3
3
0
This was a popular refrain of the antiwar movement during the conflict in Vietnam. It was used to vilify us. After all, there would be no war, no babies murdered, if we all just burned our draft cards and refused to fight. Does anyone actually believe this?
I'm surprised that this cry hasn't been heard recently. Despite the fact that the WMDs were found, pacifists still insist that “Bush lied and people died.” Despite the fact that it has now been documented that Bush directed the CIA and his Administration to refrain from making a big deal out of the WMDs, his critics insist that it was his only rationale for going to war (that and as revenge for an alleged attack on this father). Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was in breach of the agreement that suspended the war that drove his forces from Kuwait, the war's critics insist that there was no legal basis for the resumption of hostilities. In view of all this, I'm surprised that the pacifists haven't fallen back on the argument that all wars would be impossible if common folk like you and me simply refused to put on the uniform, pick up a gun, and go soldiering.
Interestingly, like most good ideas, it was taken out of context and perverted to the simplistic thinking of idealists. The actual line is plagiarized from a poem by Bertold Bretch
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then the war will come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid Battle,
since not to fight for your own cause really means
Fighting in behalf of your enemy's cause.
I suppose it rhymes when read in Bretch's native language (German). It certainly doesn't support the pacifist's ideology in any language. Failure to read past the first line simply is lazy thinking.
Now let me say it to one and all, "Thank you for coming..."
I'm surprised that this cry hasn't been heard recently. Despite the fact that the WMDs were found, pacifists still insist that “Bush lied and people died.” Despite the fact that it has now been documented that Bush directed the CIA and his Administration to refrain from making a big deal out of the WMDs, his critics insist that it was his only rationale for going to war (that and as revenge for an alleged attack on this father). Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was in breach of the agreement that suspended the war that drove his forces from Kuwait, the war's critics insist that there was no legal basis for the resumption of hostilities. In view of all this, I'm surprised that the pacifists haven't fallen back on the argument that all wars would be impossible if common folk like you and me simply refused to put on the uniform, pick up a gun, and go soldiering.
Interestingly, like most good ideas, it was taken out of context and perverted to the simplistic thinking of idealists. The actual line is plagiarized from a poem by Bertold Bretch
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then the war will come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid Battle,
since not to fight for your own cause really means
Fighting in behalf of your enemy's cause.
I suppose it rhymes when read in Bretch's native language (German). It certainly doesn't support the pacifist's ideology in any language. Failure to read past the first line simply is lazy thinking.
Now let me say it to one and all, "Thank you for coming..."
Warfare
Diplomacy
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
The problem is, the bad guys always come. The good guys can choose not to fight, but the bad guys will just come faster. A couple things most 60's hippies didn't do: Study history, and study human behavior.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
What if I went to war, and nobody supported me?
That is my fear.
That we wage war (contingency operations, whatever) and can't be bothered to build national consensus that this was the way to deal with the problem at hand. That the opposition to war is celebrated, while those who wage it are forgotten.
I respect people's right to protest. There have been times that the US military has been committed to causes that reasonable people would think are questionable. Some are against war on principle. That is OK. I would fight and die for your right to protest.
I did not go to war based on a lie. I went to war because the people entrusted over me with the power to decide to engage in military action saw fit to send me. I owe it to them to be the best I can be, to not stain the honor of our nation, to close with and destroy our enemies, and if necessary, lay down my life in the cause of our nation's defense.
They owe to me the right training, equipment, and men to accomplish what they are ordering me to do.
I do not need their adoration.
I do not need their medals.
I do need their will to ensure that I can do what they've ordered me to do.
That is our sacred compact.
And that is where we have gone wrong way too often during the past couple decades.
That is my fear.
That we wage war (contingency operations, whatever) and can't be bothered to build national consensus that this was the way to deal with the problem at hand. That the opposition to war is celebrated, while those who wage it are forgotten.
I respect people's right to protest. There have been times that the US military has been committed to causes that reasonable people would think are questionable. Some are against war on principle. That is OK. I would fight and die for your right to protest.
I did not go to war based on a lie. I went to war because the people entrusted over me with the power to decide to engage in military action saw fit to send me. I owe it to them to be the best I can be, to not stain the honor of our nation, to close with and destroy our enemies, and if necessary, lay down my life in the cause of our nation's defense.
They owe to me the right training, equipment, and men to accomplish what they are ordering me to do.
I do not need their adoration.
I do not need their medals.
I do need their will to ensure that I can do what they've ordered me to do.
That is our sacred compact.
And that is where we have gone wrong way too often during the past couple decades.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Many Vietnam Vets I know swore that they would never allow future American warriors be treated as we were treated. Sadly, it was like most promises - given sincerely with little regard for one's ability to keep it. Fortunately the Left has steered clear of blaming soldiers this time around, but just barely...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No WMDS were found. I call BS. That to me negates your whole premise. You can't rewrite history.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT Jack Durish
Wow, Classy move by the American left!
Let's blame the people ordered to go to war and not the political actors.
I think they believe it until someone they love or care for are killed by those that wish to do us harm. This is why getting Congress to declare war is where we need to go back to. It will take much longer to get the consensus needed but it should mean societal commitment that we don't seem to get with the authorization of force votes.
Wow, Classy move by the American left!
Let's blame the people ordered to go to war and not the political actors.
I think they believe it until someone they love or care for are killed by those that wish to do us harm. This is why getting Congress to declare war is where we need to go back to. It will take much longer to get the consensus needed but it should mean societal commitment that we don't seem to get with the authorization of force votes.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; The "WMD" that were found were leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war (you know, the one where the government of the United States of America was supporting Saddam Hussein against the evil Iranians) and were not even remotely usable as originally intended in the forms found.
The "documentation" which purports to show "hat Bush directed the CIA and his Administration to refrain from making a big deal out of the WMDs" comes as a big surprise to those of us who didn't sleep through the news between 2001 and 2004 [and probably to those who defended Mr. Bush's repeated assertions that the "vast stockpiles of WMD" had been found.
The attack on President GW Bush's father is not "alleged" - it resulted in the trial and imprisonment of almost 15 people as well as serving as the justification for a US military attack on Iraqi positions AND was cited by President GW Bush as having happened (even thought the attack was only in the planning stages when it was aborted). Of course the probability that there was ACTUALLY no such attempt (see the Duelfer Report) as President GW Bush and (that portion of) the US intelligence community (that wanted to see the Iraq War started up again) believed cannot be discounted.
Indeed, there were several UN resolutions which stated that Iraq was in material breach of the Cease Fire Agreement - unfortunately all of those resolutions are somewhat suspect since the post-bellum findings are that the "factual" basis for those resolutions simply didn't exist.
Further, there was NEVER any legal basis for an AMERICAN attack on Iraq after the Cease Fire Agreement. There might have been a legal basis for a UN attack on Iraq - but there was NO LEGAL BASIS for an AMERICAN attack.
HOWEVER, the attribution of the quote to Berthold Brecht is incorrect. The Becht poem (Cantata for Koloman Wallisch) is actually
Wenn das Volk entwaffnet ist
Kommt der Krieg.
. . .
Wer zu Hause bleibt, wenn der Kampf beginnt
Und läßt andere kämpfen für seine Sache
Der muß sich vorsehen; denn
Wer den Kampf nicht geteilt hat
Der wird teilen die Niederlage
Nicht einmal den Kampf vermeidet
Wer den Kampf vermeiden will; denn
Es wird kämpfen für die Sache des Feinds
Wer für seine eigene Sache nicht gekämpft hat.
Which (roughly) translates as
When the people are disarmed
War will come.
. . .
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets others fight for his cause
Should take care. He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle does not avoid
Battle, since not to fight for your cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
The "quote" is actually (most likely) a pastiche of the line “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.” from the Carl Sandburg poem: "The Little Girl Saw Her First Troop Parade" and Brecht's "Kommt der Krieg.".
If failure to read past the first line is simply lazy thinking, what is failure to check facts?
PS - The question is NOT "What if they gave a war and the only people who showed up were the guys on the other side?" the question is "What if they gave a war an NOBODY came?" - which is a completely meaningless question because you can't "give a war" if NO ONE shows up.
The "documentation" which purports to show "hat Bush directed the CIA and his Administration to refrain from making a big deal out of the WMDs" comes as a big surprise to those of us who didn't sleep through the news between 2001 and 2004 [and probably to those who defended Mr. Bush's repeated assertions that the "vast stockpiles of WMD" had been found.
The attack on President GW Bush's father is not "alleged" - it resulted in the trial and imprisonment of almost 15 people as well as serving as the justification for a US military attack on Iraqi positions AND was cited by President GW Bush as having happened (even thought the attack was only in the planning stages when it was aborted). Of course the probability that there was ACTUALLY no such attempt (see the Duelfer Report) as President GW Bush and (that portion of) the US intelligence community (that wanted to see the Iraq War started up again) believed cannot be discounted.
Indeed, there were several UN resolutions which stated that Iraq was in material breach of the Cease Fire Agreement - unfortunately all of those resolutions are somewhat suspect since the post-bellum findings are that the "factual" basis for those resolutions simply didn't exist.
Further, there was NEVER any legal basis for an AMERICAN attack on Iraq after the Cease Fire Agreement. There might have been a legal basis for a UN attack on Iraq - but there was NO LEGAL BASIS for an AMERICAN attack.
HOWEVER, the attribution of the quote to Berthold Brecht is incorrect. The Becht poem (Cantata for Koloman Wallisch) is actually
Wenn das Volk entwaffnet ist
Kommt der Krieg.
. . .
Wer zu Hause bleibt, wenn der Kampf beginnt
Und läßt andere kämpfen für seine Sache
Der muß sich vorsehen; denn
Wer den Kampf nicht geteilt hat
Der wird teilen die Niederlage
Nicht einmal den Kampf vermeidet
Wer den Kampf vermeiden will; denn
Es wird kämpfen für die Sache des Feinds
Wer für seine eigene Sache nicht gekämpft hat.
Which (roughly) translates as
When the people are disarmed
War will come.
. . .
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets others fight for his cause
Should take care. He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle does not avoid
Battle, since not to fight for your cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
The "quote" is actually (most likely) a pastiche of the line “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.” from the Carl Sandburg poem: "The Little Girl Saw Her First Troop Parade" and Brecht's "Kommt der Krieg.".
If failure to read past the first line is simply lazy thinking, what is failure to check facts?
PS - The question is NOT "What if they gave a war and the only people who showed up were the guys on the other side?" the question is "What if they gave a war an NOBODY came?" - which is a completely meaningless question because you can't "give a war" if NO ONE shows up.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Facts have a funny habit of being filtered through a point of view. You have yours and I have mine. I wish we could submit both sets to an unbiased arbiter but that seems about as rare as hens teeth in this polarized world we live in.
So, are you telling me the yellow cake (partly refined uranium) was from the Iran/Iraq War? You'd have to go a ways to prove that one.
One of the things that has bothered me is why the discovery of the WMDs several years after the war ended remained covered up. It would seem that the Bush Administration would have jumped at the chance to vindicate themselves. It doesn't matter if they were, as you aver, leftovers, or as my "facts" support, more recent additions to Saddam's arsenal. One theory I've heard is that Bush didn't want to embarrass the nations that had supplied the components in violation of the oil for food (only) program. These nations, after all, are titular allies.
BTW, thanks for the original German of Betch's poem. Sadly, my German is limited to the basic necessities "Voh ist das twalete?" (Now don't go jumping me about the spelling) Still, it doesn't appear to rhyme in the sense that I understand poetry. Maybe you can illuminate us on that one. While you're at it, please explain the most important point of my original posting which you have seemed to ignore while castigating my laziness - Does this poem in anyway support the pacifist narrative or did they simply borrow the first line to make an ill-founded point?
So, are you telling me the yellow cake (partly refined uranium) was from the Iran/Iraq War? You'd have to go a ways to prove that one.
One of the things that has bothered me is why the discovery of the WMDs several years after the war ended remained covered up. It would seem that the Bush Administration would have jumped at the chance to vindicate themselves. It doesn't matter if they were, as you aver, leftovers, or as my "facts" support, more recent additions to Saddam's arsenal. One theory I've heard is that Bush didn't want to embarrass the nations that had supplied the components in violation of the oil for food (only) program. These nations, after all, are titular allies.
BTW, thanks for the original German of Betch's poem. Sadly, my German is limited to the basic necessities "Voh ist das twalete?" (Now don't go jumping me about the spelling) Still, it doesn't appear to rhyme in the sense that I understand poetry. Maybe you can illuminate us on that one. While you're at it, please explain the most important point of my original posting which you have seemed to ignore while castigating my laziness - Does this poem in anyway support the pacifist narrative or did they simply borrow the first line to make an ill-founded point?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; If "Yellowcake" is a WMD then I am the God-King of the Universe.
[a] The Poem does NOT support the "pacifist" narrative.
[b] The "What if they gave a war and nobody came" isn't in the poem.
[c] The "first line" was "borrowed" (inaccurately) from Carl Sandburg.
[d] If "NOBODY came" then the line WOULD support the "pacifist narrative".
[e] The odds on NOBODY coming are nil.
[f] It IS nice to think about though.
[g] Practically the entire membership of the pacifist groups in England prior to WWII ended up signing up once someone gave a war and actually showed uo.
[a] The Poem does NOT support the "pacifist" narrative.
[b] The "What if they gave a war and nobody came" isn't in the poem.
[c] The "first line" was "borrowed" (inaccurately) from Carl Sandburg.
[d] If "NOBODY came" then the line WOULD support the "pacifist narrative".
[e] The odds on NOBODY coming are nil.
[f] It IS nice to think about though.
[g] Practically the entire membership of the pacifist groups in England prior to WWII ended up signing up once someone gave a war and actually showed uo.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
People who protest against veterans and service members are ignorant, stupid and they should find the near mountain to jump off. If a few do it first, I am sure all will follow. We are blames for the actions of politicians, the white house and even the President when it comes to going to war. I guess I am wrong for joining the military.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google