Why is it not OK to have a negative opinion about the military? (drug, Afghanistan)
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.
Excellent response! There are some (left wing, right wing, whatever) who will continue their ridiculous fallacious rants just because they enjoy stirring the pot.
Actually, it's a simplistic response. Which ever party is in the White House did not necessarily create the dynamic situation that led to war...something that usually took place over quite a few years, not instantaneously. It would be just as silly to post which party was in office when a war ended. You have to look big picture.
I'm nearly 31 now and fell too old for it but again that's my biggest regret in life not joining up.
My friend, take it from someone who could have a avoided combat and didn't: you have no idea how fortunate you were not to have been subjected to that whole mess. It haunts you your entire life and never goes away. It brings worry and sorrow to your loved ones. And since Vietnam, it has meant nothing. Nothing. Except a toll of dead and disfigured young men, sent into war by "leaders" who have no idea why we are waging war, or what our mission is -- and since their children have no risk of ever serving, can safely ignore the whole thing until it's time to cry crocodile tears and engage in public displays of hypocritical concern. Young men need to stop sacrificing their bodies for corrupt politicians and their lust for power. Save your body for a young woman to love, instead.
There is a big difference between having a negative opinion about the military as a whole, compared to a negative opinion about the members of the service. You can disagree with military conflicts or certain behaviors, but we need to always have our service member's backs.
Want to really get P.O. Wiki a search for US Military Generals and Admirals .... then read what all their medals stand for.. Not Boots on the Ground Combat.. it was school and college or Orchestrating battles ALMOST NEVER in their careers were they Ever Combat Warriors.. ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
My friend, take it from someone who could have a avoided combat and didn't: you have no idea how fortunate you were not to have been subjected to that whole mess. It haunts you your entire life and never goes away. It brings worry and sorrow to your loved ones. And since Vietnam, it has meant nothing. Nothing. Except a toll of dead and disfigured young men, sent into war by "leaders" who have no idea why we are waging war, or what our mission is -- and since their children have no risk of ever serving, can safely ignore the whole thing until it's time to cry crocodile tears and engage in public displays of hypocritical concern. Young men need to stop sacrificing their bodies for corrupt politicians and their lust for power. Save your body for a young woman to love, instead.
Want to really get P.O. Wiki a search for US Military Generals and Admirals .... then read what all their medals stand for.. Not Boots on the Ground Combat.. it was school and college or Orchestrating battles ALMOST NEVER in their careers were they Ever Combat Warriors.. ..
Yes, let's just drill down and see if there's any truth to what these guys are saying.
Gen. George Washington: well, we all know that he personally led the Continental Army and did not sit behind a desk.
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant: Fought in the Mexican-American War, but regarded it as unjust. He later observed that the Civil War was punishment inflicted on the nation for its aggression in Mexico. He fought the Civil War, rising gradually to lead the entire Union Army as his brilliance was recognized by Lincoln. He incorporated freed Blacks into the Army, providing them with wages, clothing and food like other soldiers. After the Civil War, he advocated to let Southerners take their rightful seats in the Congress and be treated with respect. As president, he advocated for American Indians to be granted citizenship and full rights. He advocated for the 15th Amendment to be passed, granting Black men the right to vote, and advocated that fundamental civil rights be enforced for all citizens regardless of race.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur: saw action in WWI, was wounded in action and gassed by the enemy, was known for personally leading troops into battle. Awarded two Distinguished Service Crosses and several others. Conquered Japan and then treated them with respect, turning them into one of our most stalwart and powerful allies.
Gen. Eisenhower: Requested transfer to France during WWI (was denied). Didn't personally engage in combat, but was on the scene during WWII and personally visited every division prior to Normandy. Delivered what is considered one of the greatest speeches in history after the Cherbourg-Havre disappointment: "If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone." Went on to win the greatest victory in history, and was consistently concerned for the lives of the troops and sought to minimize bloodshed on all sides of the conflict. As President, he warned against the "military-industrial complex".
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf: active service in Vietnam, led from the front, was wounded 4 times during a campaign but refused medical treatment. He most admired the generals in U.S. history who were reluctant to commit troops to combat.
Gen. Colin Powell: Two tours in Vietnam, wounded in chopper crash. Known as "the reluctant warrior" who preferred containment to military action. Under Bush 2, he fought the hawks and persuaded the President to take the case of WMD to the U.N. rather than unilateral action. Was given erroneous information which informed his decision to support the invasion.
Really, you could go on and on; there are many others. Haven't even touched Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
Yup, a bunch of real schmucks. Joke. In reality, these men were/are heroes, courageous and mindful of the horrors of war, and patriotic and idealistic Americans.
Sure, there's been a few jerks in high office and high military rank, just like in any walk of life. But there were and are a lot of great men and women who have served in the military. Don't let some little internet troll convince you otherwise!
Do people secretly hunger for military rule? Considering people trust the military way more than the government and police, I wouldn't be surprised if many people would embrace martial law. Is the cultural atmosphere in America during the past quarter century more militaristic than it used to be?
Admiring the military does not equal hankering for military rule. These people are volunteers. Ultimately they have our back, against a dangerous world.
You can have a negative opinion about the military. I don't mind at all. While you are enjoying your "Freedom Of Speech", though, you might wish to thank a WWII veteran for the fact that you aren't speaking German or Japanese, and for the fact that you still HAVE that "Freedom Of Speech!
Just like you can have a negative opinion of the drivers of long-haul big trucks. BUT, while you are sitting around in your fully furnished house, eating steaks and potatoes and brocoli, and watching tv, please remember that "If you got it, a TRUCK brought it!" Oh, sure, it may have come by train or boat, but at some point it was on a truck!
You can even run off at the mouth about your negative opinions, but remember that if you make somebody angry enough, he might just punch you in the nose! Yes, you have freedom of speech, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Yes, you can have the guy who punched you arrested. If you are lucky, there won't be any veterans on the Jury who will consider the punch justified.
Be sure brain is in gear before putting mouth in motion!
Before Desert Storm there was the draft. Mandatory service. Young men didn't have a choice. Volunteers are always admired.
True.....but the draft ended around 1973, so there were about 18 years between then and that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot N Annie
I wonder what the psychological profile of the typical volunteer would look like? I'm sure the Armed Forces know. Do they appeal to folks who are basically losers in civilian life but want to be seen as "heroes"? Or what? It does seem like the military veterans (who may have served only 3 or 4 years) are certainly a self-congratulatory group.
Family philosophy. Dad, an Army man, said that he would pay for our college but we had to take at least the first two years of ROTC and take a reserve contract if offered. We didn't have to make the military a career but we had to have the basic to answer the call if the country so called. It was our duty as a higher section of society. Further, any scholarships (or even an entry to a service academy) we achieved, for that money that he would normally pay to a school that is now being paid by another, he would then give that money to us.
Now, a thing or two. First of all, I might tend to romanticize things, like the above, but that's just me. Secondly, I'm not really sure why when from an Army family I went Navy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze823
i think after 9/11 it became all partriotic to be thankful to the military.........
Errrr, that part has always been a little troublesome for me because that "war" had been going on for decades before..............and hardly anyone "stateside" cared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
.........The military, and to a degree the police force and firefighters, choose voluntarily to take a job where the above is expressly not true. They walk in the door knowing full well that they can get seriously hurt or killed on the job, and that while their employer tries to prevent that, it's still a fact that if necessary, their job is to actually take the injury or the bullet in place of the civilians. That's the entire point of their job, to put themselves in harms way so that the civilians are safe............
One day, during a senior level NROTC class, the instructor started up the discussion of disadvantages of being in the Navy. My classmates threw out things like separation from family, low pay, things like that....and then I said, "That we could get killed?".
To which the instructor said, "Well, yes, that too."
Yes, let's just drill down and see if there's any truth to what these guys are saying.
Gen. George Washington: well, we all know that he personally led the Continental Army and did not sit behind a desk.
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant: Fought in the Mexican-American War, but regarded it as unjust. He later observed that the Civil War was punishment inflicted on the nation for its aggression in Mexico. He fought the Civil War, rising gradually to lead the entire Union Army as his brilliance was recognized by Lincoln. He incorporated freed Blacks into the Army, providing them with wages, clothing and food like other soldiers. After the Civil War, he advocated to let Southerners take their rightful seats in the Congress and be treated with respect. As president, he advocated for American Indians to be granted citizenship and full rights. He advocated for the 15th Amendment to be passed, granting Black men the right to vote, and advocated that fundamental civil rights be enforced for all citizens regardless of race.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur: saw action in WWI, was wounded in action and gassed by the enemy, was known for personally leading troops into battle. Awarded two Distinguished Service Crosses and several others. Conquered Japan and then treated them with respect, turning them into one of our most stalwart and powerful allies.
Gen. Eisenhower: Requested transfer to France during WWI (was denied). Didn't personally engage in combat, but was on the scene during WWII and personally visited every division prior to Normandy. Delivered what is considered one of the greatest speeches in history after the Cherbourg-Havre disappointment: "If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone." Went on to win the greatest victory in history, and was consistently concerned for the lives of the troops and sought to minimize bloodshed on all sides of the conflict. As President, he warned against the "military-industrial complex".
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf: active service in Vietnam, led from the front, was wounded 4 times during a campaign but refused medical treatment. He most admired the generals in U.S. history who were reluctant to commit troops to combat.
Gen. Colin Powell: Two tours in Vietnam, wounded in chopper crash. Known as "the reluctant warrior" who preferred containment to military action. Under Bush 2, he fought the hawks and persuaded the President to take the case of WMD to the U.N. rather than unilateral action. Was given erroneous information which informed his decision to support the invasion.
Really, you could go on and on; there are many others. Haven't even touched Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
Yup, a bunch of real schmucks. Joke. In reality, these men were/are heroes, courageous and mindful of the horrors of war, and patriotic and idealistic Americans.
Sure, there's been a few jerks in high office and high military rank, just like in any walk of life. But there were and are a lot of great men and women who have served in the military. Don't let some little internet troll convince you otherwise!
The ones you listed are the exceptions, not the norm. Many of today's admirals and generals never saw combat. The chest full of medals they wear are meaningless. I have medals. They're in a box under the bed. Three of them were for participating in Desert Storm, one for participating in Bosnia, and one for not getting caught doing something bad. My letters of commendations hold more meaning to me because they were for things I actually did.
The military, like any government institution, is flawed. Members of the military, from four stars on down to privates, should be criticized just like any other public servants when they commit acts worthy of criticizing.
Ironically, the knee-jerk "How dare you criticize our brave soldiers?" attempts at shutting down a discussion (as opposed to rationally discussing an issue) is precisely the sort of thing that is labelled political correctness by the same crowd (the ones who rail about political correctness are generally of the same group that castigates those who dare to criticize the military).
It's perfectly fine to 'support the troops', but support does not entail carte blanche immunity from immunity from criticism. More to the point, improvement can only come from adjustments made due to the critical analysis of shortcomings and outright failures. Demanding that an institution not be criticized is to hinder its continual development.
I agree with this to an extent - no one and nothing is without flaws - including our miltary.
That said, I grew up in a miltary family, my father fought in WWII an the Korean War and . . I don't think I could survive the hardships he describes in the middle of war. I'm not sure my son could.
I remember as a young child, age 4 or so, my father leaving us for a YEAR to go overseas. I will never forget how sad I was; there were no cell phone or facetime, and I actually was so stressed that I started to demonstrate a speech impediment that I eventually grew out of.
My father only talked about the war when he was asked; he didn't much like to talk about the things he saw and did.
I have a tremendous admiration for veterans of all ages but especially the really old ones!
The miltary with all it's hardships - gave my parents a life they loved though. They loved the travel, the living all over the world and talked about their military years with great fondness.
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.
Before Desert Storm there was the draft. Mandatory service. Young men didn't have a choice. Volunteers are always admired.
