Do Ultra Conservatives Really Care About Our Troops?

(SALEM, Ore.) - As we approach the anniversary of the allied victory in WW1, November 11th, 1918, I look around my nation hoping to see what we have learned since that bloody trench fighting in France that claimed millions. During one single battle at Verdun in 1916, almost 900,000 French and German soldiers died. France and England pleaded with our government to help. Eventually we did and the Germans were soon brought to their knees.

As a nation, we used to be reluctant to participate in war, and both of the first two world wars are examples of a trend we once followed, yet seem to have recklessly abandoned. Our political intelligence is frozen in time, like the memories of those who died defending this nation. The war in Iraq is a detriment to our soldiers, they deserve better.

Yet many of the right wing's loudest politicians and pundits say that people who don't want our nation embroiled in the bloody fighting overseas are against the soldiers, "anti-troop" is the term they like to throw around. It falls among other rhetorical mistruths spread by politicians in the past, "Love it or leave it" they used to scream.

Being against the war in Iraq doesn't win many popularity contests. To the contrary, it can bring scorn and ridicule. But my fear is that if attitudes toward those who disagree stay long enough, if the lies designed to protect the Bush Administration are repeated frequently enough, then anti-war people may start to believe they are anti-troop, and the ultra conservatives will have thus turned peace lovers into troop haters. It happened once before didn't it?

Combat vets usually don't want to put down something they had to participate in. Who can blame them? What a position this country has placed them in. I've been with them, I've ridden shotgun in a HUMVEE through combat zones in Afghanistan and I understand how much soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen have to sacrifice to just get by. Those who serve earned my respect, but the people who didn't have no right to keep voting these men and women back into war. I personally wish all of the hardcore Rush Limbaugh fans would volunteer to be shipped to Iraq to show us just how patriotic they are when it really hits the fan.

I honestly do not see how supporting the continuance of the war in Iraq equates to supporting people in uniform. If we don't have needless war they live, if we go to war our troops die. Whether the right wing admits it or not, the things President Bush has asked of his countrymen are far beyond what any person should ask of another. Conservative? Hardly.

When you add the horrors of the war in Iraq with the shortfalls in the VA's system of care, particularly for those vets suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the only thing that stands out is the inequity.

"Ask not what you can do for your country, you have already done that, now ask what it can do for you"

These Iraq and Afghanistan vets are in our care for the next several generations. In my opinion they deserve to modify and reverse that famous statement of President John F. Kennedy. It is a sad perspective for a country that leaves its veterans behind in war after war.

Another former Marine like myself, Josh Rushing, was a Marine Corps media spokesman when the Iraq invasion began. He has directed the documentary posted below titled, "SPIN: The Art of Selling War". it is an investigative documentary that looks at the standard justification for going to war by the American administrations of past and present.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jefferson November 15, 2007 10:04 pm (Pacific time)

Attention Neal Feldman. As per your 11/13/07 [8:58 am] post dealing with the military's failed recruitment goals. See below, it sure shocks the hooey out of me: All Military Components Meet, Exceed Recruiting Goals USDOD ^ | 11/13/07 | Jim Garamone The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components. In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting and accession goals for October. On the active-duty side, the Army made 101 percent of its goal of 4,500, with 4,564 recruits. The Navy made 100 percent of its goal of 2,788 recruits. The Marine Corps made 102 percent of its goal of 2,720, with 2,788 enlisting. The Air Force made 100 percent of its goal of 2,656.

Anon November 13, 2007 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

"Our lack of vigilance has now allowed completion of most damaging "corporatist state" situation in world history"

Certainly have to agree with you there, Mr. Ruark.

Your history lesson is right on...........reference to Ike and his warning just a more recent demarcation of the current predicament.

Need more heads out of the sand.

Henry Ruark November 13, 2007 10:00 am (Pacific time)

In all candor, must point out that Hartmann traces "corporate personhood"--source of all those evil monies applied as "corporate political contributions"-- right back to the East India Company, with that evil usage a main concern causing the American Revolution. Time for another Revolution soon --Oregon Revolution-- to overthrow "undue influences" on Legislature and finally force reform on corporate tax system STILL allowing "$10 minimum corporate tax" fully SEVENTY YEARS after adoption in the Real Depression days !! "Undue influence" was what forced Legislative action to set Measure 50 as initiative, when blocked by refusal of responsibility by "opposing party" continuing 30 years of confrontation. Keep that in mind while preparing for coming renewal in Feb. Legislative session.

Henry Ruark November 13, 2007 8:58 am (Pacific time)

To all: While you're checking out "SPECULATOR", as previously noted, "see also:" "UNEQUAL PROTECTION: The Rise of Corporate Domination and the Theft of Human Rights" by Thom Hartmann;Rodale 2002; ISBN 1-57954-955-1. All refs. supplied here to SHARE so YOU can "See with own eyes" and use own brain to comprehend demanded actions. IF you disagree with what you find, then SHARE, with own reasons for belief-otherwise. That's heart-and-spirit of real open, honest, democratic dialog --demands no personal attack or even any "negative nomenclature" - just common decency in dialog, with facts presented shaping conclusions.

Henry Ruark November 13, 2007 7:05 am (Pacific time)

To all: For solid documentation of all my "corporatist state" references here and elsewhere in S-N, see: "EVERY MAN A SPECULATOR: A History of Wall Street in American Life"; Steven Fraser; ISBN 0-06-662048-1; 2005. Reviewed in depth in The American Prospect, April 2005, pp.62-63: "As a near-encylopedia of American economic, social and political history, Every Man A Speculator is a treasure trove of information" -Harold Myerson, reviewer.

Henry Ruark November 13, 2007 6:06 am (Pacific time)

"Anon" et al: Yrs points up continous trend from the earliest days, centuries ago, of precisely the group profiting from prolonged and peculiarly evil circumstances damaging every form of democracy, anywheres. Re "defense"-corporation as component, corporation format long underway to facilitate England, European reigning regime worldwide was major point in producing American Revolution -starting with Boston Tea Party at expense of British state-held corporation. Our lack of vigilance has now allowed completion of most damaging "corporatist state" situation in world history, open only to same kind of new Revolution ---starting with impeachment, soon.

Anon November 12, 2007 5:25 pm (Pacific time)

Gotta 'sell' war so you can profit from it. Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial machine. Most were too busy trying to acquire the much advertised and ballyhooed 'American Dream' and never saw the 'defense' corporate takeover.

Henry Ruark November 11, 2007 1:06 pm (Pacific time)

"Conservatives" today, with neo-con and neo-lib included, too, are direct descendants of robber barons-of-old, with same basic struggle underway for all other people. Thus most, if rational to clearly-stated, unavoidable political irrationalities built into "conservatism", will often exhibit same uncaring and inhuman reaction to fate of soldier-types. Proof-of-this-pudding highly evident in day/to/day operations of Bush regime re unscathed vets and wounded returnees both, right down to rotten conditions in major hospitals and for families.

Neal Feldman November 11, 2007 8:58 am (Pacific time)

I think these days it is more popular to be against the war in Iraq and the 'anti-troop' BS has been exposed for the rantings of buffoons that it is. I am pro-troop so I object to the abuse, misuse and mistreatment of the troops in the War in Iraq as well as in general by this neo-con chickenhawk administration that has instituted the backdoor draft, even abused, mistreated and abused the reserves, turned so many against military service that they cannot meet recruitment goals so we are fighting this illegal war with hired thugs/mercenaries, etc. At least for now my son in law is finally back from Iraq after nearly 2 yrs straight being there. Ah well...

[Return to Top]