Don't you see that's my point? Why are you thanking me for my service? If someone chooses to be a biochemist, do we usually thank them for doing that? What about if someone chooses to work for a telecommunications company? Should they be thanked? A University prof?

For some reason we've decided that a few fields of work are somehow more noble than others, or deserve our respect more. Medicine, peacekeeping, and war fighting are some that I think of immediately, and frankly I'm still undecided as to how much the military really contributes to society, be it global or local communities.

I tell you this, while there are military members who've fallen into that talk, myself and most I know don't consider ourselves any different than any civilians, I'm not being modest, I'm being honest.

Also, mercenary, what'd you do in the army?

Then again, you're not putting your life on the line. An air conditioned office in Georgia is a far cry from a combat zone.

You said you were doing four years of public service for our country. I don't give a shit what your intentions are, whether it's to make a dime or college money or whatever. The soldier/marines are putting their life on the line without having the ability to decide where and when. I would also thank firefighters and cops and anyone else of that ilk. These are the folks who do the heavy lifting in society that I personally don't care to do. When the shit hits the fan they are the ones knee-deep in shit.
It's wonderful to be in that position where the benefit is not totally obvious!

Meanwhile in most of the real world it's the Serengeti Plain, eat or be eaten. The disorder is all around you. And in certain places, it's nuclear. You don't like the current conflict... because you don't like its politics. Yeah well I didn't vote for the guy either but this was one way to go about cleaning up the middle east and Bill Clinton might well have taken the same approach, although he would have made sure France was paid off properly before going to the UN.

WW2 was only 4 generations ago and today there's much, much greater capacity and much more at stake. Deadly force will continue to be needed and it will continue to be deadly. I can't wait for a D to be President so people like you (omg that's a terrible phrase to use) will sober up and recognize that. (what a terrible thing to say)

So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present ;)

So... what does the local carjacking have with the military? And what armed conflict are we involved in with Syria or ROK? And it should be pointed out that this was NOT a way to clean up the middle east, it might have been if it were done properly, but all its done is messed things up WAY worse.

You said it yourself, Bill Clinton might have done the same thing. I have no doubt that any Democratic president elected will still use force. And I love how everyone says that democrats are 'anti-military,' but guess what? Over the past 20 or so years, the highest increase in pay per soldier was under a democratic president. He did a much better job with the military than the president before him, or the president after him. Also, if you remember, the guy that was president during WWII... democrat.

My point was that I'm not SURE about the usefulness of the military. Mostly because I'm what you call a global thinker. In the end, what's best for the entirety of humanity is far more important than what's best for the US... this is because I'm not arrogant or prickish enough to think that those things are one in the same. There are a LOT more people on the planet than are in the US. And in my opinion, what we are doing is NOT in the global interest, it was done ONLY with personal interest. And THAT is something that most democratic presidents wouldn't have done.

P.S. Don't assume that I'm a democrat or that I agree with them all. I'm a liberal for sure, but I'm not part of some amorphous lump of 'those kind of people' anymore than you are. In fact, I'm NOT in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq. I just don't want to be directly involved in the killing anymore.

No no, not at all, but birds of a feather. My point is, being stateside in the Air Force, is different from the Marines or Army in Iraq, is different from the National Guard, or Navy, in either place.

The people that sign up for the Marines or Army, knowing they are going to be grunts, especially during a war, are probably not motivated by the tuition money as much as the people that join the Air force or Navy with a needed skill. The grunts are taking a bigger risk, putting more on the line, also.
Scoffing at their sacrifice doesn't diminish it.

The Guards that signed up in peace time, one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, for extra income and the benefits, took a crap shoot and lost. Because they knew the risk, doesn't diminish the sacrifices they are making over there. The fact they shouldn't be there in the first place, doesn't either.

I agree with Q (how's that for a tag) that mixing up carjacking and military is a bad, bad idea.

The reason that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed was that our country's two experiences with military peacekeeping, the pre- and post- Revolutionary War period and the Reconstruction following the Civil War, were so significant that it was felt that a law had to be passed to further define limits implied in the Constitution.

The military are not 'cops with different color uniforms'. Their rules of engagement are significantly different from those of police. A cop who shoots an unarmed 12-year-old in broad daylight, for example, is in more trouble than a soldier who does the same in a war zone. This isn't to say that similar situations don't occur. The police in London responsible for the Stockwell shooting will not individually face charge for effectively shooting the wrong guy because he was wearing a bulky coat, wasn't white, and lived near suspected terrorists.

One of the most effective tool terrorists have is getting cops and soldiers to start killing civilians. It's even more effective when they are perceived as getting away with it.

In effect, if enough people are responsible for the death of a civilian, than none of them are guilty.

The point is, there are savages everywhere, from which we need protection and direction.

I have a huge problem with this idea. We need to protect ourselves from savages here, not be protected from savages everywhere. You do get that all savages everywhere creates a state of permanent warfare, do you not?

Don't kid yourself. The world is in a permanent state of warfare. You never notice it because, like crime, 99% of it never leads anywhere because somebody sane says, if we do this we will be punished or killed.

Musharraf says, the first thing he thought when considering his options post 9/11 was, shall I go to war with the US? And his second thought was, no, we will be pulverized.

Turn off Fox News. Most of it never leads anywhere, because most people care only about what is personally happening to them and their families. There are very few real bad actors who take it beyond the personal. That tiny group can be policed.

Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well. If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around. There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

I hear you man, but the particular media source isn't the big problem. There isn't much of a market for the sky isn't falling news. Prowar/antiwar both want to terrorize. Both will say the sky isn't falling only in reaction to the others over-reaction. When the news is skewed you need to look inside yourself and think, I'm a human what drives me? Very few of us look inside and see a real bastard. Folks that give great power to others out of fear risk handing their power to one of the few bastards, because those few bastards are by definition grasping.
I'm reaping the benefits of the accumulated knowlege of mankind. To attribute that to American hegemony seems a distortion of reality.

I didn't really understand your post, but I thank you for writing it.

Maybe I'll sober up and clean that one up...

I don't see that. I see wars continuing everywhere. Wars were becoming more international - sucking in more countries in every war - as weaponry increased ranges for each battlefield. It was not America that caused a mindset change. The world is not safer only because of America (as Fox News propaganda tell extremists). Where 'world policemen' justify their actions, then problems may actually become worse. It took wars so vast with weapons so massive to finally cause little people to rise up - to demand that the reason for war (the leaders) answer instead to the people. But again, an obvious fact identifies where such problems are created.

Neither WWII nor America stopped threats of war by 'big dic' mentalities. Probably the event that most brought worldwide sanity was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The power and need of institutions such as the UN, people who talk to their enemies (a direct comment on the stupidity of George Jr), the need for eliminating military conflict by solving problems at the negotiating table rather than with 'big dic' solutions, and the power of 'containment' - all became obvious and necessary. Many Americans were no different than other 'evil ones' with a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dics' on all sides saw solutions only in terms of military conflict. The lessons from Kennedy and Khrushchev conclusively proved the fallacy of 'big dic' reaction.

What is an impediment to worldwide conflict? Learn the lessons of history AND appreciate concepts in this previous citation:
from "New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?"

Yes warfare is still ongoing. But no longer unrestricted. No longer sucking in every major power. It took something so fearful as a Cuban Missile Crisis to finally make obvious the stupidity of that 'big dic' reasoning. It was not America that brought sanity. My god. Some Americans are still so 'evil' (if evil exists) as to even want a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. America, like other nations, can easily be enthralled in the emotion of power. As a result, America is responsible for unnecessary death of millions of innocent people just in Nam and Iraq alone. Is that a 'good' people, or a misguided people? To answer that, who was the leader then?

Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives. They cannot take the mindset of an honest broker. They see solutions only in military terms - the 'big dic' solution. They feel; therefore they assume they must know. Too many will not "look inside and see a real bastard." Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.