Website wrote: ]Even more entertaining is this photo of a dead US soldier. It's entertaining, because there's something called owning your actions. He chose his path, and now we as a country have to pay his survivors benefits and pay for his burial, not to mention the fact that a chaplain still has to go out and tell the blubbering widow, which is another waste of resources, and that is just disgusting. He chose to join, and because of that, Forsake The Troops strongly feels that he should just be thrown in a ditch somewhere and left to rot. This soldier was not a victim of anything else but his own poor choices. Forsake The Troops spits on him and all other "veterans" who died because of something that they chose to do. No sympathy here.

That guy is sick. I hope someone sends him a mailbox bomb....

TheUnknown. wrote: That guy is sick. I hope someone sends him a mailbox bomb....

Like the unabomber.

So, wait.  [Some of] You guys are saying that because this guy is saying something really obnoxious that he should be killed or somesuch?

I expected this from Thor, who repeatedly shows his complete lack of understanding of the concept of "freedom of speech", but I must say I expected more from the rest of you.

Popular speech doesn't need protection.  The first amendment exists specifically to protect government criticism and other unpopular speech.  This website should be entitled to the highest protection available under the law.

Clark Kent wrote: So, wait.  [Some of] You guys are saying that because this guy is saying something really obnoxious that he should be killed or somesuch? I expected this from Thor, who repeatedly shows his complete lack of understanding of the concept of "freedom of speech", but I must say I expected more from the rest of you. Popular speech doesn't need protection.  The first amendment exists specifically to protect government criticism and other unpopular speech.  This website should be entitled to the highest protection available under the law.

It only needs the highest level of protection because he seems to be ticking off a lot of people.

I love those who try not to be bothered by what he says by stating the constitution protects him. We all know that. It also protects us as well, so anyone on this forum has the right to say what they want without being criticized, right clark?

It would appear that these people have no respect for their country or the lives lost to give them the ability to spread their propaganda. I think that the design of this site is to be more inflamatory then logical. It's all about attention.

I see it necessary to have a "devils advocate" perspective, and would defend their right to have this site.

Snipa69 wrote: I love those who try not to be bothered by what he says by stating the constitution protects him. We all know that.

Forget the constitution.  This isn't about the constitution.  The first amendment is simply an important concept written down.  It's the concept that is important, not the law.

I am saying that as a matter of morality we should not be threatening violence based on words and opinions.  Suggesting that words like these warrant murder is much more dangerous to society than anything this guy has to say.

This guy offends me.  Of course he offends me.  The Klan offends me also, but the day that the prevailing sentiment is that the Klan shouldn't be allowed to speak is the day I start looking for a new country.

Freedom of speech is not a mere law - it is central to the existence of democracy.  Heck, freedom of speech IS democracy.  The two are one and the same.

It also protects us as well, so anyone on this forum has the right to say what they want without being criticized, right clark?

Safe from criticism?  No.  Safe from death threats?  I should hope so.

Where do you draw the line of criticizm? Couldn't I concider a death threat as a harsh form of criticizm, definately taken to the extremes?

Another aspect, is the fact that all of the death threats posted on this particular topic are hollow-filled statements. No forumer would actually pull out a Glock 9mm and sink a slug into this guy. It is the lack of inteligence that leads the forumers to come up with what they feel is a good responce. Rather than stating that they are 'bothered' by this mans ideals like you did, they decide that the best way to get their point accross is to say something unintelligent.

If they are smart they would have said they where using a highpowered rifle, not a little cop cap gun.

A threat's "level" depends on certain things. If you say some crap like that, it is minimal level. If you say that you have X weapon, and have been practicing at X range to up your skill, and you had a plane ticket to X and where ready to murder X person, then you would be threatening. People who really do these things don't often give threats.

Fair enough - to the extent that these are simply "OMGZORZ Imma kill u" statements, they are harmless, and cause me no particular problem.

To the extent that those statements reflect even a smidgeon of deep-down belief that some kind of punishment (by whatever means) is appropriate for this web site, then I have all kinds of problems.  That's the core of what I am getting at:  "He expressed an impermissible opinion - he must be punished."

Well the guy does a good job at being inflamatory, that's his goal and proven effective.

You shouldn't let people have that much power over you though, if you think nothing of him, then what do his opinions matter?

I wonder what happend to the German citizens in WWII who thought that human ovens were a bad idea? That is why we have freedom of speach.

Most Americans do not understand how the rest of the world views the United States. We are a big ugly, you don't become and maintain the wealthiest nation in the world without screwing over some people. America does great things on a whole, but their is some very questionable history, actions, and policy, and I would understand people get upset over it.

That said, of course this mans site is tasteless and inflamatory... your response is exactly what his design is for. Regardless, maybe their is a shed of useful perspective there, probably not... but you must understand every perspective if you think you are fair.

Funny...

What a weak circumstance we are in right now. Some fools tripe is threatening enough to be removed from public eye.

I feel sorry for the ignorance of those who support Bush and his ilk. I am not trying to start an argument... I'll let the future historians do the talking.

Was just reading his hate-mail.  Hysterical.

You guys should also visit http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com - www.blackpeopleloveus.com and http://www.rent-a-negro.com - www.rent-a-negro.com .  Top-notch hate-mail on both sites.

LIEK ZOMG

If I knew this guy I would castrate him and feed him his own testies, then I would toss him in the woods dressed in pork loins and let wolves maul him, then I would burn his body and put out the fire with my urine.

Freedom of speach only counts when I agree with it.

Kill that commie. God bless 'Merica...

Tae Kwon Do wrote: God bless 'Merica...  And no place else.

Fixed it.

I wonder if WGP Goy and pcfreak aren't cheering for different things...

Good lord dude.

Well about this guy who hates the troops, I am a patriotic American who supports the troops 100%, as well as the war, however, because killing this solgier hater whould make us not a whole lot better than him, I do not support it. But because this guy will never have a real life or a successfull job, I say we just leave him to rot in whatever whole he lives in.

In a nother note, here in Montana we had a group of Vigilantes ( from whom I get my online name) for about 85 or so years, they were made up of patriotic Americans who took it into thier own hands to enforced justice, protect the peace and the citizens of Montana with the end of a rope whenever the law could not. During World War One, a man from back east came to Montana not just to denounce the war, but mostly to denounce the troops fighting in Europe, calling them " Scabs in uniform!" The next morning he was found dead, hanging from a bridge with a noose around his neck and a sighn pinned to him that simply said " 3-7-77, by order of the Vigilance Committe." ( the 3-7-77 had long been the sighn of the Vigilantes and it meant you were condemed to death by them unless you got out of town.) This was the last act by the Vigilantes, and the only person ever to be killed by them for somthing that he said and not somthing he did.

Just for the record, I do not support that execution by the Vigilantes, However, I will never shed a tear for that man they hanged. But we cannot go killing people just because of thier beliefs because that whould be Facism, and not Democracy.

So your s/n is inspired by a gang of roving murderers?

Nice.

Clark Kent wrote: So your s/n is inspired by a gang of roving murderers? Nice.

No, they were far from that, they were very well organized, gave the criminals a fair trial, never killed anyone who hadn't commited a capital crime ( except for the guy I mentioned above ), were fully supported by the people of Montana and even the law enforcement here. They just took care of criminals whom everybody knew were murderers but the cops just couldn't get enough evidence, for example; criminals that were like O.J. Simpson or Al Capone. They also were a lot larger than the police forces in Montana so they could help them out by offering more manpower, and they worked faster than the cops, If they saw a person commit a crime they whould emediately arrest him, give him a trial by the Vigilance Committe, and have him Hanged by morning. And not all the people captured by the Vigilantes were hanged, some were found innocent by the Vigilance Committe.

A roaming Band of Murauders, no, Here in Montana they are considered Heroes.

Oh, and I should mention that the man whom they were originally formed to protect the people agianst and eventually Hang, was The corrupt Sheriff of Bannack Montana, Henry Plumber, whom was the only lawman in the state and was using his power to rob and kill the miners there. That man, Henry Plumber, was my great great great great uncle, so I am a realative of the Vigilante's arch enemy, and I support thier decision to Hang him, Plumber was a very evil man, and the later law enforcement officialls also wrote that they supported the Vigilantes hanging Plumber.

Thor wrote: i fear that america is no romanor british empire(which survivedfor so long by squashing such open revolt with the very power of the earth....)

I should hope not.  "Squashing" somebody for criticizing the government or the military is how you can tell you are dealing with an evil empire.

This country was founded in exactly this type of "rebellion" - people speaking out against what they believed were unjust actions by the government.

My question is this(clark think about this one long and hard before you hide behind your ideals again):Do you not see this kind of thought and action and this kind of american citizen as a threat to your very survival as a world power, because you can bet large that there is more than just micheal crook with his "opinions"....

I am "hiding behind my ideals"?  I'm not sure what that means, but I am pretty sure that I am not hiding.

As to your question:  Is it possible that "squashing" people like this guy would prolong the US' "survival as a world power"?  Certainly.  Certainly possible.

Is this guy (and guys like him) a threat to the US as a world power?  IMO, no.  Rather the opposite.  It is the free exchange of ideas that has allowed the US to remain for so long.  All systems based on centralized power, usually around a single individual or small group (which would result if no criticism were allowed) eventually fail when those small groups die off.  The democratic system allows for continued change, which in turn leads to long-term stability.  Theoretically, a democracy could last forever - not sure that is true of any other form of government.

More importantly, however, is that I value freedom of speech far more than the "survival of the US as a world power".  You are asking the wrong question.  Bottom line:  if we "squash" this guy, then WE are the evil empire, then WE are the bad guys.  We will have taken a page out of the playbook of Stalin and Saddam, Hitler and Idi Amin.

I would would rather be the righteous weak than the evil empire.

Thor wrote: Well,however much i believe everything he says is an act of treason to your country, i'm afraid i was thinking on much larger scale than just somepuke wanting attention. how has society as a whole become so pacifist and liberal that people like this get the very notion that they can go on the radio an dispel something that is in our everyday lives......like it or not, opinions don't appear out of thin air, they are formed and forced on us by the outside world. I guess america no longer wishes to be a world power or a mighty empire, because itis becoming idle and angry on the inside, and will eventually do itself in. 97% of people are extremely patriotic, but the other 3% are very contagious....it doesn't take much to kill morale. i fear that america is no romanor british empire(which survivedfor so long by squashing such open revolt with the very power of the earth....)hell, romans never had many cases of anything like this except for jesus and look what happened to him. Thusly ending the little revolt he started way back when.... the reason i liken americato the romans of old is simple,because it is so much alike. And the more the yanks get slack and idle an angry, the quicker the downward spiral. My question is this(clark think about this one long and hard before you hide behind your ideals again):Do you not see this kind of thought and action and this kind of american citizen as a threat to your very survival as a world power, because you can bet large that there is more than just micheal crook with his "opinions"....some people so cro-magnon enough to do ciolence that many of you were so ready to do unto him.

No offense to you or anything, but that is exactly the kind of thing I whould expect from somone outside America. We are nothing like the Romans or The British empire for the very reason that we do not consider somone like this solgier hater a threat to national security, for heavens sake this is one of the things we fought our revolution for, freedom to say what you wan't without being killed by the government, we are a Dmocracy not a Dictatorship. And we do not nor have we ever had any ambitions to become an empire, doing such whould have been agianst our Constitution. This solgier hater is an evil person that is very anoying to say the least, but he is far from a threat to our security, after all , the people who share his opinions are about every 1 out of 6 million people in the U.S.

But, once agian, for the reacord, I do not support anything the solgier hater says.

Clark Kent wrote: Thor wrote: i fear that america is no romanor british empire(which survivedfor so long by squashing such open revolt with the very power of the earth....) I should hope not.  "Squashing" somebody for criticizing the government or the military is how you can tell you are dealing with an evil empire. This country was founded in exactly this type of "rebellion" - people speaking out against what they believed were unjust actions by the government.   My question is this(clark think about this one long and hard before you hide behind your ideals again):Do you not see this kind of thought and action and this kind of american citizen as a threat to your very survival as a world power, because you can bet large that there is more than just micheal crook with his "opinions".... I am "hiding behind my ideals"?  I'm not sure what that means, but I am pretty sure that I am not hiding. As to your question:  Is it possible that "squashing" people like this guy would prolong the US' "survival as a world power"?  Certainly.  Certainly possible. Is this guy (and guys like him) a threat to the US as a world power?  IMO, no.  Rather the opposite.  It is the free exchange of ideas that has allowed the US to remain for so long.  All systems based on centralized power, usually around a single individual or small group (which would result if no criticism were allowed) eventually fail when those small groups die off.  The democratic system allows for continued change, which in turn leads to long-term stability.  Theoretically, a democracy could last forever - not sure that is true of any other form of government. More importantly, however, is that I value freedom of speech far more than the "survival of the US as a world power".  You are asking the wrong question.  Bottom line:  if we "squash" this guy, then WE are the evil empire, then WE are the bad guys.  We will have taken a page out of the playbook of Stalin and Saddam, Hitler and Idi Amin. I would would rather be the righteous weak than the evil empire.

Exactly the way I feel.

BlackDeath7 wrote: You know what?  You can leave this country because if it wasn't for our army fighting for independence and protection for over two hundred years you wouldn't even be in the position to have the rights you have now.  If you don't support our country, then get the heck out and see what I care. About the website, it makes me sick.  People do have a right to free speech, true enough.  But this just disgusts me.  This person is completely ungrateful for what this country has done for him.  It seems his beef with them is over taxes.  It's probably some loser from New York who got caught for tax fraud.  However I wouldn't mind if he were to go missing... forever.

ZOMG Do you like Freedom Fries?

Darur wrote:

This device would rock.  Gotta get me one of those...

:)

Darur wrote: Clark Kent wrote: ^ And I wasn't necessarily talking about you... Oh, sorry, lol, figured you were reffering to my saying I wouldnt mind seeing him in a ditch

Nah - I read yours the way you intended it.  Others I am not so sure about.

Darur wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: LIEK ZOMG If I knew this guy I would castrate him and feed him his own testies, then I would toss him in the woods dressed in pork loins and let wolves maul him, then I would burn his body and put out the fire with my urine. Freedom of speach only counts when I agree with it. Kill that commie. God bless 'Merica... So wait, has this become like standard issue for you guys? : ?

Woah you showed me.

Nice return argument.

You clearly > Me.

BlackDeath7 wrote: PlentifulBalls wrote: I agree. We should just give up on an army, since only morons serve their country. Not like we need one anyway, everyone can defend themselves. You know what?  You can leave this country because if it wasn't for our army fighting for independence and protection for over two hundred years you wouldn't even be in the position to have the rights you have now.  If you don't support our country, then get the heck out and see what I care.

Hold on, calm down, if you read the post ubove him you whould see that he was agreeing that the solgier hater is a disgusting, vile human being, when he said that stuff about getting rid of the army, he was being sarcastic in order to show how stupid this solgier hater's thinking is.

As for what you said about people who hate our troops and think we shouldn't have an army, I agree that they should leave the country because they don't apreciate the freedoms they enjoy, nor do they have respect for the people who protect those freedoms. That kind of thinking is treason in my book, though not worthy of execution, but rather bannishment to another more socialist state untill they learn to apreciate the freedoms they enjoy here in the United States.

Darur wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Darur wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: LIEK ZOMG If I knew this guy I would castrate him and feed him his own testies, then I would toss him in the woods dressed in pork loins and let wolves maul him, then I would burn his body and put out the fire with my urine. Freedom of speach only counts when I agree with it. Kill that commie. God bless 'Merica... So wait, has this become like standard issue for you guys? : ? Woah you showed me. Nice return argument. You clearly > Me. My point is you manged to take comments way out of proportion and reply with a satirical post that debates none of the points. . .

Thats me, chock full o satire.

And my post was poking fun at all the tards that were saying how they want to kill this guy for his opinion...

MT. Vigilante wrote: As for what you said about people who hate our troops and think we shouldn't have an army, I agree that they should leave the country because they don't apreciate the freedoms they enjoy, nor do they have respect for the people who protect those freedoms. That kind of thinking is treason in my book, though not worthy of execution, but rather bannishment to another more socialist state untill they learn to apreciate the freedoms they enjoy here in the United States.

And do those freedoms include the freedom to hate the troops, the freedom to think we shouldn't have an army, and the freedom not to respect various people?

I would certainly think so...

Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: As for what you said about people who hate our troops and think we shouldn't have an army, I agree that they should leave the country because they don't apreciate the freedoms they enjoy, nor do they have respect for the people who protect those freedoms. That kind of thinking is treason in my book, though not worthy of execution, but rather bannishment to another more socialist state untill they learn to apreciate the freedoms they enjoy here in the United States.   And do those freedoms include the freedom to hate the troops, the freedom to think we shouldn't have an army, and the freedom not to respect various people? I would certainly think so...

Yes, they do. I hope that what I said is never carried out by the government because like you stated so well " I whould rather be the rightous weak than the evil empire." What I had said is just the product of wishing that there was a way to teach these people to apreciate what they have and those who fought and died to give it to them. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that without giving the government the ability to deny everyone thier rights and start forcivly regulating thought, which is the definition of Facism.

EDIT - to Montana:

Sure, there is a way:  Speech.

If you don't like what they are saying, explain why.  People can change their minds.

Shutting them down or kicking them out, on the other hand, will teach them nothing. 

But, to take things further - people talk a lot about respecting the soldiers.  How come nobody talks about respecting the politicians?  Without Jefferson to write the Constitution we wouldn't have a country.  Without Congress we wouldn't have laws.

How about the judges and the lawyers?  Without them, we wouldn't have order.  How about the businessmen?  Without them, we wouldn't have money.  How about scientists?  Without them, we wouldn't have much of anything at all.

And so forth...

I object to the idea that soldiers get special treatment in the respect game. 

Wait - did DAVE just get offended by something?

:O

Clark Kent wrote: EDIT - to Montana: Sure, there is a way:  Speech. If you don't like what they are saying, explain why.  People can change their minds. Shutting them down or kicking them out, on the other hand, will teach them nothing.    But, to take things further - people talk a lot about respecting the soldiers.  How come nobody talks about respecting the politicians?  Without Jefferson to write the Constitution we wouldn't have a country.  Without Congress we wouldn't have laws. How about the judges and the lawyers?  Without them, we wouldn't have order.  How about the businessmen?  Without them, we wouldn't have money.  How about scientists?  Without them, we wouldn't have much of anything at all. And so forth... I object to the idea that soldiers get special treatment in the respect game.

I agreed with you on everything up untill this piont.

Let me tell why they get more respect and should! Show me one politician who is over there dodging morter rounds, show me one bussiness man who is over there watching his friends die all around him, show me one judge who is over there fighting and his only wish is to get home alive so he can see his newborn son for the first time! So don't give me this crap about how politicians should get the same respect as our troops, they arn't the ones over there fighting and deying! My father did do his duty over there, and I thank God that he made it home alive, I will always give him and those like him more respect than any other person on the face of this plannet, and every one of those Marines, Solgiers, Airmen, And Sailors have earned that respect with thier blood. 

DBibeau855 wrote: Polititions? Get respect? Maybe back in the day, but not today, not ever, i hate all polititions. They are all more slippery than snot on a door nobb. All of them.

I will respect the good ones ( which seem to be rare nowadays, but there are a few.) but never will I give them as much respect as our troops.

Sure, soldiers die. 

But if you do some research, you will find that soldiering (except during the civil war) isn't the most dangerous profession out there.  Not even close.

Coal miners die in mining accidents to keep us less dependant on foreign oil.  Truckers die in traffic accidents to get us our stuff.  Brokers work in terrorist targets (aka office buildings) to help gain the freedom of retirement.  Construction workers die in accidents so you can watch football.  Lawyers and doctors have tremendous suicide rates due to stress, so you can be healthy and get the stuff you deserve.

Just because you aren't getting shot at doesn't mean you aren't making sacrifices. 

And, of course, soldiers aren't the only ones getting shot at.  KBR has loads of folks getting shot at while driving trucks and building stuff in Iraq, helping get some of the oil money back to the US, and they can't even shoot back. 

And those are just the physical sacrifices.

How about a teacher/professor with a Ph.D. who works for essentially minimum wage to help kids learn stuff?  How about the DOJ lawyer who would be making 6-7 times his salary in the private sector, but instead chooses to serve his country?  Or the physician who chooses to work for peanuts on the res instead of making big bucks in the city?

Soldiers have housing, health care, retirement benefits - lots of other folks don't, who are also making sacrifices for our country.

Are soldiers useful, important, and usually honorable?  Sure.  But so are loads of other folk.

You might absolutely be correct Homer, but the ideal still stands that those who wish him dead are actually imposing on his rights regardless of how "patriotic" they think they are.

Clark Kent wrote: Sure, soldiers die.  But if you do some research, you will find that soldiering (except during the civil war) isn't the most dangerous profession out there.  Not even close. Coal miners die in mining accidents to keep us less dependant on foreign oil.  Truckers die in traffic accidents to get us our stuff.  Brokers work in terrorist targets (aka office buildings) to help gain the freedom of retirement.  Construction workers die in accidents so you can watch football.  Lawyers and doctors have tremendous suicide rates due to stress, so you can be healthy and get the stuff you deserve. Just because you aren't getting shot at doesn't mean you aren't making sacrifices.  And, of course, soldiers aren't the only ones getting shot at.  KBR has loads of folks getting shot at while driving trucks and building stuff in Iraq, helping get some of the oil money back to the US, and they can't even shoot back.  And those are just the physical sacrifices. How about a teacher/professor with a Ph.D. who works for essentially minimum wage to help kids learn stuff?  How about the DOJ lawyer who would be making 6-7 times his salary in the private sector, but instead chooses to serve his country?  Or the physician who chooses to work for peanuts on the res instead of making big bucks in the city? Soldiers have housing, health care, retirement benefits - lots of other folks don't, who are also making sacrifices for our country. Are soldiers useful, important, and usually honorable?  Sure.  But so are loads of other folk.

Stop Downgrading our solgiers! These people that you mentioned above don't sacrifice half of what the solgiers in war do! You go over there and fight and watch your friends die, and then tell me whether some accountanat who "sacrifices" hours of his life behind a desk so americans can live fat and happy deserves the same amount of respect as our troops.

Don't you get it! Without our solgiers over there sacrificing thier lives and freedom, we whould have none of the things that accountants and coal miners work for, all of this is given to us by the blood of our troops, which they willingly sacrifice, and that means that they deserve way more respect than Me, the average laborer.

WGP Guy wrote: But these "other folks" coudln't do their jobs without soldiers making it possible.

That's arguable (many countries with virtually no military get by just fine).  Matter of definition, perhaps.

It is a certainty, however, that soldiers would not be able to do their jobs (meaningfully) without the scientists to invent weapons, without the manufacturers and businessmen to make the weapons (and trucks, uniforms, lunch, GPS systems, boats, planes...), and the truckdrivers to deliver them.

Soldiers also would not be able to do their job without the lawyers and politicians to create the army in the first place.

All of society relies on each other.  We are inter-dependant.

homer wrote: I still hold my opinion that he's an attention whore who's creating controversy for its own sake.

I tend to agree.  It's working, too.

Thor wrote: Soldiers also make far more personal sacrifices(for training alone)

You kidding me?  People spend thousands on personal trainers and shooting camps and karate classes just to get a fraction of the cool training the Marines get. 

Thor wrote: Tohe lawyers and doctors yo mention....they get they're respect, in the form ofa paycheck and a degree....a soldier would be in for 25 years and come out with nothing more than a degree in killology and then get his butt whupped by the real world.

Fair enough - that's my point.  Lawyers, doctors, and soldiers are all important parts of society.  Soldiers get paid in salutes at the airport (at least in the commercials) and hero-threads on the Tippmann forum, and lawyers/doctors get paid in dollars.  After 25 years, the soldier can retire with benefits, the lawyer will still be working to save for retirement.

Different choices with different results, and different methods of compensation, but all are important parts of society.

Thor wrote: Coal miners and truckers death are tragedy's, everyone of them, but a good part are due to neglect, not because someone on "the other side" has a 84 locked on them.

Does it matter?  Dead is dead - dangerous is dangerous.  By this theory, firemen aren't entitled to props either. 

And I can't believe you just quoted Scarface.  Good lord.

Darur wrote: Soldiers are respected simpley because they risk their lives everyday for people they may never know all for scant pay and a rough lifestyle.  Its a selfless profession.

Well, kind of.

Last survey I saw, most people joined the military for the benefits - steady pay, G.I. cash for college, job training, and so forth.  Others join for fun, adventure, and the chance to blow stuff up.  Others join for family tradition.  Other than a blip right after 9/11, most people in the US military did not join due to overwhelming selflessness.  Then, of course, there are the draftees - many/most soldiers who served in Vietnam and WWII (revered today) were drafted.  Were they also selfless?  Since 9/11 the news has been full of people who joined the military, who are now claiming "hey, this [getting shot at] isn't what I signed up for."  They just wanted to be weekend warriors.  Sacrifice was the last thing on their mind.

I'm sorry - I just don't buy the "noble sacrifice" theory as a single, or even predominant, explanation for military service.  Does it come into play for many people?  Sure, but it is nowhere near the end-all be-all of motivation.  That is just too simple an explanation, and is therefore itself not a sufficient justification for excessive soldier-worship.

And let's talk about risking they lives.  Many soldiers get shot at or otherwise exposed to danger - yes.  But oh-so many members of the military are in absolutely no danger whatsoever.  The cook at the Pentagon?  The on-base JAG?  The CIA intelligence liaison?  The cryptograher, the interpreter, the naval base mechanic?  What danger are they in?  I would suggest that they are SAFER than the general public.  There will be a general draft long before those guys are sent into combat.

Please explain to me how some guy who is a short-order cook on a carrier (when there is no other large navy left in the world), who joined for the bennies, is any more of a hero than the short-order cook at your local diner.  They diner guy will see combat before the carrier guy does, and is working for less in the meantime.

Darur wrote: There isnt one profession thats above all

On this we can certainly agree.

Montana wrote: Don't you get it! Without our solgiers over there sacrificing thier lives and freedom, we whould have none of the things that accountants and coal miners work for, all of this is given to us by the blood of our troops, which they willingly sacrifice, and that means that they deserve way more respect than Me, the average laborer.

We can play the "cause" game all day long.  How about your parents?  Without parents, we (literally) wouldn't have anything.  Yet all I see on this forum all day long is people complaining about their parents.  Your parents have done more for you, and sacrificed more for you, than any soldier.  But people brag about the soldiers and complain about their parents.  Go figure.

Look, people.  I'm not saying that soldiering isn't a potentially honorable profession.  I am simply saying that some of the hero-worship is just out of proportion.  WAY out of proportion.