Memorial Day THANKS

[tim wolcott]

Have you thanked a Veteran or Serviceman for your freedoms you have!

You should do it everyday.  Tim Wolcott

[Jim Pascoe]

Do we need to ask what specific actions they were veterans of first?  Or does anyone who has donned a uniform deserve thanking for preserving our freedoms?  Or is this mainly an American (US) thing.

I'm not in anyway being flippant either.

Jim

[Redcrown]

I put on the uniform, wear it for 2 to 4 years, but never see any life threatening action. I endure poor food, low pay, cramped communal living conditions, and the constant threat of being called up. But, hey, don't thank me.

[Rand47]

Do we need to ask what specific actions they were veterans of first?  Or does anyone who has donned a uniform deserve thanking for preserving our freedoms?  Or is this mainly an American (US) thing.

I'm not in anyway being flippant either.

Jim

Hi Jim,

It may be mostly an American thing.  One of the oft used credos here is that, "Freedom is not free."  An extension of that is promoting appreciation of anyone who has dawned a uniform in one of our military services.  Whether chance and history had them in combat, or only enduring bad food and less than stellar living conditions for a few years.  All paid "something" toward the cost of freedom, some gave the "...the last full measure of devotion..." as President Lincoln put it.  We thank them on two holidays here in the U.S. - Memorial Day in May, originally intended to honor only those who died serving their country in the military, and Veterans Day in November, honoring all who served.

This will often extend to emergency service workers; police officers, firefighters, emergency medical responders and the like.

Rand

[RSL]

And on Veterans' Day most veterans work while politicians, government bureaucrats, and postal employees take the day off.

[Rand47]

And on Veterans' Day most veterans work while politicians, government bureaucrats, and postal employees take the day off.

That seems a tad cynical.  I suspect that many veterans "are" this politicians, government bureaucrats and postal workers.  I know I was.  Served in Vietnam and then as a firefighter in government.

Rand

[RSL]

Okay Rand. But I flew fighter bombers in Korea, commanded a radar side in the Vietnam Delta, and nine years later commanded the group that owned all the remaining radar sites in Southeast Asia. Once I retired I worked (wrote computer software) on Veterans Day, and had to wait until the following day to get my mail. So it's not a bit cynical. It's experience.

[Rand47]

Okay Rand. But I flew fighter bombers in Korea, commanded a radar side in the Vietnam Delta, and nine years later commanded the group that owned all the remaining radar sites in Southeast Asia. Once I retired I worked (wrote computer software) on Veterans Day, and had to wait until the following day to get my mail. So it's not a bit cynical. It's experience.

LOL . . .   Appreciate that, and your service.  But it's still a tad cynical.  I wish folk who have the time off had a better appreciation of what they are celebrating, but that's the nature of life, I guess.

What type of aircraft did you fly? 

Rand

[RSL]

The F84G.

[Rand47]

The F84G.

Excellent!  My local air museum has a nice Thunderjet in their collection.

Thanks!
Rand

[RSL]

We called it the "thud" because of the way it paid off on landing.

[Rand47]

We called it the "thud" because of the way it paid off on landing.

That's great, thank for sharing that.  In my Vietnam days a lot of the F105 pilots also called them "Thud..."

Rand

[RSL]

I never flew the 105, but since it was another Republic airplane, a successor to the F84F, I don't doubt it paid off the same way the F84 did, so the moniker "thud" probably was appropriate. I once had an offer to volunteer for Wild Weasel training and fly the 105 in Vietnam. Couldn't visualize myself as a shooting gallery target, so I turned down the offer. There never should have been a reason for Wild Weasel anyway. I was in Thailand when those SAM sites were being built. We could have taken them out before they became operational, but LBJ wouldn't allow that. I guess he thought it would be a lot of fun to be chased by a missile.

[Jim Pascoe]

Hi Jim,

It may be mostly an American thing.  One of the oft used credos here is that, "Freedom is not free."  An extension of that is promoting appreciation of anyone who has dawned a uniform in one of our military services.  Whether chance and history had them in combat, or only enduring bad food and less than stellar living conditions for a few years.  All paid "something" toward the cost of freedom, some gave the "...the last full measure of devotion..." as President Lincoln put it.  We thank them on two holidays here in the U.S. - Memorial Day in May, originally intended to honor only those who died serving their country in the military, and Veterans Day in November, honoring all who served.

This will often extend to emergency service workers; police officers, firefighters, emergency medical responders and the like.

Rand

Hi Rand

Thank you for the explanation.  I have a huge amount of respect for servicemen both past and present - I even did a few years in the Navy myself a long time ago (though never on active service I should add).

The problem I have with large scale public feting of veterans and serving personnel is what I see as the political gain.  In the UK we have taken to calling them all 'Heroes', which I'm sure would leave most military people cringing just a bit.  While I have complete understanding and support reason and for the actions of the soldiers storming ashore on D-Day, or my friend David who was a flight engineer on a Halifax bomber in 1944, I am less keen on showing blanket support for some of the more recent military adventures the US and UK have taken part in over recent years.  The cynical side of me sees governments using public sympathy for servicemen as a cover for leading us into yet more foreign military adventures.

The result being that young people join up to 'defend' their country, only to get their legs blown off by a roadside IED while patrolling some foreign town that ten years down the road we will realise was a totally pointless and badly thought out exercise.

So I take my hat off to all serving, retired and deceased service personnel, but I don't want that ever to be seen as giving unfettered support to the people who would lead us into yet more conflict.  Soldiers, sailors and airmen are good people right?  And good people don't do bad things and murder and mutilate women and children do they?  Well they do if the somebody tells them they have to do that to preserve freedom.  That is my problem  Not with the guys at the tip of the spear, but with those who launch it.

Jim

[RSL]

I'm with you all the way on that, Jim. But to me the biggest problem is that nowadays we elect politicians who've never served in the military, or even been close to anyone in the military. That's one reason we're pushed into stupid wars. The people doing the pushing haven't a clue what's really involved. Look at Bill Clinton who claimed to "loathe" the military and never served, yet he was elected twice and sent our people into combat several times. I disagreed with the decisions of several presidents when I was in the military. I didn't like some of the decisions of Truman, LBJ or Carter but at least I knew they understood something of what they were asking us to do since they'd been there themselves.

On the other hand, I wish we had universal military service -- or at least universal service of some kind. I've seen flocks of kids become adults in the military. They found that the real world doesn't contain safe spaces or trigger warnings, and that they could manage without them after all. That understanding was with them for the rest of their lives and let them live fully. Too many kids' lives are crushed by over-protection. In some ways that's worse than being wounded in war.

[Otto Phocus]

Beware of old men (women) eager to send young men (women) to war.

[Rand47]

  Not with the guys at the tip of the spear, but with those who launch it.

Jim,

Couldn't agree more.  It has ever been so, I'm afraid.  Sometimes the clarion call has been real, WWII and the allied forces in Europe, e.g., to stop a real evil set loose in the world.  But as or more often for some sort of ideology, be it secular (the last century) or religious (which previously was merely "politics in disguise").  I've often thought that if "ultimate leaders" on both sides of any conflict had to be put in a cage to fight it out to the death, we'd probably have had a few less wars. 

On the other hand, I refuse to let that dampen my impulse to celebrate and thank those "at the tip of the spear."

Thanks for the come-back.

Rand

[Robert Roaldi]

For my part, I find the jingoism sad. When "Support our troops" becomes a stand-in for "support this war", with the implication that if you don't support the current conflict, you're somehow being traitorous to the people at the sharp end, well, that I have a problem with. Sometimes, "Supporting our troops" should mean not sending them.

I forgot where I read it or heard it, but I became aware of an argument once that an all-volunteer military has one disadvantage over a conscripted military. When soldiers are all professionals, in that they chose that way of life, there may be a tendency for their political masters to think of them as their own private mercenaries. When draftees come home in body bags from places no one cares about, and for no obviously good reason, the electorate might get uppity. When mercenaries get killed or maimed, only a small number of people care. This is very cynical, but boy it's hard not to be cynical when it comes to people in power.

[RSL]

You're only partly right, Robert. When I came home from Vietnam I sort of had to duck around the back way off the airplane to avoid being spit on. If I'd come home in a body bag those protestors would have cheered. That was during a time when the draft was in effect, and plenty of draftees were being spit on.

But you're right about the volunteer force. If we're going to do this stuff we need to have a draft so everybody can be involved. One reason we don't have one is that it makes it a hell of a lot easier for our never-in-the-military politicians to send the pros off to war. If their neighbor kids were involved -- involuntarily -- sloppy commitments to war could end the politician's careers.

[Rand47]

I agree with you both.  While I have utmost respect for the quality of our professional soldiers, I think it is ill advised to create a "warrior class" in the U.S.

First, it is too easy to ignore them when they need our support and help.  Second, the "average family" has no "skin in the game" re global conflict that we're involved in.  Third, the standing military gets endlessly rotated in and out of conflict at a level unprecedented in our history and "asks far too much" of our professional military.  Fourth, it is good for young people to be required to do some kind of national service, so an "everybody does something" for a couple of years minimum would be healthy, I think, and perhaps provide some "reality" to for the hot-house college grads who have lots of "learning" but zero life experience.

Rand