Are we losing touch?

[Gameface]

I agree Log, there is a reason that we call the WWII era survivors "The Greatest Generation". I have been doing a lot of reading lately, mostly A Time for Trumpets which is the most complete source (I feel) on the Battle of the Bulge and the events leading up to it. It's quite an amazing story and there are so many heroic stands on the Allied side that it becomes a page turner. Most of these stands outside of St. Vith and Marnach Belgium, I never would have known about had I not read the book. I also watched a biography of the Band of Brothers men of Easy Company. You listen to one of them (I think it was Babe Heffron) telling stories about how people in their hometown committed suicide because they could not serve in the war.

Kind of rambling here, but I guess what I'm getting at is there was a different attitude in the Country then as compared to now.

I think the attitude was created by circumstances, not just some superior character people possessed back then. That said, we all owe an enormous debt to those who fought and won WWII. We owe it to them (and ourselves really) to not forget their story.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

I can agree with that. My hats off to them though for making the most out of the worst of circumstances. It was incredibly interesting to me to read that book and see just how close the Allies came to losing that fight. Hitler's plan was to seperate their forces through the use of the Ardennes and puch through to Antwerp and valuable oil. By doing this he hoped to accomplish splitting the Allies and negotiate a cease fire so he could re-focus his efforts on the Eastern front. Germany was also close to mass-producing a jet-propelled airplane which would have dominated the skies. According to the book and sources close to the British General Montgomery this came very close to happening.

I would have to say it was United States soldiers finest hour which kept this from happening and changing the face of the war and the world.

 

[The Pearl]

I can agree with that. My hats off to them though for making the most out of the worst of circumstances. It was incredibly interesting to me to read that book and see just how close the Allies came to losing that fight. Hitler's plan was to seperate their forces through the use of the Ardennes and puch through to Antwerp and valuable oil. By doing this he hoped to accomplish splitting the Allies and negotiate a cease fire so he could re-focus his efforts on the Eastern front. Germany was also close to mass-producing a jet-propelled airplane which would have dominated the skies. According to the book and sources close to the British General Montgomery this came very close to happening.

I would have to say it was United States soldiers finest hour which kept this from happening and changing the face of the war and the world.

Dick Winters just passed away.

I certainly don't take anything away from the WWII era ladies and gents, but I think what the folks have done in Afghanistan and Iraq are equally awe inspiring.

 

[Qman]

I read a book a while back that was about a reporter who was embedded in a Marine Force Recon company for most of the Iraqi War (the last one). He had a chapter where he talked about 50% of the American Soldiers swarming out onto the beach at D-Day and being morally unable to shoot to kill. He contrasted that with the company that he was with. 100% of the soldiers were ready to kill as soon as the arrive. Also they discussed about specific ambushes reminded them of specific video game levels. It was interesting to see how our volunteer armed forces are so very different than a conscripted force.

 

[LogGrad98]

Dick Winters just passed away.

I certainly don't take anything away from the WWII era ladies and gents, but I think what the folks have done in Afghanistan and Iraq are equally awe inspiring.

I will never take anything away from our fighting folks either. That is one reason I joined the Patriot Guard Riders is because of the respect I have for the military. I would have been in the Air Force if I hadn't gotten cancer when I did. Every single soldier who enters the battlefield or works here at home to support the effort deserves our undying gratitude. I am ashamed when I see any American not giving respect where that respect is due.

But in our modern era of warfare we have never really faced an enemy like Hitler's Germany. An enemy that truly threatened to take over a very substantial part of the world, and came frighteningly close to doing so. Even in battles that we had them outnumbered by solid margins we lost or barely squeaked by with the victory. And if his plans had come to fruition and he controlled all of the Atlantic seaboard in Europe, and if he had eventually connected eurasia with the japanese who know where that would have lead. With that level of natural resources and the fact that at that point the Reich would have been as if not more unassailable than America, he could have built a war machine for the ages. That thought is daunting if not outright terrifying. Germany definitely had technology on their side right up until the nuclear bomb. And they were not that far behind us in that respect either. So for what they faced and the price paid WW II has to stand out as the most incredible military campaign we have ever engaged in.

 

[Gameface]

I will never take anything away from our fighting folks either. That is one reason I joined the Patriot Guard Riders is because of the respect I have for the military. I would have been in the Air Force if I hadn't gotten cancer when I did. Every single soldier who enters the battlefield or works here at home to support the effort deserves our undying gratitude. I am ashamed when I see any American not giving respect where that respect is due.

But in our modern era of warfare we have never really faced an enemy like Hitler's Germany. An enemy that truly threatened to take over a very substantial part of the world, and came frighteningly close to doing so. Even in battles that we had them outnumbered by solid margins we lost or barely squeaked by with the victory. And if his plans had come to fruition and he controlled all of the Atlantic seaboard in Europe, and if he had eventually connected eurasia with the japanese who know where that would have lead. With that level of natural resources and the fact that at that point the Reich would have been as if not more unassailable than America, he could have built a war machine for the ages. That thought is daunting if not outright terrifying. Germany definitely had technology on their side right up until the nuclear bomb. And they were not that far behind us in that respect either. So for what they faced and the price paid WW II has to stand out as the most incredible military campaign we have ever engaged in.

This is mostly what I think the younger generation has forgotten, that not only could we have lost the war, we pretty much beat the odds and ended up winning. America wasn't the #1 world superpower going in.

 

[VINYLONE]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradgillette/5408178672/

 

[PearlWatson]

Haven't heard of that guy. We have people spewing the same sentiments here, only it's illegal Mexicans that cause all the problems.

I thought it was "Wall street," "the bankers," "the greedy rich," "Big Business," "Doctors who do unnecessary procedures", or Bush, etc.

You really think talking about legitimate problems that illegal immigrants are causing for border states and beyond, or talking about the consequences of the influx of Muslims into Europe is comparable to Hilter scapegoating his own countrymen? I guess these types of comparisons are the reason Godwin came up with his law, but at the same time this law has served as a deterrent to legitimate discussion of the lessons we need to learn from these wars.

 

[Gameface]

I thought it was "Wall street," "the bankers," "the greedy rich," "Big Business," "Doctors who do unnecessary procedures", or Bush, etc.

You really think talking about legitimate problems that illegal immigrants are causing for border states and beyond, or talking about the consequences of the influx of Muslims into Europe is comparable to Hilter scapegoating his own countrymen? I guess these types of comparisons are the reason Godwin came up with his law, but at the same time this law has served as a deterrent to legitimate discussion of the lessons we need to learn from these wars.

I really think that the immigration issue is where conservatives lose all credibility. For instance, they fight for "free markets" when it comes to tax policy, yet forget that free flow of labor is an essential component of free markets. Open borders is a part of free markets, like it or not. So I'm left to conclude that conservatives aren't for free markets at all and that their cries for such are disingenuous. Conservatives like Bush have betrayed capitalism by pushing pro-corporate policy and calling it capitalism when it is anything but.

Talking about the problem isn't the problem. The problem is that downright racism against Hispanics has become acceptable. The problem is that enforcement of our current immigration policy isn't the solution. The solution is to allow the vast majority of people who want to come here an easy way to do it. That is, unless you think freedom is passed from father to son and unless you have free blood you don't belong here.

Conservatives also betray their love of freedom and capitalism in their refusal to end Americas ongoing civil war, also known as the war on drugs. I guess personal freedom is essential when it comes to my tax rate or right to own a firearm and there's no room to compromise on those issues, but when a person wants to use drugs it isn't important to allow them their personal liberties and acceptable to haul them off and put them in a cage.

Anyone who really cares about freedom would condemn the Republican party on the spot.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Haven't heard of that guy. We have people spewing the same sentiments here, only it's illegal Mexicans that cause all the problems.

problem is the world seem to love that guy. meaning american/israeli politicians. i'm a jew, and dont hate muslims i undertsand where their comming from. but what this guy is spewing should be illegal

 

[DutchJazzer]

I really think that the immigration issue is where conservatives lose all credibility. For instance, they fight for "free markets" when it comes to tax policy, yet forget that free flow of labor is an essential component of free markets. Open borders is a part of free markets, like it or not. So I'm left to conclude that conservatives aren't for free markets at all and that their cries for such are disingenuous. Conservatives like Bush have betrayed capitalism by pushing pro-corporate policy and calling it capitalism when it is anything but.

Talking about the problem isn't the problem. The problem is that downright racism against Hispanics has become acceptable. The problem is that enforcement of our current immigration policy isn't the solution. The solution is to allow the vast majority of people who want to come here an easy way to do it. That is, unless you think freedom is passed from father to son and unless you have free blood you don't belong here.

Conservatives also betray their love of freedom and capitalism in their refusal to end Americas ongoing civil war, also known as the war on drugs. I guess personal freedom is essential when it comes to my tax rate or right to own a firearm and there's no room to compromise on those issues, but when a person wants to use drugs it isn't important to allow them their personal liberties and acceptable to haul them off and put them in a cage.

Anyone who really cares about freedom would condemn the Republican party on the spot.

wow its really similar to the situation over her well except hispanics are turks Morrocans.


I fear the only way the new generations will learn if there is antoher big war.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I thought it was "Wall street," "the bankers," "the greedy rich," "Big Business," "Doctors who do unnecessary procedures", or Bush, etc.

Hilter scapegoating his own countrymen?

did you know this wilders guy is scapegoating its owne countrymen?

i'm not of dutch nationality I am planning to live in another country within the next 2 years.

but wilders is blaming the own countrymen. most of thos emuslims are bron in netherlands and have a dutch pasport.
whats really disturbing is that they seperate their own countrymen if you have a dutchpasport ur either a "allochtoon"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allochtoon) or "Autochtoon".
so if they are al dutch people why seperate them in 2 groups.

it goes even further say fro example someone gets murdered by a "allochtoon". they will state it explicitly in the news.
for example today a man in nowhereville got murdered , the suspect is believed to be allochtoon from turkish origin.
say a autochtoon(white dutchmen) did the crime they will just say a man got murdered in nowhereville. without mentioning his race or if he is "autochtoon"

so you're still telling me i cant compare wilders to hitler?

he suggested that muslims should "tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands"

he also proposed to put a tax on Hijab wearing by Muslim women. He suggested women could purchase a license at a cost of €1000 and that the money raised could be used in projects beneficial to women's emancipation

he got banned form visiting the uk. yet he still got about 1.6 million votes.

read more about this hitler in the making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders.


for example in 2006 he suggested closing the borders for non western imigrants.

this is just the tip of the iceberg.

so yes this guy is comparable to hitler in the 30's

 

[PearlWatson]

I really think that the immigration issue is where conservatives lose all credibility. For instance, they fight for "free markets" when it comes to tax policy, yet forget that free flow of labor is an essential component of free markets. Open borders is a part of free markets, like it or not. So I'm left to conclude that conservatives aren't for free markets at all and that their cries for such are disingenuous. Conservatives like Bush have betrayed capitalism by pushing pro-corporate policy and calling it capitalism when it is anything but.

Talking about the problem isn't the problem. The problem is that downright racism against Hispanics has become acceptable. The problem is that enforcement of our current immigration policy isn't the solution. The solution is to allow the vast majority of people who want to come here an easy way to do it. That is, unless you think freedom is passed from father to son and unless you have free blood you don't belong here.

Conservatives also betray their love of freedom and capitalism in their refusal to end Americas ongoing civil war, also known as the war on drugs. I guess personal freedom is essential when it comes to my tax rate or right to own a firearm and there's no room to compromise on those issues, but when a person wants to use drugs it isn't important to allow them their personal liberties and acceptable to haul them off and put them in a cage.

Anyone who really cares about freedom would condemn the Republican party on the spot.

I disagree that open borders are a part of free markets, especially considering national sovereignty.
I don't consider Bush a conservative.
Just because I don't appreciate illegal immigration doesn't mean I'm racist. I know some of the sacrifice and patience legal immigrants have to go through (now and through history) to show that they truly want to be American citizens and not just take advantage of the system. I know the problems illegal immigrants cause but I'm not sure of the solution.
Sorry, but I really don't understand the drug gripe. It isn't a issue I'm concerned with.

 

[Gameface]

I disagree that open borders are a part of free markets, especially considering national sovereignty.
I don't consider Bush a conservative.
Just because I don't appreciate illegal immigration doesn't mean I'm racist. I know some of the sacrifice and patience legal immigrants have to go through (now and through history) to show that they truly want to be American citizens and not just take advantage of the system. I know the problems illegal immigrants cause but I'm not sure of the solution.
Sorry, but I really don't understand the drug gripe. It isn't a issue I'm concerned with.

Sorry I kind of went off on a rant more than I addressed your comment.
I don't have the time, interest or required skill to fully explain my whole picture view on this, but I feel that if you do not provide social safety nets for failure then you don't attract people who come to your country in order to take advantage of them. At that point (when people succeed or fail based on their own merits) you have nothing to fear from immigration because people coming in will understand that they have to make it and be productive to enjoy the good life opportunities that exist here. I'm perfectly happy to watch social programs ruin this country just so long as after the fact people are able to realize that was the cause.

To me immigration is a freedom and individual rights issue. The people in Mexico suffer from a corrupt and unjust government. I don't think a person who wants to get away from that should be trapped into it by a nation that claims to be the shining light of freedom and liberty. It is as though we as natural born U.S. citizens feel that we somehow have a right to our freedom and liberty, while others do not. All people have individual rights (according to my view of what individual rights are) and it takes government action to reduce or eliminate those rights. When people being oppressed want to escape oppression by coming here I don't think it makes any sense or is consistent with our values to stop them at the gate and force tehm back into the arms of their oppressors. We don't own freedom, we enjoy it in as close to it's natural form as we are allowed. All humans have a right to be free and I feel compelled to support anyone who seeks freedom.

So to me saying that we have our national sovereignty so we can build a fence and keep all the unwanted people out is inconsistent with the view that all people should be free to come and go as they please. I do not belong to the United States. Mexicans do not belong to the Mexican government. We are all humans and have a right to be where we want to be. I think the better solution is to create a system where individual freedom is not a threat to the system. If it is then it is the system that is wrong, not individual freedom, liberty and rights.

 

[babe]

Sorry I kind of went off on a rant more than I addressed your comment.
I don't have the time, interest or required skill to fully explain my whole picture view on this, but I feel that if you do not provide social safety nets for failure then you don't attract people who come to your country in order to take advantage of them. At that point (when people succeed or fail based on their own merits) you have nothing to fear from immigration because people coming in will understand that they have to make it and be productive to enjoy the good life opportunities that exist here. I'm perfectly happy to watch social programs ruin this country just so long as after the fact people are able to realize that was the cause.

To me immigration is a freedom and individual rights issue. The people in Mexico suffer from a corrupt and unjust government. I don't think a person who wants to get away from that should be trapped into it by a nation that claims to be the shining light of freedom and liberty. It is as though we as natural born U.S. citizens feel that we somehow have a right to our freedom and liberty, while others do not. All people have individual rights (according to my view of what individual rights are) and it takes government action to reduce or eliminate those rights. When people being oppressed want to escape oppression by coming here I don't think it makes any sense or is consistent with our values to stop them at the gate and force tehm back into the arms of their oppressors. We don't own freedom, we enjoy it in as close to it's natural form as we are allowed. All humans have a right to be free and I feel compelled to support anyone who seeks freedom.

So to me saying that we have our national sovereignty so we can build a fence and keep all the unwanted people out is inconsistent with the view that all people should be free to come and go as they please. I do not belong to the United States. Mexicans do not belong to the Mexican government. We are all humans and have a right to be where we want to be. I think the better solution is to create a system where individual freedom is not a threat to the system. If it is then it is the system that is wrong, not individual freedom, liberty and rights.

I think your point about people not belonging to governments or nations is a good one, idealistically speaking. That's not the way most governments "think" though, or the way most people are socialized(generic use of term). In Mexico for example, schools show the kids maps of Mexico which show Alto California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, as claimed Mexican soil, and the kids are taught to go colonize the stolen lands and reclaim them for Mexico. And a lot of them think that's what they're doing.

And when it comes right down to it, say I'm in Turkey being a "citizen of the world" and some thug policement throw me in hokey and ask for $500 grand, I'm gonna want the USA to claim me, and send lawyers to fight for my rights to return to my country. . . .

I really wish our ideals of the American Revolution were being taught all over the world, you know, that stuff about inalienable human rights.

 

[Gameface]

I think your point about people not belonging to governments or nations is a good one, idealistically speaking. That's not the way most governments "think" though, or the way most people are socialized(generic use of term). In Mexico for example, schools show the kids maps of Mexico which show Alto California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, as claimed Mexican soil, and the kids are taught to go colonize the stolen lands and reclaim them for Mexico. And a lot of them think that's what they're doing.

And when it comes right down to it, say I'm in Turkey being a "citizen of the world" and some thug policement throw me in hokey and ask for $500 grand, I'm gonna want the USA to claim me, and send lawyers to fight for my rights to return to my country. . . .

I really wish our ideals of the American Revolution were being taught all over the world, you know, that stuff about inalienable human rights.

Yes, sadly the way things are and they way they ought to be are not the same.

 

[franklin]

I really think that the immigration issue is where conservatives lose all credibility. For instance, they fight for "free markets" when it comes to tax policy, yet forget that free flow of labor is an essential component of free markets. Open borders is a part of free markets, like it or not.

Maybe Laissez-faire, but free markets require regulation. Then again, the conservative base seems more in favor of Laissez-faire these days, the party majority less so, however. I guess we forgot about mercantilism, Robber Barons, and all that Jefferson, Madison, etc. worried about feudalism. But hey, that part of original intent doesn't mesh with certain values and can be forgotten.

You clarified your thoughts nicely and made a solid argument, but I just don't buy the open border policy.

Conservatives also betray their love of freedom and capitalism in their refusal to end Americas ongoing civil war, also known as the war on drugs.

I'm not anti-drug or anti-drug user or pro-prisoning "offenders", but don't some things become too dangerous to society that we must regulate or outlaw them? I mean, doing hard drugs is just as much of an individual right as driving drunk. I don't think we should wait until the individual causes harm before throwing the book at them.

 

[babe]

So here's my breakout on this:

QUOTE]Maybe Laissez-faire, but free markets require regulation. Then again, the conservative base seems more in favor of Laissez-faire these days, the party majority less so, however. I guess we forgot about mercantilism, Robber Barons, and all that Jefferson, Madison, etc. worried about feudalism. But hey, that part of original intent doesn't mesh with certain values and can be forgotten.[/QUOTE]

The principal mass of "original intent" was to prevent government from becoming a tool of oppression like it had been under the Brits, so it was deliberately designed to be a weak central government, and in order to keep the States supreme and willing to sign on, they left slavery unresolved, and state religions in various states still living off their official state monopolies/state tax funding. Lawyers might make their living off "original intent", but I think citizens need to invoke "original intent" and push for a lot of reforms that will once again put human inalienable rights back on the table, and undercut the role corporates and their lobbyists are playing in setting human rights back to the dark ages.

You clarified your thoughts nicely and made a solid argument, but I just don't buy the open border policy.

I'm with you on this one. Immigration is for people who want to become Americans, not for people who just want a cut-rate job that only works because of the manipulated currency exchange rates. Being willing to comply with our laws is the first clue as to who wants to become fully invested in Freedom.

I'm not anti-drug or anti-drug user or pro-prisoning "offenders", but don't some things become too dangerous to society that we must regulate or outlaw them? I mean, doing hard drugs is just as much of an individual right as driving drunk. I don't think we should wait until the individual causes harm before throwing the book at them.

Pot became illegal when Du Pont invented nylon, and wanted to eliminate hemp rope from its competition. Even then, some countries had a lot of pot culture, like Morocco for example, but except for a few hayseed farmers it was just not a social issue. And Coke really had coke back then, and it was "cool". We need a better way to deal with it all without just stuffing our jails with "perps" who were having "fun". Focus on offenders' dangerous/illegal actions. Drop the "War" mentality and eliminate the police state support system of confiscation of private property.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sorry I kind of went off on a rant more than I addressed your comment.
I don't have the time, interest or required skill to fully explain my whole picture view on this, but I feel that if you do not provide social safety nets for failure then you don't attract people who come to your country in order to take advantage of them. At that point (when people succeed or fail based on their own merits) you have nothing to fear from immigration because people coming in will understand that they have to make it and be productive to enjoy the good life opportunities that exist here. I'm perfectly happy to watch social programs ruin this country just so long as after the fact people are able to realize that was the cause.

This post makes up for the off point rant.

It is an excellent point you are making about social safety nets. In the Ellis Island days they only allowed "able bodied" and healthy immigrants through and sent the rest back. So if you got some disease on the ship coming over you were out of luck. The only way they could do that was because they had one entry point, though. The state did provide free education for the children that came...and there were racial/ethnic mutual aid societies.
Why are you "perfectly happy" to let social programs ruin this country?...seems like an awful price to pay to teach people a lesson that they won't be willing to admit to anyway.

To me immigration is a freedom and individual rights issue. The people in Mexico suffer from a corrupt and unjust government. I don't think a person who wants to get away from that should be trapped into it by a nation that claims to be the shining light of freedom and liberty. It is as though we as natural born U.S. citizens feel that we somehow have a right to our freedom and liberty, while others do not. All people have individual rights (according to my view of what individual rights are) and it takes government action to reduce or eliminate those rights. When people being oppressed want to escape oppression by coming here I don't think it makes any sense or is consistent with our values to stop them at the gate and force tehm back into the arms of their oppressors. We don't own freedom, we enjoy it in as close to it's natural form as we are allowed. All humans have a right to be free and I feel compelled to support anyone who seeks freedom.

It is a freedom from oppression issue as long as they are coming to America and are willing to embrace this country and it's laws (social contract*) as their own. If they care more about la raza or flying the Mexican flag than that is a clear indication they don't.

*According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where each person has unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gains civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnBSb4OKeU

So to me saying that we have our national sovereignty so we can build a fence and keep all the unwanted people out is inconsistent with the view that all people should be free to come and go as they please. I do not belong to the United States. Mexicans do not belong to the Mexican government. We are all humans and have a right to be where we want to be. I think the better solution is to create a system where individual freedom is not a threat to the system. If it is then it is the system that is wrong, not individual freedom, liberty and rights.

I don't hold that view between countries. America can only function if those who enter are willing to abide by our laws. Again the whole social contract thing. The ideal thing would be if we could banish one criminal/moocher for one oppressed person who was willing to abide by the laws and contribute to society in a positive way.