_______________

News & Comments

Each of the following links leads to further reports on the related issue
For additional information see also the sections "War on Terror -- Terrorism of War" , "Patriotism vs. Humanity" and "War Crimes -- Committed 'In All Our Names'" in the Main Navigation
_______________
News & Comments

On Loyalty - An Open Letter to US Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq

Flash Video SIR! NO SIR! NOT YOUR SOLDIER!

I Have Never Seen A Freer Man - The Case of Sergeant Benderman

How Best Support The Troops?

Hypocrites and Liars By Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan: She's Paid For Her Access In Blood

Why Casey Sheehan was killed

A Simple Question and the Power of Shame

Support The Troops -- Bring Them Home!

Please Dont Support My Troop

Members of Congress Ask Bush to Stop Undercounting U.S. Casualties

_______________
see also

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES:

VIDEO Enemy Image

Boots on the Ground -- A Photo Essay

_______________
 

Recruiting at Schools - Lies and Practices

__________________

The New Draft

__________________

Feres Doctrine vs. Oath of Allegiance

__________________

Crude Facts about Combat

__________________

Health Issues & Redress

__________________
Veterans Sites:

V.F.V.S. - Voice For Veterans Services

Portland Oregon POW/MIA'S

Veterans For Peace

Veterans For Common Sense

Cindy Sheehan: She's Paid For Her Access In Blood

How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops / The Use Of Depleted Uranium Weapons Is Illegal

V.F.V.S. - Voice For Veterans Services

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality

- News & Comments -

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index
Important note: Images and videos posted on this website are very graphic. Viewers discretion is strongly advised!

How Best Support The Troops?


Anheuser-Busch's 'Applause' Super Bowl Ad Nominated For Creative Arts Emmy Award

Choose your player to view the Anheuser-Busch Commercial:


"Thanking The Troops" (Windows Media Player)

"Thanking The Troops" (Quick Time Player)


ST. LOUIS (July 14, 2005) - Anheuser-Busch's emotional Super Bowl advertisement "Applause," depicting American troops returning home from service overseas being applauded by travelers in an airport terminal, earned a Creative Arts Emmy nomination for "Outstanding Commercial" from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences today.

"The timing was right for a commercial like 'Applause.' It captured the emotions of millions of Americans and relayed our heartfelt sentiments with a simple 'thank you' to the brave men and women who are fighting to protect our freedom," said Bob Lachky, vice president, Brand Management, and director, Global Brand Creative, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. "We are honored to be nominated for an Emmy and would like to thank the Academy and its voters for recognizing the sincerity of the message which we hoped to convey."

"Applause" is based on the experience of a creative director at one of Anheuser-Busch's ad agencies, DDB-Chicago, who witnessed a similar homecoming for U.S. troops at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in late 2004. Actual military personnel from a variety of branches appeared in the commercial, as well as a mix of actors and numerous bystanders who portrayed applauding travelers as the servicemen and women made their way through the airport terminal. The ad concludes with the words "thank you." The commercial was filmed in mid-January at LAX and aired on Feb. 6, 2005, during the Super Bowl.

"Applause" earned immediate praise from consumers. In Super Bowl advertising consumer polls, the ad was rated first by The Wall Street Journal Online poll and third in USA TODAY's Ad Meter. The ad was created by DDB-Chicago.

Anheuser-Busch's salute to military personnel during the Super Bowl is just one more extension of the company's more than 150-year history of support for the military. The "Applause" ad was previewed by more than 1,000 troops during a Super Bowl party at Fort Bragg, N.C., on Feb. 6. Budweiser's "Here's to the Heroes Tour 2005" traveled to 21 cities this summer, allowing more than 10,000 Americans to record video messages of support for U.S. troops stationed around the world. In addition, the "Hero Salute" program offers free admission to SeaWorld and Busch Gardens theme parks through 2005 for active duty military personnel and up to three dependents.

The above is an excerpt of an article at the Beer Online Profit Guide - your online guide to Beer Category Profitability (www.progressivegrocer.com), sponsored by Anheuser-Bush, least we forget that this video is a commercial, payed for by tax-decuctable money to promote the selling of beer. In case you have missed it - none of the soldiers has a name tag.
The effectiveness of this commercial can be seen at the end of an article

Anheuser Busch Truly Appreciates the Troops
that ends as follows:

NOTE: I will be drinking nothing but Anheuser Busch beers from now on. I should also mention that if you go to MyBudweiser.com you can get your own @budweiser.com e-mail address.

Is this really the best way to support the troops?

Contrary to the often heard propaganda of the Bush administration that the Iraqi insurgency is in their "last throes" and that "Progress is being made" -- the reality for "boots" on the ground is depicted in the presentation:

June, 2005 Video Release by the Iraqi Resistance - The Cowboys in Iraq

Thanking the troops isn't support for the troops - on the contrary, it is support for a President waging an aggressive and illegal war based on lies against a sovereign country and it is support for ongoing war-crimes in all our names as documented in the pictures:

Two Sides Of War: Reality Of War In Iraq - Part I

Two Sides Of War: Reality Of War In Iraq - Part II

Two Sides Of War: Reality Of War In Iraq - Part III

A far better way to support the troops would be to bring them home as soon as possible thus saving their lives and health while the best way would be a complete change in foreign policy towards other countries as described in the following article:

A Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations

By Tom Barry, Salih Booker, Laura Carlsen, Marie Dennis, and John Gershman | May 2005

For more on IRC's Global Good Neighbor Initiative,
see the full report or the index of related articles.

International Relations Center www.irc-online.org

(The following is a summary of the May 2005 report by the International Relations Center and Foreign Policy In Focus.)

Seldom, if ever, has U.S. foreign policy been as confusing or as divisive as it is today. The occupation of Iraq , the deepening trade deficit, saber-rattling abroad, and disdain for international cooperation have left the American public uncertain about what exactly the U.S. government is doing overseas, and why.

Public uncertainty about U.S. actions overseas is not a new phenomenon, certainly not one that’s distinctive to the George W. Bush era. The citizenry has frequently questioned whether Washington’s foreign policy really serves U.S. interests and truly makes everyone more secure. Especially since the 1890s—when our revolutionary republic began thinking more about expanding the U.S. dominion abroad and less about its own independence, democracy, and freedom—civic apprehensions have shadowed official foreign policy.

Today the “global war on terror” and talk of “regime change” in other countries have sparked criticism from both the political left and right, and many voices have risen to protest these initiatives and demand a change in foreign policy. The president says we should “stay the course.” But the high costs, scant results, and increasing dangers of our current foreign policy course indicate the need for a sharp change in direction.

Can we alter the course of U.S. foreign policy?
Has there ever been a model for a dramatic shift away from militarism and unilateralism toward international cooperation and peace?

Fortunately, U.S. foreign policy has another legacy—one that makes us proud and can serve as a model and inspiration for ourselves and others. It is the Good Neighbor policy that President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed in the 1930s as a fresh perspective on international relations and U.S. foreign affairs. His presidency (1933-45) marked a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign relations and was characterized by a public repudiation of three decades of imperialism, cultural and racial stereotyping, and military intervention.

In the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) is remembered mostly for his social democratic policies at home and his strong leadership as a wartime president. However, Roosevelt’s pre-World War II foreign policy was equally outstanding and quite relevant to today’s economic, security, and cultural conflicts.

In his March 1933 inaugural address, Roosevelt announced a new approach to international relations that would become known as his Good Neighbor policy. “I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others.”

The Good Neighbor policy of the 1930s provides a contrast to the current approach toward international relations—not an anomaly but a perspective deeply rooted in U.S. history. The Good Neighbor period was a time when the United States took a firm stand as a global leader, not a global bully; a time when America actively sought to build multilateral cooperation rather than assert global dominance.

Our world has seen major transformations unimagined in the days of the Great Depression and the New Deal. As national and global conditions change, political agendas must also evolve. FDR’s Good Neighbor policy cannot be applied as a blueprint for foreign policy today, but the basic principles behind it offer keys to building new international relations that are socially, politically, and environmentally sustainable.

Good Neighbor Principles

The globalized conditions of the 21st century require a Global Good Neighbor ethic consisting of four general principles and three precepts that address the primary areas of international relations: military affairs, sustainable development, and governance.

Principle One: The first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad neighbor.

Principle Two: Our nation’s foreign policy agenda must be tied to broad U.S. interests. To be effective and win public support, a new foreign policy agenda must work in tandem with new domestic policies to improve security, quality of life, and basic rights in our own country.

Principle Three: Given that our national interests, security, and social well-being are interconnected to those of other peoples, U.S. foreign policy must be based on reciprocity rather than domination, mutual well-being rather than cutthroat competition, and cooperation rather than confrontation.

Principle Four: As the world’s foremost power, the United States will be best served by exercising responsible global leadership and partnership rather than seeking global dominance.

Principle Five: An effective security policy must be two-pronged. Genuine national safety requires both a well-prepared military capable of repelling attacks on our country and a proactive commitment to improving national and personal security through nonmilitary measures and international cooperation.

Principle Six: The U.S. government should support sustainable development, first at home and then abroad, through its macroeconomic trade, investment, and aid policies.

Principle Seven: A peaceful and prosperous global neighborhood depends on effective governance at national, regional, and international levels. Effective governance is accountable, transparent, and representative.

Like FDR’s international relations initiatives, these principles break with the traditions of the foreign policy elites and emulate the practices of towns, communities, and neighborhoods across our land. They are easily understood, because they are not drawn from foreign policy journals or ideological tracts. Global Good Neighbor principles reflect our basic values, our golden rules, our personal responsibility, our common sense, and our human decency. They are principles based on the everyday practices of good neighbors.

Shedding Political Labels

The U.S. citizenry needs and deserves a new foreign policy that clarifies rather than confounds values—one that breaks through the barricades established by outdated political labels of conservative vs. liberal, realist vs. idealist, or isolationist vs. internationalist.

An effective policy will be neither strictly self-serving nor purely altruistic. In adopting Global Good Neighbor principles to guide our relations with other nations and peoples, we reject the false dichotomy between what’s good for the United States and what’s good for the world. As Roosevelt underscored in his inaugural address, good foreign relations are based on self-respect. No matter how well-intentioned the motives, no matter how inspiring the rhetoric, a foreign policy that lacks firm footings at home is flawed.

Foreign policy is enacted by governments, but the ethic of a Global Good Neighbor extends beyond the realm of government. In this increasingly interconnected world, individuals, communities, churches, organizations, and corporations have a role to play in forging international relations. Good neighbor practices apply whether we operate a business, purchase goods, travel, or share the planet’s resources.

An Ethic, Not a Doctrine

The Global Good Neighbor initiative is not a policy doctrine.

U.S. society and the rest of the world have had enough of Washington’s “national security doctrines” and “grand strategies” for foreign policy. To answer the question of what in the world we are doing and why we are doing it, we don’t need another grandiose scheme. By viewing the world in simplistic terms, doctrines and grand strategies inspire only confusion and misadventures.

A central problem with most foreign policy frameworks—such as the Cold War and the “global war on terror”—is that they shoehorn all issues into extremely narrow and often entirely inappropriate niches.

The current foreign policy framework of the “global war on terrorism” has generated hypocrisy and quagmires in spades. In the name of fighting international terror, the U.S. government, with bipartisan support, is mired in a war against “narcoterrorism” in Colombia, committed to long-term military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan , and shackled to support for intransigent hard-liners in Israel. So broad, vague, and bewildering is the framework of the war against terrorism that it justifies aiding outlaw states like Pakistan, condemning citizen movements and political leaders as “radical populism,” walling off the U.S.-Mexico border, and routinely violating civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad.

The nation’s fourth president, John Quincy Adams, warned that the United States should “go not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” His advice does not imply that there are no monsters in the world, but it warns against trumping up threats to U.S. national security. The Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War, and the current Iraq War are among the many examples of U.S. crusaders unnecessarily going abroad to destroy monsters.

Clearly, some very real monsters do exist in the world and must be destroyed before they do more damage. Foremost among them is Al Qaeda, which is both a cadre organization and a movement. The cadre Al Qaeda has attacked the United States and its people on several occasions, including September 11, 2001, and it should be vigorously sought out and incapacitated, whether by trial and incarceration or by precision strikes guided by accurate intelligence.

As part of the Bush administration’s global war on terror, Pentagon spending and overseas troop deployments have increased dramatically. Only a small part of this new spending, however, addresses the threat of international terror. There is no sign that terrorism aimed at U.S. troops and contractors in the region is diminishing as a result of the “war on terror;” in fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

But a new public consensus is emerging that, by its actions and arrogance, the U.S. government is stirring up dangerous discord and precipitating a disintegration in international relations. In doing so, current U.S. leaders are jeopardizing America’s future.

We can no longer “stay the course” as President Bush has advocated and as the leaders of both political parties have largely affirmed.

To change course, America needs a new ethic of international relations.

For that, we don’t need to start from scratch or borrow from the United Nations, Europe , or any single political sector at home. The U.S. government and people have the legacy of FDR’s Good Neighbor policy as an auspicious touchstone. If we restore the neighborly ethic of mutual respect for each other’s rights, we will have made enormous strides in promoting security, development, and good governance—not only for our nation but for the entire globe.

The Global Good Neighbor ethic is not a detailed blueprint for improved international relations. It is an ethic to guide effective international policy and action in confusing and complex times. Whether the problem is devastating tidal waves, transnational terrorism, or global climate change, these principles provide basic guideposts for global engagement.

Adopting the Global Good Neighbor ethic doesn’t require backing a specific political party. It doesn’t mean joining or leaving the conservative, liberal, progressive, left, or right political camps. All it requires is a belief, as Roosevelt had, that everyday good neighborly practices—self-respect, mutual respect, and a spirit of cooperation—are the proper starting points for mutually beneficial international relations. This “policy of the good neighbor” was right in the 1930s, and it is right again for our time.

About the Authors

Tom Barry is the policy director of the International Relations Center (IRC) and the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus; Salih Booker is the executive director of Africa Action and a co-chair of the IRC’s board of directors; Laura Carlsen is the director of the IRC Americas Program; Marie Dennis is the director of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and a member of the IRC board of directors; and John Gershman is a codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus and the director of the IRC Global Affairs Program.

About the Global Good Neighbor Initiative

A Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations is a product of the IRC’s Global Good Neighbor initiative. This endeavor promotes dialogue and action aimed at forging a new animating vision for U.S. foreign policy—a vision that reflects insights from people worldwide and that is grounded in the belief that U.S. citizens should be active participants in the formation of a new foreign policy.

The IRC is launching the Global Good Neighbor initiative with a series of policy papers, including The Good Neighbor Policy—A History to Make Us Proud and A Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations. Forthcoming papers in the Global Good Neighbor series include regional policy overviews that apply the ethic’s principles to each of the world’s regions and a thematic series on the major issues of international relations, including security, sustainable development, and governance.

These documents represent the first step in focusing a debate that we hope will grow to include a diverse set of stakeholders. We invite suggestions, comments, criticisms, and collaboration in the process of reclaiming a tradition in U.S. foreign policy and recasting it for the challenges of our time.

The good neighbor ethic is universal, and the IRC lays no copyright claim to Global Good Neighbor concepts or language. We encourage others to adapt them as they see fit in their own education, advocacy, and political campaigns.

The authors of Global Good Neighbor documents are available for media interviews and speaking engagements. All such documents, notices of events, and strategic dialogues can be found at: http://www.irc-online.org/content/ggn/index.php


Source:
International Relations Center

Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

 
Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

 
Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"
Traude
 

 
Want to get in touch? You can send email at:
 

or

Disclaimer And Fair Use