Are Veterans Better Than The Rest Of Us?

[Revoltingest]

But they did not go to war to protect our freedoms. They went to war to secure and protect markets for corporate interests.

I'm more of a cynic.
They went to war for emotional reasons, either revenge or do gooderie.
If we could blame it all on business profit, the voters could simply oust
the pols under their control who send us into these wars.
But alas, voters tend to reward the war mongers. This is a far more
intractable problem.

Most in the military didn't join for idealistic reasons. They joined for practical reasons -- education, lack of local opportunity, future job prospects, &c. All the patriotic pomp and circumstance is just window dressing.

Reasons vary.
I've known patriotic types, practical types, & one marine who really wanted to kill communists. One of his great achievements was killing a Chinese soldier.

Soldiers are corporate dupes, fighting for the rich and against the interests of the common citizen.

Pbbbbtttttt!
(Please excuse my speaking Revoltistani.
But my reaction didn't translate into English well.)

When was the last time there was an actual existential threat to the US? In actual fact, the greatest threat to American freedom and our way of life is our military adventurism itself.

The military generates the very enemies it claims to protect us from. Moreover, our adventurism has led to a decrease in freedom and security, to wit: The USA Patriot act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Department of Homeland security. The Transportation Security Administration surveils us at airports, NSA surveils our communications, Militarized police forces proliferate, as does a gun culture and fetish for assault style weaponry. Monies that could go into education, healthcare and infrastructure are soaked up, unquestioned, by the military.

Why does a vet get discounts and special privileges, while a bus driver does not? Which one makes the greater contribution to the general welfare?

We've become a police-surveillance state, addicted to war and militarism.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citzenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -- Dwight D Eisenhower"

We are our own worst enemy, eh.

 

[dianaiad]

Veterans are those who abdicated their moral responsibility and joined an organization who's purpose was killing and destruction; an organization directly opposed to everything Christ taught. How are they better than the rest of us? They not only joined an immoral organization, but their actions harmed the very values they claim they were protecting.

I'm skeptical. I doubt there was much, if any, spitting, despite the widely circulated rumors among Republicans. As for the "baby killer" epithet, it was largely true. We were not liberators, nor was My Lai an isolated incident.

Excuse me. Did you see the part where I mentioned SEEING this stuff done?

In the Book of Mormon there is a story about a group of people who were incredible warriors. They would fight at the drop of a perceived insult. Indeed, they were very, very good at it...until they pretty much whole sale converted to the gospel of Christ. At that point they laid down their arms and vowed never to fight, for any reason, ever again. And they held to it. It was their promise, and the people around them honored that promise and protected them. Being a pacifist is not a bad thing, Valjean, if one has made a promise to do so. However, as that story illustrates, (whether one believes in the Book of Mormon or not) pacifists require not only honor, but protection so that they can BE pacifists. It would be good of pacifists to accept and acknowledge that, and NOT spit, either physically or metaphorically, upon those who protect and honor THEM.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Not that I am disagreeing with you, but what 'international goals' did the rich and powerful' accomplish in Viet Nam?

Power and greed to not always win. It was a propaganda war and America was the enemy. Today, Vietnam is a rapidly growing trading partner.

In subsequent actions most of the trouble was caused by the West. America made Saddam powerful. Most of our involvement in Middle Eastern wars was self serving. There was no reason to go to Afghanistan after Russia left. We went to Iraq because we created the problem. The only WMDs that Saddam had were Mustard Gas shells that we gave him. He used them against Iran.

America is the villain in central America.

 

[Revoltingest]

I picked other even though it doesn't exist because it is a complex question grouping all veterans and all of us. There are plenty of non-veterans that have done amazing things and deserve a special status equal to or maybe higher than that of veterans. I splits Veterans into 2 categories below.


First of all just being a veteran of the Military is just a government job with benefits much of the public doesn't get so I vote them as no different.

Second a Veteran of a war or excursion whereby their life was on the line to protect Americans or American values this includes those in support roles for the ones in combat. Yes they deserve to be looked at as being special are they better than others who put their life on the line for others or values no but they are better than most of us.

If you're going to pick that option, it requires more bitterness than you've displayed.
Check the options....you'll see.

 

[MikeDwight]

What? That's exactly what I called them. Better than Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon was mean. They were Chivalric wars of dominance. Nobody I can see was a terrorized civilian in the Revolution, no common person died in these wars. General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, surrendered his colors, as is the honorary practice, to return to England negotiations. Siege of Yorktown - Wikipedia "The world turned upside down" he said.
The War of 1812 did burn our Capitol Building, all the same, I'm not aware of as Much exposure of the inner United States.

I studied in school a doctor of farming that's some sort of hero, because he went around in agricultural conferences that kept the South from starving to death during the war. Nobody really died in the Civil War either. No peoples were targeted. Again, we note a surrender of Colors and Sabers in this war, not Hitler's indomintable carry on suicide bunker , and he's secretly under the ocean or whatever.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm more of a cynic.
They went to war for emotional reasons, either revenge or do gooderie.
If we could blame it all on business profit, the voters could simply oust
the pols under their control who send us into these wars.
But alas, voters tend to reward the war mongers. This is a far more
intractable problem.

Reasons vary.
I've known patriotic types, practical types, & one marine who really wanted to kill communists. One of his great achievements was killing a Chinese soldier.

Pbbbbtttttt!
(Please excuse my speaking Revoltistani.
But my reaction didn't translate into English well.)

We are our own worst enemy, eh.

If we are talking about VietNam, we went to war because Johnson, a Democrat and quite possibly the second or third worst president in our history, raped the Social Security system to fund it. A Democrat got us into it, a Republican got us out. No matter what else anybody else says about it, THAT is indisputable. The soldiers who went were either drafted and HAD to go, or volunteered because they honestly believed the hype. Nevertheless, THEY did the 'right thing' even if their leaders were at fault.

And we are talking here about the soldiers, aren't we...not the politicians who got them into trouble?

I remember what those days were like, very, very well. I remember that it was...as it ever is...the Democrats who got us into trouble figuring out a way to blame the Republicans and anybody they could who wasn't them, especially the soldiers. After all, they HAD to spit on the soldiers, didn't they? They had actually voted for the politicians who sent those soldiers.

No, I'm not even a little bit bitter.
I'm a lot bitter.

 

[Valjean]

WW I ? Huh? What a senseless, stupid war.

Which America entered at the last minute for selfish reasons, and which generated hatred, fanaticism repression and loss of freedom at home.

 

[Revoltingest]

Power and greed to not always win. It was a propaganda war and America was the enemy. Today, Vietnam is a rapidly growing trading partner.

In subsequent actions most of the trouble was caused by the West. America made Saddam powerful. Most of our involvement in Middle Eastern wars was self serving. There was no reason to go to Afghanistan after Russia left.

If I may quibble, it wasn't that there was no reason.
It's just that the reasons weren't good enuf to justify the costs.
United States invasion of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
Add poor planning to the problem.

We went to Iraq because we created the problem. The only WMDs that Saddam had were Mustard Gas shells that we gave him. He used them against Iran.

Quibbling again, we supplied him with far more weaponry & assistance than that.

 

[Revoltingest]

If we are talking about VietNam, we went to war because Johnson, a Democrat and quite possibly the second or third worst president in our history, raped the Social Security system to fund it. A Democrat got us into it, a Republican got us out.

Nixon gets credit for ending it, but he was reluctant.
Still...credit for that & ending the draft.

No matter what else anybody else says about it, THAT is indisputable. The soldiers who went were either drafted and HAD to go, or volunteered because they honestly believed the hype. Nevertheless, THEY did the 'right thing' even if their leaders were at fault.

I argue that those of us who refused to serve also did the right thing.
The even righter thing.

 

[Valjean]

Hey, it's the story of my life.



I've known one. When he came back from his tour in Vietnam, he was spat at by someone at the airport, and then he went and signed up for another tour of duty. Nice guy. He was really into plants.

Another guy I knew was a Seabee in Vietnam. He had some interesting stories to tell. I considered him a close friend; he was quite the warhawk. He was also really into conspiracy theories, Bible prophecies, UFOs.

Opinion | The Myth of the Spitting Antiwar Protester

 

[dianaiad]

What? That's exactly what I called them. Better than Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon was mean. They were Chivalric wars of dominance. Nobody I can see was a terrorized civilian in the Revolution, no common person died in these wars. General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, surrendered his colors, as is the honorary practice, to return to England negotiations. Siege of Yorktown - Wikipedia "The world turned upside down" he said.
The War of 1812 did burn our Capitol Building, all the same, I'm not aware of as Much exposure of the inner United States.

Seriously? True, it was a relatively minor conflict and folks are still debating about who actually won it, but on the east coast, Canada and New Orleans, people were very aware that there was a war. You might try looking up Tecumseh's life, as well, just as a matter of curiousity.

I studied in school a doctor of farming that's some sort of hero, because he went around in agricultural conferences that kept the South from starving to death during the war. Nobody really died in the Civil War either. No peoples were targeted. Again, we note a surrender of Colors and Sabers in this war, not Hitler's indomintable carry on suicide bunker , and he's secretly under the ocean or whatever.

NOBODY REALLY DIED DURING THE CIVIL WAR????

Approximately 620,000 people died during the civil war. This in an era where the population of the USA was 31 million. If you adjust for that number, if the war were fought today, proportionately the number of dead would be around 6.2 MILLION.

You can take your 'nobody really died in the Civil War either" comment and.....

Never mind. go educate yourself and then you can take part in a debate about this stuff.

 

[dianaiad]

Nixon gets credit for ending it, but he was reluctant.
Still...credit for that & ending the draft.

I argue that those of us who refused to serve also did the right thing.
The even righter thing.

those who follow their own deeply felt beliefs always do 'the right thing.' As long as one is willing to take the consequences of one's choices, I have nothing but respect and honor for those who honestly do what they feel to be the right, the honorable, thing.

 

[MikeDwight]

Ugh! Me, get more educated on the Civil War?! I get kicked out of talking to people in Civil War Forums, for not fitting in on Civil War knowledge. The "Duel" like practice in early America is barely cast off. A man insulted in manly character Should, severa times in his life, face a man persecuting his honor, and exchange fire of some sort. The majority problem with recruits was shooting High of course, long range and too high. is taken to an extreme when the 90% of casualty and conflict you will see was moved over to the 100 miles between Washington D.C. and Richmond as pretender Capitols to the United States. It is an Extremely high kill-count war when the only Objective really was two armies killing each other. That realy limits what happens and the objectives, which wasn't about gaining or strangleholds on sections of land.

They were too weak to defend they said, that's why they needed to not get pinned and surprise their enemy, which is the famous campaign north, past Washington DC, into Maryland, which gets turned around at Gettysburgh in northern advance.

Responding to your post the best greeting is "God Bless your starving confederate soul" when they have to pass your town.

You can really experience that last bit in AGEOD's US Civil War for PC. I mean if you're standing still and the enemy is double-size, that's begging the final confrontation, correct?

 

[Ellen Brown]

If I may quibble, it wasn't that there was no reason.
It's just that the reasons weren't good enuf to justify the costs.
United States invasion of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
Add poor planning to the problem.

Quibbling again, we supplied him with far more weaponry & assistance than that.

I need a break from your attitude. Ignore = ON

 

[Revoltingest]

I need a break from your attitude. Ignore = ON

?

 

[Enoch07]

But they did not go to war to protect our freedoms. They went to war to secure and protect markets for corporate interests.
Most in the military didn't join for idealistic reasons. They joined for practical reasons -- education, lack of local opportunity, future job prospects, &c. All the patriotic pomp and circumstance is just window dressing.
Soldiers are corporate dupes, fighting for the rich and against the interests of the common citizen.

When was the last time there was an actual existential threat to the US? In actual fact, the greatest threat to American freedom and our way of life is our military adventurism itself.

The military generates the very enemies it claims to protect us from. Moreover, our adventurism has led to a decrease in freedom and security, to wit: The USA Patriot act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Department of Homeland security. The Transportation Security Administration surveils us at airports, NSA surveils our communications, Militarized police forces proliferate, as does a gun culture and fetish for assault style weaponry. Monies that could go into education, healthcare and infrastructure are soaked up, unquestioned, by the military.

Why does a vet get discounts and special privileges, while a bus driver does not? Which one makes the greater contribution to the general welfare?

We've become a police-surveillance state, addicted to war and militarism.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citzenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -- Dwight D Eisenhower"

Sorry I can't hear commie talk.

 

[Valjean]

Nixon gets credit for ending it, but he was reluctant.
Still...credit for that & ending the draft.

I argue that those of us who refused to serve also did the right thing.
The even righter thing.

Not only did Nixon not end it, he prolonged it with his sabotage of the Paris Peace Agreement to benefit his '68 campaign.
Did you lose any friends or family members in the latter half of the war? Blame Nixon.
In fact, it was acknowledged at the highest levels that the war was unwinnable, even by McNamara, but it continued for years because no-one could figure out how to get out without losing face, and no-one wanted to be associated with losing a war.
When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
PBS’s Vietnam Acknowledges Nixon’s Treason
Richard Nixon's Vietnam 'treason'

 

[Revoltingest]

Not only did Nixon not end it, he prolonged it with his sabotage of the Paris Peace Agreement to benefit his '68 campaign. Did you lose any friends or family members in the latter half of the war? Blame Nixon.
In fact, it was acknowledged at the highest levels that the war was unwinnable, even by McNamara, but it continued for years because no-one could figure out how to get out without losing face, and no-one wanted to be associated with losing a war.
When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
PBS’s Vietnam Acknowledges Nixon’s Treason
Richard Nixon's Vietnam 'treason'

I didn't excuse Nixon's failure to end it sooner.
But I do appreciate your providing evidence that
pols see war as useful to gain re-election.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry I can't hear commie talk.

LOL! -- you remind me of the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they didn't want to see anything that would contradict the church's Copernicanism.

 

[Enoch07]

LOL! -- you remind me of the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they didn't want to see anything that would contradict the church's Copernicanism.

Difference is I recognize BS.