Active Now

Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Life and Society » What kind of person would protest a parade for our U.S. Military?
carbonproduct

What kind of person would protest a parade for our U.S. Military?

Posted - February 10, 2018
Tag : Protesting our Military.

Responses


  • 6477
    I think, and I am answering this genuinely, as I felt your question was genuinely wondering...that many might protest if the context were not FOR the military but USING them as an ill-advised bragging ego boost. In that context it would not be a simple celebration and offering of gratitude - but a shallow attempt to copy-cat dictators such as Kim Jong.

    I'd be mindful if it were the case that it isn't usual, that the military themselves didn't request it, that they are just being ordered to do it...

    I think people might protest too, re the above points and that it will cost an enormous amount of money - where there is no precedent for it and where the intent is dubious or unclear.
      February 10, 2018 6:41 AM MST
    8

  • 10052
    Spot on! 
      February 10, 2018 6:58 AM MST
    4

  • 10052
    I think mostly the kind of people who know the truth about the MIC and how it uses, abuses and exploits the  PEOPLE who serve it. 

    https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/i-support-troops-not-military/
      February 10, 2018 6:57 AM MST
    4

  • 14795
    Why do the Military need to parade.....any thing that promotes violence is not a good thing surly .....is it ? 
      February 10, 2018 7:09 AM MST
    5

  • 53509
      Military parades, exhibitions, etc. already take place quite frequently all over the United States.  For instance, there are annual air shows where I live. The scope and scale of the ones currently being held pale in comparison to the type that President Trump is suggesting, and the vehement anti-Trump-at-all-costs rally is doing their usual song and dance merely because he is the one who said it. For many years now, the anti-military ilk has been in power, so any inkling of supporting US servicewomen and servicemen, their organization, their abilities, their assets, meets with opposition. Trump being the impetus only fuels the anti crowd even more.  

      All that being said, I don't think there's a necessity to show off to the world an over-the-top goose-stepping parade in the manner that Trump is pushing. I'm a Marine Corps veteran, and I know what a waste of time, energy, resources and manpower it is to put on a dog and pony show lile that. Units in peacetime should be training for their primary missions and in wartime should be carrying out their primary missions. Pretending to be pretty toy soldiers for photo ops is secondary and mainly useless. 
    ~
      February 10, 2018 7:30 AM MST
    6

  • 6477
    Just saying.... while I respect your viewpoint, even though I disagree with it, factually an anti-Trump faction is not necessarily also anti-military. That's a put down, a rather illogical one that doesn't hold water, that is bandied around to try to prevent debate. Also, factually, we cannot assume that people object to Trump's plans and ideas just because it's him saying it.. the two go hand in hand, if he wasn't such a (insert term of choice) and his ideas and plans weren't full of (insert word of choice) then, quite simply, people wouldn't object. It's again another attempt to shut down logical discourse when those kinds of term are bandied about. 

    Arguably, bot that my own country is at all off the hook on this, but there may be reasons why there has been some desire to play down the part played in the previous war(s). However, there seems little evidence to support the view that the servicemen and women themselves are ill-thought of and certainly no evidence that people are against them.

    Trump isn't supporting the military, their needs etc. .I think that's the point - his aims are quite different. 

    Totally agree with your final paragraph.. I didn't check whether you had missed any commas though :P
      February 10, 2018 7:49 AM MST
    1

  • 53509


      I did not state that being anti-Trump = being anti-military 100% across the board, nor did I state that being anti-military = being anti-Trump 100% across the board. There are varying degrees of both of those sentiments in both of those camps, even including 0 degrees. 

      Just as there are people who were anti-Obama no matter what he did or said, there are also people who are anti-Trump no matter what he does or says. (You've heard from your counterparts Rosie and Sharonna, right?). I'm not putting anyone down merely by acknowledging their existence. If you're offended by truth, I can't help you.  There are people who were pro-Obama no matter what he did or said, and there are people who are pro-Trump no matter what he does or says. It's not a very intelligent perspective to assume otherwise, it's head-in-the-sand. 
    ~
      February 10, 2018 9:46 AM MST
    1

  • 6477
    Quote, " I did not state that being anti-Trump = being anti-military 100% across the board, nor did I state that being anti-military = being anti-Trump 100% across the board. " and neither did I say you said that.. However, what you did say, quote, " and the vehement anti-Trump-at-all-costs rally is doing their usual song and dance merely because he is the one who said it. For many years now, the anti-military ilk has been in power, so any inkling of supporting US servicewomen and servicemen, their organization, their abilities, their assets, meets with opposition. Trump being the impetus only fuels the anti crowd even more. " very much implies that you are saying that all of the anti-Trump rally are opposed to anything and everything he says or does just because he said it.. I am sorry if you don't see that.. 
    I, like you, am pedantic about language.... for  me it's less grammar but more meaning, content, syntax... So in effect I am only doing what you do, just from a different angle.. and my pet-hobby tends to necessitate a more lengthy explanation and exchange.. But yea semantics in the use of language is my thing. 

    So, in actual fact, while you may not have meant to imply that.. or maybe you worded it clumsily.. that IS what you said. 

    Moving on, we should perhaps address your use of the term 'my counterparts'... Need I say more about that? I am happy to do so but would hope you understand why that was wrong and assuming way too much about me and about them. 

    Next we shall deal with your choice of wording where you suggest, (and let's get this straight, if you look at your wording that IS what you suggest, nay claim) that I am in any way offended. This was intended, (I am keen on motivation regarding language (and I so almost always pick up on attempts at manipulative language too) as a slight put-down. I regret to inform you that not only was i not in the least offended, (I am afraid you would have to try harder than that) you do assume way, way too much there. I never said I was offended, I never suggested I was.. I merely pointed out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of your use of language. 

    Examining your use of 'It's not a very intelligent perspective to assume otherwise." Now there you did NOT suggest directly that you were referring or suggesting that that applied to me.. However, just in case you had that notion, (and I didn't say you did) then I would seek to remind you that I never implied that - fortunately, there are very few people who would be so lacking in intelligence to think in such a way... That kind of thinking denotes a marked lack of intellect.. I wonder if you know more of those kind, or you see more of them than I do? But I can reassure you that that wouldn't apply to me. 

    Talking of head in the sand.. that's very much what I think about people who ignore and overlook the sheer catalogue of lies, misdeeds, poor decision-making, how he tars your whole nation by his having been elected (very few countries/nations would ever allow such a complete (insert term here) to run their nation) etc. etc. etc.. And that is NOT just my opinion, it IS, (much as many here try to stick heads in sand and deny that) the consensus, (not every single person but the consensus) of most of the rest of the world. 


      February 10, 2018 10:11 AM MST
    1

  • 53509


      Whenever you open parentheses, you should also close them, lest causing confusion as to which segment of your point you're trying to isolate.

    You wrote:

    "That's a put down, a rather illogical one that doesn't hold water, that is bandied around to try to prevent debate."


      If it's a put-down, it's offensive. That's why I addressed your having been offended. I didn't write anything that prevents debate. If one chooses to debate what I wrote (as you have), then it's open for debate. It's a blatant lie that it prevents debate. 



    You further wrote::
    "Also, factually, we cannot assume that people object to Trump's plans and ideas just because it's him saying it.. the two go hand in hand, if he wasn't such a (insert term of choice) and his ideas and plans weren't full of (insert word of choice) then, quite simply, people wouldn't object. It's again another attempt to shut down logical discourse when those kinds of term are bandied about."

      In response to this, I wrote the detailed points about anti-Trump vs pro-Trump, and I used anti-Obama vs pro-Obama as a comparison. If you had not written it, I would not have had it as stimulus for a response. And again, I must reiterate that you've blatantly lied by saying I attempted to shut anything down. I gladly welcome discourse, as evidenced by the discourse that is currently occurring between you and I.

      I think you're far too intelligent a person to truly believe that there are no people who object to Trump just because he's Trump, especially when they express that exact position on a daily basis. Likewise, there are Trump apologists who worship his every word or deed, just as you atest above. For you to ignore that anti-Trump for anti-Trump sake exists is a bit incredulous to me, which is why I presented it the way I did.  

      I only refer to you and Rosie and Sharonna as counterparts because you all three incessantly verbalized your opposition to everything Trump. That is neither right nor wrong, it's simply a fact. You spend countless posts criticizing him, calling him names, etc.  It's certainly your right to do so, I don't disparage you that.  You 3 are neither the only ones who do it nor do you all three do it equally. I just selected examples of prominent anti-Trump posters. I don't understand how there's anything negative about me recognizing something that you  proudly do. 

      Trump is an extremely flawed president. He does many, MANY things wrong, incorrectly, even stupidly. I disagree with some of his positions on things, and/or the way he does things. I am neither 100% pro- nor 100% anti-.  If I don't express the same level of hatred for him that others do, some of them assume I'm a Trump lover. If I don't express the same level of love for him that others do, some of them asume I'm a Trump hater. I stated my position on the subject of military parades, and I stand by it fully. 
    ~

      February 10, 2018 10:52 AM MST
    1

  • 6477
    >> Whenever you open parentheses, you should also close them, lest causing confusion as to which segment of your point you're trying to isolate.<<

    Well, as I have frequently explained typos and my enthusiasm for content, along with my very, very fast typing do tend to result in these small errors that seem to offend your grammar-loving sensibilities :P I am sorry if this confused you, but I suspect, that you really weren't confused at all :P 

     >> If it's a put-down, it's offensive. That's why I addressed your having been offended. I didn't write anything that prevents debate. If one chooses to debate what I wrote (as you have), then it's open for debate. It's a blatant lie that it prevents debate. <<

    I did notice that I should have put 'put-down' - you didn't correct me on that one, which is most remiss of you :P However, your assumption that the mere use of the word put-down, which is an accurate description of what you did, regardless of whether you are able to recognise such, doesn't equate to meaning I was offended. We really must guard against the belief that we can assign, or even guess at people's emotions.. we cannot and in this case, you were clearly incorrect. Which demonstrates that this is a case in point. The use of the word put-down was a descriptive word in respect of your language. 

    Factually too, it's important to explain, that when one starts to use in emotive words, such as manipulative language, blanket statements that have a derogatory, or slightly insulting tone or meaning.. then this IS something which, whether you understand this or not, DOES serve, (in some cases) to shut down the debate.. This IS recognised, see Savvy's link which corroborates this.. I can find more information on this if you genuinely don't understand. What id does also is manipulatively force anyone who would wish to debate to engage in explaining and defending themselves against the preconceived assertion that, in this case, anyone who disagrees with Trump is anti-military That makes it so much harder to engage in useful debate, it makes it harder TO debate - it forces an unnecessary and clunky added step.  When people do that it is usually due to a conscious or, if you weren't aware, an unconscious intention. From what you seem to be saying some recognise they are doing it - but there are perhaps some cases where some aren't.  I confess, giving you full credit here - I believed you were aware. 

    >>  In response to this, I wrote the detailed points about anti-Trump vs pro-Trump, and I used anti-Obama vs pro-Obama as a comparison. If you had not written it, I would not have had it as stimulus for a response. And again, I must reiterate that you've blatantly lied by saying I attempted to shut anything down. I gladly welcome discourse, as evidenced by the discourse that is currently occurring between you and I. <<

    Ooh there we go again with that emotive and assumptive language! I am surprised at you!  DO you mean to claim I lied? Is that not somewhat libelous of you? I am surprised you would allow yourself to fall into such a trap. Factually I DID NOT Lie.. therefore you are, at best incorrect, and at worse - well not sure how you were raised but where I come from, to accuse someone of lying, without evidence, is considered very questionable. One simply cannot go around accusing people of lying on a whim.. In this case, I don't believe you meant to incorrectly accuse me of anything - it's simply down to a difficulty of conception.. Someone saying that the way you used language usually serves to shut-down debate. That, my grammar-loving friend does not constitute a lie.. that's a fact.. I would hope you are able to differentiate between for example someone saying, "I bought 4 eggs today"when they didn't, and someone pointing out that elements of, and your use of language has a certain impact.. 

    >> I think you're far too intelligent a person to truly believe that there are no people who object to Trump just because he's Trump, << 

    Well you would be correct there - and I never said that.. I do find it hard to understand as it would seem rather telling of their intellect if they did that.. But I am not sure that that's relevant here.. I don't know anyone like that.. perhaps you do..  I object to Trump because he is Trump.. he is a vile, unpleasant, uncouth entity that totally lacks class. The latter being my main objection to him... his lack of class shows through in everything he says and in his whole ethos..  However, again we need to be specific - that's not the same as saying, or concluding that I, (and therefore anyone else) objects to everything he does because he is Trump.. That's again making unsubstantiated assumptions.  That, is really my objection.. It's imprecise, it's factually indefensible.. It's like your dislike of grammar errors...

    >>For you to ignore that anti-Trump for anti-Trump sake exists is a bit incredulous to me, which is why I presented it the way I did.  <<
    You tell us that such people exist.. I am fortunate, (perhaps it's a US specific thing?) not to have encountered such people but you imply that there are a goodly number of them, or even that all of the "Anti-Trump rally" are of this persuasion.. but your saying it does not constitute evidence, or proof. By the way, factually, again - I never ignored anything.. I dealt only with the problems with your syntax and its imprecise meaning/effect.  With this in mind, you may wish, or not as the case may be, your use of the words, "ignore" and "incredulous."

    >>I only refer to you and Rosie and Sharonna as counterparts because you all three incessantly verbalized your opposition to everything Trump.<<

    Factually incorrect.. again this is indeed worrying! I have not, as you say, opposed everything Trump - I have specifically and consistently opposed his behaviour, his lack of intelligence, his demeanour and the things he says.. that FACTUALLY does not amount to opposing everything.. Nor does it constitute incessant.. Look at my posts, count how many are even about Trump.. does this not concern you that you are making unsubstantiated statements that are factually incorrect? To me this is akin to your dislike of poor grammar.. if it's wrong, it's wrong..  I would like you to challenge yourself on your use of, and why you felt it necessary to use words like incessantly? etc. I think, if you are able to see that,  then I may be able to rest my case. 

    >>That is neither right nor wrong, it's simply a fact. You spend countless posts criticizing him, calling him names, etc.<< As above .. if what you have just said were factually correct, I would have no problem with it.. but if nothing else I do think you need to go and look at my posts, count them, tally up how many are about Trump, let alone even criticising him. Once you have done that.. you should, be able to accept that you are factually incorrect and that your language here was designed to be emotive, to belittle, to cast vague insults, to attempt to shut down conversation.. I am wondering if culturally there is an inability to see the diiference and to be unable to use factual language correctly without resorting to personal insults?  I am wondering genuinely? Perhaps you guys are not taught these things? Perhaps you really don't know, and are unable to see? 

    >>I don't disparage you that. << You may want to look up and examine the deployment of words like, 'incessant' and calling someone a liar on that front my friend.. 

    >>nor do you all three do it equally.<< In which case then there is no equal, or indeed accurate comparison and it would also be wrong then, to term it incessant or to claim that it's everything Trump I object to.. Factually too, when one says one despises him and then, (which I rarely do anyway) criticises his policies that does NOT amount to objecting to him because he is Trump.. You seem not to know this, which puzzles me somewhat... I am genuinely baffled.. 

    >>I just selected examples of prominent anti-Trump posters. I don't understand how there's anything negative about me recognizing something that you  proudly do. <<  Ahem! As above!

     >> Trump is an extremely flawed president. He does many, MANY things wrong, incorrectly, even stupidly. I disagree with some of his positions on things, and/or the way he does things. I am neither 100% pro- nor 100% anti-.<<  A sane and reasoning attitude. I am confused though how you can believe you have that ability to differentiate, to be able to dislike some things without accusing yourself, as you do me, and others, of disliking everything Trump.. I don't get involved in is policies, or only rarely, most of them ARE stupid, ill-conceived etc... but that doesn't equate to my being anti-everything-Trump - any more than it does when you dislike, or disagree with some of the policies. Truth here is that you really don't know whether or not I object to his policies.. I rarely, if ever comment on them.. Go check my posts!!  No need to apologies -the truth stands for itself. 

    >> If I don't express the same level of hatred for him that others do, some of them assume I'm a Trump lover. If I don't express the same level of love for him that others do, some of them asume I'm a Trump hater. <<  That's as may be.. I cannot comment, and wouldn't dream of commenting on what others do. I see no direct implication in the way you have used language here that you are accusing me of this - so I am content to leave this particular statement unchallenged in its present form. PS, not that there won't be a few typos in my missive but I thought I would point out that, 'assumed' has two ss's.

    >>I stated my position on the subject of military parades, and I stand by it fully. << Well, while I fully accept you are entitled to a position. Your use of very emotive and misleadingly factually incorrect language was the issue here rather than your position per-se -well other than that it seemed to be based on several misconceptions :) 
      February 10, 2018 12:56 PM MST
    1

  • 53509


    I directly and without equivocation stated that you lied.  I did not sugarcoat it in any way.

    You now claim that you are not completely anti-Trump?  You challenge me to peruse your posts?  No need.  You've only posted negative perspectives about Trump.  You have never posted anything positive or in agreement with him.  That is why I aptly and correctly included you in the group of counterparts that do the same thing.  Go check your own posts.
    [Just for clarification, I see nothing wrong with a person being anti-Trump.  If that's what someone is, is that's what you are, fine.  My point is not to claim that a person should have a certain opinion, it's just like I stated above, all I did was to identify who held that particular opinion.]

    This next one is a true gem: "I am confused though how you can believe you have that ability to differentiate, to be able to dislike some things without accusing yourself, as you do me, and others, of disliking everything Trump."  How can you assume that I should accuse myself of disliking everything Trump, when you yourself obviously just got through reading AND re-typing my exact position?  "Trump is an extremely flawed president. He does many, MANY things wrong, incorrectly, even stupidly. I disagree with SOME of his positions on things, and/or the way he does things. I am neither 100% pro- nor 100% anti-."  Do you just read to say you have read, or do you read for comprehension?

      February 10, 2018 9:38 PM MST
    1

  • 6477
    Hmm we see here an unrepentant insistence and adherence to an unsubstantiated, not to mention totally incorrect accusation of lying.  What can one do here...I recognise that despite my logical and factual explanation, there are problems here regarding the use of English and the understanding of the word lying.  For what it's worth, and I do recognise I am wasting my words and time, is when someone has said something that is deliberately and deceitfully untrue. When one merely states a fact that you disagree with.. that does not constitute a lie.. that's a fact.. However it's dressed up - that's the truth. Basic understanding of English.  I accept you are unable to see this.. and there is no insult in saying that - it's simply the case. I am not sure why..  In any event when you stated that I lied you were wrong.  Technically, grammatically, syntax and comprehension wise.  For some reason you do seem to have an understanding or lack of understanding of the definition of lying that is out of kilter with basic English.

    I have tried to explain too that and your use of manipulative language. You cannot seem to see this- i am not sure why..  I wonder if there's something that is mis-taught over there or what? I don't know.. but the definition is as the definition is. the use of emotive, sensationalist words like 'incessant' etc. very much does, technically alter both the meaning and intent of a sentence.. This is just basic English lesson stuff.. 

    Education is so important is it not! I am wondering... if things really are not taught would that lead to an inability to comprehend when something is pointed out? I don't know but it seems sorta so.. If you cannot see and understand basic facts about how English is used and how use of different elements of English change meaning, intent, etc.  I mean no slur but frustratingly it's really difficult to proceed if you cannot accept the basic premise here.  I don't object to you.. I am just correcting and challenging your use  of, English - how you used it is incorrect and you used manipulative language - which made what you said open to challenge because it was not factually correct. Can you truly not see the difference between stating - the cat sat on the mat and, the mangy cat lounged on the mat. See there's a big difference when you introduce words like mangy, and lounged - you are placing an interpretation, an emotive, opinion on it.. you are removing yourself from sticking to fact...  This is what you are doing but you seem wholly unable to accept or even see this.. I am not sure if Americans aren't taught this stuff or what? I don't think that's so as it is just basic fact that using words that slant, imply or are emotive open oneself to challenge regarding our use of language.. tis just a fact.. 

    https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/files/assign27.pdf

    I do think this is a fruitless exercise if you are unwilling to examine objectively the language and how you use it and/or accept the basic premise here.  But a? technically and mechanically I never lied.. that's a fact. and b) your use of emotive, obfuscation,   biased and manipulative words is, I am afraid so here.   Factually you stated that I incessantly post, (negatively or otherwise) about Trump - your understanding of the definition of incessant, Citing a definition here,
    (of something regarded as unpleasant) continuing without pause or interruption.
    "the incessant beat of the music"  Clearly a look at the posts I make, how many, what they are about, how often etc then factually most aren't even about Trump so factually your statement is incorrect.. Technically, then.. your use of the word is incorrect, it's certainly imprecise and one could, convincingly and technically argue that it is therefore, and in the context you used it - manipulative in intent.  I invited you to count the posts and the content.. 

    It is notable that these things are very much a feature of your language.. even in the latest reply you do it several times. 

    I had hoped to help you understand and to learn from the exercise... I can see you are unwilling to, or unable to. I cannot therefore help you with that, which is a shame as my purpose is to educate. 
      February 11, 2018 2:39 AM MST
    1

  • 6477
    I can't see if you have replied to this yet, maybe you will, maybe you have decided to leave it..but in honour of the fact that I do value it when discussions such as these cause me to think deeply and try to find ways to explain if I have not managed to help someone understand previously.. it was never that what you said offended me.. but that I felt that the wa language had been used, needed to be challenged, here's my further response... 

    I am wondering how I can help you understand – while recognising that it seems you are resistant to doing so.. and that my attempts are only using up my time and energy…However, let’s have another try as after this I really do need to get stuck into my assignment.

    By your logic – I could claim that when you accuse me of lying, that that is a lie. However, I wouldn’t do that because it would be technically incorrect. Your statement that I lied is incorrect – but that doesn’t mean it’s a lie – it’s not a lie, because it fails to meet the definition and acceptance of what a lie it.. It was technical reasoning there.

     

    It is also true that when someone, using the word lie, in a way that is technically incorrect, for something that isn’t -this is usually a sign that the writer of the original words, is using manipulative language. Language designed to elicit an emotional response. Occasionally the person doing this really is unaware of their actions, it’s often habitual

     

    Similarly, when you used the word sugarcoat – this is an emotive word, especially used in the context it was used. My issue with it is, not that you in any way offended me, not that I felt insulted – rather that, just like your dislike of grammar – this TOO is an incorrect use of language given your stated intent to be factually correct. SO, to explore the definition of sugarcoat – it is usually used to describe a conveying of truth, but done in a nice way, a caring way…  Since what you said was not the truth, and I demonstrated why this was and have reiterated it above – yours was a statement of your opinion, but that didn’t make it truth and it didn’t change the fact that you were using the word lie incorrectly – then the use of the word sugarcoating was not used in its correct way – it was a slanted version of it. One that was intended, I suspect to attempt to belittle. In the context it was used – the idea, I believe, was to suggest that the recipient was being a baby, being overly sensitive and unnecessarily so… How clever, subtle and amazing the English language is -that by changing one word we can change a statement of fact into an emotive and manipulative sentence which makes it imprecise and which is challengable, especially when we then try to claim it as truth.

     

    Once we start adding emotive, manipulative words we lose the truth; it’s no longer fact – it’s opinion, For example:  The dog it brown – this is a factual statement when applied to a brown canine. If we were to say, The dog is stupid and lazy. The that’s no longer fact. It has now moved from the realm of fact, into opinion and slanted one at that.. When we use words like incessant, and sweeping  statements like, “you always, you never, everything you do… “ well then we are engaging in manipulative language and like it or not, understand it or not -then it is an attempt to manipulate and belittle with the intent to shut down their responses, to denigrate them and make them feel that rather than address the issue, they have to instead defend themselves… It is what it is.. denying it really doesn’t change the facts.

     

    Now, I truly would love to spend as much time as it takes on this.. to help you understand and use language more accurately but I really do have an assignment to work on and the bulk of the research much be written up this week. After that things hot up until the assignment is handed in.  I have a few posts I want to make first and I WILL be back I promise once the assignment’s done.  

     

      February 11, 2018 7:27 AM MST
    1

  • 10052
    You bring up a good point, Randy. I'm reminded of compulsory participation in "victory tours" after an allegedly successful military action a couple of decades ago. They were worse than useless, they added to hardship for some servicemen/women and their families. 


      February 10, 2018 10:09 AM MST
    3

  • 17596
    I don't care in any big way.  I will not go into a big city to watch soldiers march down the street.  I will not.  I support the military and every dollar that goes into it.  They are honored with money and benefits for life, as well as respect.  The parade idea, I believe, comes from a good place but for me, it isn't necessary and I will not be a face in the crowd.
      February 10, 2018 8:35 AM MST
    4

  • 14795
    Please don't quote ne but wasnt Vietnam veterans  returning home disliked and no one would give them jobs....I'm sure I've read that many times ,but never having been to America ,I don't necessarily believe all I read about things...
      February 10, 2018 9:56 AM MST
    2

  • 17596
    No, not that I know of.  I imagine if they returned to the west they may have had some unpleasant encounters but from my part of the country (the east), vets have always been welcomed home.  The Viet Nam conflict (The USA never declared war) was controversial among the population.  In some parts of the country, even if the conflict was unpopular, our servicemen were honored regardless.  Again, if jobs were withheld due to participation in the war, that sounds like the west  coast to me.
      February 12, 2018 9:06 AM MST
    2

  • 14795
    I can only repeat what  I said,,,,,I don't know as I wasn't even born then........it was a war that should never ever been fought.......From other things I've read......English Lord Mountbatten played a hand I'd designating the country......it was under English rule and he armed Japennese prisoners of war to police the Vietnam people that a short time before the Japanese had been trying wipe out completly......
    The French as well once owned the country......and  then America got involved.....
    How can anyone blame a country that wants its own land back.

    To this day they are still suffering.... Agent orange dropped to deforest regions is still effecting vast areas of the country and its people and wild life.....l
      February 12, 2018 3:04 PM MST
    1

  • 5808
    It's not for the military,
    It's for Trumps Ego
    so HE can show off to Little Kim as Trump calls him
    all of the might of the US 
    so kim can see Trumps war machine is bigger than Kims.
         WE can't afford 20 or so million for a parade.
    The US is out of Money, AND we are the
    mighty of the mighty and don't need to boast about it.
    With a trillion dollar debt, This is Trumps Game.
    He calls himself the King of debt.
    And then he renegotiates the debt...Meaning Bankruptcy.
    The debt never gets paid off
    it just gets bigger and bigger, and now with the tax relief for the rich
    it has gotten a lot deeper.
         Pretty soon countries are going to refuse loaning any more money
    to the US. Next step Bankruptcy. Trumps Game.
         ...anyway, just my opinion and opinions are a dime a dozen.
    if that.

      February 10, 2018 9:44 AM MST
    6

  • 22891
    a mean person probably
      February 10, 2018 2:53 PM MST
    2

  • 2327
    The kind of obsessive who needs to get a life.
      February 10, 2018 7:51 PM MST
    2

  • 6098
    Perhaps  people who don't believe in the military. 
      February 10, 2018 8:01 PM MST
    2

  • 34283
    People who just hate anything tied to President Trump.
      February 10, 2018 8:04 PM MST
    2

  • 13395
    I'd like to see an aircraft carrier,  at least one submarine and a few destroyers being floated down the streets otherwise it's boring just to see a bunch of army stuff on parade. 
      February 11, 2018 7:18 AM MST
    1