Posted on 03/19/2002 7:36:22 AM PST by sheltonmac
The recently released movie Black Hawk Down raises interesting challenges to those who think they’re supporting American GIs when they support U.S. government decisions to send them into battle.
In 1993, the Clinton administration sent U.S. soldiers into the capital city of Mogadishu, which was in the midst of a civil war, to capture a Somali warlord named Mohammad Farrah Aidid. The Somalis fought back, ultimately shooting down two Black Hawk helicopters and killing 18 American men. Soon after their deaths, Clinton ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Somalia.
All too many Americans, even while regretting the loss of American soldiers in battle, fail to ask a fundamentally important question: Have American soldiers been sacrificed for a worthless, perhaps even immoral, cause? The attitude always seems to be that Americans soldiers die for “freedom” simply because they’re fighting on the orders of the U.S. government. But unfortunately, such is not always the case. Consider Somalia. What were those 18 American soldiers doing in Somalia in the first place? They were there because President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country.
Three questions arise: First, is it a legitimate role of government to feed starving people (either internationally or domestically)? Second, is feeding starving people in the world a cause worth sacrificing American GIs for? Third, does that mission have anything to do with the freedom of the American people?
I would submit that the answer to all three questions is “No.” For one thing, helping others means nothing unless it comes from the voluntary heart of individuals. When people voluntarily donate money to feed starving people in the world, that’s what genuine charity is all about.
But government “charity” is founded on a totally different premise — coercion, which is contrary to voluntary action. A political system in which government taxes people in order to distribute the money to the needy is not charity at all — it’s actually anti-charity and anti-freedom because it’s founded on force rather than voluntary action.
Thus, despite any lofty suggestions that those 18 American men died in Somalia for “freedom,” the truth is that the U.S. government sent them to their deaths for a worthless cause.
It wasn’t the first time. Consider Vietnam, a country thousands of miles away, where 60,000 American GIs lost their lives. Their mission? “To kill communists.” How many? No one ever really knew. All that mattered were the daily body counts, confirming that American GIs were “killing communists.” Fortunately, the American people finally questioned whether “killing communists” was a cause worth dying for (or, more accurately, sacrificing American soldiers for), and they successfully demanded a withdrawal from the Vietnam War.
How about World War I, in which tens of thousands of American men died on European battlefields? What was their mission? It was a lofty one: “To make the world safe for democracy” and to finally bring an end to war.
Not only were those aims not achieved, however, U.S. intervention in World War I actually contributed to the conditions of chaos and instability that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II as well as to the rise of the Soviet Union and the threat of international communism. The American men whom the U.S. government sent to Europe in World War I did not die for freedom; they died for nothing.
Recently eight U.S. servicemen lost their lives on some icy mountaintop in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. government’s new nebulous, undefined “war on terrorism.” Their mission: “to kill terrorists.” How many terrorists must they kill before victory is declared? Unfortunately, no one really knows, not even U.S. officials.
It is the duty of soldiers to follow orders, not to question the mission that they are sent on. That’s why the soldiers on those Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia died. It’s why those soldiers in Vietnam died. It’s why those GIs in World War I died.
But it is the duty of the citizenry to question and challenge the missions for which their government sends their fighting men and women into action. As Americans have learned the hard way, the U.S. government sometimes sacrifices American GIs for worthless causes. How many more American soldiers must die in Afghanistan before Americans begin challenging their mission there?
OTOH, the present military is entirely voluntary. IMO, the military applicant accepts the risks of possible warfare when he signs up. He is expected to kill and/or die when ordered to do so.
The invasion of France by Hitler was a direct retribution for that act.
Demi, you might have a reference that backs this up. But my recollection is that there were a lot of things that finally culminated in the second World War.
The Treaty of Versailles was harsh indeed, and Germany couldn't make the reparations called for. At the Lausanne Conference in 1932, representatives of France, Great Britain, and Japan met with German representatives to consider German reparations. The French, British, and Japanese agreed to defer the German debt contingent on the United States agreeing.
However.....however, the US Congers forbade deferment, and so the agreement cratered.
It wasn't too long afterwards that Hitler weasled his way to absolute power. He then announced that Germany would abrogate the Treaty of Versailles. So began the series of threats and crises that led to Germany's reannexation of the Saar basin, the Austrian anschluss, the demand for Sudeten autonomy, followed by the shameful agreement entered into by Chamberlain to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler. Next came the announcement of the German-Soviet non-aggression treaty. The Polish invasion immediately followed.
Most of these latter events I remember rather vividly. I don't think that France physically marched into Germany to demand reparations, thus starting WWII. Britain and France declared war because they had a mutual defense treaty with Poland. Hitler never anticipated their honoring the Polish pact, because he had his eyes on invading Russia. Bad miscalculation.
It was reported at the time that Hitler believed that the United States wouldn't enter the war because it was too decadent. Another bad miscalculation.
Have you read the constitution? There is a remedy in there for just such occasion. A national war is not it.
Really? Please explain how the people enjoyed the massive inflation and economic destruction caused by the treaty. It wasn't even a factor. And sure. There was no revenge in the minds of the Nazi's after the hubris shown by the French.
No. You are confused. It was the Rangers. That is the point.
Have you read the constitution? There is a remedy in there for just such occasion. A national war is not it.
ROFL!! Mercenaries!!
How was it so much different than the inflation that the French, British and Italians felt after the war aside from the fact that the Germans did not have a stable government until Hitler came to power? Versailles did not cause the bulk of their economic problems. Their unworkable government system that prevailed after the collapse of their monarchy was what sent Germany on the road to ruin.
As to the 'hubris' shown by the French, how was it different than the hubris shown by the Germans several decades earlier? The French reclaimed territory lost in the 1870s and rightfully hated the Germans for the destruction and death that occurred primarily on French soil during WWI. That state of affairs would have existed regardless of US involvement and to blame the US is asinine.
I have no sympathy for the fate of the German Empire, and nothing that resulted from their defeat caused Hitler any more than what would have not happened otherwise. Germany was an industrial giant trapped in a feudal economic and political system. They were ripe for revolution and Hitler was nothing but another socialist revolutionary.
The early 20th century was a time when military/totalitarian government was on the rise in areas that had no history of self-government. Germany, Japan, Italy, and yes, even Russia. They all reached the outer limits of what tradition monarchies could endure in a modern world. To maintain the power of the elite, they needed a ‘secular’, totalitarian regime to provide ‘order’ and protect their ‘special interests’. Germany was simply the largest and most economically advanced of the breed. But organically, there was no major difference in what happened in Germany, Russia, Japan or Italy. Their economies and military capabilities outpaced their political ability to deal with that power.
Hey, Demidog... as it happens, I have no interest in imperialist conquest of your house and property. However, if you should post some cool Die Krupps stuff on Ebay, I might be interested in buying it. In short, I am Territorially Isolationist towards you, friend, but I would happily Engage your business Economically if it serves our mutual profit.
WHAT?!?! You don't want to murder me?? You have no interest in attacking me??
Gosh, and here I was afraid I was taking a terribly "risky" position....
That's one I have never heard. Source please.
"Baliff, whack his pee-pee!"
Cheech and Chong
Trippin' in Court
/humor
We here on the Free Republic are open to the truth. Please provide us with the part of the Constitution that states the remedy for Al Queda.
Germany's foreign minister had this to say at the time about Wilson's "14 points" proposal:
But more than this, we are also to resign the right of self-determination in domestic affairs. Dictatorial powers are conferred on the International Reparation Commission over our whole national life in economic and cultural matters, its power by far exceeding those ever enjoyed within the German Empire by the Emperor, the German Federal Council and the Reichstag put together. This Commission has the unrestrained power of disposal over the economic system of the state, of the municipalities and of private individuals. All matters of education and public health likewise depend on it. . . . The Commission . . can, in order to augment the payments of Serfdom, inhibit the whole system of social care for the working classes in Germany.Also in other respects Germany's right of sovereignty is abrogated. Her principal rivers are placed under international administration, she is obliged to build on her own territory the canals and railways desired by the enemy, she must, without knowing the contents, assent to agreements which her adversaries intend concluding with the new states in the East [i.e., Poland and the Baltic states] and which affect Germany's own boundaries. The German people is excluded from the League of Nations to which all common work of the world is confided.
Thus a whole nation is called upon to sign its own proscription, yea, even its own death warrant.
To say that the treaty was punitive would be a gross understatement.
The invasion of the Ruhr by the French (steel factories and industrial areas.) French Invasion of the Ruhr - - French invaded a major industrial part of Germany, the Ruhr. The German Government reacted by printing German money in mass. German money became virtually useless. Hyper-inflation saw prices rocket.Gustav Stresemann - - Germany's foriegn minister in the 1920's. - Helped to call off the French invasion of the Ruhr. - Reduced Germany's war reparations - Responsible for the Lacarno Pact and for Germany joing the League of Nations. - Died suddenly 1929 aged 51.
http://www.heretaunga.school.nz/dept/history/ORIGINS.HTM#Ruhr
I understand your laughter. Nowadays, alot of people laugh at the constitution, the fact that it is the supreme law of the land notwithstanding.
This shows an extreme lack of understanding abut what the treaty demanded and how it was enforced. I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject.
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.