American Immigrants and Nov. 11

[Dintiradan]

(These polls are intended for people who live or have lived in North or South America. If multiple options apply, pick the one highest on the list.)

 

Was talking to someone today who moved here from the States a while back. He was surprised that the university was going to be closed on Nov. 11. According to him, it was just another holiday where people pulled out their flags and had a parade, just like 'Memorial Day' or 'Flag Day'. Talked a bit back and forth, until I had a rare burst of clarity. "Wait, how long ago did your family immigrate?"

 

People keep saying that no one cares about the holiday because they don't have first-hand experience of a war. But I just realized today that some people don't have second-hand experience of one. I'm not expecting everyone to have grandparents who survived through a concentration camp, or the Blitz, or the Hongerwinter, but the fact that some people don't know anybody who lived through a war just boggles my mind. And I suppose it explains a few things as well.

 

Sorry, just rambling here. I'll shut up now.

[The Mystic]

I probably won't do anything special to commemorate Veterans' Day, though I might talk to a friend of mine whose birthday is that day.

 

As for generations from immigration, that depends on which side of my family, and who's telling the story. All I can say for certain that some of my grandparents and some of my great-grandparents immigrated (not necessarily at the same time).

[Sudanna]

I'm not doing anything special for Veteran's Day, though my great-grandparents immigrated from Hungary and Britain, respectively. I've got veterans all over both sides of my family, though, as well an a currently serving member of the military.

[Niemand]

As most other respondents, I'm not likely to do anything in particular for Veterans' Day. I'm vaguely aware of it, but it would took me a few moments of thought to identify to which veterans it refers.

 

Most of my family immigrated to the U.S. in my great-great-grandparents' generation, and most of them from Sweden. I'm told that some branches of the family have been here a lot longer; apparently I've got one direct ancestor who's known to have fought in the Revolutionary War, although off of the top of my head I'm not aware of any who were in the Civil War or either world war. (My grandfather was in the navy in WWII, but he joined late enough that he was never sent outside the country, and I believe his time was spent teaching basic electronics classes.)

 

EDIT: For lack of a better place to put this: Dinti, while inspecting your current avatar (who's nature is still a mystery to me, alas) I suddenly grasped the significance of the large matching subset of your avatars. Excellent.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Niemand

(who's nature is still a mystery to me, alas)

Looks like Madam Mim to Dikiyoba, but it's so small it's hard to tell for sure.

[Triumph]

Even though it's now called Veteran's Day in the U.S., I prefer to think of 11/11 as Armistice Day, and thus recall the end of the Great War (a.k.a. WWI). None of my grandparents were old enough to have served in WWII, though many in my family have served in the military since that period. I'm not sure exactly when my ancestors came to America, but I know it was definitely before my great-grandparents.

[Dintiradan]

Upon further research, it looks like Memorial Day is the larger holiday in the States. So maybe put your answer for that holiday, I dunno.

 

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Niemand

(who's nature is still a mystery to me, alas)

Looks like Madam Mim to Dikiyoba, but it's so small it's hard to tell for sure.

Yes, it's the Magnificent Marvelous Mad Mad Mad Mad Madam Mim

Or it was, at least. I wonder how long it takes people to notice an avatar change, as I never change the link on this board (youpi for symbolic links!).

[nikki.]

I'll do my 2 minutes silence on the 11th, and then go to the local church for a service on Rememberence Sunday, like I always have.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Upon further research, it looks like Memorial Day is the larger holiday in the States. So maybe put your answer for that holiday, I dunno.

Memorial day honors those who died Ina war, while Veterans day simply honors those who served. Furthermore, I believe that Memorial day dates back to the US Civil War as opposed to WWI, and the Civil War is probably a lot more significant to the Anerican national consciousness that WWI.

[Callie]

My great-grandfather is the only ancestor we know to have served in a war. He fought for Germany in World War I. Since he was Jewish, he and his family (including my maternal grandmother) fled to Italy when Hitler rose to power. Of course, Italy didn't work out either, so they moved to Switzerland, and then to the U.S.

[Aoslare]

Military service is rarer and rarer in the U.S. The draft was abolished 37 years ago, and conflicts have involved small numbers of servicepeople compared to the total population. Consider some numbers on U.S. military personnel in wars (official and unofficial) from the web:

 

Iraq: about 400,000 (-2010)

Afghanistan: about 130,000 (-2010)

Gulf: about 500,000 to 600,000 (-1991)

Vietnam: several million, but about 60,000 dead/MIA (-1975)

Korean: several million, but about 40,000 dead/MIA (-1953)

WW2: about 13-16 million, but about 400,000 deaths (-1945)

WW1: about 4 million, but about 100,000 deaths (-1918)

 

There's 1 surviving U.S. veteran from WW1, and about 2 million from WW2. There are less than 1 million from Vietnam and fewer from the Korean War. Assuming most veterans from more recent military conflicts are still alive, that means there's on the order of 5 million U.S. veterans. The VA says there are almost 25 million, but that number includes noncombat personnel who never left the country, and so on. The current U.S. population is about 307 million, so that means veterans make up somewhere between 1 and 8 percent of the population. But when you start to think about demographic realities, mainly age, it's not surprising that many people our age, and many people here, don't have any veteran connections.

[Student of Trinity]

Dantius is right. I think Americans are rather more aware of war than Europeans these days, since large American armies have been fighting in some conflict or other every decade or so, for quite a long time now. It's just that Americans think first of their Memorial Day in the spring, which was instituted long before 11/11/1918, after the war in which more Americans were killed than in all other American conflicts combined. And that Americans tend to associate the shutting down of businesses and schools with celebration rather than solemnity.

 

I have never liked Remembrance Day, precisely because most of the liturgy involved is long outdated. It speaks of remembering the dead, who will grow not old; but by now all those who can remember those dead have themselves grown old and died. There is no remembrance. The fallen are forgotten. Their individual imprint on history remains only in negative: so much, that they could have done, was never done. We would have known their grandchildren, but those children were never born.

 

They can be remembered collectively. We can learn our history, and remember the fact that so many people fought and died. That is something, and it is the least we can do, even if it is also the most we can do. But it is so much less than what is promised in the public recitations, which were composed by veterans grieving dead friends, and are now repeated by people like me, who never knew the dead friends' grandchildren. This is a bitter reflection.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Honestly, I never know when any of the commemorative holidays are. Then again, I'm a teenager. I believe some of my family was affected by the Vietnam war, and other parts were affected in Europe during WWII. The last of my direct ancestors to move to the States was my grandfather, who moved after WWII. Yeah, I guess I'm pretty ignorant, but I was born after the Cold War.

[Alorael at Large]

The other interesting change is that wars used to be, if not good, then necessary. Revolutions are the beginnings of national narratives. Civil wars lead to histories penned by the victors. World War I isn't exactly a clear narrative (perhaps why it is so immensely overshadowed by its successor), but it led to national unity and, well, a lot of people died tragically. World War II was possibly the closest to a "good" war anyone has ever been able to claim, fought against an unstoppably aggressive, militaristic, and nearly unimaginably evil foe.

 

But later wars? Full of ambiguity. Korea was a murky meddling in a foreign civil war that ended up with a treaty more or less leaving the borders unchanged. Vietnam was a disaster in combat, a disaster of morale, and the cautionary tale for America for a generation. The Gulf War? Not much of a war at all. Afghanistan and Iraq? Not wars in the traditional sense, as there aren't really objectives to take and clear enemies to defeat. The new model of war is difficult, disheartening, and ethically questionable.

 

We can celebrate the heroes who served their countries and sometimes died for their countries, but they're old now. The younger veterans are participants in military excursions that we have mixed feelings about, and it's hard to elegize them as the mourning friends SoT mentions did when we're not so clear on whether what they were doing was the right thing for us to ask them to do in the first place.

 

—Alorael, whose family has veterans who served in combat and veterans who didn't. The latter are often eager to talk about their experiences, and the former are invariably silent.

[Dikiyoba]

I have a grandfather who fought in the Korean War and a cousin who served in Iraq but in a non-combat role.

 

Dikiyoba doesn't do anything special for either Veterans Day or Memorial Day.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Aizoan National Front

—Alorael, whose family has veterans who served in combat and veterans who didn't. The latter are often eager to talk about their experiences, and the former are invariably silent.

I always noticed this too. My uncle would always talk about his time serving in Cyprus, but my great-grandfather never spoke about his service in WW2. In fact, the only time he even mentioned the war in my presence was when I was around 5 or 6. I'd found an old newspaper clipping of this ship being sunk, and he told me was aboard at the time. He said he'd tell me more when I was older - unfortunately, he didn't get the chance.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

The other interesting change is that wars used to be, if not good, then necessary. (...) But later wars? Full of ambiguity.

Wars are still necessary, but not for us residents of Canada, the States, or most other developed nations. People from the States can say their nation entered WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbour, but Canada doesn't have the same excuse (we weren't even constitutionally obliged to declare war, like we were with WWI). I roll my eyes whenever it's claimed that Remembrance Day commemorates those who died for our freedom. The last battle fought in Canada was during the North-West Rebellion in 1885. For the last time proto-Canadians fought off another country, you'd have to go back to the War of 1812. No one had died for Canada's freedom in well over a century. So instead we commemorate those who died for other people's freedom.

Like Student of Trinity said, Remembrance Day ceremonies are still focused on the past, especially on the two World Wars. But there's still an element of looking at present peace-keeping efforts.

[Arch-Mage Solberg]

I have found records of family living in America decades before the Revolutionary War. Some of my ancestors also fought in that war. I have family members that have fought in every major war since then. The war of 1812, the Texas Revolution, the Mexican-American war, the Civil War, the Spanish-American war, the Boxer Rebellion, World War II, and Vietnam. I served in the Navy from March 2001 to March 2006. My dad served in the army from 1972 to 1977.

I have a family rich in military background. Veterans Day means more to me than it probably does to some Americans. There are many veterans who served but never saw combat, like me. This does not mean that my, or any one elses, service isn't valid. Not everyone can or is able to serve in combat.

November 11 is a day set aside for military veterans who gave their time, abilities and even to the extreme...their lives! We should honor their sacrifice and celebrate Veterans Day the way it's meant to be celebrated. If it wasn't for our fighting men and women who protect us and keep us safe from thse who wish us harm, we wouldn't be able to enjoy all the liberties that we have. For those who scoff and speak ill of the military and say that we would probably be better without them, I say if you think that it's bad here...go somewhere else and see how it is. Odds are that while some things are done better in other places, America truly has more freedom and choices.

 

Post #478

[RCCCL]

I have a number of family members who have served in various wars, my Father was in the Navy, but never saw combat, his father however was a career Airforce officer, now retired. If my having Asthma didn't preclude me from joining, I would of been in the armed services as well. However, I've never really done anything for Veterans day for a long time, not since I was in the boyscouts anyway.

 

As for immigrants, I'm not sure when members of my family came over, however I do know that my Great Great Grandmother on my dad's side was Native American, so I chose that(also, no one else had picked it, I felt I had to represent).

[Øther]

A person on my moms side of the family and my dads side of the family (different people) both came over here on the Mayflower. I know that my family has come from several european countries, but all that I know about them immigrating here is that tibit about some of my ancestors coming on the mayflower.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

My great-grandfather is the only ancestor we know to have served in a war. He fought for Germany in World War I.

One of my grandfathers also fought for Germany in World War I, mostly because (at least according to what I've been told) he couldn't get out fast enough.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

If it wasn't for our fighting men and women who protect us and keep us safe from thse who wish us harm, we wouldn't be able to enjoy all the liberties that we have. For those who scoff and speak ill of the military and say that we would probably be better without them, I say if you think that it's bad here...go somewhere else and see how it is. Odds are that while some things are done better in other places, America truly has more freedom and choices.

I have some issues with that mentality in general, but I'll save them for another time.

In particular, though, while having a large military force is a boon to the United States, keep in mind what Dinti said:

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Wars are still necessary, but not for us residents of Canada, the States, or most other developed nations.

Our soldiers aren't keeping us safe. Fighting Germany in WWII was probably necessary to avoid fighting Germany and/or Japan later and alone, but since then we've been fighting others' battles. To some extent, that's an international duty, but our political leadership hasn't managed its military strength well.

—Alorael, who also invites anyone claiming a military is necessary to a good life to look at Germany or Japan. Or Costa Rica, especially in comparison with its neighbors. The caveat, of course, is that you don't need a military if you have the right friends and they have enough guns.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

For those who scoff and speak ill of the military and say that we would probably be better without them, I say if you think that it's bad here...go somewhere else and see how it is. Odds are that while some things are done better in other places, America truly has more freedom and choices.

Doesnt really explain why America spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined spends on their's, does it?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Aizoan National Front

Our soldiers aren't keeping us safe. Fighting Germany in WWII was probably necessary to avoid fighting Germany and/or Japan later and alone, but since then we've been fighting others' battles. To some extent, that's an international duty, but our political leadership hasn't managed its military strength well.

Hahahahahahahaha. No. The US in embroiled in multiple wars thousands of miles from home, with thousands of deaths on our side, and tens of thousands of deaths on the enemy side, in an attempt to stop an enemy that will literally not stop fighting until everyone I have ever known is dead in a smoking pile of rubble, and the thousands of solders abroad are not fighting and dying to keep me safe.

And what about the other wars we've been in that weren't Vietnam, which is what I presume you are referring to? Is fighting to protect South Korea, a democratic and peaceful nation, from invasion by two of the largest and most powerful armies in the world who were hostile to us a bad decision? Should we not have done that, and instead let SK fall under the wholly benevolent rule of communist NK, which turned out SO well for them, instead of fighting to defend them?

Ooh, or maybe we could have simply abandoned Berlin when Stalin blockaded it. After all, surely those Berliners would get on just fine with the Statsi and all. I'm sure East Germany was a wonderful place to live in, thank you very kindly.

And we shouldn't be bound by treaty to defend Japan if China tries to annex them. It would just be so horrible for us to meddle in their business like that. Very uncivilized- we should just let them duke it out, even if China has a billion and a half more people than them.

Yeah, maybe the US should stop meddling in other peoples business. Maybe we should stop sticking up for people who can't defend themselves against a superior threat. Maybe we should let our citizens get killed by the thousands by terrorism. Maybe we should let nations who are diametrically opposed to all our values do as they please in the world.

I don't really know about everyone else, but I for one think that a world where the US turned back towards isolationism would be a pretty darn poor one to live in, for everybody.

[Aoslare]

Although I disagree with some of the specific things Dantdring said, he makes an important point: things that are far away from each other are intricately connected, and it isn't as simple as saying "no one's invading Kansas, so Kansas's freedoms aren't at risk." That said, it is true that we are pretty well insulated from foreign military action in the U.S.

 

Standing armies and standing military power is necessary to insulate a country from aggression, but it isn't sufficient. The other ingredient you need is decency and respect for others. Armies and technology will protected you from other armies, but they can't protect effectively and consistently against serious terrorism -- nor against nuclear warfare.

 

Originally Posted By: Aizoan National Front

The other interesting change is that wars used to be, if not good, then necessary. Revolutions are the beginnings of national narratives.

Sometimes, but just as often they are the end of national narratives. I like how Tom Stoppard put it: "Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering."

 

Originally Posted By: Aizoan National Front

...since then we've been fighting others' battles. To some extent, that's an international duty, but our political leadership hasn't managed its military strength well.

For the most part, "international duty" has been a pretty face painted on the cold (and not necessarily ugly, just not warm and fuzzy) reality of strategic and economic maneuvering. If we were at all serious about this so-called duty, we would be intervening in places like Burma -- or intervening more even-handedly in Israel -- rather than fabricating evidence to justify two Iraq Wars. (I'm not saying the wars had no justication, just that some evidence was fabricated, which it was.)

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Hahahahahahahaha. No. The US in embroiled in multiple wars thousands of miles from home, with thousands of deaths on our side, and tens of thousands of deaths on the enemy side, in an attempt to stop an enemy that will literally not stop fighting until everyone I have ever known is dead in a smoking pile of rubble, and the thousands of solders abroad are not fighting and dying to keep me safe.

You appear to be confusing our occupation of Afghanistan with the Terminator franchise.

More seriously, the fact that we are fighting bad people does not necessarily mean that a war has done more good than harm. The enormous damage to the occupied countries, loss of international standing, and dispersal of effort caused by fighting large numbers people who don't fit the description you gave above all undermine the security that the war is meant to ensure.

Finally, you're arguing against a straw man. Alorael didn't say the U.S. should never intervene on other states' behalf. In fact, he said the exact opposite of that. No matter how interventionist you think the U.S. ought to be, it is hard to justify many of the U.S.'s uses or non-uses of its power except on purely amoral grounds.

[Jerakeen]

My father immigrated to Canada and served in the army during WW II himself, though he never went overseas.

 

My mother's family has been here since the sixteenth century. Her uncle Mervyn was an army scout--he didn't like to talk about that either. Her uncle Mickey was an air force tailgunner. He was killed when his plane was hit while crossing the North Sea. They actually made it to British soil and crashed in a farmer's field. I'm told there's a memorial there to this day.

 

I never met Mickey (obviously), but that's who I think about during the silence.

 

I've tried to find anyone in my family who served in WW I, but it seems everyone was the wrong age.

[Student of Trinity]

Given that American troops are in Afghanistan (and Korea and Saudi Arabia and a lot of other places), they are fighting there to protect Kansas, in the sense that if they don't fight well enough, the danger to Kansas will increase. But the fastest way to lower the danger to Kansas would be to pull all American troops back to American soil, and declare American neutrality in all foreign conflicts. Not doing that means accepting a higher risk to the life and liberty of Kansans.

 

I'm not going to argue about whether American military action is right or wrong. And I'm afraid that, as a moderator, I'm not going to let anyone else argue about that here, either. The internet is full of boards that are not paid for by Jeff Vogel, and the right to unbridled free speech can be exercised there. Here the overriding concern is to avoid alienating half the customer base.

 

But I think we can come so close to that line as to discuss whether the armed forces of rich countries in general today are fighting first and foremost to defend their own citizens' lives and liberty. And I think they are not. But they may still be fighting for good reasons, and deserve our thanks. Or, if they are fighting for bad reasons, they deserve our apology, because we sent them to do it.

[RCCCL]

Declaring neutrality in no way guarantees lesser risk to American soil, and in some ways increases it. Especially when you have to decide how neutral to be. Should we stop trading with a country that goes to war? If we don't, it could be seen as helping them against there enemy. If we do, it could endanger our relations with said country. A good example of this would be the Export Control Act created in 1940. Which caused Japan to Bomb Pearl Harbor, mostly to prevent us from taking action in the Pacific, but partly in retaliation for limiting trade with them. On the opposite side of this, in the same time period, Germany declared war on the U.S., even though we had not done anything to put us directly in conflict with them, and even though a large portion of our population was crying heavily for us to remain apart from this war.

[Student of Trinity]

But 'limiting trade' with Japan, under the 1940 Export Control Act, was actually an embargo on aircraft and aviation fuel, major Japanese imports from the USA, enacted as a punishment for Japanese aggression in Asia. Since both Japanese and Americans at the time appreciated the military importance of air power, and Japan was already at war, this was a pretty clear decision.

 

I think the US could be safe by being neutral. For most of its history it was, after all. It could stop trade with belligerents, or trade equally with all, whichever looked safest.

 

My point is not that that would be a good idea, just that if it's safety first, then that's the safest plan. If instead the decision is that the US should not sell arms to aggressors, regardless of consequnces; or alternatively, that its military-industrial complex should be free to sell arms to whomever it chooses, regardless of consequences; then this is putting some other value ahead of safety, either way. And if this leads to armed conflict, then it has led to American troops fighting in the first place for that other value, and only defending American lives as a corollary.

 

That may be good or bad, and I think we can't go too far arguing it either way in this forum. But either way, it's too simple to say that the American military defends Americans. The story is more complicated now.

[Alorael at Large]

Sarachim covered what I needed to say pretty well, but I'll say it again. It is inarguably a duty of rich, well-armed countries to protect themselves. It is arguably also a duty to use their militaries to protect others. But that really runs a gamut. The Berlin Airlift was a military operation, but it wasn't a combat operation—and it protected Berlin while also not fueling Cold War fires. Japan is protected just as well by the threat of force as by any real exercise of force. Better, in fact, for everyone.

 

If America is to attempt to keep peace internationally, it needs to think hard about whether its actions actually promote peace. If it wants to built nations, it needs to think about whether the military is the best tool to do so, and whether it can act alone. And if America wants to defend itself from the (remote) existential threat and real day-to-day risk of terrorism, it's an open question whether invading terrorist regions and killing jihadists is the most effective way of doing so.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't know that it isn't. He isn't a military expert or a political scientist. He does, however, think that the question is sufficiently open that shooting first and asking the questions later is not a good idea. If nothing else, think of what other security measures could be enacted with money saved by not fighting two wars on foreign soil.

[Arch-Mage Solberg]

Originally Posted By: Parahuman

Our soldiers aren't keeping us safe. Fighting Germany in WWII was probably necessary to avoid fighting Germany and/or Japan later and alone, but since then we've been fighting others' battles. To some extent, that's an international duty, but our political leadership hasn't managed its military strength well.

—Alorael, who also invites anyone claiming a military is necessary to a good life to look at Germany or Japan. Or Costa Rica, especially in comparison with its neighbors. The caveat, of course, is that you don't need a military if you have the right friends and they have enough guns.

I do agree that our leadership isn't managing well our military too well. It may also be said that some countries don't have any military forces but have powerful allies who do. America does not have the luzury of powerful allies to defend us from others. We not only have to defend ourselves, but others as well to keep the threat down and manageable.

Originally Posted By: Tirien

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

For those who scoff and speak ill of the military and say that we would probably be better without them, I say if you think that it's bad here...go somewhere else and see how it is. Odds are that while some things are done better in other places, America truly has more freedom and choices.

Doesnt really explain why America spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined spends on their's, does it?

Probably because the U.S. has one of the best fighting and equipped forces in the world? A great deal of countries don’t even have militaries. Most that do don’t have a lot. Look at the forces in most African and South American countries. Their militaries are living in near poverty. The only other countries that come close are England, Russia, China, Japan, and France.

Originally Posted By: Parahuman

—Alorael, who doesn't know that it isn't. He isn't a military expert or a political scientist. He does, however, think that the question is sufficiently open that shooting first and asking the questions later is not a good idea. If nothing else, think of what other security measures could be enacted with money saved by not fighting two wars on foreign soil.

There probably does need to be more diplomatic means to solve most of the problams we face. But if someone from out of nowhere and with no apparent reason punches you in the face, are you gonna stand there and talk about why he did it or punch him back? What am I trying to say? That sometimes shooting first and asking questions second is sometimes justifiable.
Obviously, this doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes attacks are with reason but too brutal or they are justifiable for some reason. Each and every attack is open to question. It's never an easy thing to say to your Generals 'Go out there and attack this country'. You know that there will be bloodshed on both sides.

I'm sorry for the long post. I just wanted to respond to a few things directed to me and also respond to other postings as well. Alorael, I hope that you don't think that i'm picking on you or anything because I quoted you twice!

Post #479

[nikki.]

you know, everybody should just get drunk and make out. that always makes me feel better, and cracked.com said it worked for the USSR and Bulgaria too.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

you know, everybody should just get drunk and make out. that always makes me feel better, and cracked.com said it worked for the USSR and Bulgaria too.

Yugoslavia. Tito was the dictator of Yugoslavia, not Bulgaria.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Yugoslavia. Tito was the dictator of Yugoslavia, not Bulgaria.

in my defence, they are neighbours, and neither were part of the British Empire so why should I even know where they are?

[A less presumptuous name.]

Happy birthday Nikki.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

There probably does need to be more diplomatic means to solve most of the problams we face. But if someone from out of nowhere and with no apparent reason punches you in the face, are you gonna stand there and talk about why he did it or punch him back? What am I trying to say? That sometimes shooting first and asking questions second is sometimes justifiable.

If someone punches you in the face out of nowhere, sure, you can justifiably punch back. Countries aren't people, though, and collateral damage doesn't heal as quickly as black eyes. No military action can ever be justified without extensive thought, examination, and planning. Strategically and tactically that's necessary, but the first, obvious questions are always the simple ones: what if you have the wrong target? What if punching back isn't helpful? What if it is a solution but not the best solution? Wars are costly in funds, lives, collateral damage, morale, and moral standing.

Some wars may be justifiable, but war should always, always be the last resort.

—Alorael, who finds this especially true when the aggressors against one state is not another state. You can't invade Al-Qaeda, and military doctrine still hasn't quite adjusted to assymetrical warfare against non-state entities in an era when destruction is easy and usually undesirable.

[Cairo Jim]

My dad, although an American, he emigrated here to Australia. That aside, the only person I know in my close family that ever saw a part in any war was my grandfather. He was born in Rotterdam a couple years before it got Blitzed.