Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 9:51:00 GMT -5
Sounds to me like the OP is latching on to an excuse to quit. I am sure her husband is going to do at least one or two things without her in the two weeks he is home. He has other family and friends to see, errands to get done etc. He can schedule those the half days she will work.
I might be hypersensitive on this issue though. I work with a woman that uses any excuse to take time off. If you look at any of her excuses individually they look fine. It is when you add up all the times she does it. She has the attitude that she is somehow doing us a favour to show up at all. I get the same feeling from the OP.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 9:55:39 GMT -5
Specifically I disagree with the idea that the military is fighting to "protect our freedom" as opposed to various other reasons we send them places, that it's a noble choice vs a career choice like anyone else makes, and the idea that even if you did consider it a noble choice and deserving of reward that someone private citizens who happen to be married to those people deserve special treatment in their private sector jobs.
We can agree to disagree (I know this is a hot-button topic) but considering soldiers have *no* choice in where they go or why, I honestly don't see why your feelings about which wars we're fighting should matter.
Many of the wars we fought haven't been just - but so what? If you get sent into them and you're killed, you're still just as dead as you would be if you had been fighting for some cause that meets your criteria for nobility.
For the record (i realize i didn't make it clear in my last post), my views on police/firefighters who actually protect people in this country vary greatly from my ideas on people going into other countries to push the US political/economic agenda. Not necessarily on quality of the people because I don't think the military is of poorer quality human beings, but on the nobility of the choice and the subsequent rewards deserved.
Again, it sounds like you're judging *why* someone dies on the job, rather than just looking at the simple fact that they died on the job. My job does not require me to regularly risk my life. My job does not require me to promise that, should the situation arise, I forfeit my life in the service of my country.
The first could apply to police work or firefighting, while the second could apply to military service. But they are not mutually exclusive. And if you're killed while doing a job that you took on in order to protect people (in any capacity) I don't see why the underlying agenda matters.
Let's say "hypothetically" that I think the current war is bullshit. People are still getting killed. It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 9:57:58 GMT -5
"It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war."
Sorry, but yes it is.
ETA - I guess I should expand on that. Nobility is definately a product of both action and motive. If someone gets killed in a fight it makes a differance if they were after money for their own gain or protecting others lives from a tyrant.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 9:58:02 GMT -5
I might be hypersensitive on this issue though. I work with a woman that uses any excuse to take time off. If you look at any of her excuses individually they look fine. It is when you add up all the times she does it. She has the attitude that she is somehow doing us a favour to show up at all. I get the same feeling from the OP.
For the record, no workplace issue pushes my buttons more than this one. I hate it when people just act like they're entitled to come and go as they please. So I totally understand where you're coming from, and if OP is the kind of person who does that sort of thing, that's a separate issue.
But I'm not assuming that - I'm pretty much assuming that in the normal course of things, she shows up on time and does her job like everyone else. If that's the case, then as her colleague I wouldn't mind working extra hours to cover her for this.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 17, 2011 9:59:41 GMT -5
This thread is starting to seriously drift off topic, I feel this discussion is not really worth it anymore.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 9:59:47 GMT -5
Sorry, but yes it is.
How so? They didn't choose which war to fight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 10:02:17 GMT -5
Sorry, but yes it is. How so? They didn't choose which war to fight. Yes they do. Choosing to follow orders is still a choice.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 10:03:47 GMT -5
Yes, but... it's not really a choice you're free to make once you sign on for military service. You don't get to just arbitrarily decide "hey, I don't agree with this one so I'm going to sit it out if you don't mind" and get away with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 10:04:11 GMT -5
"It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war." Sorry, but yes it is. ETA - I guess I should expand on that. Nobility is definately a product of both action and motive. If someone gets killed in the in a fight it makes a differance if they were after money for their own gain or protecting others lives from a tyrant. But people in the military don't get to pick their wars/fights. They don't have that luxury. I don't think any of them signed up to go fight a bullshit war but to protect the country they believe in or for some it was the best option they had to getting out of the ghetto/misery. I will say that I am sensitive to this issue because I have two cousins in the military and them dying in Afghanistan instead of let's say protecting American borders makes no difference to me. They are still serving our country and unlike you or I , they do not get to pick and choose their battles. If you are against the war be mad at the person that started it or ordered it, not the man and woman that are in the army. They had nothing to do with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 10:07:15 GMT -5
Okay, this is going off topic but I find it interesting. I want to say up front that I have no particular thoughts about a particular war. This isn't about that.
I would really hope that the men and women in the military would not be willing to kill people in something they considered a bullshit war. Because if they can get killed it means they are killing as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 10:08:18 GMT -5
Yes, but... it's not really a choice you're free to make once you sign on for military service. You don't get to just arbitrarily decide "hey, I don't agree with this one so I'm going to sit it out if you don't mind" and get away with it. In that case being noble would be refusing to do it. Would they be killed for refusing to go. Because going means they will kill someone else.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,712
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 17, 2011 10:13:25 GMT -5
In theory they could refuse to do it. In which case at the very least they are going to get a dishonorable discharge. Try having that follow you around the rest of your life.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 10:14:18 GMT -5
"It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war. "
IMO, yes it absolutely is when given the constraint that this war has been ongoing for nearly a decade. People who are going over knew what they were getting into when they volunteered/re-upped. It's not just "which wars", it's the fact that anyone who joined the military in the last 40 years should have known exactly what the military is...a political and economical tool used to enforce our governments wants. I'm not saying some people might not have been tricked or convinced that what they were doing at the time was somehow noble, but anyone who's joined the military to the point they're still now enlisted joined at a time where anyone who was paying attention realized joining the military meant pushing the American political/economic agenda around the globe and not "defending our freedom".
It's not about the cause of the war, it's about what the American military has become in general. You've joined an organization where your job is going to be to push the American agenda in other countries through violence. If next week we get attacked and people are fighting to keep our country free...I agree that doesn't change whether people die in one fight here or in another fight securing oil. What matters is what the organization is WHEN you join in determining how noble your efforts are. I wouldn't have any more respect for someone who joined the military 5 years ago and died fighting off South Koreans invading California tomorrow than someone who died in Iraq fighting for oil. If we were in a state of defending our freedom right now I would have more respect for someone who died. But we haven't been fighting wars to defend our freedom in decades, so anyone who joins went in fully aware of that.
"Again, it sounds like you're judging *why* someone dies on the job, rather than just looking at the simple fact that they died on the job. "
Of course I'm judging why they died on the job. Do you think it's as noble to die on the job being a lobster fisherman as it is being a police officer? The importance of what you are doing when you die on the job absolutely matters in respect to the nobility of the deed. If you really want to follow your argument to completion, you're essentially arguing that all jobs (military included) ARE equal, because it doesn't matter how you might die, it only matters that you might die...and theoretically we all might die doing our jobs. Do you think being a lobster fisherman is more noble than being in the military since the rate of death is higher there?
"And if you're killed while doing a job that you took on in order to protect people (in any capacity) I don't see why the underlying agenda matters. "
I fully agree with this statement. You seem to be completely ignoring (or disagreeing) with the fact that the primary job the military performs is not protecting people, it is acting as a violent arm of the US government agenda around the world (it SHOULD be protecting people, but it's not). They deserve all the respect that a mercenary does since they are doing the same job. (which I dont' think is necessarily less respect than anyone else doing a job, it's just not more respect than everyone else).
"Let's say "hypothetically" that I think the current war is bullshit. People are still getting killed. It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war. "
By this logic it's no less noble for me to get killed robbing a bank than it is to get killed protecting a child from a murderer. Of course what you are doing when you're killed factors into the nobility of the act.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 17, 2011 10:15:24 GMT -5
I have a friend who joined the army back in late 90's bc he just didn't know what else to do with himself. He wasn't the only one. I couldn't believe all the benefits he was and still getting from being "military". Well, than "the war" happened and he got out as fast as he could, bc nowhere in his plans was "dying for our country" when he joined. He was not the only one.
People who are joining now is a different story, but I have always wondered what are the motives of many who joined before
Lena
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 10:22:41 GMT -5
"How so? They didn't choose which war to fight. "
Ok, which noble war did people think they were going to fight when they joined that was "protecting our freedoms"? We haven't had a war to protect our freedom in the past 5 decades. I can buy the idea that if we had a fight to protect our freedom and someone joined specifically to do that, that it's not their fault they got shipped off somewhere else. But "I didn't have a choice which one to fight" only applies if there was one you thought WAS noble. It doesn't apply if every war we're fighting is for political/economic agenda. That's like joining the mafia and claiming "I didn't have a choice which people to murder", if you joined and all the options were negative you dont' get to play the "i didn't have a choice of which negative i participated in" card.
"In theory they could refuse to do it. In which case at the very least they are going to get a dishonorable discharge. Try having that follow you around the rest of your life. "
While the impact of that following you around your life is clearly a major negative, I'm not sure "well I murdered a bunch of people for a cause I didnt' believe in because I didn't want to be inconvenienced by a dishonorable discharge" really holds water for being forced into doing something. I truly hope personnel are convinced they're doing the right thing (whether they're right or wrong) as opposed to doing things they know to be wrong because they dont' want to live with the consequences of doign what they know is right. That would be the opposite of nobility right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 10:25:24 GMT -5
While the impact of that following you around your life is clearly a major negative, I'm not sure "well I murdered a bunch of people for a cause I didnt' believe in because I didn't want to be inconvenienced by a dishonorable discharge" really holds water for being forced into doing something. I truly hope personnel are convinced they're doing the right thing (whether they're right or wrong) as opposed to doing things they know to be wrong because they dont' want to live with the consequences of doign what they know is right. That would be the opposite of nobility right? Well said.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 17, 2011 10:26:53 GMT -5
... At least 3 months ago, I asked my supervisor at work if I could have the time off while my husband's home to be with him. They said that that wouldn't be a problem. Well, the assistant manager lays on me today that I have to work the Saturdays while he's home because there will only be 3 tellers and there's nothing else she can do. I think I'm just going to quit tomorrow. ....... Finally, I am so disgusted at their ability to not only lie to me but to be so heartless when it comes to a soldier coming home from Afghanistan who wants to spend time with his wife while he can. Do you all think I'm a bad person for just wanting to quit? I think that "Pammy" is seeking some support for her anger and frustration with an employer who she feels is acting in an uncaring and cruel manner..... She asked us to judge whether she was a bad person? Under the circumstances it appears that the bank supervisor/manager made the decision to require "Pammy" to work 2 days of the 2 weeks that she wanted off. That, to "Pammy" and others here, seems grossly unfair. While it would have shown good will and would have been generous to just try to fill those shifts the bank chose not to and let "Pammy" know that. She is left with some choices. She chose to go back to the bank and tell them that after a discussion with her husband that if she had to work she would quit....Discuss. Then we finally got to the real reason that "Pammy" posted. "Thank you so much to everyone who supported me in this." 'Thank you to everyone for their support for DH and for advocating for us to have the time together" Other misc posts about how the assistant mgr wanted to flaunt her power, heartlessness, how they tried to "pull" something over on her, and then how she's decided(in her infinite wisdom) to "spreading the news around town while hoping that this prompts some people to just decide to take their business elsewhere lol." I think "Pammy" that you just needed to be made to feel better about something that hurt your feelings and that you felt was unjust. I understand that. I support our military and all that goes along with it.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 17, 2011 10:33:01 GMT -5
But, you've learned a valuable lesson. Not everyone sees your personal needs and desires in the same light that you do. Even in the circumstance that you've outlined(DH in active duty on leave) and no matter how justified that you feel you are. You had a number of choices and you followed through with the one you felt was most prudent.
All of the other statements about how angry you and and appearing to have a need to "get back" as it were. I would suggest that you refrain from spreading any news around town as in the end it will reflect badly on you more than the bank.
Focus your energies on your DH's home coming and leave the rest of it behind.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 10:33:17 GMT -5
For the record, if Pammy actually specifically requested those days, had them approved, and then the employer backed out...I think she has every right to be upset (she hasn't actually said that's how it happened though). I just think her right to be upset stems from being told one thing and then having the employer back out of it. I think it has absolutely nothing to do with whether her husband is in the military or not.
And even if I think Pammy is being ridiculous in her assertions about how horribly she's being treated, I still support her right to just up and quit. It's a free country, she can be wrong and still completely within her rights to quit a job she doesn't need for something she feels is important to her.
It's only when Pammy and others decide that her status as a military wife ought to give her special privilege above others that I have a problem.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 17, 2011 10:37:30 GMT -5
Other misc posts about how the assistant mgr wanted to flaunt her power, heartlessness, how they tried to "pull" something over on her, and then how she's decided(in her infinite wisdom) to "spreading the news around town while hoping that this prompts some people to just decide to take their business elsewhere lol." Yep, I also felt that everything started to go overboard when people suggested spreading the word and boycotting that bank for really not much if anything. And pammy went right with it. Anger. I also do not believe in special privileges for the military, outside of the ones already in their contract (and that's fine).
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 17, 2011 10:58:41 GMT -5
Yep, I also felt that everything started to go overboard when people suggested spreading the word and boycotting that bank for really not much if anything. And pammy went right with it. Anger.
If I'm not mistaken, it was actually Pammy that brought up the boycott suggestion.
So did Pammy ever come back and say whether she got the time off or quit?
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 17, 2011 11:27:54 GMT -5
gardeninggrandma, see below ... Hey, let us know which bank it is (if they're national) if they decide to cut you loose. No use patronizing a bank that is unfriendly to military families. Best of luck to you, and God Bless your husband for his service to our country!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 17, 2011 11:45:12 GMT -5
This message has been deleted. Duplicate
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 17, 2011 11:47:02 GMT -5
Schildi, it will be hard for me to forget what they tried to pull over on me, which means I won’t feel bad spreading the news around town while hoping that this prompts some people to just decide to take their business elsewhere lol.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 17, 2011 12:05:30 GMT -5
Schildi, it will be hard for me to forget what they tried to pull over on me, which means I won’t feel bad spreading the news around town while hoping that this prompts some people to just decide to take their business elsewhere lol. Oh. One point for you, gardeninggrandma! You are right, I missed that part!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 12:09:20 GMT -5
I don't really have the bandwidth to individually respond to each argument, but let me clarify for the record:
1. In all of my remarks, I was referring to jobs of a protective / service nature in which there was a chance of getting killed, not jobs which are inherently dangerous but not protective in nature, such as crab fishing.
2. Killing another soldier on the battlefield is not equivalent to murder. Full stop.
3. So if I understand you correctly, no one should ever sign up for the military as long as we're not fighting specifically to defend our freedom? I could spot some holes in that logic...
4. "Let's say "hypothetically" that I think the current war is bullshit. People are still getting killed. It's no less noble of them to get killed on the job during a bullshit war than it is for them to get killed on the job during a non-bullshit war. "
By this logic it's no less noble for me to get killed robbing a bank than it is to get killed protecting a child from a murderer. Of course what you are doing when you're killed factors into the nobility of the act.
I was comparing war death to war death. You are comparing protective death to death during a criminal act. Apples and oranges. And my point was simply that for the soldiers that are killed in combat (and their families) it doesn't much matter whether or not the war was justified in the first place. If anything, I'd think it would be more painful to think that your family member was killed because of an unjust war than a just one.
5. Just because the military is not currently "defending our freedom" doesn't mean that it's not an important function - one which, if it ever became necessary again, would have a lot of you singing a different tune.
6. Signing over individual freedom is a very big part of the point of joining the military. If you're planning to just refuse to serve in a war you don't believe in, you might as well not sign up at all. And I will grant that in the current reality, that probably translates into not joining the army if you're against its current actions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 12:18:44 GMT -5
"6. Signing over individual freedom is a very big part of the point of joining the military. If you're planning to just refuse to serve in a war you don't believe in, you might as well not sign up at all."
Not in a democracy!!!! That is actually our ultimate safe guard against dictatorship.
2. Killing another soldier on the battlefield is not equivalent to murder.
It is if you are trying to occupy their country for no good reason and they are just defending it.
|
|
qofcc
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,869
|
Post by qofcc on Mar 17, 2011 12:35:04 GMT -5
Yes, but... it's not really a choice you're free to make once you sign on for military service. You don't get to just arbitrarily decide "hey, I don't agree with this one so I'm going to sit it out if you don't mind" and get away with it.
Signing over individual freedom is a very big part of the point of joining the military. If you're planning to just refuse to serve in a war you don't believe in, you might as well not sign up at all. And I will grant that in the current reality, that probably translates into not joining the army if you're against its current actions.
And right there is a big problem with the military. We need a volunteer army trained and ready to protect our country if we're attacked and God bless the brave souls and their families who are willing to do that, but these men should have the right to say HELL NO when someone tells them to do something they believe is wrong.
Anyone signing up for the army should have known what they were getting into and been smart enough to look past the lies and promises of recruiters, but I feel really sorry for the guys in the National Guard who thought they were agreeing to defend their country on American soil only and then the government went and changed the rules in the middle of the game and sent them off to war overseas.
And no, I don't think people should be allowed to join the military to get the education and other benefits with the idea they can just bail when times are tough, but I think the whole idea of signing away individual freedom is just wrong and against what we stand for as a country.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 12:42:50 GMT -5
"3. So if I understand you correctly, no one should ever sign up for the military as long as we're not fighting specifically to defend our freedom? I could spot some holes in that logic... "
Should you sign up because it's a job and treat it the same way you would other career decisions? Absolutely. Should you sign up because of some misguided sense that you're doing something noble? Nope. I know lots of people who joined the military because it was a good job for their level of education, it paid for school, it gave them a chance to do things they liked like physical fitness. I think those are all fine reasons. They didn't join because they watched GI Joe and had some misguided fantasy about what our military does though.
Understanding me correctly would basically amount to "it's not really anything noble to sign up for the military unless we are fighting specifially to defend our freedom".
"2. Killing another soldier on the battlefield is not equivalent to murder. Full stop."
It is when our definition of "soldier" is "anyone we don't particularly like", or "anyone who doesn't do what we say".
"1. In all of my remarks, I was referring to jobs of a protective / service nature in which there was a chance of getting killed, not jobs which are inherently dangerous but not protective in nature, such as crab fishing. "
I'm not sure what you mean by "service nature", but the crux of the argument is that the military is not engaging in a job of a protective nature.
"If anything, I'd think it would be more painful to think that your family member was killed because of an unjust war than a just one. "
I agree fully. However painful does not equal nobility. "And I will grant that in the current reality, that probably translates into not joining the army if you're against its current actions. "
Right, so then that means the "they can't choose which wars to fight" doesn't hold much weight. The course of the US military hasn't done some abrupt change in the past few years. We weren't at one point defending our homeland from invasion and all of a sudden using the people who signed up for that in a war over oil in the Middle East. We're pretty much fighting the same wars and same kinds of wars we have been. If you're in the military and you make the argument that you believe in that kind of use of the military, that's fine and I can respect that. I just don't think you can claim you had no choice which wars to fight. It's been this way for decades now, we've been fighting the same kind of wars since anyone who's in the military joined it really. I would have more empathy for someone who joined over one issue and now is being told to fight some completely different type...but they're not. You dont' get to choose which war you are sent to, but you know full well the types of wars that are options.
"I was comparing war death to war death. You are comparing protective death to death during a criminal act. Apples and oranges."
It's not apples to oranges. It's comparing killing someone because you are protecting someone else. And killing someone because someone has what you want to take. If you really want to get specific though, we can change "robbing a bank" to "killing someone while invading their home".
Since you want to compare war death to war death though I would ask you which country the United States is in a current war with? There is no war death, there is only "we're going to break in and do what we want and if you oppose us we kill you" death. That's very comparable to a break-in scenario.
"5. Just because the military is not currently "defending our freedom" doesn't mean that it's not an important function - one which, if it ever became necessary again"
It is important. But in the same way that painful does not equal noble, neither does important equal noble. Lots of jobs are important, the military included.
In general you're mistaking my claims that it's not a job more noble than other jobs as a claim it's not important. That's not what I think. I don't think being a farmer and growing food is a job that's more noble than others and should grant your spouse special privileges at her private sector job...I still think it's important though. There's a difference between "no one should do this" and "I dont' think doing this entitles your family to special perks above other families".
You're being paid to go out and enforce US political agenda around the world. I don't think there's anythign wrong with people who do that. That's your job and there's nothing wrong with being proud of your job. There's just nothing inherently noble in it moreso than anyone else who has a job IMO.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 12:44:48 GMT -5
"but I feel really sorry for the guys in the National Guard who thought they were agreeing to defend their country on American soil only and then the government went and changed the rules in the middle of the game and sent them off to war overseas. "
I agree. I feel badly for people who thought (and had reason to think) they were going in for one reason, and then are used for another. That's not the case for the active military though. We haven't changed course on those branches.
|
|