On this Memorial Day, perhaps it would be appropriate to approach the day a bit differently that one would think. This country has always honored its dead on this day by laying wreaths, visiting graves, and having moments of silence for those who have fallen in dedicated service to this country.
Today, more so than in other years, our soldiers who have fallen in recent times are doing so to protect our way of life. This is not to say that the soldiers of the past were not doing so; undoubtedly, they were. Rather, this is to say that the threat of terrorist attacks are more directly linked to how we live our lives in these United States of America, enjoying the freedoms and liberties that are the integral parts of our lives as Americans.
Let us honor our soldiers with moments of silence - then, let us honor their sacrifices by taking advantage of the freedoms they have protected. Have a pleasant Memorial Day.
Others on Memorial Day: BeyondBT, EditCopy, Orthomom, SeraphicPress (not on MD per se, but on his father's service as a chaplain), SoccerDad.
UPDATE: A great one from Sephardi Lady about her former classmate.
UPDATE II: Whoops! Forgot those with the broken feeds... Jack & Chaim. Sorry!
You can add me too, Ezzie. :)
ReplyDeleteToday, more so than in other years, our soldiers who have fallen in recent times are doing so to protect our way of life.
ReplyDeleteMuch as I respect our fallen soldiers, Ezzie, this is ridiculous. The War of Independence, the Civil War, both World Wars, the French and Indian war, etc. did much more to protect our way of life. Even Viet Nam and Korea were intended to fight off communism, a far graver threat than terrorism is. Afghanistan was directly related to defending ourselves from foreign attack, but Iraq is completely irrelevant. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, including Israel, but certainly in no danger of changing the American way of life.
Firstly, I was referring to soldiers everywhere, which includes those who are fighting terrorists, so your complaint is unfounded in the least.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I disagree that Saddam was not a threat to the American way of life. I find it hard to believe that you think Communism was a graver threat than terrorism, and I don't see how you can argue that Saddam and all he supported had less of an effect on the nation than WWI. Even WWII, from the point of view of the US in 1941, was less directly affecting the United States than Hussein.
I have a feeling we're going to have to disagree on this one.
Ummm Am I chopped Liver? :-)
ReplyDeleteNo, but the feed on your blog is BROKEN!! Okay, okay, I'll correct it... ;)
ReplyDeletewhatcha on? Bloglines? My feed is kosher b'mhuder.
ReplyDeleteNo, Sage (from Mozilla). I get an XML Parse Error for you, Jack, and Jewlicious pretty often, from CharlieHall on occasion, and a couple others here and there.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that you think Communism was a graver threat than terrorism
ReplyDeleteThe Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing at us! They controlled half the industrialized world. They could have literally wiped out 90% of human life on Earth. Saddam could have maybe killed a few thousand Israelis and al Queda could maybe kill ten thousand more civilians. There's just no comparison.
Even WWII, from the point of view of the US in 1941, was less directly affecting the United States than Hussein.
Ridiculous. Germany controlling all of Europe and Japan controlling the Pacific would be incomparably worse for the U.S. than Saddam controlling part of the Middle East.
Ridiculous. Germany controlling all of Europe and Japan controlling the Pacific would be incomparably worse for the U.S. than Saddam controlling part of the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteHussein helped finance terrorists, who would be perfectly willing to carry out massive terror attacks in this country. The more powerful Saddam got, the more likely he would have been able to attain nuclear and biological weaponry.
The Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing at us! They controlled half the industrialized world. They could have literally wiped out 90% of human life on Earth. Saddam could have maybe killed a few thousand Israelis and al Queda could maybe kill ten thousand more civilians. There's just no comparison.
Though there were no WMD's found of the variety people expected, the amounts of sarin and other biochemical agents are more than enough to wipe out every large city in this country. The Soviet Union had good reason to not shoot off their missiles, which is why they didn't; Saddam had no such reason were he to have the ability to do so, which is why he did act when he had occasion to.
Though there were no WMD's found of the variety people expected, the amounts of sarin and other biochemical agents are more than enough to wipe out every large city in this country.
ReplyDeleteFlatly false. Cite? Also, even if he did have them, he had no method of delivery.
Saddam had no such reason were he to have the ability to do so, which is why he did act when he had occasion to.
Saddam never used them against us, evne though he could have during Desert Storm. By your own logic, he wasn't a threat to us.
Huh? Check any news source. Do a Google search for sarin AND Iraq.
ReplyDeleteNo, as you noted he didn't have a delivery method - yet. Were he get one, he would have used them as surely as he used Scuds in the Gulf War.
He killed off whole towns in his own country - I don't get why you don't think he'd use the stuff against others.
Other than FOX news, which is completely untrustworthy, I don't see any mainstream sources about any significant amount of sarin gas. In any event, it couldn't come close to the nuclear warheads possessed by the Soviets. You say they wouldn't have used them, but they came awfully close during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Saddam couldn't have hit the U.S. even if he had significant chemical weapons, as you admit, so obviously he wasn't nearly as big a threat.
ReplyDeleteOther than FOX news, which is completely untrustworthy, I don't see any mainstream sources about any significant amount of sarin gas.
ReplyDeleteThat's pathetic, and you know it. But if you're really having trouble, try USNews. I helped someone put together a nice paper on the subject a few years ago - a number of the cites were from USNews.
Fine, though, the Soviets were a larger threat during the Missile Crisis (though it's interesting to note that aside from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by a Dem. President, the US took no actual action). As a note, however, I originally interpreted your Communism comment as the idea and spread of it, not of the Soviet power.
whatever conclusion you two come to, I have enjoyed your intelligent debate.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
CM - You should check out JAJC.blogspot.com. Better debates there... :)
ReplyDeleteThat's pathetic, and you know it.
ReplyDeleteI know that several times, FOX ran with misleading stories about Iraq having WMD. Something about trailers, remember?
As for US News, all I see is a quote from Rumsfeld (who also said before the war that WMDs were North, South, East, and West of Baghdad, and then recently lied about that) and some stories about sarin gas being in some of the shells during the first gulf war. Regardless, whatever chemicals Saddam has totally pales in comparison with the Soviet nukes, the Japanese military, the South's arsenal during the Civil war, etc.
It's okay to admit it when you're wrong every now and then, Ezzie. :-)
Fine, though, the Soviets were a larger threat during the Missile Crisis
That's when the threat came closest to being realized, but the threat existed for half a century. I'm no fan of the Viet Nam war, but there's no question that the opponent by proxy there was more dangerous than Saddam and al-Qaida put together.
As a note, however, I originally interpreted your Communism comment as the idea and spread of it, not of the Soviet power.
Even if that is what I meant, I'm not sure you'd be right. :-) Saddam simply couldn't have done more than fund or minimally arm a few dozen terrorists. And there's no evidence that he ever attempted to do that with terrorists aimed at the U.S.
All I know is my mighty blog broke your feed. Feel the power of the Shack! ;)
ReplyDeleteI know that several times, FOX ran with misleading stories about Iraq having WMD. Something about trailers, remember
ReplyDeleteEvery news org ran those stories. Furthermore, some ran stories about trucks going to Syria (which a few lib bloggers I read were talking about recently). I still wonder what happened to all the stuff that even the UN acknowledged Saddam had, btw.
As for US News, all I see is a quote from Rumsfeld (who also said before the war that WMDs were North, South, East, and West of Baghdad, and then recently lied about that) and some stories about sarin gas being in some of the shells during the first gulf war. Regardless, whatever chemicals Saddam has totally pales in comparison with the Soviet nukes, the Japanese military, the South's arsenal during the Civil war, etc.
You must be doing the wrong searches. And I don't think it pales at all - and we're far less ready to deal with any of it.
It's okay to admit it when you're wrong every now and then, Ezzie. :-)
Absolutely! I'm glad you've realized that. ;)
That's when the threat came closest to being realized, but the threat existed for half a century. I'm no fan of the Viet Nam war, but there's no question that the opponent by proxy there was more dangerous than Saddam and al-Qaida put together.
Disagree, though I could give you my own take on the Civil War. (The media lost that one.)
Even if that is what I meant, I'm not sure you'd be right. :-) Saddam simply couldn't have done more than fund or minimally arm a few dozen terrorists. And there's no evidence that he ever attempted to do that with terrorists aimed at the U.S.
A few dozen? With the amount he was skimming off the Oil-for-Food deal alone he could fund entire organizations. You're trying to minimize a serious threat. Furthermore, a few dozen terrorists can accomplish far more than entire battalions.
Jack - LOL
ReplyDeleteThank you from an (orthodox) American Jew.
ReplyDeleteThis past weekend, our great country once again honored our fallen soldiers, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the field of battle. Sometimes Memorial Day represents nothing but a day off from work and a chance to spend time with the family.
But I find myself wondering what life would have looked like in different circumstances. What life would have looked like had I volunteered for the Marines fresh out of high school, instead of going to Israel to study in Yeshiva? What would 9/11 have been like if instead of being placed under a lockdown in my isolated Yeshiva in Israel, I would have been part of a mobilized unit sent to protect key installations? What would it have been like if instead of studying for finals, I would have been preparing for combat overseas? What would it have been like to be awoken to bomb blasts, machine gun fire and the sounds of screaming wounded, as opposed to the screams of “SHACHARIS…TIME TO GET UP!” It surely would have been different if instead of coming home to graduate college, I was only coming home to see my family for two weeks before heading back to Iraq.
I don’t always give the proper due to the brave men and women who serve our country with such pride and valor. Sometimes I don’t thank them at all. So here is a word of thanks from a grateful American Jew.
Thank You and God Bless You.
Rabbi, I'm posting this.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete»