[|2enegade]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

And that is where I disagree. The simple fact that these soldiers even came forward to do their "duty" is enough for commemoration. You see, they weren't just "running" or "punching", they were facing death square in the face, and continue to. By default, a soldier demands your respect, admiration and remembrance. You would be hard pressed to find someone within your circle of friends who would offer their life up in such a manner. It is not the act that is ALWAYS commemorated, but the soldier and their selfless decision to serve and fight for their country and ideals. Hence why we have a memorial for the "Unknown Soldier". I think you are still missing my point that I am "commemorating" or "remembering" the soldier... not the act! How can you not think the soldier is what matters? If you commemorate the "act", you should be thinking about the government and Generals and folks that made the decision to land at Normandy. I however choose to reflect on the men that actually had to do the job that these governments designed on paper!!!

So according to you "facing death in the face" is cause enough to be commemorated? In which case suicide bombers of al-queda face death in the face every day, shall we start commemorating them too? Yes, by default every soldier deserves respect for fighting with courage, however commemoration is not bestowed defautly, but is given in respect with context.
And precisley, when one commemorates a success at Normandy, you do not commemorate soldiers alone but all who were present in making that act a success. You are too fixated on commemorating the soldier. By your standards I can purchase a gun, kill 500 innocent people, call myself a soldier, and if I truly believed in my cause, I should be commemorated for it? Dear god, I hope not.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

To put things in modern day terms. Think of the Canadian soldier in Afghanistan tip toeing around IED's all day. Does that soldier not deserve your respect and remembrance? He did not die for his cause. He's not in some huge hollywood fire fight. He's simply doing his job as outlined by his government, and a fucken deadly serious one at that! It is your obligation to think, remember and commemorate these "SOLDIERS" for simply being soldiers!

Once again, it is impossible to make my point when coagulate the meaning of rememberance and commemoration. I am not against rememberance, but I am against commemoration of evil. one remembers evil, so that it will never happen again, but one does not commemorate it and the struggle for it.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I applaud the tenacity and braveness of an individual who could storm a beach or the German soldier who could stand hard in the face of overwhelming odds. Both equally strong men facing down their fears, and doing what was expected of them whether right or wrong in our eyes. That is the "act". The result is war, death and ruin, which I do NOT commemorate.

I instead applaud those Germans who were brave enough to realize that their struggle was in vein and for evil, and were able to face that bullet in the head for deserting their cause. The way I see is, in the context of the German plight, not fighting was much more braver than fighting. For fighting ensured at least you stayed alive based on your luck in the battlefield, but refusal to fight ensured your instant murder at the hands of the SS. Rethink again which one examplifies bravery. Even for the soldiers that truly believed they were doing good, I may applaud them, but in no way do I commemorate their cause, for that would be to commemorate the promotion of evil and terror.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

"Good" as you put it is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the lines get blurred a little and sometimes they are black and white. But you need to look from other perspectives to properly assess what a "good" cause is. You said dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a good thing because it stopped the war. Would you say that the Romans conquering vast amounts of territory via slaughtering, fierce combat and attrition "good" because their goal was to create a united and peaceful Empire? You are born North American (I assume), lived in North America and read and watch North American media. Therefore, you have the North American attitude towards the world, your own personal Manifest Destiny attitude. However, there are billions of other people in this world, with different ideals, goals, religions, languages, beliefs, histories and agenda's. You are in no position to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" as a general rule. And no... before you try to squirm your way into another redirection of my words, I am not trying to condone the actions of the German government and high commanders during WW1 and 2.

Good can be questionable when one is fighting over which colour is better. It can be questionable when one is fighting over which fruit is better. But good is WELL defined when it came to the Nazi goal. Extermination, genocide, and the arian race is clearly on the other side of good. This is larger than continental bias, this is larger then western bias, this is HUMAN bias. The Nazi regime was not taboo simply because it differed from American culture, no, it differed from the human culture. If I think driving on the right side of the road is better, that is because I am a westener, but if I think killing off any human that does not meet a perfect standard is evil, that is because I am HUMAN, and since we are all human, I carry no more bias towards that cause than any other human. Thus, in this context, my human nature fully qualifies me to determine what is right and wrong.
Speaking of redirection, I never said that hiroshima was a good thing, I simply said good intentions were meant by it, whereas the intentions of the Nazi's were not good. And by good I mean the salvation of mankind. The hiroshima bomb ensured mankind prospered (albeit through many deaths), whereas if the Nazi's succeeded it would ensure that only the arian race (1/1000 of mankind) prospered. If you disagree that salvation of mankind is a good cause, well then... I would be speechless.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I am NOT a Nazi sympathizer as you so slanderously lavish upon me in a public forum and I think an apology is in order. Furthermore, have you ever served your country via the military? I HAVE.

lol, and when did I call you that? I cannot apologize for something I haven't said. Reread exactly what you are referring to and you will realize that "you and other X" does not explicitly define "you" as belonging to the group "X", it merely implies it. But being a man of such "literality" as you stated you are, I figured you would take that statement for its explicit (literal) meaning and thus would take no offence to it
Also, thank you for showing how your argument contains bias. My non-involvment in military matters makes me impartial to it, whereas your serving cannot but help make you even a little bias towards the soldier's plight.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I think if you asked an allied veteran, "Should a german soldier have the same commemorative moment as an allied soldier?", in my opinion (as I have no way to substantiate this) he would answer with a resounding YES... because he has experienced it and understands what being a soldier means.

I think if you asked an allied veteran if a German soldier should be respected for his commitment and courage, he would indeed respond yes, for he knows the hardships that he had to overcome are the same for every soldier. HOWEVER if you asked him if a German soldier should be commemorated for ruthlessly defending a concentration camp so that more Jews could be processed and killed, he would be insulted that you wish to commemorate something which he worked so hard to put an end to.

You seem to disagree with the most fundamental point of this arguement: the soldier should only commemorated within context. Disagreeing with this presents major logical flaws. Using such logic, that the soldier should be commemorated simply for being a soldier, then I would urge you to start a public rally to start commemorating soldiers of Al-Queda, and see how far you get... For aren't they "soldiers" too? Do they not believe in their cause and face death as you say qualifies them for commemoration?

I believe you are hung up on the fact that you think I am trying to slander and spite the German soldier, when infact I agree that rememberance of every soldier is a good thing. Please focus more closely on what the difference is between rememberance and commemoration. Every one can remember the DC sniper, but would you commemorate their actions?
You see my main point is that rememberance of the Nazi's actions and plight is good, so that we do not forget, but commemoration of it is not. Think of the last time you heard of an allied victory being commemorated and celebrated (I saw one on Ortona the other night), now think of the last time you heard of an axis victory being commemorated and celebrated... bingo.

(p.s. perhaps this should be moved to off-topic now)