4 ms·
> many of whom happen to be ex-military. This seems somewhat irrelevant? I know we're always supposed to be "supporting the troops", but I think you're suggest
by pbiggar 15y ago
> many of whom happen to be ex-military.
This seems somewhat irrelevant? I know we're always supposed to be "supporting the troops", but I think you're suggesting we should be supporting professions that they may later go into?
- Drbble 15y agoIt is just good sense to speak politely about a crew of thousands of people who have been specifically trained to kill without remorse.
- tomflack 15y agoThat's a terrible cop-out argument. If they're actually skilled - say so. If the bulk of the workforce isn't? Then saying so only hurts fixing the problem. If they're so unstable that being told they're not good at their job sends them in to a killing rage, they shouldn't have that job.
- rmc 15y agoOh please. Former military people aren't some inhuman robots who are going to kill you if you insult the military.
- alan_cx 15y agoWow, are US vets that tweaked? I mean, just say a bad thing about them and they will kill you, with out remorse? Blimey, sounds a bit worrying to me. You make them sound like a bunch of well armed psychos living on a hair trigger. Such people roam free in the US? Sounds terrifying. Or are you doing them a bit of a disservice there?