The Individual Vs. The State, An Unusual Case

[FireIceTalon]

I just cut out the most important piece of this article.

****"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."****

We are always discussing the reason and causes for going to war.....many conspiracy theories are flung on the internet, so it is good that we have some real facts here.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can burry anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

War is almost always to expand or protect the interests of private capital, and nations that are in a war will always act in those said interests. The US in WWII was a prime example. Before Pearl Harbor, the US was not involved - Hitler's genocide and eugenics program, his and the Soviets invasion of Poland, the Spanish Civil War, nor Italy's attack on Ethiopia were a threat to American interests, so they stayed out of it. In fact, America was even supportive of Italy to some degree in that American oil companies were still doing business with Italy during all of this, which allowed them to continue their role in the war. When the US did get involved, it wasn't to stop Fascism or the extermination of a group of people, it was to protect or expand American imperial interests - stopping Fascism was, at best, a secondary reason for the US involvement at that point. It was only then that the US adopted a system of anti-Nazi and pro-Soviet policy. FDR had about as much interest in ending the slaughtering of Jews about as much as Lincoln did to end slavery: i.e. not much at all, and they only did it because the preservation of American capital and interests were at stake. It certainly wasn't for humanitarian purposes, in either case.

Anyways, on the topic, I find this whole thing pretty repulsive. The guy is 73, probably doesn't have much longer anyways, and is probably stressed enough at the passing of his wife. Give him a break. Just another example of the State trying to preserve its own interests (as if the house values in the area are more important than allowing the man to respect his wife's wishes and bury her on their property - this has the rotten smell of commodity fetishism all over it) before all else.