SkyDekker 1,465 #51 January 14, 2004 QuoteI understand what your saying & agree. Just because something ugly is said against My Commander In Chief (CINC) doesn't mean it was said against me or ment for me. But the picture I choose to paint for myself is much bigger than that. **Disclaimer to ALL readers** In an attempt to explain why I, as a soldier, would take personal offense to a disrespectful remark made about my Commander In Chief (CINC), I respectfully ask anyone who would to please refrain from nit-picking my analogy. I'm aware of the many loopholes & opportunities this analogy lends for criticism. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone to change their way of thinking based upon what I'm about to say ... I'm trying to describe how I feel based upon my beliefs, how I've been raised & the experiences I've been exposed to in an effort to answer JDBoston's question. To me, as a soldier, the military is family. As such we have relatives (civilians), we have our problems, we have our secrets, we have each other & we have a "mom" (CINC). I may not always agree with what "mom" may subject me to ... let's face it, as a soldier I don't get to pick & choose which wars I'd like to participate in. But my deep sense of loyalty for "mom", regardless of how I'm personally feeling about her at the time, causes me to become defensive if someone else disrespects her. Much the same way many of us would react if someone said something ugly about our own mothers. Throughout my upbringing, I was taught to never publicly "air out the family's dirty laundry." At "home" (home equaling homeland) I may protest to what "mom" subjects me to but never in a million years would I dare disrespect my "mom" in "public" (public being abroad ... amongst people "mom" does not govern). So when Natalie, a relative but family none the less, went outside "the house" & "publicly" disrespected "mom" I became defensive of "mom" because of what I've been taught to be considered as unexcusable or intolerable behavior. Outside that explanation, the only other reason I can think of as to why I took her comment personally probably lies deeper in my psyche ... sometimes I take things personally when I maybe shouldn't. Doesn't make me right but then I've never claimed to be. So, did you feel the same way when Clinton was your Cinc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 January 14, 2004 I know the Marines still stood at attention for Clinton as duty required. They just also did a 'facing' manuver for Bush that they didn't do for Clinton. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #53 January 14, 2004 QuoteI know the Marines still stood at attention for Clinton as duty required. They just also did a 'facing' manuver for Bush that they didn't do for Clinton. Sounds like they did it because they had to, not because of any deep routed respect for the Cinc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #54 January 14, 2004 Nope, you have that one just plain wrong. The facing manuver is not mandatory. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 January 14, 2004 QuoteThe facing manuver is not mandatory. Exactly it is done out of respect, correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taln1rigr 0 #56 January 14, 2004 Quote So, did you feel the same way when Clinton was your Cinc? Honestly? Yes. I did not want to believe that my CINC had done all the things he was being charged with ... BUT ... when you're caught lying under oath ... well, it makes it hard to continue trusting & defending him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #57 January 14, 2004 QuoteHonestly? Yes. I did not want to believe that my CINC had done all the things he was being charged with ... BUT ... when you're caught lying under oath ... well, it makes it hard to continue trusting & defending him. So, you truly believe that Bush has been honest in his statements and intentions about the Iraqi war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taln1rigr 0 #58 January 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteHonestly? Yes. I did not want to believe that my CINC had done all the things he was being charged with ... BUT ... when you're caught lying under oath ... well, it makes it hard to continue trusting & defending him. So, you truly believe that Bush has been honest in his statements and intentions about the Iraqi war? Because of the plagues of politics I could spend 2 minutes stating my opinion & a lifetime defending it (especially online in a thread such as this), therefore, I respectfully decline to answer your question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #59 January 15, 2004 Quote To be quite honest when one labels one as a traitor it could mean a few things ... which is what makes the English language one of the most difficult to learn. In my previous reply I stated that I was using the word traitor as someone who betrays which is an acceptable usage of the word. If you choose not to believe that my intention of using the word traitor as someone who betrays then that's your choice. If you continue to define the word as you do then be mindful that this is YOUR definition, not mine ... please do not put the proverbial "words in my mouth." So you see criticism of a president prior to/during a war as a betrayal? Bit too broad for my tase. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taln1rigr 0 #60 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuote To be quite honest when one labels one as a traitor it could mean a few things ... which is what makes the English language one of the most difficult to learn. In my previous reply I stated that I was using the word traitor as someone who betrays which is an acceptable usage of the word. If you choose not to believe that my intention of using the word traitor as someone who betrays then that's your choice. If you continue to define the word as you do then be mindful that this is YOUR definition, not mine ... please do not put the proverbial "words in my mouth." So you see criticism of a president prior to/during a war as a betrayal? Bit too broad for my tase. Have you read this thread in its entirety? I think you may have missed my explanation concerning my views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #61 January 15, 2004 That part of my post just meant, in a very general way, that I hope that what drives people in the service to serve and, consequently, often risk their lives, is a drive to defend the country, not the Administration, because any element of the latter would cheapen their sacrifice in my eyes and that would be a sad thing. Not in the context of any specific military action, and largely unrelated to previous posts in this thread. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taln1rigr 0 #62 January 15, 2004 QuoteThat part of my post just meant, in a very general way, that I hope that what drives people in the service to serve and, consequently, often risk their lives, is a drive to defend the country, not the Administration, because any element of the latter would cheapen their sacrifice in my eyes and that would be a sad thing. Not in the context of any specific military action, and largely unrelated to previous posts in this thread. Joe Got'cha, I'm following ya now & completely agree. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
