Worship? No. Respect? Yes.

[paleotn]

In response to an earlier post on military worship....

First and foremost, it is a cold, cruel, dangerous world outside the comfy confines of American power and that of our allies. Spend some time in, say, central Africa, central America, parts of south Asia and enumerable other places and failed states, and one becomes well aware of the anomaly of our bubble of protection. A bubble most of us don't even notice. A rough, modern analog of Pax Romana. That peace allowed the stability for growth and a flowering of civilization, along with, unfortunately, excesses analogous today. We can argue for days about the evils of imperial expansion and I would agree with you, but still there was peace an growth within the imperial bubble.

Though the majority of US wars were for wrong headed reasons and could and should have been avoided, not all wars are like that. And our military doesn't exist simply for those wrongheaded reasons. The rise of fascism comes quickly to mind. The military industrial complex and wars for corporate greed, as evil as they are at times, exist as parasites on the body of a much greater truth. A truth we lose sight of in our comfy bubble. So, lets not dispute that truth when we show our disdain for the parasites. Humans are tribal, prone to violence and are dangerous. We've been dealing with that fact with city walls and frontiers since the neolithic and I see no change in the foreseeable future.

Thus, for the protection that they provide, at the risk of their very lives, the least we comfy folks can do is show them a little respect. Don't worship, by any means. They're still human and subject to all our foibles. But they do put their butts on the line when many of use refuse to...yet love our comfy bubble all the same.

[Dream Girl]

1. Worthy of respect just as any other public servant. Teachers for instance.

I am referring to the hero-izing of anyone who happens to have joined the military for whatever reason. Regardless of what they’ve actually done or are doing, they are “heroes” for the time being. Then some of those who’ve seen combat and suffering from its impact are treated like damaged goods. Veterans are kicked to the curb. No support. In Trumps words anyone who joins the military is a “chump” his words, not mine. The subtext is you let us use you.

[braddy]

4. Teachers don't write a blank check with their life, nor break their bodies living hard and rough.

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2019, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Teachers don't live like this, by the way, give a moments thought to why they had to dig a hole to sleep in.

[dware]

6. Thank you.

[Kurt V.]

9. Teachers in some places do just that. good grief. without the pay and benefits

[braddy]

10. No they don't, unless you mean the Green Berets whose mission is largely to be teachers, they do

live and teach in places where they have to carry hand grenades, machine guns, gas masks, clay more mines and night vision goggles and sniper rifles, and maintain communications to air support.

[braddy]

14. The Green Beret is doing more pound for pound than our mediocre and incompetent teachers.

[Kurt V.]

17. i'll assume your serious.

[Blecht]

35. Thanks for sharing your true feelings

I'll know to stay as far away from you as I possibly can.

[Clash City Rocker]

84. You're saying teachers are mediocre and incompetent?

Did you vote for Trump, by any chance?

[braddy]

86. Just read the post, and of course I didn't vote for him, what is with the personal attack.

[Clash City Rocker]

87. What Democrat would say that teachers are mediocre and incompetent?

[edhopper]

19. Only 10% of Military personel see combat

About 80% of military personnel are stationed in the US.

[braddy]

20. All of the military is part of the war force, some of them cook and some repair vehicles etc.

[edhopper]

22. Yes

but to portray the military as sitting in a war zone in bad conditions doesn't show the truth of who they are.

I respect the service personnel, where ever they are. But I don't respect the military and don't think they deserve the prime spot they hold in this country. Many civil servants contribute as much.

[braddy]

25. Hard living is common in the military it's called going to the field and on exercises, even cooks do

that, and in a major war even the rear support troops may be fighting enemy paratroopers and special operation troops, or even just be overrun by the enemy.

The only American military woman to die from enemy action in Vietnam was a nurse killed by a mortar attack on a "safe" hospital.

Look at WWII when entire American bases and islands were defeated and sent to Japanese death camps.

[edhopper]

34. There is a big difference between WWII

and what we have today, or have had for years.

No one should have been sacrificed in Viet Nam.

[braddy]

36. The military has to be ready for whatever comes up, currently the military is getting back to

major war fighting training and equipping to deal with the China threat. These counter insurgency wars have been bad for our military readiness against sophisticated threats.

[cwydro]

39. If you think only one nurse died in Vietnam, you are sadly mistaken.

Do some reading.

[braddy]

43. I said that only one American military female was killed by enemy action in Vietnam, she was

Lt. Sharon Lane. If you care to read up on it here are some sources.

"On the morning of 8 June 1969, the 312th Evacuation Hospital was struck by a salvo of 122mm rockets fired by the Viet Cong. One rocket struck between Wards 4A and 4B, killing two people and wounding another twenty-seven. Among the dead was 1LT Lane, who died instantly of fragmentation wounds to the chest. She was one month shy of her twenty-sixth birthday."
"Sharon Lane was the only American nurse killed as a direct result of hostile fire."
https://armyhistory.org/first-lieutenant-sharon-ann-lane/

"Among the roughly 11,000 American women stationed in Vietnam, Lane was the only one killed by hostile fire during the decades long war. Seven other women died in accidents and illnesses."
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/05/28/friends-recall-only-nurse-killed-by-hostile-fire-in-vietnam/

[cwydro]

46. Diminishing lives lost in war...hmm.

http://theconversation.com/american-women-died-in-vietnam-too-84405

[braddy]

47. I'm not diminishing anyone, I told you a fact about how many and who was the only American military

woman to lose her life because of enemy action, the other 7 died of medical reasons or in accidents.
The second time I served in the military was after the Vietnam war and we averaged about 2200 troop deaths per year during that peacetime era, troops lost to medical reasons, accidents, and so on.

[Aquaria]

65. Come on.

I’m a veteran, one who lives in a city with multiple military bases no less, and I know for a fact that this is NOT true.

Most military people are right here in the US, and they work in buildings with climate control, break areas and typical bathrooms. Or they’re on ships and subs with most of those creature comforts. Or they’re serving at bases overseas in civilized locales like Tokyo, England or Spain.

The only time they deal with the elements is getting in and out of their workplaces, their homes or leisure activity spots, and the only time they deal with mud is if their kid digs up some in the yard.

Yes, SOME military people are serving in harsh conditions, but that’s only some, and nowhere near all. To make the bullshit assertions about war zones, which are not the majority of the military experience for over four decades now is just that: bullshit.

So don’t slather on that boo-rah bullshit to people who know better.

[braddy]

68. Ship duty, field duty, exercises like Reforger, constantly moving the family and kids.

Sub duty is not something most people would want to endure and evidently ship duty isn't either.

[Major Nikon]

49. The vast majority in the military don't either

It’s also true there’s many occupations that are inherently more dangerous than being in the military and yet people don’t respect sanitation workers for it.

[braddy]

50. Danger in the military depends on the times, but they do write a blank check with their life and

limbs and disfigurement, sometimes that results in 10s or many 100s of thousands of checks being cashed by us.

Teachers don't do that, and they go home every night and can live and retire working at the same address over their lifetime concentrating on their families and marriages.

[Major Nikon]

52. Not so much since WW2

Even during the height of Korea and Vietnam the vast majority of service members were not exposed to a level of risk greater than many civilian occupations which were also inherently more dangerous back then.

The point about teachers was they serve their community no less honorably. If you want to make it all about the risk, there’s other occupations where the risk is greater. As late as 2013, a lot more coal workers died from black lung than in the worst year of the Vietnam war in an occupation that had a lot less workers. That’s worse than a blank check. It’s almost a guarantee.

[braddy]

53. Military life is difficult and hard on people and you never know when you will be called to the

ultimate sacrifice, teacher is just another job, not many teachers give up that good union job to serve in the military.

I didn't know that we lost almost 17,000 miners to lung disease in 2013, that seems a little high, the media should have covered that.

[Major Nikon]

54. It's always been a problem nobody cared about

The deaths today are mostly in the third world, but it wasn’t that long ago in the US coal miners just didn’t live that long. They knew it and went to work anyway.

The logging industry in 2012 had more occupational deaths per 100,000 workers than the military has had in any year since the Vietnam era. That’s counting suicides, accidents, and all other non-combat causes along with combat deaths.

[braddy]

55. Your figures on annual black lung deaths are wildly incorrect.

[Major Nikon]

57. Tell that to Wikipedia

[braddy]

61. Tell it to the CDC.

[Aquaria]

67. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

For anything. There is no peer-review process for Wikipedia because absolutely any idiot or loon with an internet connection can manufacture or edit its articles, which means anyone can make any claim on it, true or not.

That’s why citing from Wikipedia at my college will get you an automatic F on your paper or project. That’s why no one writing a peer-reviewed paper ever quotes from it—unless they are researching Wikipedia for some reason.

So never quote from it to back up a claim. Find a more reliable source that backs up your assertion, or retract it.

[Major Nikon]

94. Don't really give two shits about what your college accepts or not

Wikipedia references a Lancet peer-reviewed study.

You can apologize anytime you are ready. Or not. I really don’t care which nor do I take orders from you on which sources I’m allowed to use.

[Aquaria]

110. It's not merely my college that does that. Lots of them have the same policy.

Because Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, no matter who they cite. I can list all kinds of citations in a document but that doesn't mean that they're being cited properly. A bunch of Wiki "citations" have been shown to say something completely different from what the source says about a topic. This is not news to anyone who knows how proper citation works.

If anyone should apologize here, it's you, for using a source that nobody who relies on good information accepts as reliable.

[Major Nikon]

111. I think you missed this part so let me be more clear

You are significantly underestimating the number of shits I don't give about what you do or don't think about the source material. Try revising your estimate significantly upwards.

You are the one who demanded a retraction from what you couldn't even be bothered to look up even when it originates from one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world. The fact you didn't know what it was and wish to still harp on wikipedia does not do much for your own credibility. So I'm sure you think trying to flaunt your knowledge about what does and does not constitute evidence makes you look smart, but really all your ad hominem attack does is make you look petty and ridiculous.

I'm quite done here as you just aren't worth anymore of my time. You really should work on your approach.

[Aquaria]

109. Yeah, because a source claiming to be reliable

Is the way to establish reliability. That's like saying that when our idiot POTUS tells people to believe him as a source, then we should accept him as a reliable source of information.

That makes sense only to people who don't know how to evaluate proper sources.

[USALiberal]

64. Neither do many enlisted! Most do not! nt

[braddy]

72. The enlisted signed over a blank check with their lives when they took the oath, they do not have

the option of telling the service that they won't accept a change in their situation, for one thing the enemy gets a vote on what is a safe job.

[Drahthaardogs]

66. My grandfather was a coal miner during WWII

And was not allowed to enlist because coal was needed to support the effort. For his sacrifice for our country's war effort, he got black lung and a defaulted pension, then dead. He faced death every day. In fact, statically speaking, his job was MORE deadly than the soldiers.

I am a scientist (toxicologist) and have colleagues at the CDC who handle deadly organisms every day to keep our population safe.

Firefighters go into burning buildings every day.

Statistically speaking, being a cop is about 3x's as dangerous as being a soldier.

Lots of people risk their lives for their countrymen and live hard and rough. They deserve respect too.

[braddy]

71. Many military veteran cops and firefighters and miners would laugh at that claim, in fact

many have served in recent wars as Guardsmen and Reservists but you guys can continue mocking military service by comparing it to good union jobs.

[Drahthaardogs]

75. Yeah, those cooks in the Navy sure face a lot of danger

Compared to a cop in South Central LA. What a crock of shit that only military service is dangerous and of value. Lots of public servants have jobs MORE dangerous than the average enlisted man and to disparage their service is disgusting.

And what is up with the snide union job remarks? You sure you didn't miss a right turn on your way to FR?

[braddy]

76. Yes, cooks do die in war and what snide union remark are you talking about, union jobs are good jobs

and the military isn't union.

[Drahthaardogs]

77. And so did and do other public servants

What the fuck is wrong with you to say only soldiers deserve respect?

As I said, lots of public servants risk life and limb for their country.

They ALL deserve respect. You sound like a damned Republican who waves the flag for the military then tried to cut the benefits for the border patrol.

And for the record, Tri-Care for life for you and your spouse, a pension, Commissary benefits, housing allowance, and hiring preference for a civilian job are BETTER than most union benefits. I'm glad the soldiers and officers get them - they should.

I want to know why you think their service is the ONLY one of value deserving respect and compensation.

[braddy]

79. That had nothing to do with my posts on this military thread about respecting our military.

[Drahthaardogs]

83. It had EVERYTHING to do with your posts!

You have dismissed public servants, police officers, coal miners, spoken about teachers like a Republican, and essentially made the claim that only soldiers put their health and family on the line for their country and their fellow citizens.

[braddy]

85. But no, I haven't except for recognizing that the teaching field is producing lousy results.

[Drahthaardogs]

88. Really?

Globally the United States is #2 in education, depending on the metric.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/education-rankings-by-country/

If you want to go by a test score, we rank from 20 in math to top 10 in reading

https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2018/01/how-american-students-truly-rank-in-international-testing/amp/


You're making shit up

[Kingofalldems]

98. Looks that way from here.

[Drahthaardogs]

99. You agree with his disparaging of teachers?

Even though the data does not support his claim, or did you mean something else? I'm not sure what you meant.

[Kingofalldems]

100. Agreeing with you 100%.

[Drahthaardogs]

101. Thanks

That guys POV is just disturbing to me.

[MicaelS]

89. And look how we respect cops in this country.

They're called racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on. Hell, some places firefights have gotten attacked, as well as EMTs.

[Drahthaardogs]

90. And it's wrong.

Last year Colorado had like 5 State Patrol officer s killed on duty.

The bad apples get the attention. Most cops are good people who want to serve their fellow citizens.

[MicaelS]

91. Sure, but you can't tell some people that.

All cops are evil, Blue Wall, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Drahthaardogs]

92. There ARE bad cops, there are priests who molested kids,

There are teachers who have sex with their students, there are bankers who embezzle money, stock traders who look for inside tricks.

There are bad people everywhere. That's life It's upon the good people to hold the bad ones accountable. Sadly, that's where we too often fail. We are not good at truly holding the bad ones accountable for their actions.

[MicaelS]

93. Very true.

Too many people do not want to get involved.

[Turin_C3PO]

106. Sorry but too many cops

look the other way when it comes to their co-workers misconduct. The blue line is a real thing and it has real life consequences for many minority communities.

[MicaelS]

108. You know something?

If I were in the position where I had to depend on someone having my back and having to overlook some behavior, or being completely alone with my life at risk, I might choose to overlook the behavior.

THAT is why it happens.

[matt819]

2. Okay, but. . .

Others also sacrifice. They may not take up arms, but they do take risks, serving in dangerous places and sometimes doing dangerous jobs. Namely, our foreign service officers and our intelligence officers. I don't know what USAID is up to these days, but they often work in dangerous places trying to make the world a better place.

Also, just because someone has served in the military shouldn't necessarily mean that they should benefit on down the road, in perpetuity. They start out ahead of sometimes (often?) better qualified civilians for federal (and probably state) jobs. This has a couple of problems. First, we may not be getting the best people in certain jobs, and we tend to perpetuate a military-style attitude and approach in departments that should have have that outlook. And not all members of the service put their lives at risk. Sure, maybe many are available for combat service, but not all are assigned to combat areas. And many in the military never get anywhere near combat, and some may never leave the US.

One of the problems over the past 50+ years is that the military has been called on to serve in actions that the US had no business fighting, from Vietnam to Lebanon to Grenada to numerous spots in Africa to Afghanistan and Iraq, and in some respects they have been tainted by the political decisions their leaders made in deploying them.

This is not meant to diminish their roles. I have served in US embassies, and we definitely appreciated our Marine Security Guards. And we should have a robust military. But we really do fetishize military service, and that is not right.

[braddy]

5. There is a big difference between working or vacationing in places considered high crime or less

safe than the U.S. (in other words where regular people, families and children live permanently) and fighting a death competition with expert, trained, and well armed professional killers focused completely on killing you, and who are looking for you and constantly planning and plotting your destruction.

[braddy]

11. Killing IS the point to soldiering.

[braddy]

16. Being a soldier disproves what claim?

[braddy]

18. I have no idea what that means.

[braddy]

23. I don't know what you are talking about. What do murderers have to do this, how does that fit into

this discussion?

[braddy]

29. So? people of all types exist everywhere, teachers rape, rob and murder also, many teachers

molest children, what does this have to do with this discussion?

[braddy]

32. Fine, the military members deserve our respect for the risk and sacrifices they endure to protect us

maybe after the military or if they become disabled or maimed and discharged, then they can do something safe in a union job, perhaps being a teacher for instance.

[Aquaria]

70. Good grief.

What is wrong with you?

The chances of civilians committing amoral acts is lower than military serving in war zones because war zones by their very nature are locations where most social norms have completely broken down. Being in such a place makes those unlucky enough to be there subject to breakdowns in their own moral choices because the tenuous control of civilized norms is absent or fatally skewed. People under that kind of stress are far more likely to commit acts they normally would not than if they were living a civilian life.

This has been the reality of war for millennia.

[paleotn]

41. Actually....

it's usually some other average Jane or Joe, trained to do a dangerous job they hope they never have to actually do, but get limited respect at home.

[braddy]

45. Huh?

[paleotn]

62. Those trained killers you're talking about.

If they wear a nation state's uniform, be it Russia, Iraq in 91, Serbia in the mid 90's or wherever, more than likely they're not much different than our folks. Trained to do a job they hope they never have to do for real before they're service is up.

If you mean the religo-nuts running around Afghanistan, Syria, etc., that's a different story entirely.

[braddy]

73. I still don't know what point you are trying to make.

[paleotn]

103. Sorry.

Your initial post made it seem like the US military is constantly facing trained, motivated, professional killers like something out of a Chuck Norris movie. Outside of certain jihadi fighters, most of our opponent's or potential opponent's forces are made up of young folks not unlike our own. One can see young Syrian, Russian or Chinese men and women joining the military to learn marketable skills or at the very least get a paycheck. Most are reasonably well trained and well equipped for their jobs, but in the end, they're not that much different than our own men and women in uniform. And civilians in their countries tend to treat them similarly to how we treat our own. We're not unique in that fact.

[braddy]

105. They do face professional trained troops whether they are ISIS, Russians, or whatever.

I still don't get the repeated saying that everybody is alike and everybody respects their military, in many countries people are fearful or even terrified of the military, including the ones we fight and defend against.

In Syria military service is mandatory and the men don't want to serve. China mandatory, Russia mandatory.

[paleotn]

37. I agree wholeheartedly...

That's why I led off with don't worship. No human is worthy of worship, no matter who they are. And I agree, it's not just US military personnel we should thank every day for the freedom we enjoy. It's the folks in our embassies who do a thankless job. The career state folks who testified in the last few weeks have my utmost respect. As do the folks in our intelligence services. One thing that still irks my ass is IQ45 speaking to US intelligence personnel in front of the wall. He had no right to spew his garbage on such hallowed ground. My point is, don't disparage those of us who thank those folks for their service. We owe them all a debt of gratitude, but not worship.

[Kurt V.]

3. its complicated. but the parasites you talk about are running the thing. how can you respect that?

[JonLP24]

7. I was in Iraq myself and I agree with Dream Girl

The military worship is over the top. I saw a huge recruitment ad at the ASU vs USC game where 4 paratroopers jumped out of a plane and landed at the 50 yard line.

As far as protection that is doubtful. Saudi Arabia assisted the 9/11 hijackers which was an actual attack on this country. Going to Afghanistan where Al Qaeda was hiding out made sense but not invading Iraq while covering up Saudi's role.

Also the Saudi war in Yemen which the US is backing.

Everything else is about geopolitics & economics. Because of my experience & education in economics I was able to make all sorts of connections on why this country is an ally or enemy. Nationalizing oil production has led to US intervention a lot.

As far as human rights we ignore the war in Yemen and also weren't involved at all in the Central African Republic to stop the genocide there in the civil war. US foreign policy is full of double standards & hypocrisy.

[edhopper]

24. As I said iin another reply here

90% of the military never serve in combat. Most are support personnel and over 80% never leave the US.

So to say they are all risking their lives just isn't true.

I respect their service, but no more than many other civil servants.

It is more dangerous to be in the Forrest Service.

And as tragic as this is, and not to diminish the personal sacrifice. No service person has died to keep me free in my lifetime. Not their fault, the fault of those who decided what wars they were ordered to fight in.

[The_jackalope]

30. "Died to keep me free"

Is jingoism at its finest.

[H2O Man]

26. Recommended.

Very interesting and reasoned. I agree.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party needs to honor the military by not sending it into endless wars.

[paleotn]

38. And that's the most important part.

Use them only when it's absolutely necessary. They're Americans, just like us, and not game pieces on some Risk board. I think too often the political class views them as simply assets, and we on the left view then as corporate tools. They're neither.

[H2O Man]

40. Damned right!

I remember candidate Obama saying he wasn't against war, he was against stupid wars.I agreed with that. And if we consider the number of wars and military "actions" this country has been involved in since the end of WW2, that's way too many stupid ones, far too many greedy ones, and very, very few that were justified.

The damage done to the generations in those years is brutal to consider. An those numbers were/ are individuals. People who had/have family and friends. Members of communities.

We should also keep in mind all of the other damage done to the regions where we fight wars. The concepts that Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed one year to the night he was murdered, in his most powerful speech, "A Time to Break Silence (aka Beyond Vietnam).

Human beings, while surely the most valuable, are not the only resources we sacrifice in wars.

[The_jackalope]

28. I really respect oceans.

Over the centuries oceans have provided far more protection for North America than the military ever has.

If the USA continues its slide toward failed state status, the military will probably come into play like it has in those other places you mention - central Africa, central America, parts of south Asia etc. In those places the military doesn't prevent the descent into corruption and misery, it is one of the primary tools, used to maintain corruption while keeping the populace too afraid to speak out.

Most international applications of military force, and especially transoceanic projections of such force, have been in the interests of conquest, colonialism and the protection of inequitable trade arrangements. IMO the only justifiable use of a military is to deter aggression, as by NATO against the Warsaw Pact.

When it comes to maintaining stable international relations, good diplomats and broad oceans are far more worthy of respect than soldiers.

IMNSHO

[TomSlick]

33. Thank you for the attempt.

Too many confuse the decisions of the politicians with the sacrifice of the troops.

The troops don't choose the wars, they just fight them. The troops don't get to decide if the war is necessary for the national defense, they just fight and die in them. We "support our troops" when it's them doing the fighting and not us or our privileged children.

The troops make it possible for people who believe the dangers of the world can always be solved by positive thoughts and good vibes to sleep soundly in their beds.

I wish the world's problems could always be solved peacefully. Until then, those willing to serve will protect those who prefer to dream.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[H2O Man]

44. A long time ago,

the guys in the military were my age. A lot of my friends served. I come from a military family. So I have always had respect for them, though not the politicians and corporations that sent them into conflicts.

In more recent times, I've noticed an important change. Those in the military are young men and women, around my children's ages. A number of their friends have joined and served, with a number still serving. I remember one young guy, the same age as my oldest son. He served in Iraq. The biggest part of his body that they recovered to send to his wife for burial was one of his hands. And for what?

[TomSlick]

48. Because he chose to serve his country

and because in a democracy, the soldiers do not choose the wars in which they fight and too often die.

There is a solemn covenant in this country between the country and its troops. The troops promise to go when and where they are sent and fight their country's wars. The country promises to risk their lives only when necessary to protect the nation. The troops will keep their side of the bargain even when the country does not. They will do so because their duty and honor demand it and because they know that if the troops do not keep their side of the bargain, the democracy falls.

[gulliver]

69. Criticism of "politicians" should be reserved for Republican politicians

Criticism of politicians, government, Washington, etc., without forcefully calling out that it is Republicans being criticized, not any Democrats, is helpful to Republicans. The bad side benefits from invalid equivalence.

[TomSlick]

96. My comparison between the troops and politicians was not a criticism but a statement of fact.

The decision of war and peace rightfully belongs with the politicians in a democratic republic. The troops do not - and may not - make those decisions. Whether the decision made is for good or ill, it is a political decision.

[cwydro]

42. Kick.

[emmaverybo]

51. Excellent post.

[nitpicker]

56. Don't forget the spouses and kids

https://www.militaryspouse.com/military-life/pcs/the-impact-of-pcs-moves-on-your-kids/

(snip)
◾Military families move an average of every two to three years, that means approximately 500,000 military children change schools every year.
(snip)

((It was worse in my day: in the span of 21 months, I was moved five times and went to seven schools (nine homeroom teachers). They had the mantra of "world-wide assignable". Someone FINALLY figured out that PCS (permanent change of station) costs could be cut by offering to keep members (or at least their families) in the same geographic area during follow-on job assignments, including offering incentives to accept consecutive overseas tours.))

[TomSlick]

80. You are, of course, correct.

Military families sacrifice as much, if not more, than the one in uniform.

[pwb]

58. That earlier post was meant to divide us.

Putin would be proud.

[Hortensis]

59. Ignore the RW and divide US? Who could want that? Nah.

[Crabby Appleton]

60. that's what I was thinking

Putin's minions hard at work.

[USALiberal]

63. Bullshit! It was a different opinion, but nice try! nt

[ck4829]

74. I'm glad someone else sees this, you inspired me to write a thread on this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212740472

[WhiskeyGrinder]

78. Mmm...no thanks.

[gulliver]

82. Well put

[braddy]

95. Interesting thread.

[Iggo]

97. Wow. Insulting. Way to garner respect.

[kozar]

102. incredible thoughts.

Very well said. I defended the OP you referred to for one simple reason. I have my feelings about military in our country. But the OP that made the post yesterday, was talking to her 11 yo son. And I read it as she was protecting her child with advice she felt comfortable with. I will ask this question again,, why are we pummeling a mother giving her son advice?

Quite frankly ,imo, after that point in her post,nothing else really matters, I did not read that she hates our country or military. I read some insightful comments about what some vets expect.
Bottom Line, if I had an 11 year old son. .I would protect him also. with honesty. I would explain to him the history of our country, how men have died protecting us. and then,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, at the end of this conversation,,,,

I would be selfish and explain to my son why I dont want him joining at this point and time in history.

[maxsolomon]

104. We've tipped over into worship. The NFL's recent display is a perfect example.

Everyone on the sidelines wearing some variation of militarized team gear. It's commercialized "respect"; a recruiting tool, a marketing tie-in.

"Respect the Troops" was a GOP propaganda bludgeon used to silence those who objected to both Iraq Wars, the 2nd of which was a world-historical WAR CRIME. Remember "Shut up, pussy, WE'LL protect America"?

We spend around half of the DISCRETIONARY federal budget on the military (yes, the VA is a military expenditure). This far outstrips any other nation on the planet. If we spent a rational percentage, we could fix much of what ails this country AND balance the budget.

I respect the difficulty of the job, but I've had enough of that respect being used to avoid confronting the reality of American Militarism and Empire.

[lunatica]

107. Being anti war does not make me anti troops

The troops don’t send themselves to wars nor do they declare them!

We haven’t fought a defensive war since WWII when we were attacked in Pearl Harbor. 9/11 would count except it was waged against the wrong countries. It was Saudi Arabia whose citizens attacked us. There were no Afghanis or Iraqis involved in the attack. And besides it was terrorists, not government military who attacked.