"Is this article slanted? Obviously it is but the “point” to me is honoring a man who went far and above and showed courage, skill and bravery and not picking apart the article to find the faults that fits my agenda. The point to me IMHO was to simply honor the man and leave it at that."

The point to me also, is to "simply honor the man and leave it at that! But that is precisely what the author failed to do. He had to include some un-needed attempt to tie in the credit due the man and his heroism to an unpopular escalation and/or protraction of further sacrifice. To my way of thinking, that is cynical exploitation for political purposes. Do you have any idea of the number of homeless veterans in this country? Of the number who are terminally ill? Wouldn't the cost of this prolonged war go a long way to providing long overdue relief to these vets?

quote:

Do you have any idea of the number of homeless veterans in this country? Of the number who are terminally ill? Wouldn't the cost of this prolonged war go a long way to providing long overdue relief to these vets?

Yes I am well aware of the thousands of homeless Veterans in this country, and I am also all too well aware of the number of terminally ill Veterans.

A couple of reasons I am involved closely with the VA Hospital is because I was a patient there at one time, and spent many hour at the bedsides of two of my uncles who served in World War II and The Korean War (one each war) watching them slowly die from terminal illnesses. It hits very close to home to me.

I did try to help a homeless Veteran several years ago who used to live in the woods in my town. I guess I didn’t do a good enough job because I heard he killed himself last year.

By saying that if the cost of this prolonged war is eliminated those Veterans will be provided long overdue relief due to the sudden cash flow is absurd. Where was their relief before this war was started?

quote:

The point to me IMHO was to simply honor the man and leave it at that.

In that case, we agree. My first post started "No doubt that is one very brave man, but what is the writer of the first piece getting at..." and the second had "What I didn't get is why the WSJ journalist dragged Iraq into it..." and the third "Compare the piece Dwight links to with the WSJ article. The Jacksonville Daily News has a moving tribute to a hero. There's no political point-scoring..."

So what was all that "you just don't get it" about? I clearly did get it, and I claim my cigar!

NNN in your first post when you said

quote:

“No doubt that is one very brave man, but what is the writer of the first piece getting at...”

You did not “ leave it at that ” You posted a grand total of seven words in regards to the man of bravery and honor that this thread was started about and then five paragraphs about the part of the article you did not like or agree with.

That is why I initially said

quote:

I think that everyone “ gets it ” Kwll, but some choose to brush it aside like a fly at a barbeque.

When I said “some” I meant you. I said that you “got it” but changed my mind as this thread went on and on.

You don't get it, not by a longshot.

Oh for goodness sake. I got it, but the numerical weighting of my words was off?

Maybe it just takes more words to decode political flim-flam than it does to pay sincere tribute to a hero. Scotty paid a perfectly good tribute in ten words (and one of those was 'yes').

The original article devotes about six paragraphs to Crandall's story, and then about eleven to the empty rhetoric trying to make some kind of political point about Iraq.

The article which Dwight linked to is all about Crandall. If that one had been posted up top I wouldn't have objected at all.

I think you're splitting hairs.

quote:

By saying that if the cost of this prolonged war is eliminated those Veterans will be provided long overdue relief due to the sudden cash flow is absurd. Where was their relief before this war was started?

This is what I actually said:
Wouldn't the cost of this prolonged war go a long way to providing long overdue relief to these vets?

See the difference?

Sorry Frank I don’t see the difference. I do (now, not originally) however think I see what you meant, but I don’t agree with it.

Hypothetically speaking what if the war in Iraq was stopped, and all the money being spent there went to Veterans issues here at home? Would it help them out and provide long overdue relief? Yes absolutely, and it would go a long way and help like never before. The Veterans in this country have been inadequately treated here (in my opinion) for a long, long, long time and deserve so much better. So much more can and should be done to provide assistance for them.

This is why I hate “ what if ” type questions. Frank you and I both know it won’t happen. If this war stopped tomorrow that money would not go where you suggest it should in your hypothetical statement. I do agree that it should, but it will never happen.

NNN I agree that Scotty paid a very good tribute to the man in ten words even though one of them was “yes”. The difference between his tribute and yours was he did not include the word “ but ” and then go on about something he did not agree with. He simply left it at that.

Fair enough, but...

If you object to my adding a commentary on the WSJ article's (somewhat muddled and unconvincing) attempt to manufacture a political point out of the story, when I should have just left it as a tribute, then you must surely also object to the WSJ article's attempt to manufacture a political point out of the story when it should have just been left as a tribute.

I used less words rebutting the political gobbledy-gook than the journalist used making it, if that helps my case any.

More on the mistreatment of vets...

'The surprise is that anyone is surprised. Every generation of warriors has marched off to war based on the pledge that they would be taken care of no matter what. America has broken that promise every time.

Abandoning men who lose their limbs and sanity in battle is a tradition that goes back to America's first war.

More than 40 years passed before Revolutionary War vets got their pensions--by which time most had died. Of the few survivors, only those who could prove they were indigent actually collected...' www.uexpress.com

Actually, it's not true that the shabby treatment of war veterans is inevitable, is it? Roman legionaries were promised some land (and citizenship?) on retirement, and they mostly got it, didn't they?

Here's another tribute to Crandall, with a couple of pictures of, and quotes from, the man himself - soldiersmind.com.

'The Vietnam Memorial Wall was built to deliberately cast aside these controversies and create hallowed ground where the nation could grieve the loss of a generation of its youth, away from the political distractions and away from the turmoil surrounding the war. Though many vehemently opposed The Wall as inappropriate or simply an "ugly black gash in the ground" before its construction, the nation has come to treasure the memorial as a shrine to 58,253 unfinished lives.

Twenty years after my first visit, I visited The Wall as a combat veteran. The Wall took on an entirely new significance to me during that visit. The Iraq War is in many ways similar to the Vietnam War. Both wars were controversial at home, causing the veterans to feel betrayed or abandoned by government or the population at large. In both wars, the mission was often unclear to "the grunts on the ground." Much-needed equipment and material goods were denied to the forces in the field by Washington bureaucrats, and in both wars, the care of veterans has not been a true priority. The treatment of veterans has led many veterans of both wars to feel cut off from the nation they love and honorably served. On that and subsequent visits, The Wall felt like a sanctuary from the political storm that has surrounded "my war." The memorial is a place where I can mourn the dead not only of the Vietnam War, but of all wars, including mine. As a warrior, I carry the loss of life and the loss of innocence tightly within my heart. On every visit to The Wall since returning from Iraq, I have met people who disagree with me about the Iraq War. Yet, there is no politics around the wall; we mourn in silence or share our grief aloud not as liberals or conservatives, not as hawks or doves, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as human beings united by our suffering.

I was saddened to learn recently that for the first time since the beginning of the Iraq War, the sanctity of The Wall will be challenged by protest...'
www.truthout.org

It is simply incredible to me that some who post in here can recognize "slant" in specific circumstances that do not represent thier "worldview" while at the same time not even considering the slightest chance that there is bias in reporting when in line with their political persuasion.

The primary point of this article (yes there are several if one truly cares to look) is that our servicemembers do not get to choose what wars or actions that they serve. They go and do the job to the best of their ability regardless of who sits in the White House or Congress because they take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the orders of the Officers (including Commander in Chief) appointed over them.

What is important about recognizing them for their actions is that they provided sacrifice for something that they recognized as larger than themselves and in many cases paid for it with their lives. If some ideals are not worth dying for then perhaps we should just simply scrap all evidence of society and go back to anarchy. The point is that today's servicemembers are also volunteers. If a nation fails to recognize their sacrifice and what they do for those who benefit from it then what will happen in the future as fewer and fewer see any benefit of those ideals? Not only is our nation especially the media disregarding this sacrifice but they choose to avoid it altogether and recognize the inane (does Anna Nicole Smith, Don Imus, and American Idol's Sanjaya ring any bells?) ad nauseum on a nightly basis. Since this is an all volunteer force, what do those who are weighing their options think? Do I risk my life for something that I see garners little respect in our culture or do I serve others with my life if needed? I would submit that in the future based on the way we behave today that the numbers will continue to decline until eventually we find ourselves impotent when the Wolf is at our doorstep. I just wonder where the political football will lie at that time and who will get the blame? Well in all honesty, it wont really matter who gets the balme when that time comes (there is no "if" to it) because we wont be around long to complain about it. The very freedoms that you express here are owed to men like Bruce Crandall yet many of you fail to realize it. It doesnt matter what the popularity or politics of the war were that he served in, what matters is that he served and that many came back home to their families because of him. Soldiers dont get to pick and choose in which wars they fight, but America does get to pick and choose who we celebrate. Perhaps someday that decision may result in American Idol becoming our last defense.

If you still dont get it then I am sorry. Either my words are not as articulate as I would like or you simply cannot or do not want to understand. The basic premise in life is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, all things have a cost. The cost of your freedom and mine is tied up with the blood and sacrifice of those who serve. What is the cost of our divisiveness and politics over those who are not political? Only time can tell.

Hear! Hear! Right on, Kwll.
Very well put.

quote:

If a nation fails to recognize their sacrifice...

But nations do generally recognise that sacrifice, and honour their soldiers. Crandall's story was all over the news in the US. I don't see that it was 'suppressed'. And front page news in Canada, for example, in the last few days has included detailed reporting on soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan, and also the marking of the anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in WWI.

When I switch on my TV or consider popular movies, I generally see the upside of war - the cool machines, the bravery and heroism, and so on. (Pictures of the wounded or dead do occasionally sneak into the news, but they are more or less banned, aren't they?) How many toys and video games are there which are anti-war, or denigrate the military? Popular culture in North America is saturated with positive images of warriors.

Surely much more damage has been done to the US's ability to defend itself by the current administration's bungled and unecessary invasion of Iraq (and also by its boosting the role of mercenaries, or scrapping of the Geneva Convention) than by any amount of trivial reporting of showbiz gossip, or by any group protesting the Iraq war. If the wolf (who?) came to your doorstep right now, what could you do?

The WSJ writer, if he had wanted to make a point about negelect of veterans or the fallen, could have done so without dragging in his party political point - he's simply trying to link patriotism and respect for soldiers to support for Bush's fiasco. And he doesn't even do it very well. I'm still waiting for someone to explain what "At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?" could mean.

That's what I was objecting to. To say that I don't even consider the slightest chance that there is bias in reporting when it's in line with my political persuasion is unfair. Of course I do. But in this case, the diviseness and politics were introduced by the first article you posted - and there are examples on this thread of a couple of other articles which pay tribute to Crandall, and his like, without trying to twist things to imply that we can't both admire Crandall's bravery and deplore Bush's criminal incompetence.

Funny that you even think you know the writer's party. lol It was not suppressed neither was it front page news. "Cool" stuff omg!

Yes - "cool machines". Don't you think weapons are shown as 'cool' on that show, for example? Or in just about any Hollywood war movie? The effects of the weapons, long or short term, generally aren't discussed, or shown at length.

I don't think I know the writer's party. I'd guess, if he supports one of the two major US parties, Republican - because he runs down the Democrats and seems to support the Iraq invasion. Surely that's not an unreasonable guess.

Is there anyone outside (a shrinking section of) the Republican party who thinks invading Iraq was a good idea? Is there anyone outside the Republican party who, by rhetorical sleight of hand, tries to use heroes past and present to drum up support for that fiasco?

Forgive me, but isn't this thread straying far afield from it's intended topic? It was to honor a hero (*what was his name?), and instead it has become a political battlefield.

I know that our public media leaves much to be desired and the public probably knows more about a dead stripper and bad singer than they do about people who made a difference. But wouldn't another thread be a better place to discuss it?

*Lt Col. Bruce Crandall, Ret.

Based on your remarks and insistence that this I thought for a while about how I would address this and concluded that I would be wasting my time. You yourself have removed all doubt about whether you understand the point or any allusion to what I am talking about. Apparently in your mind all things are connected to some political game that bears no real world consequences for the nation or those who sacrifice on its behalf.

I entered the Army more than 26 years ago at a time when it was not "cool" or considered popular. I thought that it was the proper thing to do, to "give back" to my nation some of the fruits that it has given me. Many of my friends at that time did as I did. Today I see fewer and fewer of the "me" generation willing to give anything to this nation that they owe so much to. I have endured sub-zero temperatures, frostbite, 125 degree heat, being away from family and home for long periods during holidays, birthdays etc. I also take pain pills everyday and have an 80% disability rating. But if I were young enough to do it all again today I would because that is what I owe my nation. I only wonder if you have the same amount of commitment to your politics.

As far as thinking the invasion was a good idea, that has nothing to do with this post and you seem to be the only one trying to make that connection. For the record as I have stated in the past, I did not agree with the invasion. In fact in 1998 at the Army Command and General Staff College I wrote a Campaign analysis of Operation Chromite (invasion of Inchon 1950) and compared the results of that campaign to those of the 1991 Gulf War. In that analysis I stated that The right decision was reached in not invading Iraq because of the force requirements and te ensduring occupation that would be required. I have no joy in seeing that I was correct. However, since we are there, to leave and surrender as some would have us do only begs disaster at a later time.

A recurring theme that I see in the politics of this war is the continuing destruction of American institutions to make political points. Perhaps you can use some forethought and tell me what the next President is going to do when all of these institutions can no longer conduct their missions in a n effective manner or are rendered hollow and irrelevant.

quote:

...that has nothing to do with this post and you seem to be the only one trying to make that connection.

No. The article in the original post (which you introduced by saying 'The fact that I could not even find the story on another site via a Google search lends credence to the author as well') is what tried to make the link. If you had wanted a thread simply about honouring Crandall, then there were many other articles you could have chosen - articles which don't try to make a link to Iraq and Iran, and which don't cry about how unappreciated soldiers are.

There are some very fundamental jobs which are necessary to a decent and properly functioning society - teachers, parents, doctors and nurses, police officers, farmers - and being a soldier is one of them. Generally, they don't get celebrated on the front pages of newspapers. It doesn't mean that no one is willing to take on those roles any more, or that no one appreciates them. After 9/11, weren't there many people - like Pat Tillman - who you might never have imagined signing up, doing so? The institution - the US army - is in danger mainly from the chickenhawks in power who have abused it.

quote:

You yourself have removed all doubt about whether you understand the point or any allusion to what I am talking about.

No, I haven't.

quote:

Apparently in your mind all things are connected to some political game that bears no real world consequences for the nation or those who sacrifice on its behalf.

I'm not sure what this means. Bush's political game - his lunatic 'Plan for a New American Century' - has had awful real world consequences for Iraq, the US and the world.

Of course we should honour and celebrate those who fight and die on our behalf. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't also step back and look at the bigger picture. We can honour the bravery of the soldiers in the Somme, for example, while acknowledging what a pointless disaster that battle was, and learning lessons from the wider conflict itself.

The article you quote complains 'Most school children once knew the names of the nation's heroes in war..'. Does the author want a totalitarian style education system - all inspiring vignettes about glorious heroes, with none of that dangerous thinking about the wider picture? You can't study the charge of the Light Brigade, for example, without trying to understand how and why it happened, and in what larger historical context. Bringing in the wider context seems to be what people are objecting to, here. But I didn't start that - the WSJ article did.

We can express our admiration and respect for Crandall - and I think everyone in this thread has - without trying to mix in half-baked political point scoring. But that's what the article you quoted does, and that's all I was trying to point out, before everyone started yelling at me about missing the point.

I guess we agree, in part, on Iraq, which is gratifying. I suspect we're not so far apart on Crandall's story either. What is it we disagree about? (See? - doubt)

[I don't think anyone is talking about 'surrender' in Iraq - more an acknowledgement that Bush's "plan" (for want of a better word) isn't working, and something else needs to be tried.]

quote:

However, since we are there, to leave and surrender as some would have us do only begs disaster at a later time.

Leaving an unwinnable and unnecessary fight in which ,most of the dead and maimed are innocent bystanders is not "surrender" it is the "better part of valor". Just because the idiot in chief can't think of how to heed or involve the interests of more reasonable men doesn't mean there isn't any solution, other than throwing more gasoline on the fire.