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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

The opt-out policy.

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.

I already said I was on-board with WW2.

You just post for effect, don't you? You don't actually read what people post.

[Teddy B 17,252]

SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:

• conservation

• caring for the very young or very old

• education

• health care

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

The "opt out" program or "conscientious objector" is nothing more than civilian life. Why join the military at all?

In my opinion the military is an all or nothing deal, there can be no in between.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The "opt out" program or "conscientious objector" is nothing more than civilian life. Why join the military at all?

In my opinion the military is an all or nothing deal, there can be no in between.

It's a question for the individual. At the end of the day, people are not robots. They have to make their own decisions about things.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's a question for the individual. At the end of the day, people are not robots. They have to make their own decisions about things.

I believe that with the military that decision needs to be made before signing on the dotted line. But once you're in, then you're all in for as long as you signed up for.

[GandD 5,966]

I wonder if your brother or sister had been killed in an "unjust cause" in service of your Country , would you argue your inane statement to infinity ? You and I would have been on the same book and page if you could, or would, understand....

If you think this is about race....browse this link to one of the most respected, humane and kind Generals I ever had the pleasure to serve. Note his comments on race

http://signal439.tripod.com/redcatcher199lib/brigade-commanders.html

BTW: I've seen you post subjects courageously...for that I admire about you

Wouldn't it make it you mad if your brother or sister was killed in an unnecessary war? I'm not taking away from the courage or sacrifice given by those in the middle east right now, but I think we as a populace should be more responsible about when we ask our soldiers to fight for us. I don't believe the Iraq war was to protect us. Even if he had WMD's, so does north Korea and Pakistan yet we have no designs on dealing with them.

I believe that with the military that decision needs to be made before signing on the dotted line. But once you're in, then you're all in for as long as you signed up for.

I agree. Anyone that joins the military should accept the very real possibility of going to war and being in combat. Its quite easy to avoid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe that with the military that decision needs to be made before signing on the dotted line. But once you're in, then you're all in for as long as you signed up for.

As I say, I don't have any problem with people who serve in uniform, either in or out of combat. I do think though that certain conflicts were not in the public interest and people should have a voice in opposing them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The "opt out" program or "conscientious objector" is nothing more than civilian life. Why join the military at all?

In my opinion the military is an all or nothing deal, there can be no in between.

Fair enough for those that make a decision to join the military. This policy, however, is regarding the selective service system which every male between 18 and 25 who is residing in the US (legally or illegally) must register for. Registering with the selective service system does not indicate in any way that one wants to join the military. It indicates instead that one follows the letter of the law and registers with the selective service system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fair enough for those that make a decision to join the military. This policy, however, is regarding the selective service system which every male between 18 and 25 who is residing in the US (legally or illegally) must register for. Registering with the selective service system does not indicate in any way that one wants to join the military. It indicates instead that one follows the letter of the law and registers with the selective service system.

Indeed. It's a limited form of conscription. Luckily I was over 26 when I applied for immigration.

I think people who volunteer should be allowed to opt-out (of serving in places like Iraq) if they have a genuine objection to the conflict.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Fair enough for those that make a decision to join the military. This policy, however, is regarding the selective service system which every male between 18 and 25 who is residing in the US (legally or illegally) must register for. Registering with the selective service system does not indicate in any way that one wants to join the military. It indicates instead that one follows the letter of the law and registers with the selective service system.

Selective service is a duty to one's nation that's not to be taken lightly. I don't think anyone in the military, no matter which avenue they took to get there, should have a right to opt out battle. Either way, it's got to be 100%.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I wholeheartedly agree 'Ex-Pat,' unfortunately it would be an insult to their sacrifice to have the circus show up.

This nut shell's the entire thread via inadvertent honesty. Those who have gobbled up the faux outrage of the original OP would just as quickly and easily found something, anything really, to be outraged about had the President attended the funeral anyway.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Selective service is a duty to one's nation that's not to be taken lightly. I don't think anyone in the military, no matter which avenue they took to get there, should have a right to opt out battle. Either way, it's got to be 100%.

By that token, it could be 100% of everything or 100% of nothing.

I don't think it should be easy to opt-out, but it's reasonable to allow people the chance if they can present a convincing, genuine argument.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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 are so not even serious ?

The "opt out" program or "conscientious objector" is nothing more than civilian life. Why join the military at all?

In my opinion the military is an all or nothing deal, there can be no in between.

There you go, and once in you served honorably. Vietnam was one big bad decision, but the men and women who served there did so honorably

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This nut shell's the entire thread via inadvertent honesty. Those who have gobbled up the faux outrage of the original OP would just as quickly and easily found something, anything really, to be outraged about had the President attended the funeral anyway.

That's the truth. If Obama had turned up, the complaint would be that that he wasn't wearing a flag pin or the right coloured tie.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You are so not even serious ?

There you go, and once in you served honorably. Vietnam was one big bad decision, but the men and women who served there did so honorably

So you took a minute to read through everything before jumping to conclusions? Awesome! See how that works?

[JohnR! 5,495]

This nut shell's the entire thread via inadvertent honesty. Those who have gobbled up the faux outrage of the original OP would just as quickly and easily found something, anything really, to be outraged about had the President attended the funeral anyway.

It's understandable. The initial post is based on a Tweet that wasn't true to begin with. As a result, feigned outrage must be derived from an alternative source.

Having said that, I also think the POTUS should have attended the funeral, even at the risk of having the motley crew decry it as a publicity stunt. However, until we hear from him what his reasons were, we can only speculate.

For all those who feign their utmost respect for this particular fallen soldier, I want to remind all that no thread was initiated on 8/5 to remind us all of this funeral. No post was made reminding us to fly our flags at half mast on that particular day. In essence, those who are criticizing the POTUS are in fact no better than him for missing the opportunity to show their respect for this man. In fact, they are far worse than the POTUS for using this funeral as their private soapbox.