English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems really indifferent now days when people feel they are patriotic and are in support of a war that turned into more of a police action after the capture of Hussein but will not volunteer to join the service. At the same time many also enjoy the privileges secured by past veterans and at times criticize or look down on the men and women that served their country. Pat Tillman became a hero to me overnight when I heard he turned down a lucrative professional contract to serve the country that gave him opportunities in professional sports. Many men, years ago, gave up their sports careers to fight for this incredible country of ours. Not many like Ted Williams anymore.

2007-07-28 17:53:50 · 9 answers · asked by quietmale3269 1 in Politics & Government Military

I guess some of my frustration in asking this question comes from those who support this war and dont see the sacrifices the men and women are making with their professional careers, familys and ultimately their own lives. And yet these people have the tenacity to believe that they are above contributing or sacrificing their freedoms and choose to go to college or live in this great country of ours without doing more than supporting the poilicy makers that dont have children in the armed services themselves. Sounds pretty selfish to me. I was in the Air force during the first Gulf War and saw what that President Bush did after the war in the area of the Reduction In Force that left many veterans out in the cold not only to have the next President Bush work a war policy during a time when he needed more men and women. It is the people who wage war but want who they feel (the little people or the non-policy makers) to fight the war that really gets under my skin.

2007-07-28 18:26:34 · update #1

9 answers

I think many parents have failed to encourage their kids to deny personal comfort for the greater good. Hippies made cowardice a "cause" and their children and their children's children look at any military contribution as folly. These same baby boomers now own many many media outlets, broadcasting their personal bias 24/7, printing nothing but military set-backs above the fold and military accomplishments on page A-16.

I shudder to think about what our country will be like in 2015. I suspect it will be financially well-off, but will have weakened vigilance, weakened security, and we will be in the same position as Europe before the World Wars: pacifists.

Americans, we must preserve our freedoms through personal sacrifice. We must ask each generation to contribute much more than the previous generation has to her country.

I love my country. I am from a blue-collar hippie family and am proud of my military wife status. I encourage my children to consider the military as a bridge between graduating high school and beginning college.

2007-07-28 18:08:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Unfashionable? All branches seem to reach their annual quotas for retention and enlistment. But, you have to keep one thing in mind. Only 15% of adult males between the ages of 17 and 25 can meet the standards for enlistment. That even includes some professional athletes. Tillman was the exception. But, as noteworthy as his enlistment was, and as tragic and mysterious his death was, there have been 227 others who have died in the Afghan Theater since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom. Few, if any, got one bit of "ink" beyond the obituaries in their home town newspapers.
I served 25 years in the Navy. Eight of those years with Fleet Marine Forces. I came to realize that the military is a foreign country. We have our own strange manners of dress and speech, our own private gods and taboos and our own totems. What I've also learned is that it is a waste of time and energy to worry why the civilians don't like the war, but support the troops, or hate the troop's commander in chief and transfer that hatred to the troops. We who served took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A strange oath indeed when one realizes that less than one in five adults in this country outside of the Armed Forces has ever read that document.
So, when crunch time comes, I know that I can find comfort with my fellow vets and with those who serve proudly right now. As for the rest, to hell with them!

2007-07-28 18:41:28 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0 0

D.M. hit the nail on the head.

After September 11th the country had a wave of patriotism that swept across party lines and even the old hippy side of the democrats, that alot of us refer to as liberals and bleeding hearts, couldn't spread their usual venom.

A few years later the same groups that backed Bush, especially hollywood and musicians, began to turn on him as the war drug on. Most of these same individuals began to build up a grass roots movement that vilified Bush, turned on the average American soldier and started pulling in the easily swayed individuals to their cause.

Many of these were like France. Against the war in the beginning then aggravated they weren't sharing in the profits. So we returned to the 60's and have seen a resurgence in sedition that has not been seen since Vietnam. Again we allow them to hide behind the right to peaceably assemble and the limits of the first amendment are strained.

Now that the hippy/liberal/bleeding heart movement is back in full swing and unknowing moronic pawns like Sheehan are available these groups can again do their utmost best to bring down the U.S.A.

That is why there are people who find it 'unfashionable' for people to defend the very freedom they demand and defile.

2007-07-28 18:14:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Don't know if you heard or not but the Army and Marines are ahead of schedule on recruiting goals.

Clinton cut the military after Bush reduced from it's Cold War size. Bush's RIF was primarily on a volunteer basis. Early ETS's and retirements.

2007-07-28 19:09:39 · answer #4 · answered by John T 6 · 0 0

In the best of times there are many would serve. But now, times are somewhat dark. At least that is the public perception. None of those that would join the service for the 'college money' or the 'job training' are around these days. And with them went the 'fashionabiity' of service.

My words are lacking, so I'll leave you with the great Thomas Paine, who said it so perfectly over 230 years ago:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."

Fashionable it might not be, but honorable it is.

Aim High!

2007-07-28 17:57:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I wish more men were like the good ones from 20-30 yrs. ago nowadays most men only worry about themselves whether they have a family or not Is a sad sad thing our little girls are all going to be lesbian because all the men are going to be a**holes

2007-07-28 17:58:56 · answer #6 · answered by Amy D 4 · 0 0

The only time Military service is "fashionable" is a time of direct threat. All other times its a personal choice.

2007-07-28 18:02:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Enlisting is just as honorable as it ever was.

It is unfashionable with the chicken shhits.

2007-07-28 19:18:55 · answer #8 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0 0

Too many bleeding heart liberals in the U.S.!

2007-07-28 17:58:37 · answer #9 · answered by D. M. 3 · 6 1

fedest.com, questions and answers