I'd like to know how you arrived at the idea that this veteran, wounded in Iraq, was defending the right of those protesters to be "punk ass pussies." Please explain.
You say you want to go back in time. How about back to the sixties and the Vietnam protests. Do you believe the American sons and brothers who were needlessly killed and maimed in Vietnam were defending the protesters' right to be "punk ass pussies?" If so, please explain.
I submit that if you wish to go back to a time when our troops were legitimately deployed in the defense of America and Americans you need to go back to the 1940s.
What I'm getting at is the Iraq invasion and occupation came about as the result of calculated criminal deception. It was wholly unnecessary military aggression and a violation of International Law. It was (is) a war crime and has absolutely nothing to do with defending America or American interests. In fact it has caused irreparable harm to our Nation, both materially and in terms of our reputation and status in the world community.
What do unnecessary wars have to do with the soldiers who are doing their jobs fighting them? Other than the obvious? Are you saying that there's no divide between between the two? People join the military for various reasons but once they are on the front lines in the shit,they fight for their brothers & sisters beside them. When many of our soldiers become conflicted when they have to leave battle due to injury or their time is up,the reason they are conflicted is what? Because they feel like they are deserting their objective or their brothers & sisters that they bled with on the battlefield? You like throwing the baby out with the bath water,eh?
And yes they fought for the rights of pussies to be pussies in every example you mentioned. If god forbid we were ever invaded on our own soil,who will be protecting your life & freedom? Big Bird & & the rest of the Sesame Street gang? Are you going to tell them that because they may have done something you think was unnecessary while doing their jobs,you would refuse their help & protection? A group of rangers are the only thing in between you & a death squad. Are you going to tell them "move aside,you unnecessary instruments of unnecessary wars!"? I bet you would think they were pretty damn necessary then. Newsflash,part of their job is protecting you if that situation ever came to be. Yes,even if you are a vet disrespecting draft dodging hippy ***** who spits on vets & calls them baby killers. If you are dead,your need for having rights & freedom kinda dies with you...other than your right to burial of course.
Lastly,soldiers are always legitimately deployed even if the war they are fighting is unnecessary. A. Because again it's their job. B. Because if they don't fight,the kind of pussies who would disrespect a vet shot 11 times while doing his job would get drafted & forced to do something our soldiers do voluntarily every day.
American soldiers who are deployed in a criminal military aggression are not legitimately deployed. If you can't understand that you have a problem with abstract reasoning. There is absolutely nothing legitimate about what we have done and are doing in the Middle East. Our invasion of Iraq was about as legitimate as was the Third Reich's invasion of Poland.
I joined the Marine Corps for four years in 1956. That was a time when no American would have believed how corrupted their Nation's government would become. I would
not join the military today unless the U.S. were attacked, which is why my father and two uncles enlisted in 1941.
The student protesters at Columbia (an alma mater, incidentally) are not pussies and to denounce them as such is adolescent and patronizingly unintelligent. They are no different from the students who protested the Vietnam atrocities. They are capable of abstract reasoning and are not receptive to the kind of pseudo-patriotic okey-doke that affects far too many Americans, blinding them to the reality of what their government has done and is doing in the Middle East.
So instead of rationalizing a synthetic purpose for joining the military, which places one in a position to be killed or maimed, or to kill or maim, for absolutely no justifiable or decent reason, you'd be better serving your country, its people and yourself by protesting what you know, or should know, to be wrong in every way. Because as long as there are men, and now women, who are willing to place themselves in harm's way for an enlistment bonus or some perverse desire for adventure we will never withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan. Soldiers and Marines who enlisted after the Iraq invasion and were killed or wounded are deserving of sympathy, not gratitude. And there is nothing they can say to justify or dignify what the American military has been wrongfully committed to doing in the Middle East. Wrong is wrong and nothing can make it right.
What we are engaged in is another Vietnam. If you approve of it what you should do is enlist tomorrow morning and put your body where your beliefs are. And if there is some reason why you are not eligible for service you really shouldn't be cheering others on.
