|
Honor
Nov 10, 2008 9:47:01 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 10, 2008 9:47:01 GMT -6
The US certainly has a class system - there's always a class system, even in socialist and communist countries - but it was never institutionalized as in Europe and is based on wealth, mostly. Further, if you'd read the article, the North Vietnamese certainly thought class/rank was a factor, and so did McCain, who told them right off he'd give them info, within two weeks that his father was the admiral in charge, later signed 'confessions'. Others gave them nothing.
TR hadn't been president for over forty years at D-Day, so his son was of no particular interest. When his brother was killed in WWI, the Germans made a big deal of it because the Kaiser was a fan of TR.
As a General, TR Jr. was unlikely to fall into enemy hands anyway, and he died of a heart attack. Harry Windsor was in a unit entirely capable of losing him to the enemy because of their missions, and in any case his (*error, meant grandmother) mother is the reigning monarch, and he most certainly would have been a target for capture, a danger to himself and his unit in that regard.
The Windsors by blood and marriage have served their nation at war well, be it said. Mountbatten alone was a genuine combat hero of WWII, and of decidedly more "honor" than the IRA who found enough liquor and thus the courage to blow him up in his ancient years. No honor, however defined, there.
Boorda was Jewish (the US Navy was notoriously anti-Semitic), the only admiral who rose from the ranks of seamen, and who'd acted against those involved with the Tailhook scandal composed of, shockingly, people like John McCain. He may or may not have lied about his right to wear certain medals. Admiral Zumwalt said he had every right to wear them, and such things were often orally given during the war, and Zumwalt had. Others, led by Colonel Hackworth, said no, he did not. THAT was the dishonor, I guess, but it is also illegal. Apparently Boorda thought he'd overstepped, but the suicide notes have not been released. If he was guilty, an act of "honor" probably saved him from imprisonment and dishonorable disharge.
The way medals and ribbons are given out is rather icky, anyway. In contrast, Stilwell, before he died as a four star general, wanted the infantryman's badge (which, dear God and without question, he surely deserved) and he got it. Nobody ever accused that guy of not being with the men or being a Bevo Officer.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 10, 2008 11:47:52 GMT -6
Post by conz on Nov 10, 2008 11:47:52 GMT -6
wild I agree with your last sentence, but you didn't go far enough. Not only the elite units have honesty to the mission but every military unit strives honestly to complete its mission. I agree with this, pertaining to Regular Army units of most nations and times...the men and women who make Soldiering their career. It is the volunteers flooding into units for going off to a specific war that have all the vim and vinegar that carries them through. But Regulars are different. Clair
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 10, 2008 18:48:05 GMT -6
Post by wild on Nov 10, 2008 18:48:05 GMT -6
Which is to say, when personal honor becomes the mission, what side are you really fighting for in contravention of oath My understanding is that the action taken by John McCain was being questioned.That it was not honourable but a stupid sham. He had a choice.Place his bomb on the target at the price of delivering himself over to the enemy plus the destruction of his aircraft or abort the mission and save himself for another day. If he same philosophy had applied to the US flyers off the Yorktown ,Hornet and Enterprise the battle of Midway would have been lost with God only knows what consequences. There is only one standard of honesty regardless of how big or small a conflict may be.Just as the Midway flyes were honest to mission so was John McCain.
The other points were not really substantive but I shall reply to them anyway for the sake of the discussion.
There exists no class system in the US which gives rise to politcal decisions preventing individuals from joining the forces and going into combat.
Harry Windsor's military service is a sham.The honourable thing for that young to have done was to "abdicate"his royal title and serve as a proper soldier.
The murder of Dicky Mountbatton was despicable.
As regards elite units----There are two kinds of armies those which are principally defence forces and those which are used to further by violent means the interests of their countries.The US is a prime and possibly the only example [Britian can only follow]of the latter.As such its forces are phycologically prepared to go anywhere and undertake any mission without question.The French use the foreign legion where it could not possibly use it's national forces.Example:The Dutch tasked with defending a UN safe haven in Srebrenitza failed in their mission because they were totally unprepared phycologically to pay the price of that defence.I believe that the paras,marines,legion or such elite units would have stood their ground and have been honest to the mission. Vietnam was lost because that kind of war cannot be fought with civilian conscripts.And it is worth noting that the Brits used only elite units in the Falklands.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 10, 2008 19:02:20 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 10, 2008 19:02:20 GMT -6
There's no comparison between Midway's targets and North Vietnam's. One was mobile, one was not and there for years. He could, possibly, have made another run after evading the missile. Or someone else tomorrow. Nobody says whether he hit it, you notice. What was the military necessity of that being hit that bomb run only? Bombers all the time in WWII would make second runs, and a lot more would have with such warning systems for flac or interceptors.
The children of acting President's are indeed subject to Congressional discussion for the same reasons, which isn't class but as adverse to the military.
Back when Ireland wasn't accepted into the UN because of its past friendliness with the fascist powers - the very days you've previously suggested the US should have nuked the Soviets - its tolerated organizations were training many of the proto-organizations of the groups we deal with today.
The Falklands is not a war comparable to Vietnam, and is illustrative of nothing comparable. The British had to go to war with what they had at the time, and it was pretty impressive, all told.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 11, 2008 10:58:58 GMT -6
Post by wild on Nov 11, 2008 10:58:58 GMT -6
There's no comparison between Midway's targets and North Vietnam'sThe target does not influence the determination to carry out the mission.A target is a target.Any considerations regarding the attack profile will be decided at command level. He could, possibly, have made another run after evading the missile. Or someone else tomorrowA cowards charter---someone else with more determination will do it? ? Back when Ireland wasn't accepted into the UN because of its past friendliness with the fascist powers Our membership was blocked by the USSR probably because of our friendliness with the Poles.The Poles who were betrayed by Churchill.The men who fought in every theater of the war,back boned the RAF during and after the battle of Britian,captured Monte Casino.Churchill did not allow these men to take part in the victory parade through London when every other belligerent nation was represented.General Boor commander of the gallant Polish Home army in the Warsaw rising was persona non grata among the allies and the Irish government invited him to Ireland where he was given a hero's welcome.And we paid for this by being excluded from the UN by Stalin. The British had to go to war with what they had at the time, and it was pretty impressive, all told.It has a certain Rumsfelian ring to it. Unlike Vietnam Britian sent it's best professionals to retake the Islands.The paras,the marnes,the guards and the Gurkas.These units are expected to take casualties.Their casualties do not have a political impact unlike casualties in a regular local pals battalion. It is not possible to simply train units of professional killers which in reality elite units are .Because killing for no reason is unnatural and killing for political reasons would be too devisive and politics are too variable. Training the Taliban today fighting them tomorrow.Elite units are given honour,love of country,unit,God maybe, as their reason detra. Today is armistist day when the slaughter of a whole generation of young men is remembered.Men who were told their country needed them.For King and country?An appeal to their honour to go and kill and be killed for Victoria's offspring.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 13, 2008 9:33:28 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 13, 2008 9:33:28 GMT -6
Unless your story has changed, you've never been in combat. Neither have I, and I don't reference others as cowards, not having a grip on it or standing to do so in any case. Even so, doing a second bombing run under fire hardly strikes me as cowardly.
And it isn't about the pilot or the mere process of mission, but correct mission result. If there's no need to risk the expensive plane and pilot, don't. There was such a need at Midway, there was not over Hanoi. For someone to override national goals for personal "honor" strikes me as pretty awful, and that's if it's not a just a fable to excuse being shot down and grant himself some cover.
You've damned us for not nuking the Soviets, so your supposed heartfelt concerns for humanity lacks turgor. Nothing has been more damning for the Emerald Isle than Ireland's support for Hitler, when your leader went in full mourning to the German embassy to offer condolences at the Fuhrer's suicide. Touching.
Ireland, Spain, and Portugal were denied initial entry to the UN because of the icky relationship their mostly Catholic citizens and supporters exhibited for fascism during the war. The USSR's irritation was less about Poland than General O'Duffy's Blue Shirts, who fought against the elected Spanish Republic and for Franco and came from Ireland.
And wrapping up the greed and violence of drug gangs in patriotic tones is pretty bad anywhere, especially when you have little positive beyond blarney to compensate.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 13, 2008 11:10:56 GMT -6
Post by wild on Nov 13, 2008 11:10:56 GMT -6
If there's no need to risk the expensive plane and pilot, don't. I think there were about 60 of them guarding a pay roll when they were attacked by about 2000.They literally fought to the last bullet and when that was fired the surviving 5 fixed bayonets and charged.So astounded was the enemy at this reckless courage that they spared 3 of them.Militarily,Camerone was without significance, but in it's name the Legion celebrates obedience to the mission ,unto death. Honour in the ranks counts for much more than book keeping.
Unless your story has changed, you've never been in combat. Neither have I, and I don't reference others as cowards, To suggest that someone else doing the misson was acceptable is a coward's charter.
Nothing has been more damning for the Emerald Isle than Ireland's support for Hitler, when your leader went in full mourning to the German embassy to offer condolences at the Fuhrer's suicide. Touching We did not support the allies in the war and yet the diplomatic nicities were observed on Roosevelt's death,just as the US had representitives at Stalin's internment.
The USSR's irritation was less about Poland than General O'Duffy's Blue Shirts, who fought against the elected Spanish Republic and for Franco and came from Ireland Just as many fought for the nationalists with the international brigade.
And wrapping up the greed and violence of drug gangs in patriotic tones is pretty bad anywhere, especially when you have little positive beyond blarney to compensate Not at all.There is a battalion in central Africa in Chad at the moment and there is a unit in Kosova and a unit just recently returned from the Lebanon after facilating the cease fire between the Israelis and the lebanese.Unlike US forces Irish troops are accepted in practically all trouble spots.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 14, 2008 12:24:23 GMT -6
Post by clansman on Nov 14, 2008 12:24:23 GMT -6
It must be remembered that 40,000 southern Irishmen enlisted in the British Army during WW2. So not all were fascist sympathisers.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 15, 2008 14:59:49 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 15, 2008 14:59:49 GMT -6
It is remembered. It was a job. When they got back, they were given no help from the Irish government for fighting for a foreign power. It's possible the lists are inflated in hopes of later influencing pensions.
DeValera - whom FDR thought the stupidest man he'd ever met - had formulated that Ireland, with the Spanish under Franco and the Portuguese with their local fascist junta and Italy with their's, briefly, would be a Catholic league of neutrals. In reality, a 'Catholic' league of vultures waiting to see which way the winds would blow. This is an issue today since Pope Pius is dubiously up for Sainthood.
William Joyce, one of the Lord Haw-Haw's and Irish, betrayed another Irish Nazi sympathizer seeking to get home before the Reich collapsed as early as 1943. Although mostly tilted towards the allies, some did fight for Hitler as well.
But, the point being: where is any "honor" possible in equivication about Hitler or in the scorpion jar of Irish politics? Everybody involved mouthed about it. Where is it? WHAT is it?
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 16, 2008 3:25:51 GMT -6
Post by wild on Nov 16, 2008 3:25:51 GMT -6
William Joyce was a Brit whose early adventures saw him riding round with Churchills terrorists the Black and Tans pointing out the homes of republicans.
DeValera - whom FDR thought the stupidest man he'd ever met - had formulated that Ireland, with the Spanish under Franco and the Portuguese with their local fascist junta and Italy with their's, briefly, would be a Catholic league of neutrals FDR also adopted neutrality until attacked by Japan.And then facist like rounded up thousands of US citizens and interned them. Britian adopted apeasement and offered Hitler terrority in Africa along with agreeing to the dismemberment of Czechslozakia.
But, the point being: where is any "honor" possible in equivication about Hitler or in the scorpion jar of Irish politics?Honour invariably has a price tag which nations rarely if ever are willing to pay.I think Ireland's support of the UN is an honourable policy for which a price has been paid with the lives of our troops in the cause of peace.In contrast to that just one incident.A group of nuns from the US working with the poor in Salvador were brutalised, humilated, raped and murdered by the military who were trained armed and led by the CIA.The officers who ordered the killings are living under US protection in Florida. Need any more be said ?
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 16, 2008 10:40:13 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 16, 2008 10:40:13 GMT -6
Define "honor" before condemning others for lapses. It really is a dangerous word, and it's used to excuse all sorts of horrors.
That said, if you have no ability to do something about a problem, you don't - especially for "honor" - declare war and therefore get slaughtered, losing material benefit as well as being unable to defend one's "honor." Everyone condemns Chamberlain, but really, what were his options given his nation's abilities at the time? Afterwards, we now know that Hitler was far weaker than they knew and something could have been done. He couldn't know that then. But he was, arguably, trying to delay the inevitable to build strength.
The Japanese internment was awful, but actual fascists would have simply enslaved or killed them. Just like the Brits with the concentration camps in the Boer War they did an awful thing but allowed it to be known and discussed in the media. There was Sheraton-Sherman like logic to the camps in South Africa: make the war awful for the supporting players and the active ones collapse. It either worked or strongly contributed to victory, depending on your prejudices.
The internment camps here were fairly pointless for the reasons offered (and baseless), and motivated by land grabs in California and simple race prejudice (which Japan returned in spades). The soldiers who fought for us that came from the these camps were about our best units in Europe, used shamefully by white officers, and did so because they bought the American story. Unlike most other nations, Britain and the United States fear less civil discord and public laundry of awful events they or their government did, and the 'truth' usually emerges from their own media. Not always, of course.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 16, 2008 12:35:52 GMT -6
Post by clansman on Nov 16, 2008 12:35:52 GMT -6
I have to agree about Chamberlain. He was pilloried for his appeasement policy. In hindsight he had little choice but to try to buy time. Hitler could have been stopped as early as 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland. The French did nothing and the opportunity was lost. It only served to convince him that the West was weak, leading to Czechoslovakia and Poland and ultimately war.
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 17, 2008 7:02:51 GMT -6
Post by wild on Nov 17, 2008 7:02:51 GMT -6
Honour is not a factor in the decision making of states.States act out of pragmatism and self interest not honour.Very few states would come out smelling of roses if honour is the criterion by which thy are judged. Honour is a personal characteristic and has been harnessed by the military to produce a standard motivating dynamic.It is also used as a replacement for individual beliefs.If the military could issue it from the QM stores it would.Instead it is fostered through ritual and pagent and martyr/hero funerals. During the final hours of Dien Bien Phu the French garrison commander felt he was honour bound to raise a white flag in order to spare his wounded further suffering.The French General at HQ in Hanoi said that no white flags were to be flown as the honour won by the garrison's heroic 56 day resistance would be lost by the flying of white flags. The moral of the story--Honour is probably in the eye of the beholder???
|
|
|
Honor
Nov 17, 2008 8:08:43 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 17, 2008 8:08:43 GMT -6
States claim they operate for honor. If honor is a personal characteristic, than you should so inform the world's militaries, who trot it out for heavy sighing by the public with regularity. "The Honor of the Army," of France, of the United States.
The moral of the story is that honor is overused, inappropriately applied when used, and, when reduced to essentials, always seems to serve to put a disagreeable fact or action in some pseudo spiritual light and above criticism.
Private Slovik was shot for falling asleep at his post during war. A lot of others, also caught, could have been as well, but the Army - anticipating a current cliche - wanted to send a message to its own troopers because Slovik had dishonored his uniform. He had no powerful friends or family, he was expendable. I'm not sure the honor of anything was upheld by his execution. He was guilty, but so were many others before and after.
Joyce was born to an American mother here by a Catholic Irishman, and he grew up in Ireland through college. He did remain Unionist, he said, among many other dubious assertions.
|
|