Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, it took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears for America to become what it is today. The TV series Kem Burn's Vietnam showed a draft dodger who later renounced his citizenship to become a Canadian citizen. He said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. What an idiot right? Guy needs a passport now to see his own extended family.
Many posters here are no different. They talk big crap about America's military but if they ever moved to another country, including Canada, they're begging at the door to come back in right away.
It takes trips to to other countries to understand how special America is. It's far from perfect, but we all still "won the world lottery" by being born here.
If what you took away from Ken Burns’ Vietnam War is the draft dodgers were dumb and the blood sweat and tears of America’s military in Vietnam made us great, you hopelessly missed the point of that documentary.
Also your comment that “nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition “ - no one is claiming otherwise, and that’s not the point. The problem with all the adulation lavished on the military is our society’s attitude toward the use of force as a means of dealing with international disputes and advancing American interests abroad, which has caused a lot of problems for us and the rest of the world over the last 70 years- the same problems we’re supposed to be thanking the military for “protecting “ us from. And yes, I’m free not to fawn all over the military, but if enough other people do it, it’s still feeding a problem that affects me, affects us all. You talk about other people not thinking critically about differing opinions, but your “nobody is forcing anyone...” comment demonstrates you haven’t even thought critically enough about the other side of this debate to actually understand it, and your campus rape misunderstanding indicates a tendency to make decisions about issues without proper information.
On this, this entire thread is about, "If we should put military on a pedestal" "Is (and should) military service put on a pedestal to the detriment of other public service?" So "nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition" seems like a very reasonable response.
I think the poster's point is that how each and one of us treating the veterans is an individual decision. So, in another word, if you (the general term) don't want to give military service members any special treatment, it is your right to do so. But when you (the general term) have problems with others who expressed their gratitude for military service members, then some people might have to voice an opinion.
After all, we all have our PERSONAL heroes, and the people we admire.
I do agree that not many people in the world (including the Americans) are very happy with our foreign policy in the past 70 years, but this does not change the fact that we do need a military, a defense force.
Everybody joined the military for different reasons, everybody leaves the military for different reasons. Perhaps they join to fight a righteous war, to bear valiant defense, to serve a national cause, to bask in martial fellowship, to gain skills outside safe or easy channels, to strive for honor, to earn benefits, Nobody aims for pointless wars. Nobody joined the military for a store discount or a standing ovation at a ball game.
So how they were used by the politicians should have nothing to do with how we treat them. Regardless why they joined the military, Overwhelming majority of our veterans served honorably and many of us believe they deserve our praise and appreciation simply because they are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect total strangers.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 08-17-2018 at 10:08 AM..
I’ve traveled quite extensively and been in many countries that have democracy and a good quality of life without a heavy handed interventionist foreign policy and the oversized military needed to back it up.
That country is probably "backed up" or has a treaty protecting it from another country with an "oversized military"
I do need to correct you on some statements there. For instance, you say that sexual assault is a far greater problem on college campuses than in the military. That is completely untrue, in fact the opposite is true. The misconception about campus rape came out because of one paper reporting the results of a very limited survey conducted at a few colleges, and even the authors of the paper have said it is being misunderstood and misused to make conclusions about campus sexual assault that aren’t defensible. Meanwhile the DOJ’s Bureau of Crime Statistics has pored over the data and concluded that 17-22 year old women enrolled full time in an institute of higher education are significantly less likely to be sexually assaulted than women of the same age not enrolled. And the Pentagon has found that women are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted than women who are not in the military.
Also your comment that “nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition “ - no one is claiming otherwise, and that’s not the point. The problem with all the adulation lavished on the military is our society’s attitude toward the use of force as a means of dealing with international disputes and advancing American interests abroad, which has caused a lot of problems for us and the rest of the world over the last 70 years- the same problems we’re supposed to be thanking the military for “protecting “ us from. And yes, I’m free not to fawn all over the military, but if enough other people do it, it’s still feeding a problem that affects me, affects us all. You talk about other people not thinking critically about differing opinions, but your “nobody is forcing anyone...” comment demonstrates you haven’t even thought critically enough about the other side of this debate to actually understand it, and your campus rape misunderstanding indicates a tendency to make decisions about issues without proper information.
There is also no way to claim what would have happened in the world over the last 70 years if the united states had NOT been involved militarily.
I do need to correct you on some statements there. For instance, you say that sexual assault is a far greater problem on college campuses than in the military. That is completely untrue, in fact the opposite is true. The misconception about campus rape came out because of one paper reporting the results of a very limited survey conducted at a few colleges, and even the authors of the paper have said it is being misunderstood and misused to make conclusions about campus sexual assault that aren’t defensible. Meanwhile the DOJ’s Bureau of Crime Statistics has pored over the data and concluded that 17-22 year old women enrolled full time in an institute of higher education are significantly less likely to be sexually assaulted than women of the same age not enrolled. And the Pentagon has found that women are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted than women who are not in the military.
Shame on me for opening a can of worms and not putting the lid on it. While I maintain I am withdrawing from this discussion, it's important enough for me to put some validation behind my claim that sexual assault is a bigger problem for universities than in the military. Particularly because some universities tend to try to cover it up while the accountability function in the military brings offenders to justice and can serve as a deterrent to others. To make matters worse, data regarding incidents involving students on or off campus can be challenging to quantify, though as you will see in the attached and numerous other sources it is believed approximately 20% of female students experience some form of sexual assault.
This is like a subject worthy of its own thread, perhaps here on the great debates page. Here are a couple links that support my claim:
Also your comment that “nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition “ - no one is claiming otherwise, and that’s not the point. The problem with all the adulation lavished on the military is our society’s attitude toward the use of force as a means of dealing with international disputes and advancing American interests abroad, which has caused a lot of problems for us and the rest of the world over the last 70 years- the same problems we’re supposed to be thanking the military for “protecting “ us from. And yes, I’m free not to fawn all over the military, but if enough other people do it, it’s still feeding a problem that affects me, affects us all. You talk about other people not thinking critically about differing opinions, but your “nobody is forcing anyone...” comment demonstrates you haven’t even thought critically enough about the other side of this debate to actually understand it, and your campus rape misunderstanding indicates a tendency to make decisions about issues without proper information.
No need for a reply here. You have your opinion and your opinion about others' opinion. And everyone else has theirs.
Do what you will with the amplifying info I've just provided. Like I said, that is probably a subject worthy of its own thread. I only mentioned it here as an example of how holding the military to a higher standard (placing them on a pedestal) is actually a good thing.
My encore complete, I'm out. Again. For real this time.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 08-17-2018 at 10:15 AM..
Also your comment that “nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition “ - no one is claiming otherwise, and that’s not the point. The problem with all the adulation lavished on the military is our society’s attitude toward the use of force as a means of dealing with international disputes and advancing American interests abroad, which has caused a lot of problems for us and the rest of the world over the last 70 years- the same problems we’re supposed to be thanking the military for “protecting “ us from. And yes, I’m free not to fawn all over the military, but if enough other people do it, it’s still feeding a problem that affects me, affects us all. You talk about other people not thinking critically about differing opinions, but your “nobody is forcing anyone...” comment demonstrates you haven’t even thought critically enough about the other side of this debate to actually understand it, and your campus rape misunderstanding indicates a tendency to make decisions about issues without proper information.
Our military performance over the last 70 years has not been very good. Conflicts are rushed into, mishandled, strategic blunder after strategic blunder, and gross incompetence on a biblical scale. Look at our conflict management since WWII. Our losses and failures far out weight our successes.
Which makes all the adulation lavished on the military even more ridiculous since its being put upon an institution with a poor track record.
Our military performance over the last 70 years has not been very good. Conflicts are rushed into, mishandled, strategic blunder after strategic blunder, and gross incompetence on a biblical scale. Look at our conflict management since WWII. Our losses and failures far out weight our successes.
Which makes all the adulation lavished on the military even more ridiculous since its being put upon an institution with a poor track record.
Of course the results since WWII haven't matched the military success of WWII.
In WWII the US went all out to win including dropping the atomic bomb to end it.
You never are successful fighting "limited wars" because unless the entire weed is removed ( including the roots) it always will regrow.
On this, this entire thread is about, "If we should put military on a pedestal" "Is (and should) military service put on a pedestal to the detriment of other public service?" So "nobody is forcing anyone to single out the military for recognition" seems like a very reasonable response.
You’re still not getting it. The premise of the debate is talking about a COLLECTIVE behavior. Collective behaviors have collective consequences, whether certain individuals opt out or not, so no, “no one is forcing anyone to do so” isn’t a compelling argument.
You’re still not getting it. The premise of the debate is talking about a COLLECTIVE behavior. Collective behaviors have collective consequences, whether certain individuals opt out or not, so no, “no one is forcing anyone to do so” isn’t a compelling argument.
just what is a "collective behavior" ? is that a majority? Is it separated into time periods of any sort? Can you be more specific?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
