¿¿¿¿¿¿
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Posted on 01/03/2005 4:40:03 PM PST by DarrylC
“As we here at home contemplate our own duties, our own responsibilities, let us think and think hard of the example which is being set for us by our fighting men. Our soldiers and sailors are members of well-disciplined units. But they're still and forever individuals, free individuals. They are farmers and workers, businessmen, professional men, artists, clerks. They are the United States of America. That is why they fight. We too are the United States of America. That is why we must work and sacrifice. It is for them. It is for us. It is for victory.” -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, “A Call for Sacrifice”, April 28th, 1942
And sacrifice the American people did. Factories that otherwise would have produced tin cans or toys were converted to manufacture tanks and planes. More than six million women, in a time when most did not seek employment, went to work in war-related industries. As food became increasingly scarce, people began cultivating their own gardens. Recycling developed importance for the first time and Scrap Metal Drives were held throughout the country. In one way or another, every American citizen was asked to sacrifice in order to contribute to the war effort, whether that was rationing critical goods, gasoline and food, as prescribed in “ration books” distributed by the Office of Price Administration, sending themselves or their loved ones into conflict, or both.
In spite of comparisons between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler, it would be difficult to argue that the scale of the Iraq War is anything close to approaching that of World War II. It would furthermore be tough to argue that the stakes are anywhere near as high. Be that as it may, we need to ask ourselves if every war, if it is to be called such, should not demand at least some sort of commitment and sacrifice from the general citizenry that is being represented by the armed forces engaged in combat. If the war is worth fighting, should not every last person on the home front be obliged to forego at least some comforts while our brave youth are spilling his or her blood? Modern American warfare would seem to indicate that this is, in fact, not the case.
Roosevelt’s thinking is unfortunately anachronistic in a time where wars are fought with higher technology, fewer soldiers and less citizen involvement. No one will deny the commitment and sacrifice demonstrated by those in the armed forces and their families, but the rest of us on the home front contribute virtually nothing to the war effort beyond ceremonial displays of support for our troops. Since there is no draft, non-military American families need not worry about their sons and daughters being called for duty. Since the Bush Administration seems quite unconcerned with the growing deficit, the American taxpayer is not even called upon to pay for the cost of the War; we will leave that for future generations. Lastly, while even the President has openly conceded to the need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East, as a critical element in our War Against Terror, not one single measure has been enacted in the name of energy conservation. If it were not for reminders through news channels, many of which could be more appropriately classified as entertainment, and a few bumper stickers and ribbons, it would be easy for those on the home front to forget that America was even engaged in a war.
After 9/11, the American people were willing, even eager, to do their part, whatever that might be, to help defeat those who attacked us. Having squandered that goodwill long ago, the Bush Administration has correctly calculated that asking the general population to sacrifice anything whatsoever would have a deleterious effect on public support for the War. To that extent, the President, while waxing endlessly about the need to fight for freedom, has not asked the American public for even token sacrifice. As long as the War has absolutely no impact on quality of life in the United States, he can hope to continue to enjoy a certain level of support. Freedom is not free – it just seems like very few people are actually paying for it.
Warfare, American-style, has been an industry all of its own for quite some time – and a big one at that. Like all good businesses, it seeks to increase profits, expand markets and drive demand. Demand, as we know, increases when costs, at least to the decision-makers, in this case voters, are driven toward zero. Various studies have shown that there are certain price points below which consumers will buy on impulse, transacting without critically thinking about the perceived benefits given that the cost is moderate. Is there a price point under which a nation will go to war on impulse? The answer is, sadly, “yes.” No draft, no taxes, no rationing and no conservation equate to very little cost, effectively lowering any threshold of criteria required for military action.
The unfortunate consequence is a foreign policy driven increasingly by military industrial interests, with a resulting proliferation of military responses to political problems. Of course, every conflict has a given rationale, and the propaganda machines are always running full-tilt, but the United States has been engaged in a curiously significant amount of military activity, all in the name of freedom, naturally, in the 60 years since the end of World War II: four wars, not including the Cold War, numerous invasions of foreign countries and inestimable meddling and support for foreign conflicts around the globe. The Cold War was quite a bonanza for defense companies: enormous defense budget outlays without messy casualties. Alas, it ended. The War on Terror, on the other hand, while entailing regrettable military and civilian bloodshed, will continue as long as people use violence against civilians to achieve political goals: in other words, forever. It appears to be the gift that will keep on giving.
Dwight Eisenhower, in a speech near the end of his tenure in 1961, warned against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.” Interestingly enough, the other threat mentioned in his speech was “the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.” With defense spending around half a trillion dollars, financed by unprecedented levels of federal budget deficit, one has to wonder if anyone was listening.
I see pancakes and bunnies and kitties possibly in your future. Have a nice day
"Vanity", thy name is....
I believe more should be asked of the American people for the war effort. I don't know exactly what it would be. But, some level of sacrifice would make us more aware of the stakes involved and build American character. It would also, hopefully, make the troops feel part of a larger team, where those at home were participating to help them.
There is no draft because one is not needed. I don't know where you are living, but taxes are killing me. Rationing, again, not necessary and there is no need to make "pretend" sacrifices. As for conservation, I don't drive unnecessarily given the rather high cost of gas and the fact that I'm looking for work, but if conservation of something or other were necessary, I'm sure it would occur. Now your point also assumes, in part, that there is no pain to us, no sense of loss, when we lose young people who exemplify the best of us. Oh, and your other arguments aren't very good either.
Plugging your own website is frowned upon around here. Too commercial.
Taxes are killing you, and you don't have a job? Gas is expensive and you're living in the US? Funny.
Now how about supporting a little sacrifice on the home front to support the brave men and women overseas, like a BTU tax?
Al Gore, is that you?
¿¿¿¿¿¿
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
haha!
From his "In Forum" page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=187390
Yes, I read that article in the WSJ already. Funny that you'd call me narrow-minded when you most likely only read the WSJ, listen to conservative talk radio and watch Fox News. Be that as it may, the cost of living is certainly higher in the blue states. That's because everyone wants to live there. 99 of the 100 fastest growing communities voted for Bush? Sounds like a ridiculous right-wing fabricated factoid to me. But if it's true, it's probably because of abstinence-only sex education. If anyone hit the hail on the head, it's Lawrence O'Donnell.
OMG, I love that thing.
No complaints there.
I knew I smelt a ZOT!
I lived during that time and believe me I realize we are not retreading tires and having to use an ice box because the old fridge broke down...I know we don't have to ration visits to check on grandmother because of gas rationing..kids don't have to walk to school and the movies...Fudge was made once a year as Hershey's had gone to war..We worked a big victory garden and we raised the chickens we ate.
I don't idealize it..It was necessary..There was a world war going on...and our national debt v GDP was horrendous.
That little post of his was the clincher in the "do I or do I not" hit my ping list?Thanks. :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
