Good morning, everyone. I like to get straight to the point. You'll be able to form your own opinions about me the more I post.
I often hear many different comments from people when they find out I'm in the military. Most say, "Thank you," and begin to inquire about what I do or some other small talk. Some other questions I get are: "Why'd you join," "Where do you live," and "Have you been deployed?" I have no problem answering questions of this sort, and have learned to flow easily with the conversation. (I do need to work on my "escape" or conversation ender, though.)
What I do have a problem with is when small talk turns into debate. Less than half the people, when they find out my job, give me this line: "I respect what you're doing, but I'm against the war." They say this as if I already agree with them, and then give proceed to give their reasons why while I just nod my head. As if I wanted to hear their shallow views while I pick up my dry cleaning. (I say shallow because that's exactly what I mean, and this has nothing to do with sides.)
Think about it for one second. How can someone say, "I respect you, but I don't respect you," and honestly expect it to make sense and make me feel good? Someone cannot respect what I'm doing when they don't respect what I chose to do. What theyare really saying is, "I respect that you protect my freedom, but I'm against you having to do it." There's no way I can agree with that last part. When I signed my contract, one paragraph ensures I can't be a conscientious objector. (Unless, of course, you're drafted. If that's the case and you object, I constantly have to watch your deserting bum so I don't get killed myself.) This paradoxal statement leads me to believe that person has no idea of what civil service is or has any drive to better his/her country.
My point is this: Feel free to agree or disagree, but don't start a debate when you're in between my cheeseburger and me, 'cause you're going to lose. (And if you do, at least make your points logical so you're not wasting my time.)

Shawn Snyder is currently enlisted in the finest fighting force alive: the United States Marine Corps. He has served two combat tours in Iraq and will be doing another one shortly.
I often hear many different comments from people when they find out I'm in the military. Most say, "Thank you," and begin to inquire about what I do or some other small talk. Some other questions I get are: "Why'd you join," "Where do you live," and "Have you been deployed?" I have no problem answering questions of this sort, and have learned to flow easily with the conversation. (I do need to work on my "escape" or conversation ender, though.)
What I do have a problem with is when small talk turns into debate. Less than half the people, when they find out my job, give me this line: "I respect what you're doing, but I'm against the war." They say this as if I already agree with them, and then give proceed to give their reasons why while I just nod my head. As if I wanted to hear their shallow views while I pick up my dry cleaning. (I say shallow because that's exactly what I mean, and this has nothing to do with sides.)
Think about it for one second. How can someone say, "I respect you, but I don't respect you," and honestly expect it to make sense and make me feel good? Someone cannot respect what I'm doing when they don't respect what I chose to do. What theyare really saying is, "I respect that you protect my freedom, but I'm against you having to do it." There's no way I can agree with that last part. When I signed my contract, one paragraph ensures I can't be a conscientious objector. (Unless, of course, you're drafted. If that's the case and you object, I constantly have to watch your deserting bum so I don't get killed myself.) This paradoxal statement leads me to believe that person has no idea of what civil service is or has any drive to better his/her country.
My point is this: Feel free to agree or disagree, but don't start a debate when you're in between my cheeseburger and me, 'cause you're going to lose. (And if you do, at least make your points logical so you're not wasting my time.)

Shawn Snyder is currently enlisted in the finest fighting force alive: the United States Marine Corps. He has served two combat tours in Iraq and will be doing another one shortly.
8 Comments:
"I support you, but I am against the Commander-in-Chief you chose to serve under."
Dumb.
The main problem, is that you heard nothing of Clinton's War of Distraction from the Conservatives... we all knew that the situation in the Balkans needed to be taken care of...
In the post 9/11 world, anything to curry favor... including blaming a president every time a body bag comes back... is part of the political game.
Unfortunately, most of the people who say they are against the war, supported it when it started. Sounds like a desertion.
What if I were to say that I don't think the war on terror is actually helping to keep me free? What if I were to say that it's a respectable thing to want to fight for your country, and actually have the balls to act upon it and risk your life for it, but that the way that the armed forces go about "freedom fighting" is not exactly respectable? I think it's a lot deeper than you write it off to be, people just don't always have the best way with words.
We still don't know if the WMD's "existed" or not. That really depends on your definition of exist. Exist at the time the intelligence said they did... which would've been a couple years before invasion? Yes...
The rest of the world had similar intelligence... pretty much everyone said that they thought Iraq had WMD's based on their own reports...
Also... those who supported the war and now oppose because we didn't find WMD aren't an extremely large group... its mostly hawks vs. peacenicks.
My stance on the war... was that the way it undermined the UN was probably the best result of the war.
Firstly, one thing you will notice about me is that I am very particular about what I say. What I did say is this: saying, "I respect what you're doing over there, but I'm against the war," is wrong. What I did not say is saying, "I support the troops, but not the war," is wrong. Look at how the words are used. That is why in my later paragraph, I stated that it should be clarified by using a more clear thought process. The first statement above is contradictory, while the second isn't.
Secondly, no can my possibly fathom how much conversation I get about politics and military. It's all part of my life; I live on a military base with civilians working there, when I go into town, It's mainly a military town because 50% of the business is us. They know who we are. Whenever I go anywhere on leave to see friends, it follows me. "Hey, so and so is home on leave." And so on. Under no fault of my own do I recieve this attention other than the fact that I decided to be in the military.
Thirdly,as a professional in the military, there are certain things one is not supposed to talk about while on the job. Two of those things are politics and religion. Talk of such undermines authority and respect when disagreed upon. I understand this is not normal for a civilian job, but this is quite the opposite for military personel. So I discuss it outside fo work, because I have no opinion while at work. When it comes down to it, me, your army friends or any military personel DO NOT object. When we signed, that comes above everything else. if you think you disagree, it doesn't matter because you do what you're told and if you don't, you're charged harshly up to death. We are under a different set of laws called the Uniform Code of military Justice (UCMJ). Regardless of what you may think in your offtime, you signed a contract saying one thing and it's put on a higher level than your own changing opinion. So someone doesn't have to agree with the war in their own head, but they sure the heck are going to fight like they do, or be charged in court.
Also, if someone was in support of something and then changed their mind when they found out they were wrong (I'm not saying we are or aren't), that's not taking responsibility for their actions, especially when blaming someone else. How about saying, "Yes, I was fooled, we all messed up." (again, not sating a side, but rather pointing out a lack of responsibility.)
and my reply to those... is that neither of those two are opinions that show a solid grasp on reality.
1) If we get out now... blah blah blah... everyone knows that would make the situation worse... however, we like to keep banging on the war effort because we've got to stick with it...
2) If the administration mislead the public, then all the administrations in the world were misleading their publics as well. Everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD. Not just on our intel, either.
All of the politicians who were for it and also believed Saddam had WMD's have now seen a political opportunity and have seemed to forget about the things they said not so long ago.
"Now whether or not it's genuine or because of political opprotunity, I don't think anyone is justified in saying. There's really no way to tell, but to seemingly attack people because they have changed their mind on an issue is, again, crazy."
You can start by looking at who they blame. If there's no blame on themself (along with whomever else) for voting pro-war, then it's obviously for political gain.
If the blame is soley on the administration without any proof showing they diliberatly misled the public and congress, then that's also strictly for political gain. Is it not possible for the administration to be misled or wrong, too?
Post a Comment
<< Home