Again, I disagree. People shouldn't get preferential treatment, regardless of whether they signed up for the military or not. I don't buy the "you are a lesser citizen than those who did a tour in the military" mindset. I respect those that have served in combat, and appreciate the willingness for those who are in a position to be called up to be put in harm's way. But I don't believe many of the guys I know that served in peacetime should get preferential hiring over those who - for whatever reason - never signed up.
Again, I disagree. People shouldn't get preferential treatment, regardless of whether they signed up for the military or not. I don't buy the "you are a lesser citizen than those who did a tour in the military" mindset. I respect those that have served in combat, and appreciate the willingness for those who are in a position to be called up to be put in harm's way. But I don't believe many of the guys I know that served in peacetime should get preferential hiring over those who - for whatever reason - never signed up.
I was actually trying to avoid answering.
I went to a car dealer, he did everything right, the next day I visited another dealer and I bought a car. Was it fair to the first dealer not to get paid? As much as he would love to make the sale he didn't and he is getting nothing. Kinda simple.
A man who wants to serve is an honorable man, not everybody can serve for a variety of reasons. The knowledge that given the opportunity he would have done the right thing, is his reward. I know a great young man who joined and during boot he cracked his leg and had to leave. He has my respect.
What else is there? Unlike school where the kids are all great and winners and don't have to perform to be rewarded, in real life you should have to perform.
I see your point, but we already live in a society that accepts preferential treatments. In this animal farm all the animals are not equal. If we accept the government forcing preferential treatment for other reasons, why shouldn't having served for the common good at great risk also matter?
We also live in a society that accepts handouts to those who don't deserve them. Just because society accepts it doesn't mean I do. I also see your point - and as I understand it - many government jobs already have a veteran hiring preference. But I don't agree that signing up should get a guy preferential treatment for jobs, contracts, etc., and most vets I know don't think so, either.
Every so often I get a letter from the wounded warrior project. It hurts to see these great guys in the shape they are in. I can't help thinking we owe them a lot more than they got.
You nailed it. That's the whole point I'm trying to make, but these bleeding hearts keep arguing about folks without hands and legs. Sheeze! Talk about red herrings and sympathy farming. Something the bleeding hearts won't admit is that we live in a society that already gives special treatment for money, family name, race, etc.
When it comes to making decisions about whether or not my kid has to go serve in some godforsaken butt-end part of the world I'd rather someone who's already made that kind of commitment make the decision. Take the draft dodging wankers like Gingrich out of the equation.
Talking about people without arms and legs wasn't intended to gain sympathy or play on emotions and isn't a red herring. It was meant to point to a part of society that would be completely disqualified from military service, and by your earlier post, not qualified for anything above dog catcher.
You throw around terms like "bleeding heart," yet you failed to answer the question posed about your argument. Also, it is truly sad that you consider someone who wants to protect his or her rights, and the rights of disabled Americans, a "bleeding heart."
I get that you are looking out for your kid, and there is evidence to suggest that people who have served and people who haven't served make different decisions about the role of the military. But again, there are 'wankers' in all walks of life and plenty of who have served. To assume that they would make 'better' decisions about what 'butt-end' part of the world your kid goes to is ridiculous. That kind of logic suggests that Jimmy Carter had a better understanding of the role of the military than Thomas Jefferson did (since Jefferson never served).
Our military (currently) is made up of volunteers, meaning they willingly agree to go where the civilian government sends them. If you don't like the choices the government makes then change who is in the government or get out. Don't try to restrict the rights of people who, for a variety of reasons, couldn't serve in the military.
Understand your point, but as far as I'm concerned there's seldom a reason to send our kids into "godforsaken butt-end parts of the world" in the first place - whether sent there by a combat veteran, a lawyer, or a trash man. Too many kids died or were maimed in Iraq, sent there by a miltary veteran. There's one hell of a lot more involved in leading the country than deciding whether or not to send kids to butt-end parts of the world, I'm afraid. I'm a whole lot more concerned about our economic issues than starting another war-du-jour in some other middle-eastern dump. I'll take a saavy business man over a guy who did four years in the military - and that's not a dig towards vets. Since our nation is teetering on the brink of financial collapse, maybe a candidate should be able to prove that he's built a successful business from the ground up, and was able to grow it for at least a decade? Now a combat vet that's successfully run his own business for several years? I'd be real good with that.
****Edit - I forgot to mention that I do agree with you about Gingrich and others like him, though. If you're a dodger, you have no business sending others to fight.
+1. You should be/have been a part of what I do if you desire to lead me....and then if you actually end up leading me, then lead instead of sitting around waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and jumping on the bandwagon.
