University of California at Irvine: Professor Slams Chancellor's Memorial Day Message For Honoring Troops

weaselzippers;

Via College Fix:

Chuck O’Connell is a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine, and he has a problem with the school’s Chancellor’s Memorial Day message.

Why?

It doesn’t address specifically, among other things, civilian casualties of America’s wars, and anti-war and wounded veterans.

The professor offers up several past conflicts which, according to him, didn’t actually “ensure our nation’s safety”: the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

He also brings up the oft-cited (progressive) narrative that President George W. Bush “lied” in order to get the United States into Iraq.

The New University reports:

Note the simplistic assumptions that soldiers who died did so “serving their country” and that those who served did so “to ensure our nation’s safety.” Has every war the soldiers fought been for our safety? Is it not possible that some of the many American wars were unjust wars for nefarious purposes? Is it not possible that some wars benefited only select segments of the population while requiring others to pay the costs in blood and treasure? Did the U.S. wars against the Filipinos, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Afghanis and the Iraqis, for example, really ensure our safety? Note the questions not asked.

Note that nothing is said about the falsifications on which the war in Iraq, for example, was based. Is the Chancellor suggesting to us that the officials of the U.S. government never deceive the public about the reasons for war? Does he really believe that the war in Iraq was based on truthful claims? Have the weapons of mass destruction finally been found? Has a connection between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda been proven at last? If a war is based on falsehoods, can it be just? If a war is unjust, can those who fight it be “heroes”?

Keep reading…

Thank You College Fix and Zip. 


The University of California, Again. How lovely, as in How lovely an argument for not only the abolition of tenure but the abolition of Federal Funding.