Some current and former soldiers recently pointed me to this video/ slide show tribute to those who serve far from home.
I thought some of you might like it too. (Hope we don't overload their server ... )
Some current and former soldiers recently pointed me to this video/ slide show tribute to those who serve far from home.
I thought some of you might like it too. (Hope we don't overload their server ... )
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
Robin
Many thanks and tell them young cadets they are in my prayers as well.
Great Flash video! Can someone kindly name that tune?
The site lists the song as "Homeward Bound" from the album The Road Home by the choirs of Brigham Young University. I don't know who composed it.
Yup, lets glorify the war. Lets not show the carnage. Idiot.
Check this movie:
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater211.html
The piece is Homeward Bound, words and music by Marta Keen.
Here are the words:dufyb misses the point. This video isn't about glorifying war, but about the sacrifices, longing and service of our men and women in the military.
It's about them, not about your political beliefs about Iraq or other elements of the war on terror.
_#30417 Posted by duffyb on September 26, 2004 08:53 PM
Yup, lets glorify the war. Lets not show the carnage. Idiot._
Did you watch the same Flash Presentation that I did?
I see no glorification of war in this presentation. Instead, I see a presentation of the daily sacrifice of America'a soldiers and how they represent America's values. I can see from your choice of the word "Idiot" why you can not see what I see. I don't believe that this presentation or its production deserves your misguided anger.
SBD
God bless 'em all.
>>dufyb misses the point. This video isn't about glorifying war, but about the sacrifices, longing and service of our men and women in the military.
Consistency would seem to demand that we show the same respect for members of the Wehrmacht, Red Army, Republican Guard, etc.
I'm a network admin at a Highschool in Ohio. I would like to know if I can burn the winds of change on cd for the history class.
T.J.
No, consistency would not. The rest of us do not share your collapsed one-colour view of human morality and its accompanying moral equivalencies.
I'll also point out the simple fact that if you're an American, the soldiers in question are specifically taking risks with their lives and making their sacrifices on your behalf, at the behest of your elected representatives (your personal participation or non-participation in this process is your own private decision - either way, they remain your elected representatives).
If you're an American then you, personally, owe American soldiers a debt of gratitude in the same way that you owe one to firefighters, police officers, and others who fall into this category. Arguments with their use are arguments with your elected representatives, and should be taken up accordingly.
If you cannot understand this, then I feel sorry for you.
Joe,
I agree with you about TJ's moral equivalency, but I think he (perhaps inadvertantly) raises a good point. There were German soldiers in WW II who were not Nazis but believed they were defending their homes, families, and country. The same can be said of soldiers on both sides of any war. For all its apparent racism, Kipling's "Fuzzy Wuzzy" is a clear statement of one soldier's respect for another even if that other soldier is an enemy. We can deplore the Nazi cause while respecting those Germans who were, or sincerely believed they were, patriotically defending their country. We can deplore slavery while respecting the Confederate soldiers who sincerely believed they were fending off an imperialist invasion of their homeland. I'm not sure that's what TJ meant, but it's one (charitable) way of interpreting what he said.
>>There were German soldiers in WW II who were not Nazis but believed they were defending their homes, families, and country. The same can be said of soldiers on both sides of any war.
EXACTLY. And I bet many of those soldiers who were Nazis sincerly believed that Nazism was necessary to save their homes, families, and country from ruin, based on the data and computational resources available to them.
Many US soldiers have taken great personal risks in combat. It has been repeatedly claimed that any unjustness of their cause caused by the stupidity and malice of their leadership in no way subtracts from their heroism. IMHO this position has some merit. If we accept this position, we must also accord similar honors to the brave and loyal fighters of all of our enemies. After all, the decisions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were far above the pay grade of the front line soldier risking death. On what basis would one of those soldiers make the decision to change sides?
We have plenty of information about the policies of these unpleasant governments -- we can make an educated judgement about these things. It's clearly unreasonable for us to expect 18 year olds in any country to make such decisions, thus their heroism, or lack thereof, must usually be based on other matters.
>>No, consistency would not. The rest of us do not share your collapsed one-colour view of human morality and its accompanying moral equivalencies.
I see. My (admittedly arbitrary) assessment that all human life is valuable and that murder and theft are wrong is "moral equivalence" and therefore unacceptable. How interesting.
>>your personal participation or non-participation in this process is your own private decision - either way, they remain your elected representatives.
I never consented to their representation of me. I have no contract with them, I can't control what they do, and therefore I am not responsible for their actions. How can they be said to be "my" representatives? How can my vote against them be interpreted to imply consent for their rule over me?
>>If you're an American then you, personally, owe American soldiers a debt of gratitude in the same way that you owe one to firefighters, police officers, and others who fall into this category. Arguments with their use are arguments with your elected representatives, and should be taken up accordingly.
I don't consider the actions of the USG to have a net positive impact on my safety and security. The USG can't keep DPU out of the country -- that tells me most of what I need to know about the uses the revenue extorted from me are put to. If USG had halfway decent TARGETING and FOCUS in CT efforts (Bush/Darling '04!) it might be a different story. Since it doesn't, I hope you'll forgive me for not being grateful to the soldiers for wasting my money while propping up the system that's stealing it. Smedley Butler's gang just doesn't measure up yet.
From an protection racket standpoint, the local cops are a vast improvement, and thus have earned my respect to a much greater degree. The fire/EMS guys could probably stand to be privatized, but are pretty darn good as they are.
duffyb - I note you strung 'selected clips' together on your own page to try and make Bush and conservatives look stupid. - and of course all the links that do the same. SUUURE let's glorify liberalism, don't show the successful stories of conservative values that work whenever they're tried. d'oh. Let's not mention the elephant sized double standard duffyb has in his living room ok?