I feel like those two blue guys are often not the same guy. This seems like a goomba fallacy.
post
I think the reason the myth of Vietnam veterans being spit on is so prevalent is because its a way for people who supported the war to avoid responsibility for sending people to be traumatized by a meaningless war.
Fighting an unjust war is like pouring gasoline on the fire of PTSD. World War 2 vets went through hell, but at least they know their sacrifice was, in some sense, worth something. When a soldier is fighting an unpopular war in the service of empire, the psychological burden will be much higher.
Most actual veterans I've heard from hate warmongering politicians and these hateful bigots who support going to war.
The problem is the chicken hawks have taken over: Politicians who love war, but have never served in any meaningful role in the armed forces.
Why would politicians that love war and have served in the armed forces be better?
The same way most soldiers have better training and trigger discipline than cops. They know far better when their life is actually in danger, and are actually trained to stay cool under pressure. Cops are trained to be big babies that must get their way or else.
Same for politicians and chickenhawks. They're fake tough guys, not actually tough guys.
Including the making of featurette so that you too can learn to draw as poorly as I do.
Alot of people in the military aren't actually deployed or see active conflict. Alot of them are just moping up the rain
Is anyone saying these things? Sounds like it could be Israelis.
Some.
This is absolutely not everyone, and it's not even a large amount, but there's a small but vocal population of military vets who actually peaked in personal self-esteem in the military, never found success in civilian life, and they actually just like the attention of people when they talk about how rough it was.
It's not actually a moral stance for them - it's to get attention and try to recapture a moment of when they felt powerful and meaningful.
What percentage of retired NATObots advocate for peace and what percentage for eternal war in your opinion?
Probably true, too bad a majority of US veterans voted for Trump in 2024.
Not that Harris would have necessarily been a president of peace anyway, but it's still interesting to watch your veterans vote for the veteran hating warhawks.
But I'm not from the USA anyway, made this based on conversations in my country, where a majority of veterans are very very much pro war and are currently massively supporting an ongoing rearmament project.
warhawks.
The term you're looking for is chickenhawks.
That's not true, I'm afraid. Anti-war vets have a tendency to stand out because they are anti-war and because they make for the most effective and threatening anti-war activists (threatening to the status quo, that is). People like Smedley Butler and Scott Camil come to mind.
But let's not fool ourselves... they do not represent the majority of vets. I grew up in a place where war vets were a dime a dozen, and if any of them were anti-war they sure as hell never talked or acted like it.
Every. Single. One. I've met βand I used to be very active politically, often in tandem with Veterans for Peace.
While, at first glance, this may imply a certain bias, but my consecutive experience of that test pool's scope and yet congruent views on war at every level surprised me. And, it's not even just a "yea" to a vote, each one had nuanced influences behind their view.
To the point, that was during Desert Shield, and I've solo traveled the world for months at a time in the years between βyet, I've still not met (or even heard a friend mention) a pro-war vet in over 35 years.
/my2Β’
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


all 14 comments