Americans should sacrifice for Iraq war
RE: “Deeds, not decals,” Saturday 9/22/07 Dear Editor: Your article, “Deeds, not decals,” shows a total misunderstanding of Ken Burns’ words as well as a distressing lack of knowledge about World War II.
Those of us who lived through that war understand his words perfectly. We are likewise “appalled and insulted” by the lack of sacrifice asked of Americans while our troops are dying in foreign wars. Burns is not seeking suggestions as to how he can help, he is reminding us that in the second World War, EVERYONE made sacrifices, not just the participating troops and their families.
Americans learned to live with rationing - gasoline, tires, sugar, butter. We spent our money on war bonds, not shopping sprees as our current president urges.
These are the ways we should be supporting our troops. Selling bonds or setting a war tax would let everyone share the burden and it would also help pay for the current war. Gasoline rationing would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, lessening the need for war.
The politicians who took us to war should have the courage to take these actions.
This letter has not been edited.
This is a different kind of war in different economic circumstances.
War bonds and gas rationing would have little or no effect of this war.
Don`t shop, stay home and squirrel away your money, and then when our economy tanks you have done your part.
If you want to knit sweaters for the troops like women did in the `40s and mend your socks, and save grease and grow a victory garden to feel good about yourself, go for it.
there isn`t any meaningful way for us to sacrifice for this war.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 1, 2007 02:32 PMSharon B - I've got an idea for this letter writer... (I've been waiting for this moment)...
If you feel such a need to sacrifice...
GO ENLIST!
Posted by KW on October 1, 2007 02:56 PMKW, this letter writer is probably old, and has a romantic idea of war.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 1, 2007 03:27 PMHow about being willing to pay higher taxes to pay for this war? Are you all willing to make that particular sacrifice? That would be pretty "meaningful".
Somehow, I doubt it. But I'm sure we'll hear some bizarre tangents into illegal immigration and public schools.
Posted by Tim on October 1, 2007 03:33 PMSharon B - I think you're right.
Although my post was in jest, it was fun to throw that back at someone for a change.
There seems to be many posters asking for additional sacrifice in the form of higher taxes or reinstating the draft.
What these people fail to see is these sacrifices are unnecessary with this war. Unlike WWI or WWII, our military and economy are not as severely affected as they were in those wars. We haven't yet been cripled by the enemy.
We haven't had an air raid that destroyed large parts of naval fleets and materials needed for manufacturing arms and equipment are plentiful.
Most people can see thru this guise of demanding more sacrifice in the name of humanity. These demands are actually made in hopes of inflicting more pain and damage. They wish soley for the increase in public outcry for immediate withdrawal.
The real question is why won't they be up front about their true agenda and seek their goals out in the open. If they truly believe in their cause, they should wear it proudly.
Posted by KW on October 1, 2007 04:10 PMGeorge Brazill's age shouldn't exempt him from making some sacrifice if he, as KW says, sincerely believes in the cause (unless he's yet another "we means everybody except me" expert on what "we" need to do to make this a better world). He could volunteer at a veteran's hospital, reading or talking to the wounded soldiers. He could donate a fraction of his income or buy government bonds. He could send gift packages overseas. He could even grow his own victory garden. Any number of things.
It is interesting, by the way, how many of the boys who were chanting "Hell, no, we won't go!" 40 years ago, having achieved the ultimate deferment (age), have now decided the draft is a great idea and how every able bodies young American male should be proud and privileged--and forced--to serve his country.
Tim expects "some bizarre tangents into illegal immigration and public schools," which wouldn't surprise me, either. In fact, if some of our more, shall we say, colorful correspondents should climb aboard this particular thread, we'll undoubtedly find abortion, homosexuality, secularism, and the Clinton family dragged kicking and screaming into the discussion. (Let's hope "An American" is too worked up with his guns today to pay us much mind.)
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 1, 2007 06:19 PMSharon said "This is a different kind of war in different economic circumstances."
Is it a war at all, or just a "conflict"?
"War bonds and gas rationing would have little or no effect of this war."
Bonds could pay for it, and fuel rationing could reduce the need for Middle-Eastern oil.
Not so?
KW said "We haven't had an air raid that destroyed large parts of naval fleets and materials needed for manufacturing arms and equipment are plentiful."
What do you call the Twin Towers event then?
- or are "air raids" strictly confined to only those aerial attacks that target naval fleets & cetera?
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 1, 2007 08:25 PM
It is amazing that in the midst of the housing crisis, caused by overspending and not saving, there are people who claim that saving money is bad for America.
The American people were called on to save in World War II. They did. I think that went rather well.
And now, according to some, being patriotic consists of not making any sacrifices.
Bush squandered the emotions created by 9/11 by not calling on the American people to think, as Kennedy said, of what they can do for their nation. Instead, he called on them to think of what they can do for themselves.
He might, for instance, have called on young Americans to go to their recruiting station rather than to Disneyland.
He might urged people to consider getting involved in the many volunteer programs such as the Peace Corps and there are many, many others.
He might have urged Americans to use less rather than more fuel.
And it is also amazing that in the midst of so many recycling and conservation programs there are people who still think we our resources are infinite.
He might have encouraged a program in which Americans could develop correspondence with Muslims so as to help them know what individual Americans are like and to contribute to the battle for hearts and minds.
People more creative than I would surely come up with better ideas than I, and much better ideas than going on vacation, if only Bush had been more patriotic, if only Bush wasn't so interested in hiding the reality of war from the American people, if only Bush had called on the American people to ask, not what they can do for themselves, but what they can do for their country.
Posted by Truth on October 2, 2007 08:20 AMGood points, Sharon B. Although, I would add that we can make a difference by donating to military charities; Some of those charities help military families while others help the wounded.
Mr. Brazill said:
"Americans learned to live with rationing - gasoline, tires, sugar, butter. We spent our money on war bonds, not shopping sprees as our current president urges."
I can understand someone who lived through the Great Depression to feel that we need to resort to rationing during wartime. But, today's America is much stronger than the America of the 1930's.
War bonds are not the answer. We are already funding this war with debt. "War taxes" are not the answer either. Our economy is generating record revenue. Why should we raise taxes and risk a fall into recession, thereby reducing revenue?
Remember, our military was relatively minuscule when the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor. We had just 140k soldiers. Militarily, we were woefully unprepared. Our financial sacrifice came before the Iraq War; before Afghanistan; before 9/11. We have maintained a million man military for decades now.
Furthermore, let's face it, the Iraq War is not even close to comparable to WWII in terms of scope, casualties, and expenses. We've lost close to 4000 men in Iraq after years of fighting; half that amount was lost in one battle during WWII at Iwo Jima in a matter of weeks.
Bangalore Skank said:
"What do you call the Twin Towers event then?
- or are "air raids" strictly confined to only those aerial attacks that target naval fleets & cetera?"
Yes. KW was alluding to the massive loss of our Navy as a result of the Pearl Harbor attack. We needed to replace those ships with new ones, fast. The WTC attack hurt us financially. That is why we responded with tax cuts and calls for consumer normalcy.
"Bonds could pay for it, and fuel rationing could reduce the need for Middle-Eastern oil. Not so?"
Not really. War bonds are simply debt issued by the government. We're already engaged in deficit spending. Besides, the war is not as expensive as some would have you believe. Yes, it's a hit to our budget. But, it's no where near the cost of WWII. As for oil, we have access to plenty of it. Fuel rationing would not help the war effort.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 08:30 AMTruth said:
"And now, according to some, being patriotic consists of not making any sacrifices."
This from a man who is collecting Social Security checks despite his $250 per hour work rate.
Truth, would you sacrifice your Social Security for the war? If President Bush asked for a temporary suspension of Social Security to help fund the war, would you support him? Or would you complain? I think I already know the answer. Sure, you desire a sacrifice: from other people.
Sacrifice your Social Security checks to military charities, Truth.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 08:37 AMKW:
"We haven't had an air raid that destroyed large parts of naval fleets..."
And Bango responds:"What do you call the Twin Towers event then?"
I call the Twin Towers the, um... Twin Towers. Are you suggesting the Twin Towers were, in actuality, a naval fleet?
Gas rationing gave gas to the war effort, rationing today would not. We are only discussing sacrifices here, not ways to cut energy dependence.
Money put into savings accounts is invested in businesses. If we ignore the businesses where do our friends and neighbors work?
I hate to see this broaden out from the original idea of sacrifice for the war.
Bango, this is war, I don`t give a damn what some people call it.
simply put, the sacrifices that helped win the Second World War, are not required or needed in these wars.
We can cut down our energy consumption, and maybe avoid further wars, but that won`t help in this one.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 02:12 PMAll right, so WWII was much bigger in scale in terms of the resources needed, but:
Over 3,000 Americans have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been wounded, and billions of dollars of our nation's wealth have been expended on the war in Iraq, ... but we don't need to sacrifice anything? We don't even have to give up our gallons-per-mile Hummers and SUVs? We can just urgew someone else to do the fighting for us? Just sit back and watch Fox News commentators blast critics as traitors on our 56" plasma TVs? Young conservative students urging others to fight while they get their MBAs are OK?
Ken Burns and George Brazill are right: We have no sense of shared sacrifice.
peterpi mumbled:
"All right, so WWII was much bigger in scale in terms of the resources needed, but:"
...but, you're going to ignore the point anyway and proceed to emote irrationally.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 03:53 PMBush: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what you can do for yourselves. Our country has just been attacked. Go out and have fun."
Posted by Truth on October 2, 2007 05:05 PMTruth, would you sacrifice your Social Security for the war? If President Bush asked for a temporary suspension of Social Security to help fund the war, would you support him? Or would you complain?
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 05:10 PM9/11 produced a great amount of sympathy for the United States. I wonder how those sympathizers felt when our president responded by asking the people to have an even better time how that we are at war. It's a bit like going to see a friend to pay your condolences for the death of his wife, and finding him in bed with his maid.
Posted by Truth on October 2, 2007 07:08 PM""Just as I have opposed the war from the outset ... I am opposed to a war surtax," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 11:14 PM
Truth, would you have preferred to see New York city a ghost town. With the shows closed, the restaurants shut down and the apartments empty?
I worked in banks for years, your saved money goes into business and if you and everyone else stays home, the businesses go broke.
If Bush had asked us all to drive say 50 miles less per week, that would have given some folks a great feeling of sharing the burden, but it would have been a hollow feeling with no effect on the war.
You forget that petroleum is used in plastics and every wire in your home and car in encased in plastic. Without plastic, life would be much different.
And all the food you eat comes on rail roads or trucks on the road. Should those methods of transportation cut back? How much?
No one said go out and have "fun". They said go on with your life. Go back to normal.
Keep the economy of the country going.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 3, 2007 12:00 AMSharon: "Truth, would you have preferred to see New York city a ghost town. With the shows closed, the restaurants shut down and the apartments empty?"
I hadn't thought about that, Sharon. It sure makes sense to me. If fewer people had gone to Disneyland or on vacation, New York City would be a ghost town. Good point.
People need to recall how New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and other big cities became ghost towns in WWII because people made sacrifices for the war and saved money.
I'm just glad that you are not one of those fanatic extremists who go off half-cocked.
Posted by Truth on October 3, 2007 08:23 AMTruth, you've completely wandered off the path with that last comment. It is nonsensical. If you've run out of points to make, give up the argument. Don't disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 09:33 AM