I don’t have numbers at hand, but I’m almost positive that this statement is false.
IIRC, there are many more (4x? 5x?) support personnel than infantry.
So I don’t think this statement applies to any particular branch. It certainly can’t apply to the military as a whole, since two entire branches have no intrantry whatsoever.
Being the most populous doesn’t mean it is a majority. California is the most populous state in America but the majority of Americans are not Californians.
Ah, point taken.
So insted of being an erroneous statement, it’s just meaningless.
For some strange reason(probably a computer virus or something of that nature) Peter Morris doesn’t seem to see my question. I would be ever so grateful if someone could re-post it for me, because I’m sure he would want to answer it.
I agree that it is an overreaction to 9/11 but we have a warrior worshipping culture so we had an elevated level of respect for these professions before 9/11. It just got magnified by 9/11.
Its already been established that these are not the most dangerous jobs out there. Sure these jobs take physical courage but so do a lot of high risk physical jobs.
Its already been established that cops and firefighters do not make financial sacrifices to serve in their capacity as a cop or fireman. There is no shortage of people who are applying for these jobs.
Soldiers might deserve a bit more respect, I think its part of the pay package.
Surgeons? Really? Why?
What about lawyers?
What about teachers?
I suspect that most surgeons get paid pretty well for what they do. That is not the case with a lot of lawyers or teachers.
What?!?!?
Enemy soldier is no different than bloodthirsty criminal for all intents and purposes. Now I grant you that enemy Iraqi Soldier on the other side of the world is not the same thing as bloodthirsty criminal in my underground garage but the notion taht our soldiers deserve less respect tahna cop because they only protect me against enemy soldiers is kind of hard to understand.
Wait, are you talking about soldiers or cops now?
Soldiers don’t get to second guess their civilian leadership even if their commander in chief is George Bush.
If a cop doesn’t believe prostitution and drug use is wrong are they prostitutes for enforcing the law? The mandatory sentencing guidelines for crack and cocaine create racially disparate results and yet cops are expected to enforce those laws regardless of this fact.
I doubt that the military is quite the crucible of virtue that you present. racism, homophobia, general dickishness and even rape is not exactly rare. Perhaps theya re just nicer to you because you are a medic.
If you ask me, a lot of people whose view of life is based on fear envision an apocalyptic future. In that future, there will be little role for any of us who do not physically embody strength, warrior toughness, and the ability to act without thinking. Those who adopt the use of force and the risk of life as a profession will be, at the very least, the only meaningful force for good in that post-civilized, post-moral world. Indeed, they may very possibly be the ruling elite. So it couldn’t hurt to suck up to them while there’s still time.
I think you are confusing our military for mercenaries.
We have mercenaries too but thats not what is getting your hackles up in this conversation.
So nothing?
I don’t know what it used to be or even what it is now but there is decidely less support personnel than there used to be. Most of the support is provided by companies like Haliburton. I know a guy that picked “cook” as MOS because he figured that would mean he would be abck at base making sloppy joes for everyone. They gave him a gun an threw him in the shit.
Actually no, that’s not true at all.
His initial statements made it quite clear that he regarded soldiers who signed up to fight regardless of whether or not the cause was just to be immoral, “unworthy of respect”, and “thugs”.
You’ll notice that he’s not criticizing soldiers for killing civilians or supporting imperialism or anything like that, but is making it explicitly clear that even when they do protect us they are unworthy of respect because they are “only protect[ing] us from other soldiers.”
He then went even further to make it clear how he felt saying.
Here he makes it clear that he regards even soldiers who defend Americans from an invading army as “thugs” whom he doesn’t respect.
There’s nothing in there to suggest that he’d let those who fight for a just cause off the hook or that he’d consider them “heroes.”
After all, if fighting to protect civilians from being slaughtered by enemy soldiers wouldn’t be a just cause then nothing would be.
If the person making the above quote was intellectually and logically consistent then they’d have to argue that Marines fighting at Iwo Jima, the Dog Faces at Normandy, and grunts in Vietnam were all “thugs” who were “unworthy of respect”.
That’s why I assumed that he’d condemn the “thugs” who fought against the Germans in WWII.
I took him at his word, took his statements at face value, and expected him to be intellectually and logically consistent.
Unfortunately, he was unwilling to stand by what he said and has since tried to pretend that he said something completely different.
No he didn’t.
What he did was make a statement that was completely the opposite of what he’d said earlier.
You’ll notice that in his earlier statements there nothing about believing those who “fight for a cause they believe in” being “worthy of respect”.
In fact, he made it clear that even soldiers who fight to “protect us from other soldiers” are “thugs” who “are unworthy of respect.”
He’s simply shifted the goal posts and instead taken a new position that’s completely at odds with his earlier statements.
Were we to take the above statement at face value we’d have to assume that he had the utmost respect for the Waffen SS, the IRA, the Irgun, and Hamas, all of who fight “a war because they believe in the cause”.
Of course, I’m reasonably certain he doesn’t believe this.
Instead he made a statement without clearly thinking through the implications of said statement.
Also, arguing as he does above that the American soldiers who “fought against the Nazis” were “worthy of respect” because “they believed in the cause” doesn’t jibe with his earlier attacks on American soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The GIs who fought in WWII didn’t do so because they had some well-thought out hatred of Nazism. They did so because they were patriots who felt they were being called on to defend their country.
The people who signed up following 911 also did so because they were patriots who felt their country was under attack and they were being called upon to defend it.
In short, his statements do little to suggest that he has anything remotely resembling a coherent, well thought-out philosophy but that he merely has an instinctual aversion towards present day soldiers and he’s trying to come up with reasons that would sound plausible to condemn them.
I’d actually have considerably more respect if he’d stuck to his guns and said yes, he would be intellectually consistent and have the integrity to condemn the soldiers who fought in WWII as well.
This statement shows little understanding of those who fought in WWII.
Do you really think that most of the members of the 101st Airborne had some well thought-out dislike for Hitler prior to the War?
No, they fought because they believed in their country and believed it was their duty.
The same was true for Americans who signed up for the military following 911.
This statement shows really dramatic ignorance of the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are soldiers fight there “for salary” but they’re not part of the US military they’re called private contractors.
Most people fighting over there do so because they think it’s their duty and believe in the cause.
In fact, one of the more dramatic changes the military has gone through since 911, is the dramatic change in who joins.
The army that fought in Desert Storm was roughly one third black or Latino. That’s no longer true. Similarly, the percentage of soldiers from poor or deprived backgrounds has declined.
The percentage of the enlisted force that’s white and or middle class has dramatically increased.
There was a time when most of the people who joined did so just to pay for college or for job training, but that’s less and less true, particularly of those who join the Army or the Marines in contrast to the Navy or the Air Force.
I’m a bit troubled by this question.
If you were fairly familiar with the Middle East you’d know what I’m using isn’t a name but a title and that it’s a common pseudonym used by Muslim dissidents for centuries.
Now, being somewhat ignorant of the Middle East isn’t a crime. There are many parts of the world I know next to nothing about.
However, having exceptionally strong opinions about the area(which you clearly do based on your statements regarding Iraq) while knowing little about the area is more than a little disquieting.
I knew that sounded familiar. I had an interpreter who used that name. It stuck out, because they mostly use English language names. I’ve had Joker, Frank, Tommy, Albert, Old Albert, and what I thought was “Iben Warak”. Huh. Now I know!
Well said.
Why do I have to write a letter or “make my voice heard” before I express a position that is, ultimately, philosophical in nature?
Bear in mind that your original contention was that those in the military were “doing something”, and that “doing something” is inherently good. No matter what you do. My position is that it can often be the case that doing nothing is better than doing something, especially if one has not carefully considered what “something” actually involves.
I know there will always be soldiers. I know there will always be wars - because there will always be people prepared to fight those wars. But why do I have to be grateful to them, or excuse my ingratitude by writing letters to my MP?