<p>My post was made with the simple intent to advocate military service, make the claim that a decision to serve in the military does not limit one’s options but benefits one in many ways, and that service (not necessarily military) is a social necessity. That’s it. It is my fault for alluding to protestors in my post, failing to stay on topic…but more on that in a minute. As for my “lack of understanding of why there is opposition to US military intervention and US foreign policy generally in that part of the world” I can assure you that I fully understand the issue better than most. I am intimately familiar with “that part of the world” and know of most of its nuances first hand that most people only know through the media. I’m confused about how you could have possibly come to that conclusion about me with the information you had at hand.</p>
<p>Alleging someone is 17 and idealistic who has clearly proven himself as such, is not dismissing all who disagree with me as such. An individual who defends “occupy” protestors and accuses me of ignorance with the flimsy assertion that I should “get to know them” is idealistic, and makes the assumption that I don’t. An individual that puts quotations around the word “defend” when discussing the American military’s objectives worldwide is idealistic. An individual who scorns military service by saying that the talents and skills it promotes relate only to “being able to kill people” is idealistic, and misinformed. But hey, he must represent the group because no one jumped on him. Healthy skepticism is just that; however his platform demonstrates ignorance when it is unfounded and shallow. I am aware that I can be very direct in my writing, and I sincerely do not mean to offend, but I’m sure masterofpupets isn’t fragile. Furthermore, I was no more direct with my point than he. I value a constructive dialogue, especially if it is heated. </p>
<p>The hypocrisy is glaring when someone “supports the troops” but dismisses service as a viable option for one’s son or daughter because they regard a soldier as a piece in the machine of flawed imperialistic foreign policy. That would indicate a disdain for the troops. A decision based on self-preservation is understandable, and it is not dishonorable, it is simply not honorable. To suggest that I fail to see your viewpoint because I’ve failed to be exposed to different perspectives is condescending in itself, as if I couldn’t possibly hold the beliefs that I do unless I have my blinders on. I will agree with you that college will be a rich environment full of different viewpoints, and that appeal was the major factor in my decision to go to school, but you probably do not realize that the military is a heterogeneous environment that offers the same.</p>
<p>Since the topic of economic disparity in America is now in debate, I would like to briefly explore the issue as it pertains to education, because after all this is a college thread. I do not want to be misunderstood. My disagreement with the movement lies in its execution- tangling with police, damage of property, the embrace of nihilism, the overall lack of intellectual discourse. That is why I used the term “whining”. Economic disparity does exist, and those people who America enabled to follow their dreams to success should be led by social conscious to serve their country. This was my major point. Those visiting this site are clearly ambitious and headed for educational achievement, and therefore are bound by this obligation more than most. With that, we are on the same page.</p>
<p>The majority of my views are clearly not held by the demographic in this forum, but I will sincerely engage in a further professional dialogue devoid of further condescension on both parties. </p>
<p>And ECADMSTUDENT, FAUVE- I thank your father and your son for their service respectively.</p>