4 ms·

Why is that hilarious. The alternative would be a nation that's not behind it's troops. The us would likely not be a super power. US citizens greatly benefit of

Why is that hilarious. The alternative would be a nation that's not behind it's troops. The us would likely not be a super power. US citizens greatly benefit off the super power status. Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
Feigning patriotism at a commercial sporting event is not being behind one's troops. My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.
cheetos 9y ago
This is the type of logic that leads to mandatory military parades, the banning of religion as a distraction and "Dear Leader"-style propaganda and mythology. If the military would like to do something in my benefit I request they stop destabilizing the world and causing death for profit instead of glorifying and normalizing it through state-sponsored propaganda.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gumby 9y ago
What a scary statement. First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me. Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue? And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.
grandalf 9y ago
I'm not sure if you are making this comment seriously, or intending it as hyperbole. If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force. In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress. Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today. Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo. But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.
hungerstrike 9y ago
I'd prefer that the troops be behind our nation and not the other way around, thanks! Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colechristensen 9y ago
Why should I celebrate a member my country's military any more than say a sewage plant employee or a school teacher?
0xfeba 9y ago
I'd much rather all that money be spent improving the VA, or numerous other problems veterans face after serving. Then we can talk about football flyovers.
youdontknowtho 9y ago
Just because people disagree doesn't mean they should downvote you, so I upvoted you. That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Feigning patriotism at a commercial sporting event is not being behind one's troops. My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.

cheetos 9y ago

This is the type of logic that leads to mandatory military parades, the banning of religion as a distraction and "Dear Leader"-style propaganda and mythology. If the military would like to do something in my benefit I request they stop destabilizing the world and causing death for profit instead of glorifying and normalizing it through state-sponsored propaganda.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gumby 9y ago

What a scary statement. First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me. Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue? And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.

grandalf 9y ago

I'm not sure if you are making this comment seriously, or intending it as hyperbole. If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force. In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress. Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today. Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo. But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.

hungerstrike 9y ago

I'd prefer that the troops be behind our nation and not the other way around, thanks! Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

colechristensen 9y ago

Why should I celebrate a member my country's military any more than say a sewage plant employee or a school teacher?

0xfeba 9y ago

I'd much rather all that money be spent improving the VA, or numerous other problems veterans face after serving. Then we can talk about football flyovers.

youdontknowtho 9y ago

Just because people disagree doesn't mean they should downvote you, so I upvoted you. That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.