Obama bucks tradition, skips funeral highest-ranking officer killed in combat since Vietnam.

[waka1 28]

I don't know what the protocol is, but since he was the highest ranking officer killed in about 5 decades, the President going would have been appropriate as a matter of respect, IMO. I realize he can't go to every funeral, but I think he should have gone to this one.

Consider the President ordering the National Archives to do a 18 month search to find minority WWII, Korean war, Vietnam war veterans to upgrade them for the Medal Of Honor and get his puss plastered all over the news for his 'executive heroism'....cynically awarding MOH awards based on 'race'.

If anyone read my link to 199th LIB General Davis, I have no doubt the 'negro' General Davis would have thrown the current idiot CIC in the brig, and slapped him Patton hard for playing politics for things out of his sandbox....

[Sousuke 1,214]

I just find it difficult to rationalise the idea that going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to serving one's country. I just don't believe that's true. Of course, that's not to say that military staff haven't done the best they could in a bad situation. Noone should have died because they had no business being there.

WW2 on the other hand, totally on board with that.

Serving one's country in this instance means means entering and fighting in a war zone ordered by your country's government. We can debate whether entering the war zone was the correct thing to do but anyone who was in Iraq or Afghanistan and fought were certainly there to serve their country be it the UK or the US.

Now what does the US represent in the 21st? Our corporatocracy's goal is to create short term profits no matter how many corpses are produced.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Sousuke

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This thread has been a real eye-opener. Trying to think of something to say that wont get me suspended.

I am at a loss also.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

It's quite obvious who here served in the military and one in particular who did not.

I remember serving alongside fellows from Canada and the UK... All of them fighting for their queen. Don't recall any of them questioning me about my loyalties to my country.

And for the record, I do not recall EVER discussing the war with a soldier who thought it was a good idea for us to be there.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

And to set the record straight, Obama was busy talking care of more important matters... at the Vineyard Golf Course.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its very interesting how few people are open to a different perspective.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Serving one's country in this instance means means entering and fighting in a war zone ordered by your country's government. We can debate whether entering the war zone was the correct thing to do but anyone who was in Iraq or Afghanistan and fought were certainly there to serve their country be it the UK or the US.

Now what does the US represent in the 21st? Our corporatocracy's goal is to create short term profits no matter how many corpses are produced.

I get that. My point is that if people don't question the conflict they are entering or the goal thereof, then they're basically being a robot for a dubious agenda.

[Jacque67 7,328]

I get that. My point is that if people don't question the conflict they are entering or the goal thereof, then they're basically being a robot for a dubious agenda.

It's difficult to question, once one has signed up, surely?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you remember what the political climate was back in 2002-2003?

I do very well. There was a certain point of view, quite popular on here as late as 2009 that if you didn't support the Iraq war that you didn't support the troops. People were routinely called un-American, even 'traitor' wasn't uncommon. All because they opposed what was being done in their name by the former government.

I have no doubt that soldiers in Iraq do a good job, within the boundaries that they are permitted. That doesn't change the view that they had no business being there. Just as they had no business being in Vietnam. Speaking personally, I would rather go to jail than fight in an unjust war.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Do you remember what the political climate was back in 2002-2003?

I do very well. There was a certain point of view, quite popular on here as late as 2009 that if you didn't support the Iraq war that you didn't support the troops. People were routinely called un-American, even 'traitor' wasn't uncommon. All because they opposed what was being done in their name by the former government.

I have no doubt that soldiers in Iraq do a good job, within the boundaries that they are permitted. That doesn't change the view that they had no business being there. Just as they had no business being in Vietnam. Speaking personally, I would rather go to jail than fight in an unjust war.

Would you be in favor of soldiers having the choice to go to battle? If so, what would be the parameters? How many battles does a soldier get to opt out of? Do soldiers who opt out of battle receive the same pay and benefits as those who don't? How would you prevent dissention amongst the ranks between those who chose to fight and those who don't?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would you be in favor of soldiers having the choice to go to battle? If so, what would be the parameters? How many battles does a soldier get to opt out of? Do soldiers who opt out of battle receive the same pay and benefits as those who don't? How would you prevent dissention amongst the ranks between those who chose to fight and those who don't?

You'd opt out as a conscientious objector, forfeiting any pay and benefits beyond that point. You'd leave the military... and I guess you probably wouldn't be able to apply for service again.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Teddy B 17,251]

You'd opt out as a conscientious objector, forfeiting any pay and benefits beyond that point. You'd leave the military... and I guess you probably wouldn't be able to apply for service again.

What would happen if so many soldiers opted out of battle, that it depleted the forces to the point where a country couldn't defend itself?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What would happen if so many soldiers opted out of battle, that it depleted the forces to the point where a country couldn't defend itself?

I guess it would be reviewed, like anything else. Nothing is forever.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I guess it would be reviewed, like anything else. Nothing is forever.

What would be reviewed?

If one country does not have the forces to defend itself and gets taken over by another country, then that sort of is forever, no?

[lostinblue 1,989]

You'd opt out as a conscientious objector, forfeiting any pay and benefits beyond that point. You'd leave the military... and I guess you probably wouldn't be able to apply for service again.

Tell these boys that you have the right to opt out.. at 80 years of age they still would be able to drop you .. No question about it.