Memorial Day
-
Today is Memorial Day in the US. Well, not today, it's actually tomorrow, but as I write this, I'm setting the tone.
It's a day to remember those that fought in battles and the many who've died. I know it's not a worldwide holiday, but it's an important one here. For many people we can think back to those whose actions have helped give us the great freedoms we enjoy in the US.
For many it's also the start of Summer. A day for backyards BBQs, baseball, and a short work week :).
My celebration? My 6 year old is a big GI Joe fan, so we've talked about the miliary and those that died. He's also sensitive, so he'll happily give up a moment of silence for them and he'll feel bad. But then it's off to the ballpark for a (likely losing) Rockies game and fireworks. I grew up on baseball, but never lived near a major league park until now, so this will be my first Memorial Day game.
I'm looking forward to it and I'll happily have a hot dog and beer for all of you that can't come.
Steve Jones
-
Do you also hold a moment of silence for the Viet-Cong fighters burned in napalm fire? Or the Iraqi citizens that fell through 'collateral damage'?
Please think of them too...
-
Hi Steve. Hope you enjoy your holiday... Can't say I agree with everything your armies have done in the past, but there has been some good (i.e. WWII). But that's my personal opinion.
But perhaps the holiday is also for those of your soldiers who have died in conflicts that they didn't agree with, and didn't want to be there. Soldiers can be victims, also.
Have a beer for us all in the Southern Hemisphere... Our day's of BBQ (we call BBQ a 'Braai' here - made with a wood fire) are over for now, as we are heading into Winter. It is currently raining cats and dogs, which is the worst we get (no snow in South Africa 🙂 !!! ).
Take care,
Wayne Fillis
-
My father was of Irish descent and was first born American. He fought as a Marine in WWII. One of my brothers served in the Air Force in Vietnam and another brother served in the Army. I can tell you that all are decent men who fought to liberate others and never meant to harm anyone. They agonzied over their decisions. They did not relish or boast.
War is so tough, and personally, I painfully accept what it represents (death) but I think Abraham Lincoln had a great message to deliver concerning our own Civil War in America where brothers become enemies. The best part of the message is probably this: "...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." - The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863
I sincerely wish that all nations may enjoy the freedoms we have here.
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
Having anyone die for their country is both sad and an honor. I am saddened that people in other countries were killed by Americans in war, and I hope that you in other countries celebrate your war heros.
This day is the one that the US chooses to remember those that fought and lived as well as those that fought and died. It's not to say that our causes were just and right, some were, and some were not, but to remember those that followed orders and fought for this country, regardless of whether our leaders made a good decision or not.
-
I think it hard to remember 'war heroes' from wars you didn't agree upon. No problem for me to honour my old grandfather who fought the German invasion of 1940. But what with the Belgian paratroopers that went to Belgian Congo to fight the 'rebels' fighting their independence war?
And what with my friend's grandfather, who joined the Nazi forces in their war against Russia?
No, I oppose war in general. It is sometimes just, but mostly an avoidable consequence of political incompetence and economical 'short-sightedness';.
To me, the recent invasion in Iraq was both unjust and illegal. And the government that decided it against the will of so many Americans, and based on 'facts' that have been proven wrong long since... I can't say I'd honour my military if it were involved in such a thing. Especially not if my kids were 'over there' risking their live for a cause at least 'questionnable'.
Controling the oil at the expense of the people living in the place where it is found cannot, should not but all to often is the real cause behind war. Not different this time...
And then, yesterday, we see that the French vote against an European constitution, the Constitution that is meant to saveguard the very fabric that bound formerly mortal ennemies as France and Germany tightly together. If this 25-heads large Moloch wants to survive, it definitely needs a decisionmaking procedure that bends away from unanimous decisions (which are never to be reached)...
Ok, enough politics, back to SQL
-
"...the recent invasion in Iraq was both unjust and illegal. And the government that decided it ...based on 'facts' that have been proven wrong long since..."
With all due respect... not really. From what we now know from various sources, such as the British independent pecial review under Loard Bulter, and the reports of the Iraq Survey Group by Dr. David Kay (interim) and Charles Duelfer (final report), it should be clear, or at least arguable, that the prewar threat posed by Iraq was serious and inevasible. Had the United States not acted against Saddam in roughly the time frame that it did, it is hard to argue that we would not now be faced with a Saddam freed of sanctions and in unfettered pursuit and production of WMDs.
Not to mention the revelations that are coming out in the investigations of the UN "Oil for Food" program. It now appears that highly-placed officials in several countries were making a lot of money by letting Sadaam game the system. You really have to wonder about what motivated M. Chirac of France to pronounce that he would not vote for a UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq under any circumstances and no matter what the evidence or facts ("La France votera non quelle que soit les cironstances!") Perhaps there were too many of his copains who were making beaucoup de fric off of Oil for Food?
Then there is the hard-to-ignore positive consequences of removing Sadaam from power. Rather than me try to convince anyone about this, let's listen Walid Jumblat, a Druse leader in Lebanon who has never been known as a friend of the US:
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq,...I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.... The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
"...And then, yesterday, we see that the French vote against an European constitution, the Constitution that is meant to saveguard the very fabric that bound formerly mortal ennemies as France and Germany tightly together..."
Well, actually, France, Germany and other European countries have been bound together in peace for years because they are all democracies, and democracies just don't make war on each other. That is the dynamic that Mr. Jumblat is taking about in the quote above. It really doesn't take a pan-European constitution to insure that Not that there's anything wrong with the idea of such a constitution - but perhaps next time the writers will distill the 200-plus page document down to something that one can read and understand.
-
OK, despite the fact I still think it wrong the US acted against/without a UN mandate, you are probably right about the fact that removing Saddam made things moving. Remains the 'civil war' that is going on there, with different 'rebel' -we can call them 'terrorists', but the significance of them shows they are not just a little fraction moved away from society- movements fighting the new development...
About the EU, you said :
"Well, actually, France, Germany and other European countries have been bound together in peace for years because they are all democracies, and democracies just don't make war on each other. "
.
However, I fear you take to much for granted. Germany and France were democracies in the 19th century as well. OK, maybe not as deeply rooted as now. But think about the Frankfurt movement in Germany in 1848, and the various republican and constitutional movements in France. Yet nationalism throve them to war again and again.
England is even considered the mother of democracy, yet they kept conflict alive between France and Germany for centuries, for the benefit of their own welfare, at the depence of the continental folks... America acted against nearly every 'democratic' yet leftish movement that submerged in Central and Latin America, as it wanted to control this 'backyard'. The regimes it supported (El Salvador, Chile...) were as dictatorial as Saddam's (and Saddam was 'our bad guy' until he got too megalomanic)...
The suffering of the Latin-American people was of little concern to the 'democratic' US...
No, democracy is not a synonym for peace-loving... And to me, the EU is vital to keep the European area at the standards it reached now. The 'nationalistic' (in Holland) and 'anti-globalistic' opposition against the constitution worries me badly.
Think about this : why would people prefer a set of treaties, featuring over 10.000 articles, that sometimes recall articles from older texts, over a constitutional treaty of some hundreds of articles, synthesising the former jurisdictional and legislative developments? If it were not because of the 'talks' of leftish groups about the 'antisocial' dimensions of the Union (note that the new Constitution introduces the notion of Social development into the EU-texts...), and that of right-wing extremists, about massive immigration resulting from the recent enlargement in Eastern Europe, and even more about the possible disasters linked to the future Turkish membership...
And that, in the meantime, the Union needs unanimous voting for all decisionmaking, with 25, soon 28 members, they just don't consider it!!!
Or is the idea that the European Project should strand...
-
Wayne - I think Steve definitely had no idea that he was unleashing a Pandora's box!
All said and done - I think Mankind is doomed - there will continue to be wars - bloodshed - decimation for as long as people are alive - the only thing that changes are the methods by which men decide to kill each other!
It is ironic that the United Nations - an organization that was formed to collectively look at situations - was completely ignored when the U.S decided to send troops in to oust Mr.Evil Saddam Hussein! There've been other evil men in history that were spared the wrath of the U.S - Idi Amin; Pol Pot; - heck, even the Taliban were enforcing their strict Islamic regime oppressing and suppressing the masses (particularly women) - it was only the Osama connection after 9/11 that sent our soldiers into Afghanistan. So does this mean that we liberate the people in other countries only when WE are threatened or we percieve a threat to our own country & lives ?!?! Kinda like killing two birds - in the process of defending ourselves we also manage to free the suffering masses in other countries ?!?!
The point I want to make is that regardless of foriegn policies, politics, territorial rights, what have yous - men will continue to fight - if about nothing else then the color of a person's skin (Apartheid anyone???) - this is definitely one instance where history IS an indicator of future performance...
And this one last statement which is NOT meant to be provocative but only to make an observation...that it is Men (I'm talking gender here) who initiate war - go into battle - kill each other - oppress the weak - enforce laws - invade countries.....the Bloody Marys are few and far between - at least we got a great cocktail out of that one....:-)
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Wayne,
It's okay. This is a much more civilized debate than when Ronald Reagan passed away. So far, personally, I am not offended by any of the statements posted here. Keep them coming.
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
"It is ironic that the United Nations ... was completely ignored when the U.S decided to send troops in to oust Mr.Evil Saddam Hussein!"
Sorry, I can't let this go unchallanged. This is simply incorrect. The United States worked through the U.N. for months to try to achieve an international response to Saddam. Remember, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in Nov 2002 ordered Baghdad to eliminate all of its weapons of mass destruction programs under threat of military force. This resolution came with a clear deadline, and when that date was passed, Saddam was found to be once again noncompliant - not by Mr. Bush, but by Mr. Hans Blix of the United Nations.
The United States then attempted to work with the world organization to bring a UN-sponsored military coalition to bear against Saddam to enforce UNR 1441, but was thwarted, primarily by Russia and France. We know now, from the various "Oil for Food" investigations, that the leadership of these countries let unprincipled matters of perceived national interest and even individual self-interest influence their decisions to ignore Saddam's nose-thumbing.
"All said and done - I think Mankind is doomed - there will continue to be wars - bloodshed - decimation for as long as people are alive "
I'm more optimistic. Europe has certainly demonstrated that nations which were at war with each other over centuries can change their character and live in peace.
What is certain is that in regions where there is no respect for individual rights, no rule of law, no freedom of press, no independent judiciary - that is where strife and bloodshed will fester and continue.
-
Oops, sorry, for a moment I thought I was reading soc.history.war.* or some other soc.* newsgroup...but then I realized that I'm still on a site dedicated to a computer programm
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Steve - we will just have to (amicably) agree to disagree on this one!
As for Hans Blix: In an interview on BBC TV on February 8, 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein....
I'm glad you are optimistic about Mankind's future..someone's gotta be 😉
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!**
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply