet/Russian films about it, but it appears it would be useful for Americans to see a documentary on the subject.

Melissa, Would you agree that THEY, ie, the Iraqis are also brave for fighting to defend their 'homeland'

No. Because that's not what is happening. You know this, yet people like you repeat this tired bullshit over and over to justify your open hatred of your own country.

There is no organized Iraqi resistance movement trying to push the foreign invaders off their sovereign soil. There are just a bunch of groups of thugs, all vying for ultimate control based upon their religious alignment. Our troops haven't even been the primary target for years now. They're blowing each other up. And in case you haven't noticed, all the people who want a free and sovereign Iraq have sided with our troops.

This Michael Moore "Iraqi freedom fighters" myth is tired, tired bullshit. Talk about propaganda.

I use THEY and the implied WE to point out the labels that are often used to dehumanize entire groups of people. Fact is, there is no THEY and there is no WE.

What a lovely Hallmark sentiment. Buy it in the Hippie aisle of your local Whole Foods Market.

As for the Noam quote. I figured out all by my self that the phrase "supporting the troops" is used as propaganda.

I bet the guy who got to quote Noam Chomsky feels really good about himself. I mean, if the words of a rich white guy living in an expensive house in a rich white suburb, teaching at a white upper-class school with an all-white staff don't summarize every single issue with pinpoint accuracy, what is your average white liberal to think?!?

Certainly patriotism can be used as propaganda. That doesn't mean it's not valid and necessary and cannot be felt or supported in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. You just happen to be in the midst of a bunch of people who patriotism is for dumb rednecks - just like the military - and who think open hatred of your own country is some sign of intelligence.

It's pathetic, really. It's the Rome syndrome. We have a society that is so pampered and well-fed that all they can do is complain, complain, complain. I give you an example:

Are these old men telling me that I should admire the forties generation?

Yes. Yes you should. They were better people than you.

Jesus, T4T... That was the most insipid post of yours I have read to date. And it really pains me on the rare occasion that you say something that I agree with, but it's not beyond me to admit it. There are no America haters here. And the fact that you think debating the usefulness of, or the *reasons for, this war (or any other) is equivalent to America hating just goes to show how shallow you really are.

And yes, we should admire the forties generation. They made do with so much less than we did and fought a war that needed to be fought. And many people paid dearly for it, in both lost lives and loved ones.

And our soldiers that are doing their duty every day, whether we agree with it or not, should be respected. They are not the policy makers.

But the phrase "support our troops" is exactly what Chomsky says it is: "You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention"

Then everyone that is against the war has to say "Of course I support the troops, I want them to come home safely... But I'm still against the war and the bad foreign policy", When everyone knows that no one wants our soldier's lives to be lost.

This reminds me of a wonderful Nora Jones song called "My Dear Country". One verse goes as follows: *I love the things that you've given me. I cherish you my dear country. But sometimes I don't understand, the way we play.

I love the things that you've given me. And most of all that I am free. To have a song that I can sing, on election day.*

It's amazing how, for the most part, beneath the arguments posted here is a visceral continuum of 60s culture wars. It's college intellectuals vs. the working class rednecks --or something like that. It's a hyper-female principle vs. the hyper-male principle. That's the fundamental undertow, regardless of how bandied about the Noam Chomsky quotes.

It all seems to be satisfying a need. There's endless mileage to reinforce one's sense of identity, to the extent that one's identity is grounded in what one is OPPOSED to... which, once learned, is suspiciously easy, in my view. Too little is expressed in any other forward-minded or individually visionary way.

Will the 60s political contest ever become obsolete, in terms of its assumed definitions and premises, especially in the face of an exponentially changing world? Perhaps we're all going to be left behind as we're so romantically engaged with having our heads up our collective ass, expressed in our obsessive trivial pursuit of point scoring against the "other side".

One notably scary cultural barometer is reflected in the level of degradation one might be subjected to for expressing ideas in the rarefied political center. That person will always be perceived as some kind of sellout in times when everyone is primed to think in terms of extreme polarity. Normal dialogue loses traction and demigods flourish.

Without striving for some kind of center there is really no point in engagement and that makes for a very predictable narrative and a stultifying environment for new ideas.

None of this has anything to do with finding things to like about Bush, BTW. There's just a sense of all-pervasive bankruptcy in the dialogue, which does make for excellent "you really cut that guy a new one!"-smug sound bytes but, at the end of the day, hasn't the spirit or inclination to really advance anything of meaning.

Good night America.

quote: tft: There is no organized Iraqi resistance movement trying to push the foreign invaders off their sovereign soil. There are just a bunch of groups of thugs, all vying for ultimate control based upon their religious alignment. Our troops haven't even been the primary target for years now. They're blowing each other up. And in case you haven't noticed, all the people who want a free and sovereign Iraq have sided with our troops.

so in your ignorant-ass view, a resistance movement has to be organized to be legitimate? you're so naive.

another great hyperemotional quote from TeaforTillerman: "yet people like you repeat this tired bullshit over and over to justify your open hatred of your own country"

nice tactic. did you learn that from fox news or what?

fact is, i don't hate the idea of america. but as far as America's foreign policy? yes, i could say that i hate that, as do the majority of people living in the real world outside our borders. only someone ignorant (or willfully blind) of our activities abroad would support our foolish interventions in Central America, South America, the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.

As for admiring any previous generation, I'm not going to give anyone my respect so blindly, or without criticism. There are people fighting for what they believe everyday today, just as there have been throughout history. What happened to the advice by Kant to have the courage to think for oneself? Or the lessons of the enlightenment to not give anyone automatic authority or deference?

It would be nice to see another film, this time about the Allies: The Soviet Union, Britain, China, Canada, and the others. Particularly, it would be good to review the determining Soviet effort in Hitler's defeat. The Soviets may have lost more soldiers in just the battle of Kursk than the U.S. lost on the whole Western Front. There are probably Soviet/Russian films about it, but it appears it would be useful for Americans to see a documentary on the subject.

Just for a little perspective;

The US lost approximately 660,000 men killed, wounded, captured and missing on all fronts in WWII.

The Russians took 650,000 prisoners when Paulus surrendered in Stalingrad.

Just for a little perspective:

The Soviet Union lost 10,700,000 military lives, and lost 11,900,000 civilian lives.

They paid far more dearly for that war than did the USA.

They also lost over 1,000,000 Jews to the Holocaust, bringing the total killed in WWII to 23,600,000, or over 13% of the Soviet population.

The US total casualties were 0.32% of the US population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWarII_casualties