The immoral actions of people serving in the military are subsumed by the chasm between civilians and soldiers, and both parties are very comfortable with this arrangement. Military enlistees and veterans, not all but many, like to imply that civilians cannot talk with any authority about America's wars because they cannot understand what is required to partake in war for the U.S. military. Many civilians do not want to engage soldiers and veterans on the subject of the immorality of killing for an illegitimate government because their "ignorance" will be thrown in their face. The media does a superb job of reinforcing the awkward relationship, never giving any consideration to the idea that the war in question is illegitimate, illegal or with no justification.
One public figure who has tried to bridge this divide is Tulsi Gabbard. She has verbally condemned U.S. jingoism and contempt of sovereignty for countries whose leaders they want to remove. She visited Assad in Syria, when terrorists that were armed with American weapons were attacking his military. Gabbard uses her military service as a justification for her aggressive criticism, but she rarely points out that having to pander to the right-wing codes of correctness only deters civilians from treading in those waters. Her defense of her right to criticize plays into the correctness codes.
I like Gabbard's ballsy approach to saying what most Americans probably believe but don't feel entitled to say, and avoid saying because they know they will be shouted down.
When it comes to dissenting voices from those who were in the military, I'll take Matthew Hoh over Tulsi for a genuine anti-war voice. I say Kucinich/Hoh 2024!
Heck yeah. Matthew Hoh is the real McCoy. I fell for Tulsi early in the 2020 campaign, but let's just say I'm a little suspicious of her once you dig a little bit.
I love Tulsi! The democrats hate her as they had big plans to use her for their own gains but this is a real solid individual that you can't steam roll without getting your feet stepped on hard!
I have mixed feelings about Tulsi, but I admire much of what she says and does. Her rebellion against the DNC, willingness to stand up to the MIC, and ability to reach across political boundaries is admirable. Still, it's painful to hear her attacks of "Islamofascism," her love of military service, and her right wing takes on transgender issues.
This "you have to have been in a war to have an opinion on war" is a non-sequitur.
But it is an extremely commonly used one. It's time to just say, "No, I don't have to have participated in the horror of war or to have personally been victimized by it to know more than enough about it to have valid opinions about it."
---
Humans are profoundly adept at abstract thinking.
And we do not have to be certified, credentialed experts to learn enough about 99% of the things we encounter in life to form rational opinions about them.
The immoral actions of people serving in the military are subsumed by the chasm between civilians and soldiers, and both parties are very comfortable with this arrangement. Military enlistees and veterans, not all but many, like to imply that civilians cannot talk with any authority about America's wars because they cannot understand what is required to partake in war for the U.S. military. Many civilians do not want to engage soldiers and veterans on the subject of the immorality of killing for an illegitimate government because their "ignorance" will be thrown in their face. The media does a superb job of reinforcing the awkward relationship, never giving any consideration to the idea that the war in question is illegitimate, illegal or with no justification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
One public figure who has tried to bridge this divide is Tulsi Gabbard. She has verbally condemned U.S. jingoism and contempt of sovereignty for countries whose leaders they want to remove. She visited Assad in Syria, when terrorists that were armed with American weapons were attacking his military. Gabbard uses her military service as a justification for her aggressive criticism, but she rarely points out that having to pander to the right-wing codes of correctness only deters civilians from treading in those waters. Her defense of her right to criticize plays into the correctness codes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Y1jqwG2Jo
I like Gabbard's ballsy approach to saying what most Americans probably believe but don't feel entitled to say, and avoid saying because they know they will be shouted down.
When it comes to dissenting voices from those who were in the military, I'll take Matthew Hoh over Tulsi for a genuine anti-war voice. I say Kucinich/Hoh 2024!
I like Matthew also. I actually think they (the Criminal Elite) are scared of him.
Heck yeah. Matthew Hoh is the real McCoy. I fell for Tulsi early in the 2020 campaign, but let's just say I'm a little suspicious of her once you dig a little bit.
I love Tulsi! The democrats hate her as they had big plans to use her for their own gains but this is a real solid individual that you can't steam roll without getting your feet stepped on hard!
I have mixed feelings about Tulsi, but I admire much of what she says and does. Her rebellion against the DNC, willingness to stand up to the MIC, and ability to reach across political boundaries is admirable. Still, it's painful to hear her attacks of "Islamofascism," her love of military service, and her right wing takes on transgender issues.
Yes, Tulsi is a mixed bag.
Aren't we all.
I think her allegiances probably resemble what our national political discourse would be like if money didn’t dictate the parameters.
I agree completely.
This "you have to have been in a war to have an opinion on war" is a non-sequitur.
But it is an extremely commonly used one. It's time to just say, "No, I don't have to have participated in the horror of war or to have personally been victimized by it to know more than enough about it to have valid opinions about it."
---
Humans are profoundly adept at abstract thinking.
And we do not have to be certified, credentialed experts to learn enough about 99% of the things we encounter in life to form rational opinions about them.