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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is an option, but it is hard to prove, see my above post.

It should be hard to prove, otherwise you'll get everyone trying to do it for reasons as spurious as:

"I'm not fighting for a Muslim-Kenyan Usurper"

[Teddy B 17,252]

All I'm saying is that a person should be able to. I'm not saying it should be easy or absent scrutiny, but it should be a possibility.

I realise it's not a popular idea.

I think it's not a popular idea because it's really not a feasible idea. There are simply too many negative effects that come along with it, including loss of life and liberty. A military divided amongst itself is a weak military.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

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.

If the General had worked directly for me, I would have been there. I am several degrees removed from him, though I recognize his sacrifice and the uniqueness of his death. But he signed up, he served he dies in combat, as have thousands before him. I wouldn't expect the president to attend ALL military funerals, but considering the General was a direct underling, it would have been way cool to have attended. It's something Bush would have probably done. Playing gold wasn't a viable excuse for not attending, IMHO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's not a popular idea because it's really not a feasible idea. There are simply too many negative effects that come along with it, including loss of life and liberty. A military divided amongst itself is a weak military.

I don't buy the idea that it would significantly weaken the military.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

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.

and the us military is a volunteer force. it could be said they made their own decision.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and the us military is a volunteer force. it could be said they made their own decision.

Of course.

Speaking hypoethically, did the guy who passionately signed up to defend his country after 9/11 necessarily see himself fighting for private oil interests in Iraq? I'm not so sure.

It's a valid point of view.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That would be correct if it is indeed one's nation. But it isn't. Immigrants - regardless of status - must register. It's not their nation, is it? And even for those born and raised here - there are people that cannot reconcile their beliefs with picking up a gun and going off killing other people. They just can't. And they ought to be afforded a way to serve without having to do that.

Registering for selective service means little, considering there hasn't been a draft since 1973. But if you reside in the USA, regardless of your reason for leaving your country, you can be called to fight for the USA if the draft is re-instated. Don't like those odds? Then leave the country, young immigrant. Freedom isn't free, and sometimes you gotta play the odds, eh?

Thankfully, there have been enough volunteers since 1973 that folks have not had to serve against their will.

Edited August 18, 2014 by DavenRoxy

[JohnR! 5,495]

If the General had worked directly for me, I would have been there. I am several degrees removed from him, though I recognize his sacrifice and the uniqueness of his death. But he signed up, he served he dies in combat, as have thousands before him. I wouldn't expect the president to attend ALL military funerals, but considering the General was a direct underling, it would have been way cool to have attended. It's something Bush would have probably done. Playing gold wasn't a viable excuse for not attending, IMHO.

I agree with you. I think he should have attended, but I also believe there is something other than schedule to be considered. SecDef was present representing the government, so that pretty much discredits the Tweet used by the op for thread, in the absence of credible information. We don't know why he did not attend the funeral.

One thing to consider though is that funerals are private, no matter who the deceased is. Ultimately this soldier belongs to his family and his service notwithstanding, We The People have no claim to him other than that. Under this light, it is possible that the POTUS decided to let the family have their private moment of grief, and by not attending, he denied the media the opportunity to transform this private affair into a circus. Fact is, we don't know.

What I do know is that none of those who are here expressing their feigned outrage managed to post anything on the day of the funeral to honor this American hero. They are no better than he POTUS.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

All I'm saying is that a person should be able to. I'm not saying it should be easy or absent scrutiny, but it should be a possibility.

I realise it's not a popular idea.

The popularity of the idea is not the question. It's the feasibility of it. Having not served in the military, I know you may not be well-versed in the intricacies of daily duty, but I'm sure you know that you pretty much do what you are told or get the boot.

As to what your main point is (if I understand you correctly), I disagree with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, considering what I know today. Unfortunately, I was not personally consulted as to the decision of starting those wars, so had no say. As a civilian, you have the right to protest or say anything you want. As a member of the military services, such actions can get you kicked out and/or thrown in jail. Unlike a conventional marriage, you sign up for a particular amount of time. And unlike a conventional marriage, once you say "I DO", you don't have any good options for changing your mind.

"...Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die:..."

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I don't buy the idea that it would significantly weaken the military.

ABSOLUTELY it would. In the military, following orders is the norm. Provided said orders are not amoral nor illegal, they must be obeyed, or you face punishment. It's a military, not a democracy. I'm not saying I am a fan of that, but I understand the necessity of maintaining good order and discipline, and as long I agree to serve, I must follow the rules of that organization.

It's quite different than adhering to the TOS here... a break down in military discipline can cost many, many people their lives.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Of course.

Speaking hypoethically, did the guy who passionately signed up to defend his country after 9/11 necessarily see himself fighting for private oil interests in Iraq? I'm not so sure.

It's a valid point of view. irrelevant.

Fixed for you. You are allowed to have that POV, not so much the guy or gal who signed on the dotted line (technically, it's a solid line these days). Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors (etc.) don't get to choose the conflict they attend and fight in. It's decided by the president and congress. It's just luck of the draw as to which units are chosen to go, and when.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The popularity of the idea is not the question. It's the feasibility of it. Having not served in the military, I know you may not be well-versed in the intricacies of daily duty, but I'm sure you know that you pretty much do what you are told or get the boot.

As to what your main point is (if I understand you correctly), I disagree with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, considering what I know today. Unfortunately, I was not personally consulted as to the decision of starting those wars, so had no say. As a civilian, you have the right to protest or say anything you want. As a member of the military services, such actions can get you kicked out and/or thrown in jail. Unlike a conventional marriage, you sign up for a particular amount of time. And unlike a conventional marriage, once you say "I DO", you don't have any good options for changing your mind.

"...Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die:..."

I get all of that - I'm just giving an opinion. I think if you fight in a unjust war, it sort of makes you complicit in it. The idea that people have all choice taken away from them for fear of jail or being called a coward is simply removing what should be (and are) reasonable reservations about having to fight for something that is pretty far removed from the national interest.

On the bolded, that is not correct. All of those conflicts were controversial at the time, when they were being discussed in political circles. It's not a question of hindsight being a wonderful thing. On the specific example of Iraq, the correct term would be 'foresight', since it was obvious to many people (even as far back as 1991) of what the result of that invasion would be - and it has played out more or less exactly like that. Thousands of US servicemen and women dead, and perhaps more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed.

IMO that is a horrific crime that someone should be held criminally accountable for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ABSOLUTELY it would. In the military, following orders is the norm. Provided said orders are not amoral nor illegal, they must be obeyed, or you face punishment. It's a military, not a democracy. I'm not saying I am a fan of that, but I understand the necessity of maintaining good order and discipline, and as long I agree to serve, I must follow the rules of that organization.

It's quite different than adhering to the TOS here... a break down in military discipline can cost many, many people their lives.

Well that's a complete assumption. It might be your opinion, but it isn't fact.

I honestly have no idea how many people would avail themselves of an opt-out option, were it to be offered. Enough to dangerously undermine troop levels? Has there been any research on this?

[Karee 4,191]

I get all of that - I'm just giving an opinion. I think if you fight in a unjust war, it sort of makes you complicit in it. The idea that people have all choice taken away from them for fear of jail or being called a coward is simply removing what should be (and are) reasonable reservations about having to fight for something that is pretty far removed from the national interest.

On the bolded, that is not correct. All of those conflicts were controversial at the time, when they were being discussed in political circles. It's not a question of hindsight being a wonderful thing. On the specific example of Iraq, the correct term would be 'foresight', since it was obvious to many people (even as far back as 1991) of what the result of that invasion would be - and it has played out more or less exactly like that. Thousands of US servicemen and women dead, and perhaps more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed.

IMO that is a horrific crime that someone should be held criminally accountable for.

Getting involved in any war is always controversial. The U.S. sat out WWII for two years until Pearl Harbor. Some wars you have to fight whether it's the politically correct thing to do at the time. Afghanistan was one of those. Iraq, not so much.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I get all of that - I'm just giving an opinion. I think if you fight in a unjust war, it sort of makes you complicit in it. The idea that people have all choice taken away from them for fear of jail or being called a coward is simply removing what should be (and are) reasonable reservations about having to fight for something that is pretty far removed from the national interest.

On the bolded, that is not correct. All of those conflicts were controversial at the time, when they were being discussed in political circles. It's not a question of hindsight being a wonderful thing. On the specific example of Iraq, the correct term would be 'foresight', since it was obvious to many people (even as far back as 1991) of what the result of that invasion would be - and it has played out more or less exactly like that. Thousands of US servicemen and women dead, and perhaps more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed.

IMO that is a horrific crime that someone should be held criminally accountable for.

Not saying your opinion is wrong, just that it is coming from a civilian POV. Military folks give up the freedom to act or say as you do when they join. And as I said before, I have never talked to a military person, or heck, much of ANY other human, who thought we needed to be in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the bolded - I was a bit too young to understand or care about the Vietnam stuff, hence my wording. I've had first-hand experience in the other two. So I'm not saying hindsight is how I am judging the issues. I've been there, eaten the dust, breathed the chemicals, drank the (thankfully bottled) water... and I don't see how us being there has made one bit of difference. But I dind't tell anyone I wasn't going, didn't try to get out of it, I did what I was told because it was the legal and moral thing to do based on a contract I had signed. Many years prior, I might add.

Go back as far as you want in history... men have fought for leaders because it was the honorable/noble thing to do, not because they thought it was right. Some have committed murder in the name of war, and that is wrong to just about anyone with a brain in their head. But it is still happening, to one degree or another.