Why do people hate the army?

[minimacker]

You don't hate the soldiers, but you hate the system. Military budgets are absolutely mindblowing. A single fighterplane could fund an entire foreign refugee camp for years.

 

[Shadowkire]

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

Not an example of what the other guy was talking about, but a general rebuttal to your entire stance as I perceive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61?66 percent, regardless of time or place."

This counters your arguments(or just opinions?) that single out soldiers for use of lethal force under orders when the majority of the human race would kill others under orders even in non-combat scenarios.

 

[Shadowkire]

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

Not an example of what the other guy was talking about, but a general rebuttal to your entire stance as I perceive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61?66 percent, regardless of time or place."

This counters your arguments(or just opinions?) that single out soldiers for use of lethal force under orders when the majority of the human race would kill others under orders even in non-combat scenarios.

No, it doesn't counter my argument. Anyone in that situation that does it is responsible. That others would also is no excuse.

But further, what you're ignoring is that they agreed to put themselves in that situation PRIOR to any such influence. It's like getting drunk then driving a car and claiming that any drunk person would crash.

I would like to take a moment and say I do agree with you that such people are responsible for their actions. However your use of the word "exuse" would imply you mean "blame", and while some does lay with the individual much of the blame lies with the species itself.

I did not ignore anything, in the experiment these people knew they would be delivering shocks, they were informed by the receiver of the shocks that he had a heart condition and finally when the target of the shocks stopped responding altogether they continued to deliver greater(and even lethal) shocks.

These many, varied, average people in the course of a few hours went from not meaning any harm to murder with a little goading. This points to a flaw in the species itself, which weakens your drunk driver analogy. You can control when you are drunk, you can't control your race.

To try and clarify my argument: There is no doubt the soldiers are responsible for their actions, but is there any blame to place?

 

[Baby Tea]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I hate the army because I view them as glorified killers.

If we lost WW1 or WW2, we would go down in history as the evil empire that was overthrown. History is always written by those who win, and war is a battle of who can slaughter the most people.

This is because I have no love for my country in and of itself. There are people in my country who I love, and who I would personally fight for, but Canada itself gets no love from me. I could be living in any other country and not be bothered.

I put in bold that last part, because it shows that you really haven't researched this stance.
Let's move you to Iraq! Or Somalia! That could be fun, eh? I'm sure you'd have the EXACT same living experience as you do here in Canada (I'm also Canadian). Or Cuba! Let's move you there! And not the resort areas that only tourists go to. No, I'm talking REAL Cuba. Or how about Greece! Good luck finding a job! Or perhaps Haiti would be a nice place to live! Sure you've got thousands of people still displaced from the earthquake, but I'm sure your living experience would still be the same.

I could keep going.

Look, I'm not huge on nationalism. I'm certainly not all 'RAH RAH CANADA!', I don't really give a crap about the Olympics and if we won medals or host the games themselves. Any of that nationalistic tripe. However, It's painfully obvious that there are far far worse places to live in the world. You could not live in 'any other country' and 'not be bothered'. You'd be very, very bothered.

And if you honestly think of soldiers as 'glorified killers', then you've never met or talked to one. My Grandfather fought in the Dutch underground in WW2. He was also the nicest, kindest man I've ever met. He didn't fight to kill people. He fought to save them from an invading force. He helped save hundreds of Jews from the hands of the Nazis, ambushed convoys, and, yes, shot Nazi soldiers. Even assassinated a local officer in an alley with a single shot to the face. But he would never talk about it. Not to his grandkids, at least. He didn't do it for glory or medals or recognition. He did it because his family, his neighbours, and his country was worth fighting for. It was the right thing to do.

And if anyone invaded Canada, I'd step up to that plate myself. I hate the idea of killing someone. I think violence is a poor man's answer to greater questions. But I also believe that my family, my neighbours, my country and what it stands for is worth fighting for. And I'll be damned before I let someone take that away.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I respect all the humanitarian work you people do, but I can't support any form of killing.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I was in active duty both before and after 9/11, and I feel that a lot of people's opinions of the military are influenced by current trends, but also by a lot of misconceptions and assumptions. Especially when they don't know any military people, themselves.

What I don't understand is why hate on the soldiers? As far as I'm aware, you don't decide what conflicts to start/join/'finish', you just want to do your part to defend your country. It doesn't mean you want there to be conflict, but if there is one, you want to be there to deal with it (I'd hope by being a good person and not making things any worse than they need to be) rather than leaving the risk and responsibility to someone you've never met.

If anything, a soldier can be honourable and worthy of respect even in the worst of conflicts, and they can be dishonourable and shameful in the best of times. If you have an issue with the war being fought, then take it out on those responsible, not on those just trying to make the best of a bad situation by risking their lives.

TL;DR:

Hating on the soldiers because you disagree with what the army is doing is like hating on the road-workers because you disagree with what the council is doing.

 

[RubyT]

I hate the Army - but I don't hate soldiers.

Soldiers are among the bottom rung of society. They get a disproportionate amount of "respect", but in the end, most people would consider the armed services last on a list of jobs. Because in the end, soldiers are like garbage men that are sent to out to die. No, I think they are even worse off. If you consider salary, working hours and risk.

I hate the "support of the troops", because even in this age of information people still don't get that war is always politics; and thus a tool of economic interest. I hate it when people think soldiers are heroes slaying evil dragons. It's maddening that this kind of demagogy still works.

It's serves as a glorification of what the Army does. Which is bad. It probably draws more people to this shitty job. And more importantly, it clouds any kind of objective discussion about the US military-industrial complex and American hegemony. Because indicating that the USAF aren't heroes makes you ungrateful and unamerican.

To sum it up: I despise the Army, but I pity the soldiers.

 

[willsham45]

In general the army is fine, it is where the army is directed that is the problem. Modern wars are not for our interests they are for the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
They are expensive and too big.
We get all this shit about the budgets but if we brought all the troops home we would not have to pay for expensive equipment that goes boom.
We are fighting other peoples wars.
Our army should only be there to protect against direct threats to the country, not some desert dwellers thousands of miles away. Or at least not in the numbers they are currently in.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

While I don't hate the army I don't care for it much and intensely dislike what I see as undeserved praise for it. They're useful as a deterrent to being attacked, but other than that I don't see much legitimate need for them to be going elsewhere at the moment. Libya was useful. Conflicts in the Middle East at the moment? Not so much. As such I do not think they deserve any respect for being there in a conflict we shouldn't have started. They're fixing up what they screwed up at best.

Shouldn't have started? Several goverments in the middle east actively sponsored terrorism and Afghanistan was fucking led by the Taliban.

Was there a fucking peaceful alternative? Al-Qaeda had performed a terrorist attack on american soil that killed 3000 people, and the local goverments sure as hell weren't going to stop them.

If your complaining about how the war went, than I'll probably agree with you on a lot of stuff, but it pretty much HAD to happen.

 

[Stu35]

To sum it up: I despise the Army, but I pity the soldiers.

I don't want your pity. It is borne of ignorance. You know nothing about me, my life, or where I and my colleagues sit on the social ladder.

I get paid well above the national average for someone of my age - and thanks to operational bonuses I recently became a homeowner, and have enough money to pay for a pretty decent wedding, as well as having spent the last 2 years working towards a 2nd degree (having already had one before joining the Army). So yeah, I sit quite well on the Social ladder given that I'm just a poor, ignorant soldier.

As for 'getting sent out to die'. It's a risk, I'll grant you, but I distinctly recall that my tour of Afghanistan mostly centred around providing infrastructure support to the people of Nad-e Ali, who were in dire need of schools, medical clinics, wells, etc. etc. - The reason being that the Taliban had held control of that area for a very long time, and we had only recently moved our troops in. We found that the Taliban had failed to properly maintain the irrigation systems (because they killed half the Mirabs(Engineers responsible for irrigation in Afghanistan, usually local nationals who have had the job passed down father to son)), which led to a pretty shitty harvest.

We were able to fix them up, train up some new Mirabs, and get things back on track.


...

So wait, where was I?

... Oh yeah, I was being a poor soldier, sent to the middle east to die so that David Cameron can have cheap oil.

Despite the fact that 1. Helmand doesn't have oil, 2. It's not in the middle east either. 3. Petrol in the UK is fucking RIDICULOUSLY priced now.

 

[clayschuldt]

This is kind of odd, because I've never really encountered anti-army sentiment in my normal life. I am not in the military, but my dad is a Vietnam veteran and I have other friends and family in the miltary. I haven't really heard any of them ever complain about someone hating on the military.

I guess I am from a small town, that probably plays a factor. Also it sounds like a lot of anti-military comments come from the intoxicated. The most popular bar in my hometown is the Legion...

Well, I guess I figured out the contradiction by myself.

I think the negative view of soldiers might be from two sources: first the media's recent attempts to praise the soldiers and critisize the war. Some people cannot seperate the people from the act. You get the 'all war is terrible' thought causing some to jump to the conclusion that all soldiers are terrible.

My second theory is that, while most people support the troops there is a subgroup of people who cannot tolerate universal agreement, (hippsters) and therefore must hate what the majority loves.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

It may be an over simplification or dived by zero zippyisim but the hatred is not to the army/soldiers persay. Its more mis focused anger they get caught up in the cross fire between the job and the morons that send to do that job.

Personally No one is to blame but congress.

 

[Phototoxin]

Sorry but as an Irishman I cannot see why anyone would disrespect the Irish Army. Its not like they have the history that the US, UK or pretty much any other major country has. We are a small semi-neutral country mostly dedicated to peacekeeping. Slating the army is all but idiotic. While I don't agree with war as a solution I think that a peacekeeping defensive force is the best use of an army.

That guy was just an epic douche!

 

[afroebob]

patriotism is bad because it means you hate everyone that isn't from your country.

That is really really really... dumb. To say the very least. I'm a patriot, I love my country but I'm friends with a kid from Kenya who was in my class last year. I had a friend in middle school from the Dominican Republic. So I guess either I'm misinterpreting my own beliefs or opinions on people I know or your an idiot who goes on the internet and and bitches about shit just to get attention.

To sum it up: I despise the Army, but I pity the soldiers.

I don't want your pity. It is borne of ignorance. You know nothing about me, my life, or where I and my colleagues sit on the social ladder.

I get paid well above the national average for someone of my age - and thanks to operational bonuses I recently became a homeowner, and have enough money to pay for a pretty decent wedding, as well as having spent the last 2 years working towards a 2nd degree (having already had one before joining the Army). So yeah, I sit quite well on the Social ladder given that I'm just a poor, ignorant soldier.

As for 'getting sent out to die'. It's a risk, I'll grant you, but I distinctly recall that my tour of Afghanistan mostly centred around providing infrastructure support to the people of Nad-e Ali, who were in dire need of schools, medical clinics, wells, etc. etc. - The reason being that the Taliban had held control of that area for a very long time, and we had only recently moved our troops in. We found that the Taliban had failed to properly maintain the irrigation systems (because they killed half the Mirabs(Engineers responsible for irrigation in Afghanistan, usually local nationals who have had the job passed down father to son)), which led to a pretty shitty harvest.

We were able to fix them up, train up some new Mirabs, and get things back on track.


...

So wait, where was I?

... Oh yeah, I was being a poor soldier, sent to the middle east to die so that David Cameron can have cheap oil.

Despite the fact that 1. Helmand doesn't have oil, 2. It's not in the middle east either. 3. Petrol in the UK is fucking RIDICULOUSLY priced now.

Just want you to know... your a boss. Put them bitches in their place.

 

[Sarge034]

Spoiler: text wall

Incidentally, no, I don't like the police. I don't think they're "evil" though. That's just stupid.

So closer to the point you group the military and the police in the same category. People who go out with the basic guidelines to follow lawful orders and protect you while putting themselves in harm's way and you dislike them. Would you enjoy living in a world without anyone risking their neck to protect you? I wouldn't.

Wikileaks revealed a fair amount of cover ups complete with video footage.

Ah yes, wikileaks. First evaluate your source. A disgruntled soldier steals classified materials and hands the material to, of all things, wikileaks. It is unknown if any of the information was doctored by the traitor or by anyone at wikileaks. There was no secondary conformation or sources.

I'm not saying that some, or all, of these things didn't happen. I am saying we must be wary and try to fact check the stories before we take it as fact. As such I must speak to each example separately.

There were the Haditha killings where 24 civilians were killed and the result of the whole thing was that the guy in charge was demoted and had some pay confiscated.

I forget was Haditha the incident where the chopper fired on the crowd and the reporter because the crowd was firing in the air in the chopper's general direction (which I feel was justified) or was it one of the many house /village clearings that have gone wrong for one reason or another?

If it was the chopper scenario the only reason the CO was docked pay and rank was because the military had to show that they did something even though the attack was justified. People would say that the military was covering things up otherwise.

If it was a house/village clearing gone wrong I would need to see the specific details to determine if the killings were justified or not.

There has also been a very recent case of a man who killed sixteen civilians (nine children) who won't be tried for two years. We'll see how that goes.

Correction, that worthless waste of space murdered 16 people. And how long does it take for someone to get tried for murder in the US? Answer, 2-10 years. You are taking this guy's court schedule out of context because you want to see a cover up or conspiracy.

I'm tired of people who justify shootings by saying the soldiers believed they were at risk. They say they were being attacked by insurgents.

Ok, the ROE at the beginning of the invasion was that of open warfare. Anyone who posed, or seemed to pose, a threat to the troops were considered combatants and if they failed to stop posing a threat to the troops they were neutralized. The ROE then went to peacekeeping mode that you can only fire when fired upon. Clearer for you now?

I wonder why there are so many attacks on US soldiers? Oh yeah, because we have absolutely no justification for being in their country.

There are so many attacks on US soldiers because we are disrupting the terrorist's comfy living arrangements. We stopped the terrorists training camps in Iraq, we took back the Afghan government, we have severely hindered their drug operations, and we have disrupted their cash flows.

If we have no justification for being in their country what justification did they have to come into ours? If retaliation is not a justification I don't know what is.

It's like an armed robber breaking into someone's house and then complaining "The occupant shot at me!"

Straw man, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

That bit you quoted as evidence isn't saying that they're all bad. It is saying that they're almost invariably stupid. However, it is possible to sign up with the best of intentions, especially if you fail to understand the part about your country being run by assholes.

You compared them all to drunk drivers. So either you are saying all soldiers are bad or you are saying that all drunk drivers are good. Either one is a pretty damning statement.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. At worst it was a bad analogy.

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

Problem?

In both cases that I called you out on you misrepresented my position in your analogies so you could vilify my position and easily look like your side was the obvious right answer. i.e. straw man.

 

[Chunga the Great]

4) the biggest crime committed in a war is never anything the soldiers do. The worst atrocity in every war is that the war was started in the first place by greedy old men who would never fire a single shot. Yeah, I'm putting blame on politicians that don't give a crap, just like a psychotic doesn't give a crap about his victims. So sue me =P

They carry out the orders of those greedy old men. They are essentially their paid lackeys. They agreed to do whatever it is they told them to do in exchange for money. Like any job, except they knew what kind of people their employers were.

No. The old men who start wars can't even spell war, let alone fight one. (which is a very serious flaw we should all be concerned about, but whatever) Soldiers carry out the orders of their immediate superior officers, who give orders so they and their men will stay alive.

They're still doing what the politicians want, even if they aren't taking direct orders from them on the lowest level. It all goes back to whoever declared the war. It's nonsense to ignore the link.

Frankly, once the war is started, the army doesn't have much choice other than to fight, because otherwise the army they declared war on is going to attack completely unopposed and steamroll them. Then you're right back to square one, just with different greedy old men. Possibly speaking a different language.

Let's look at the modern wars we've been having, shall we? Point out the one where the enemy army would have come over to our country and steam rolled our army. Your country or my country, assuming you live in one that is typical of the first world nations most posters on here are from.

And besides, do you know why they don't have much of a choice? Because they gave up that choice when they signed up. So responsibility for that still falls on them. There's no way to magically sign away your responsibility for the actions you perform when you put yourself into that situation knowing what could happen.

So yeah, still the politi- i mean greedy old men who do the worst.

Not really. People who follow the orders are as bad as the people who give them, even if there is a degree of separation in the orders.

So the 19 year old kid who signed up because he cant afford college is a greedy fuckhead who wants to make as much money off of peoples' suffering as possible and maybe kill a few terrorists to bolster his popularity?

You're the one who just suggested he's a greedy fuckhead who wants to make money off people's suffering. I'm just saying he's responsible for whatever orders he follows just as if he decided to do it on his own. Though I'd say to even put oneself into the position of having to follow orders in such a manner might be morally irresponsible and thus blameworthy, depending on the track record of the guys you're trusting to give orders.

But seriously, do keep the strawmen out of this. I expect bias, but you're pretty over the top in your blatant display of a lack of integrity when you pull that garbage out that has nothing to do with my post.

Not to mention that not everybody in the military sees combat. It's pretty much the opposite. you can train for front-line combat, but the chances are you'll never even go to the Middle East.

And? Point to where I said everyone in the military did. Or maybe apologize for the strawman if intellectual integrity means anything to you.

There's no way of knowing where you will end up if you join the military, but it probably won't be "voluntarily carrying out the orders of assholes because everybody in the military is evil"

Oh, more strawmen! I guess integrity really isn't your thing. I never said they were all evil. They all signed up for following orders though. Not knowing where they will end up is not an excuse. If they follow the orders they're as guilty as whoever ordered them to do it.

Damn, you really love to act like you're better than everyone else.

It's not hard when the other guy stoops to such blatant misrepresentations. It's pretty much a given when the other guy's conduct goes that low that I've got to act better.

My point (because apparently you missed it) is that soldiers are controlled by a small cadre of idiots and it's not the soldiers' fault when they are used for bad things (except in the most direct cases of course).

And my point is that it is their fault because they agreed to follow those orders. This is not hard to follow. All your points were irrelevant to this.

When somebody is fighting thousands of miles from home in some cesspit, they don't think about "is this order morally positive or negative?" they just want to make it through the next day and eventually return home.

Which doesn't excuse him. Oh boohoo, it's tough for him. Too bad he put himself in that position by agreeing to be used when he joined the army. Always his responsibility to consider the morality of his actions.

There is simply not enough time to sit there and think about whether or not the order you have been given is a good one or a bad one.

If they can't think that fast they shouldn't put themselves in that situation. But they did and they're responsible for it.

And saying that by signing up you are automatically agreeing is just ridiculous.

Give a good reason why signing up in a position that you know you'll need to follow orders without much choice is not agreeing to follow orders.

As I said, most people who sign up for the military will never see combat. It's not possible to tell where you will go when you sign up and very few people who sign up want to go and see combat anyway.

The chance was there. They were willing to take that risk. As I pointed out, to take such a risk might be blameworthy in and of itself. And they then follow orders and go ahead and do it. So they're responsible for it. Not hard.

It's impossible to be so black and white on an issue such as this.

Your disbelief is not a valid argument. Kind of like the strawmen.

Sure, there are definitely people who see combat who never should have been given a weapon in the first place and use :I was just following orders" as an excuse for murder, but at the same time, that doesn't make every person who joins the organization those lunatics are in an active supporter of what they want (to kill people) and what the higher-ups are doing.

There is no more active support than actually carrying out their orders. Words are cheap, actions show where you stand. I never said they supported the lunatics in the organization, though if they argue on their behalf they're guilty as well, but I do say they are necessarily active supports of what they higher ups are doing. Because they're actually carrying out the orders. Sorry, but you can't carry out orders and disavow the moral responsibility of those actions.

The vast majority of soldiers simply want to make it through their time in the military with a clean conscience, but it's the dipshits in power that use them for evil.

Then they shouldn't have agreed to follow orders from those in power. But they did, so they're responsible for what they do. They're not merely tools, they're people with moral agency and they can't just hide behind the fact they were given orders.

There's a guy named Bob. He works at a car garage. A car comes in and the owner, who is friends with Bob's boss, asks Bob to put in a new gas tank. Bob agrees. Bob's boss asks him to put in a specific tank, so Bob does. The tank is put in and the owner pays. He drives away and everything is normal. The next day, 2 cops show up at Bob's door. Apparently, Bob's boss and the car's owner had been smuggling drugs around the country through various means. The tank had a very small compartment in which the police found cocaine. The police arrest Bob and he goes to court. He is found guilty because "he signed up for the job so he obviously knows about the bad things his boss was using him for, even though most of the things Bob was told to do were perfectly fine."

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

This is the kind of situation where the soldier carrying out the order should not be held responsible. The military will never tell the soldiers exactly why they want them to do something, and as such the pilots figured it was just another bombing sortie. In the end it's the man who ordered the sortie launched who is responsible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_Lai_Massacre

Here, on the other hand, is a situation where the commanders and the soldiers should absolutely be held responsible. There are incidents where the soldiers should and shouldn't be held responsible, and most of the time they shouldn't. An incident like the Amiriyah Bombing is far more likely to occur than an incident like Mai Lai due to the fact that the military will hold back information about targets on purpose. In most cases it's impossible for the soldiers to tell what will happen because of their actions and because of this they shouldn't be held accountable. I'm not saying all cases, but most.

 

[Sarge034]

You know, before you go and try to poison the well you should at least figure out who you're talking about. Wikipedia has nothing to do with it.

Pardon me. Having never been to wikileaks due to the fact that they are enemies of the state disseminating classified material I assumed that it was part of the wikimedia foundation. I came to this conclusion based of the fact that the wikimedia foundation has wikipedia, wikibooks, wikiversity, wiktionary, wikiquote, wikispecies, wikinews, and wikisource so why not wikileaks? However, seeing as I was incorrect I will correct the information.

"Ah yes, wikileaks. First evaluate your source. A disgruntled soldier steals classified materials and hands the material to, of all things, wikileaks. It is unknown if any of the information was doctored by the traitor or by anyone at wikileaks. There was no secondary conformation or sources.

I'm not saying that some, or all, of these things didn't happen. I am saying we must be wary and try to fact check the stories before we take it as fact. As such I must speak to each example separately."


Better?

 

[emeraldrafael]

i dont hate the army. I dont particularly agree with the wars they fight in but thats not them thats the government. I dont particularly enjoy the individuals in it but dicks will be dicks. I understand the need for an army and sincerely appreciate what tehy do for their county.

 

[flames09]

I don't get it, do you hate the modern 1945 -> U.S military or are you just throwing hate at all ages, nations and peoples?

 

[Total LOLige]

patriotism is bad because it means you hate everyone that isn't from your country.

That is really really really... dumb. To say the very least. I'm a patriot, I love my country but I'm friends with a kid from Kenya who was in my class last year. I had a friend in middle school from the Dominican Republic. So I guess either I'm misinterpreting my own beliefs or opinions on people I know or your an idiot who goes on the internet and and bitches about shit just to get attention.

You sir are an idiot. It's like you read the first sentence of my post and then quoted me to tell me I'm a total dipshit. If you had bothered to read all of the replies in this thread you would have seen that I clarified what I meant by my post after I got quoted a number of times and told that my definition of patriotism is wrong you wouldn't have needed to quote me. Read between the lines of my post and the general tone and you'd have seen I wasn't attacking patriots.



Here is what I meant when I was talking about patriotism. There is absolutely no need to be such an arse about it. The other three people that quoted me about it were polite not asshats like you. You very post is why people associate patriotism with hatred.

I know the difference between patriotism and nationalism, what I meant was that people that hate the army tend to view patriotism as nationalism. I should have been clearer.

My original post so you can read ALL of it and not the first fucking sentence.

It seems if you respect the army you're a patriot, and patriotism is bad because it means you hate everyone that isn't from your country. I've had a few 'debates' with escapist members about 'patriotism' every time I say I respect soldiers people rag on me and tell me that I'm a terrible person that should die in a hole.