Memorial Day, Reconsidered

in_memoriam (1)
Russell from DumpDC asks readers to think clearly about What, Who, and Why this Memorial Day.

The hardest thing in my development has been becoming aware of my programming and curing it.

May freedom-loving people of all backgrounds remember how to advance their cause.

By any means necessary.

By any means

36 responses to “Memorial Day, Reconsidered

  1. Having the Navy protect our commerce, and that includes the oil trade, is a valid endeavor. The Founders and Framers understood commerce and that is why the Navy is Constitutionally authorized. Not to say I don’t want us the heck out of the Middle East, but there really are reasons why we have a Navy and why we care about that shithole sandbox. Energy independence is our way out.

    • “energy independence”? We don’t get our oil from the Middle East; just everywhere else. America’s Middle East involvement is via A) keeping oil-producing countries on the petrodollar – w/o which our dollar-drowned, debt-Ponzi economy will collapse – and B) keeping Israel on the map.

      • Exactly, SP. It’s about the Petrodollar, keeping corporate oil’s hand on the oil spigot for China and India, and the funding of Zionist state.

        Nothing more.

  2. What? Isolationism during WW2 is thinking clearly? You really think they will come for you last? You must not have many friends.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      He’s also more than a little off on his pre-war history regarding the Pacific – the Japanese had been pushing for a fight with the US for years prior to Pearl Harbor – witness, for example, the Panay Incident.

      • That’s right. The Japs did not appreciate American gunboats prowling about in their imperial backyard, enforcing US “interests” in China. Just as America would not have appreciated Japanese gunboats prowling about in the Carribbean c. 1937, enforcing Japanese penetration of, say, Central America. But there weren’t any.

        • Jimmy the Saint

          Of course, given that the Japs had precisely zero legally-cognizable interest in China, their feelings on the matter were worth precisely fuck-all. Plus, gunboats like the Panay couldn’t really “enforce” much of anything, as they were something less than floating fortresses. They were primarily there to protect US citizens (and it’s debatable exactly how well they could have done that) in the event that they got caught up in the turbulence of inter-war Chinese domestic politics. Mostly, all the gunboats really could have done would have been to evacuate those people who could get to rivers/ports.

    • Neo-con drivel, Vinny. Hitler wanted war with neither Britain nor America, and the Japanese wanted no war with America. Lindbergh and the “isolationists” predicted American involvement in Round II of the anti-German War would benefit only the communists…and history proved them right many times over. And by the way: nothing grows Government like War.

      • Jimmy the Saint

        “the Japanese wanted no war with America. ”

        As a national policy, no. A decent chunk of their military did, however. Unfortunately for a lot of folk in both nations, the Japanese military wasn’t exactly what you’d call centrally organized and controlled in the pre-war years. The Manchurian/Manchukuo Army pretty much did as it pleased, for example.

    • “Isolationism” was a word coined by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) after Germany invaded Russia. CPUSA then went into overdrive to push the progressive-fascists in Frank Roosevelt’s government, which was full of those types, into assisting “mother Russia”.

      Roosevelt worked very hard to get “America” to change its mind from “no more international wars” to wanting to retaliate for Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt really wanted war with Germany a whole lot more than with Japan, Roosevelt was a major Anglophile.

      • From Dictionary.com then confirmed from other sources.
        isolationism
        i·so·la·tion·ism [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-] Show IPA
        noun
        the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

        ORIGIN: 1920–25, Americanism; isolation + -ism !

        Though the concept is much older see Non-interventionism to start with.

        From Wikipedia.
        Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally “Case Barbarossa”) was the code name for Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

        Beginning on 22 June 1941 !

        Seriously Pat would it kill you to check the facts once in a while?

  3. Highlander

    Lets start with my family fought for the Confederate States. The rewriting of history bothers me no matter which side is doing it. The North did not start the war. The South fired on Fort Sumpter with the intent of starting the war. Remember, Fort Sumpter was the last place being evacuated as per the demands of the Confederacy. If the elitist behind the scenes could not provoke the Federal Government on that night they might not have gotten their war. The causes of the war are the same basic causes that we are fighting against right now…for the average Joe, over bearing Federal Government. But for the elites and political class, who think they won’t get messy hands, its all a power grab. The Southern Soldier and the Northern Soldier were just the pawns used by them. On Memorial Day I have ALWAYS included the Confederate Soldier in my thoughts as American Soldiers who died for Liberty and Freedom. Of the four boys in the family fighting for the South, the oldest worked for the Confederate Navy and survived the war and the youngest was shot in the face days prior to the battle at Gettysburg and survived the war, the other two were killed in battle one at the Bloody Angle and the other at Kershaw Mt. (sp). It is that which we honor on Memorial Day, not the elitist!

    • http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011/04/08/charleston-learns-of-fort-sumter-mission/

      Fort Sumpter seems to be much more complicated than I thought. The resupply though was basically a hostile act, and while some restraint might have brought about a different outcome, the diplomatic actions that led to the war were on the US side, not the Confederacy. That’s where credit is due, with a serious look, not the way history usually writes it.

    • The United States did indeed invade the Confederate States, the “south” did not start the invasion.

      The United States invaded the territory of South Carolina in the middle of the night, 26 December 1860. Fort Sumter was NOT garrisoned by anyone prior to this invasion, the US government had agreed in writing to not send troops to garrison it. South Carolina attempted a negotiated withdrawal of the invader from its territory for nearly four months, only after 12 United States Navy warships, with 1400 troops on board, dropped anchor in Charleston Harbor, itself an act of war, was the fort (which belonged to the Confederate States) fired upon. Firing upon an invading army is NOT an initiation of war, it is a reaction to war initiated by another.

      Further, you’ll have a hard time explaining why the United States invaded Virginia to respond to South Carolina.

      It’s really amazing that the Yankee Empire’s propaganda has lasted as long as it had, but Highlander’s post demonstrates that sad fact.

      • Fort Sumter was still federal property Pat.
        By international treaty law at the time South Carolina had already committed several acts of war on the United States during the James Buchanan administration.
        But that elitist fool in South Carolina had to have his war. He got what he wanted and earned.

        • No, HD, it ceased being “federal property” on 20 December, 1860 when South Carolina lawfully seceded from the United States. The United States invaded South Carolina six days later when it moved to occupy South Carolina’s territory.

          That’s act of war number one.

          Act of war number two occurred with the United States chartered a commercial ship, loaded it with 300 soldiers and munitions and attempted to reinforce their invasion army.

          Act of war number three occurred when twelve United States warships entered Charleston Harbor, which were loaded with 1400 troops and munitions, and dropped anchor.

          The Confederate States, which South Carolina had joined, was forced to fire on the fort to prevent the United States from landing those troops and munitions on its soil.

          Fort Sumter was NOT United States territory at the time, regardless what US government propaganda said and continues to say.

          The United States initiated the War Against the South, waged war through murder, rape, and pillage; which they continue to this day.

          • Sorry Pat it is not that simple.
            The agreements that are the U.S. Constitution fall into the Historical and Legal morass that is Treaty Law.
            You cling to this simple minded version of events without understanding the complex issues that were in play.
            Withdrawal from a treaty like this is like a modern divorce or the dissolution of a corporation. A complex issue that must be handled carefully. But South Carolina like a greedy spouse tried to grab everything they could regardless of origin of ownership.

            Please have mercy and spare me the “South was the Engine of the Tax Base and paid for Everything” lie. That was provably false early in the Industrial Revolution and total Bull by the first two decades of the1800s.

            If you were half the historian you pretend to be you would have read memoirs and journals of people who later became the leaders of the Union.
            Most I have read indicate that at the time they thought the secession was a perfectly peaceful separation that was inevitable. Even after the firing on the Star of the West. Which incidentally was a Major Act of War, Pat.
            Notice you will look long and hard to find any neutral party or sympathetic to the Confederacy party condemning the union for sending the Star of the West to Sumter.

            But Union leadership sought to avoid war, if they were half the aggressors you claim this incident alone provided a basis in real treaty and international law to declare war.
            You can lie about the Union starting the war all you want. Only those who will never examine the facts will believe you. Even after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter return fire was not commenced for two hours.

            If Treaty Law worked the way you insist it does Virginia would have to pay West Virginia back $12,393,929.50 plus interest and probably penalties. The Supreme Court of the United States would never have upheld this debt to Virginia if your version of Law had a basis in fact.

            I do not claim to be a historian or legal expert. Yet I have a better understanding of the issues than you.
            So I must ask. Would it literally kill you to look into things and do just a little research on your own?
            The arguments in real law that support some of your beliefs are far stronger than this made up law you insist on using.

  4. Gary Smith

    To see these days you don’t need sight, you need vision.

  5. Semper Fi, 0321

    The overall basis of the post is well stated and correct, we’ve entered every single conflict on false pretenses. Dig deep enough and you’ll find our history books are filled with lies and mythology, exactly what the masses want. Makes for better parades.
    We don’t need to argue over every single missed detail, or that you think he dishonored some distant relative of yours, that wasn’t the point here. As Pete said, we all need a little reprogramming to undo the brainwashing we grew up with.
    I can respect and honor any soldier, no matter who he fought for, on the basis he died believing his was a just cause. The fact that the politicians lied is not an issue here.

  6. There are a few glaring problems that have to be corrected immediately. The war racket tops the list.

    But to correct those problems and ironic as it is, a war is necessary. A war with a complete and unconditional surrender. No half measures. No deals. No compromises. Just complete, total, and unconditional surrender.

    It’s the price of not paying attention, ignoring duties and responsibilities. And failure. Failure to learn and incorporate what the Founders intended.

    I’m not sure the monumental task can be accomplished. There is so little time. And the good people are fragmented and few.

    But I’m here. Standing firm. Continuing to learn, train, and maintain body, mind, and soul.

    We shall see. While my time now is short, I’m quite certain that the die will be cast before my exit. And that is the only thing I ask. That God grants me that prayer. Understand, I’m pestering Him for the whole encilada. But at the least, I just gotta know.

  7. Battlefield USA

    And just a reminder… “The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”

    And…

    “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.” – Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton 1998.

    Estimated 4 Trillion in the Caspian Sea alone. And of course, there is a couple Trillion in minerals/rare earth in Afghanistan… not to mention the poppies which is a multi-BILLION dollar business in its own right.

    And who could forget…

    “Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multi-billion dollar oil and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan.” – U.S. Department of Energy

    Boo. Keep yer eyes on the dog. And forget about the CIA/State Dept. and various to secret to mention agencies who are fomenting chaos in “strategic” locations.

    Huh? Oh. Never mind.

    😉

  8. Pretty much agree with DDC’s essay. With one historical correction: Brother Woodrow didn’t drag us into WW I via “Treaty Obligations”. At the time we had none with the European powers. In early 1917, it became apparent to the French and British politicians that Germany was about to knock Russia out of the war and, this done, might well go on to defeat the Western Encirclement Powers as well. So they needed a patsy to replace the Russians (see also: 1941, or so thought FDR & Churchill). Meanwhile the selfsame powers had been purchasing ON CREDIT vast amounts of war material from the US since the beginning of the war…the Brits and French then pointed out the obvious to Wilson: if Germany wins, USA Inc. does not get paid. WW’s public explanation for the Declaration of War on Germany – unrestricted submarine warfare (cf. “WMD in Iraq!”) – was the usual eyewash for public consumption. The supreme irony, of course, is that the nominal victors went to Versailles, dumped their war debts on the Germans, and eventually the Germans reneged as well. That lump of unpaid debt, when packaged by Wall Street, then laid the basis for the massively leveraged, speculative frenzy that led to the Great Depression and Round II of the same World War. All of which has a certain contemporary resonance.

    • That’s right, SP, and Frank Roosevelt had a rollicking good time as under-secretary of the Navy during WWI. This was prior to his contracting Polio, so he was a wealthy dandy from New York, a lady’s man, a bon vivant in the District of Columbia. I’ve read that he just about ignored the fact that he wasn’t THE secretary of the Navy, arranging and signing contracts himself. That is, spending that good government money whenever and wherever he wanted.

      Roosevelt loved war.

  9. johnnyreb

    [i]On March 5, 1861, the day after his inauguration as president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln received a message from Maj. Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops holding Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. The message stated that there was less than a six week supply of food left in the fort.

    Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the Union were spurned by Lincoln, and the Confederacy felt it could no longer tolerate the presense of a foreign force in its territory. Believing a conflict to be inevitable, Lincoln ingeniously devised a plan that would cause the Confederates to fire the first shot and thus, he hoped, inspire the states that had not yet seceded to unite in the effort to restore the Union. [/i]

    History check.

  10. I’m sorry, I can’t get excited or in the mood to commemorate Memorial Day. My mother lost two older brothers on the Arizona, my dad came back shell-shocked from Saipan and my older brother came back from Viet Nam, Republic of, addicted to drugs and resides to this day in the local VA.

    For what? What did my family sacrifice for? For Obama, the Communist, to come to power and have his way for us?

    No thanks.

    It was a waste. The sacrifice of the best and the only worthy people on this nation was for naught.

    Sorry, I mourn for their lost, but not in the way your “Lee Greenwoods” do.

    • In truth nothing about memorial day should bring on joy or excitement. The day is to remember those who should be here. Those I wish I could meet in this life.
      Your family has paid a terrible price for others liberty. Something I am eternally grateful to them for.

      My family’s American military roots start in the revolutionary war. Having served and survived that.
      Their descendants got the pleasure of fighting to save their homes and lives from the terrorist vermin that would later form, serve, and lead the Confederate States of America.
      They kept their lives mostly, but lost most of everything else.

      I wish I could write anything that would ease the pain.

  11. Russell Longcore has a fairly simplistic view of war, he believes you should wait until you’re actually being invaded to fight. All wars not on US shores are wrong.

    If you want to know where he’s coming from, read Markets Not Capitalism. I did, and now I know Longcore and I have no common idealogical ground.

    Also, he seems to have stopped approving my comments. Not very libertarian of him.:)

  12. Anyone here familiar with the warning “A Half Truth is All Lie”?

    This is probably the most despicable example of using half truths to push an agenda I have ever seen.