GorillaTheater Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Yeah, you, me, and Smedley Butler might see eye-to-eye on that point. But that doesn't buy you a pass for dismissing present or former military as a bunch of rabid blood-drinkers.
New Again Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) That being said, it certainly takes a very special kind of person to date or marry a military member, even moreso for those special operators. It takes an immeasureable amount of trust on both sides. Pretty much agree with everything USMCHokie said, but especially this. IME, these people make better friends than romantic partners. I've only met two (didn't date either of them) men who were in this field that seemed like mature, mentally and emotionally stable and grounded individuals. On that note, the guys I know who seem incapable of having a healthy, long term relationship are younger (late 20s, early 30s) and the others are older. So it could just be a maturity thing, or a personality thing. Edited March 24, 2011 by New Again
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 That rather emphasizes my point. If politicians actually worked for the people, then warmongering politicians would have no trouble whatsoever getting a democratic mandate from the people to go to war, but they've not been getting it throughout history, because they send the military to fight offensive wars on foreign soil. The word "defense" has been skewed to fit their own purposes, it's plain and simple invasion into foreign sovereign nations. And they do it for profit. The military industrial complex makes hundreds of billions from it. The Federal Reserve and the commercial banks make hundreds of billions from it and the oil companies and other resource mining companies make hundreds of billions from it. Money is the name of the game. Money is but one piece of the puzzle. A significant piece but still only one piece. Take the War in Iraq for instance. There were people in the Bush administration who sincerely believed that the best way to promote democracy was to get rid of select dictators (in this case Saddam Hussein). For them, a people's desire to be free and have democracy would override all other motivations. This is an extremely idealistic view of the world that obviously proved not to be accurate, but it certainly was not driven by profit. But I agree the situation is extremely unacceptable. The U.S. spends almost $700 billion on defense, but only $16 billion on the State Dept., the organization primarily devoted to avoiding war in the first place. Talk about misplaced priorities.
MarlyStar Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I have a lot of experience with these men, particularly Seals, Rangers, and Delta. Also I work surrounded by military men, and several federal agencies. Throughout the last 25 years I've known hundred of these guys. Do you have a specific concern?
Graviton Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) But that doesn't buy you a pass for dismissing present or former military as a bunch of rabid blood-drinkers. Having heard (some) soldiers actually admit to that kind of does. I understand or rather suspect that there are honorable soldiers out there, for as far a soldier can be honorable, but I get the idea they're few and far between. Most soldiers out there are certainly not protecting our freedoms. You hear the following all the time. Support the troops. We should thank them for serving. But I can't support a soldier that is "serving" for the wrong reasons or I can't support an illegal war for profit in which they fight. I simply can't do it. It would be blind faith. Anyone with even half an inch of critical thinking would refuse to blindly join such a bandwagon. If anything, many soldiers come from areas with a poor economy, which drives them into the hands of the military. I feel bad for such guys, but then again they still have a choice to find a job elsewhere. It wouldn't surprise me at all if certain areas are being kept poor to maintain an influx of men into the military from those areas. Some areas in the US where there are bases have a suspicious lack of industry and commerce, one can only wonder why that is. Let's be honest here. In order to attack and kill a man which you don't know, a man you personally have no beef with, you need to become desensitized or even a sadist. The military provides instructors that accomplish exactly that task. Most soldiers know they sign up for that training and the fact that they can be sent out to apply that training in practice. You can't ask me to respect someone that makes a decision to go kill for the state on foreign soil and get paid for it. That has nothing to do with defending a country, your family or yourself. Yet people expect you to respect soldiers that make the decision to join anyway. Then there are people who say we should only blame dirty politics for corrupting the military to wage illegal wars and not soldiers. But think about it, if a man knows his political leaders are waging criminal wars, yet he joins the military to participate in those wars, should we not be critical of him? Should we be silent about the soldier that made that conscious choice? I don't think we should. Hence I'm not going to blindly respect and support every soldier like some people pressure others into doing. I want to make up my own mind. Edited March 25, 2011 by Graviton
Recommended Posts