Most recent public comments by Mr. Benjamin Salomon https://nowcomment.com/users/16339 https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=398531 https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=398531 "Their stories are typical of refugees, although when I mention them to other Americans, an uncomfortable silence ensues, since these things did not happen to most Americans." Most Americans simply hate recognizing the harm their country has caused to so many people around the world. I feel that Americans have a sense of guilt for the actions of their country and thus try to distance themselves from it and feel uncomfortable confronting it. However, I don't think that is the only reason Americans are distanced from the war/wars. Since the American Civil War, essentially no battles/wars have occurred on American soil. How could the American people possibly relate to the brutality and reality of war without ever experiencing anything even close to it. Most Americans have never seen a war, or even see any direct effect of a war on their lives. The closest they come to seeing a war is on the movie screen and in the newspapers. On the contrary, these Vietnamese refugees have literally lived through war and through the hardships of immigrating to another country as refugees. They know what it is like, but that is not the case for most Americans. Additionally, according to an article by Mona Chalabi (link below), only 0.4% of the American people currently serve in the armed forces, and 7.3% have ever served at some point. Clearly a majority of Americans not only have never actually experienced war, but don't even know anyone who has. Those number show that very few people in the country actually have a direct connection to the war. Yes, Americans try not to think of the horrors that their country is involved with, but how are they expected to relate to them with no direct connection? Link to article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-percentage-of-americans-have-served-in-the-military/ Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:13:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=398390 https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=398390 That is a great example of how important it could be to be the victimizer rather than the victim. In the case of Guam, of course it is a shame to have to essentially destroy a society, but it was necessary for the Americans to gain a stronghold in the area. War is a life or death, win-lose situation. It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day, you have to do whatever it takes to win, even if what you are doing is negatively effecting others. That is why the story of Guam is such a great example of how sacrificing the lives/land of innocent people could be necessary for your success. Additionally, in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, I believe it is okay to turn torture into "a good war story" because although it is "nasty behavior," it is still helping the cause of the American Army. However, that does not mean that you should be able to do inexplicable acts that does nothing to help your cause. In the case of Guam, the United States was gaining access to a very strategic position to help them with performing bombings in Vietnam. But in the case of raping a Vietnamese prostitute, there is no reason- and no justification- for this behavior. There is a difference between being the victimizer for a cause or for no apparent reason. Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:34:28 -0500