Because anyone who would say something like that is just a goddamned, ignorant, childish fool who doesn't understand a goddamned thing about what sacrifices people have made for him.

I can certainly understand the sacrifice one makes when they do military service. However, I question to whom they are making this sacrifice. You say they're making a sacrifice for me. Looking at every military conflict the US has engaged in (with the possible exception of the Berlin Airlift, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo) since 1945, I would suggest that no one involved in those conflicts were expressing my own interests or doing anything for me. Rather, they were there serving this country's oligarchs, war profiteers, oil men, etc. Their actions directly harmed many people. Apart from that, I expect that each person who enlisted had their own reasons, with varying degrees of altruism.

To be clear: I completely support someone's decision to join the military, to engage in a mission that is actually helping. However, because of bad decisions made at the top, the US military hasn't been in a helping role often enough lately. Individual troops are used as cannon fodder in pursuit of political objectives designed to benefit very few. For me to support someone's decision to join that is asking a lot, basically to ignore everything I know about geopolitics, and just smile and say "I'm okay, you're okay."

Anonymous, I don't know who you're talking to, but you pretty much paraphrased the exact antithesis of my point. I said that abused children or victims of domestic abuse are not like people who have joined the military, in that the latter group made a choice, whereas the former group did not. This was not a hard point to grasp, and I'm wondering how you could have possibly gotten it so bass-ackwards, unless it was intentional.

No they didn't. Not this. No one in the military signed on for this.

Nita, with all due respect for your sons, who sound like strong, confident, well-meaning characters, anyone with an understanding of recent US history could have guessed that, by joining the military, you could very well be sent on an unjust military debacle.

The US has a long history of just this kind of regrettable adventure. Sure, these were probably not emphasized by the guy in the recruiting office. Just as the used car salesman is likely not to emphasize that the Pinto I'm about to buy has been known to explode during rear collisions. It's my responsibility to do the research, and make a well-informed decision. Sure, if I don't do the research, buy the Pinto, and burn up in a rear collision, perhaps the car salesman bears some of the responsibility. But I bear arguably most of it. No?

Unless you are one of those complete morons who thinks the United States of America doesn't need a military. If that's the case, there's no hope for you. But I don't believe you are of that category. For one thing, you've got a screen name and use it.

Wow, I didn't know that using a made-up screen name could grant me such respect!

Anyhow, I don't think the US should get rid of its military absolutely, so yes, I appreciate that there are people willing to serve in it, and I accept that in some ways, those people are protecting me.

However, in looking at the sheer enormity of our military, and how they are in every corner of the world protecting US interests, one starts to wonder "Why?"

It's a political science theory that the perceived legitimacy of any government can be measured by how many cops it needs to keep on the street to enforce its laws. One can say the same thing about the perceived legitimacy of US policy, and the military stationed around the world to enforce those policies. Therefore, one of the roles of the US military is as the enforcement arm of policies that are perceived as illegitimate. That is really not the fault of any individual troops, who are just doing their job. Just as Nike's poor labor practices are not the fault of an individual Nike shoe buyer. Just as WalMart's invasion and destruction of Main Street America is not the fault of WalMart shoppers.

But it's a fine line, isn't it? If no one bought Nike shoes because of their poor labor practices, those practices would likely change. If no one shopped at WalMart, then we may still have our corner ma and pop shops. And if far fewer people joined the military, then wars of choice like Iraq would probably not occur.

Leading up to Apple's June release of the much-hyped iPhone, Apple added tons of functionality, fixed a bunch of bugs, and produced millions by the release date. I have a friend working at Apple who reports that the hours the employees had to work to meet this goal was bordering on slave labor.

On the other hand, absolutely necessary equipment to help win the Global War On Terror(TM), the Defining Conflict of Our Generation(TM), doesn't get produced at any near the speed. I would say this is a perfect expression of America's priorities as set by industry and government leaders, and followed by the consuming masses.

Ultimately, support of anything (the troops, one's family, whatever) often boils down to priority. How much do you support the troops? How will you prioritize that support, relative to the support of other things?

Dems and Repubs each support the troops in their own unique ways. I would characterize Dem support as demanding necessary equipment and humane tour length for troops, with the ultimate objective of bringing them out of harm's way for good. (This could simply be political posturing, but the result is the same.) The Repubs, on the other hand, support the troops solely through rhetoric which is diametrically opposed to their actions.

The next time some Repub suggests that the Dems don't support the troops, this is the rationale that needs to be brought out.