I know the concept of "space force" sounds ridiculous today, but I have a feeling that in the next 50 years it's going to be a pretty important branch.
the space force definitely isn't a ridiculous idea. In fact, most media and analysts have admitted that the primary reason they didn't want to accept it was because it was established by Trump. Foreign policy and strategic analysts have been pushing for an independent space force for decades now so we can better coordinate our efforts in space.
The amount of naive people who don't recognize how much sensitive property America has in space (and the fact that it's prone to attacks) is mind blowing.
I take umbrage with your dates of founding selection. The US Army was founded in 1775 as the Continental Army, yes, but the Navy and Marine Corps also were founded in 1775 as the Continental Marines and Continental Navy. The individual military branches utilize the 1775 dates for their founding traditions and celebrations. Source: prior US military member.
Also while we're here, the Coast Guard existed as the Revenue Cutter Service (founded 1790) before it merged with the Life-Saving Service (founded 1848) in 1915 to form the Coast Guard.
As a citizen of a country indiscriminately bombed by the US military, I would like to emphasize the fact that I personally am not thankful to those who served, quite the opposite, and that I find that remark offensive. I guess you don't care about my opinion, but I had to express it.
The American military is a very controversial topic with foreign countries who we have been at war with. I understand any ill feelings about us. Yet, I do respect the courage and bravery that it takes to put your life on the line for your country.
@vitriden, ordinary troops don't determine military policy. Showing respect to service members isn't an endorsement of what a country's military does, it's an acknowledgement of the sacrifices many of these people made. If you ever met a US service member, you'd probably find they don't hold a grudge against you or your country; they were just doing what they were told, same as the soldiers of any other country. So if you want to criticize the US government or military as a whole, feel free, but I'd urge you to reconsider directing your hatred toward everyday US service members.
@JWatson24, that's all true but you are neglecting that we have a voluntary military force. The vast majority of service members, by signing up, endorse the policies of the American military and government, which are well known. So I do think @vitriden has a fair argument about not being thankful to those who served.
@pctjunkie I think you make good points, but I'm not sold on them. People join the military for a variety of reasons, including getting a stipend, paying for their college education, or even just continuing family tradition. Also, many service members don't end up being deployed in a warzone, so it's not as though every soldier is expecting they'll have to fight. While there certainly are some service members who join for the explicit intent of endorsing military policy, I doubt it's the vast majority.
Both fair points, but I do tend to give more credence to JWatson. I have multiple family members who have all joined the military for a variety of reasons, and it was never just ONE prevailing reason (although I assume it's possible if you believe hard enough in it). Presidents are usually changed every 4-8 years, so if you intend the enlist in the military as a career, you're not just thinking about the short term war hawk, moderate, or pacifist.
I can respect that you disrespect it. However, your usage of the term "indiscriminately bombed" seems ill placed to me. We could have a discussion over the rights vs wrongs on either side, but one thing is for certain: Serbia was not bombed "indiscriminately" as you claim.
It really was. A marketplace in Niš, Aleksinac city centre, Grdelička klisura train, Chinese embassy, a hospital in Belgrade, all of these are not legitimate military targets in any justifiable way. Also, there were thousands of civilian deaths proclaimed by the NATO to be "collateral damage". I really can't see it in any other way other than indiscriminate bombing.
The word indiscriminate means "done at random or without careful thought." I was referring to the bombing campaign in a general sense, which wasn't done randomly or without careful thought. While "careful" can always be a debatable word, the outcome of the campaign ended more or less as intended.
As far as bombing civilians needlessly, I'm very much against that.
Serbia was never indiscriminately bombed by the United States. Stop believing the horse dookie your own corrupt and criminal government feeds you. There were good reasons for the NATO bombings that took place. And yes, as others have pointed out, collateral damage is not the same thing as indiscriminate bombing.
I didn't say that Serbians didn't die. Or that their deaths were necessary. The war criminals running Serbia at the time could have easily avoided all of those deaths had they wanted to and its of course unfortunate that they didn't. The NATO action, though, was necessary to stop an ongoing genocide. It stemmed the bleeding of what was already happening. The bombings didn't just randomly produce suffering in a vacuum.
It's great to see you have unbiased opinions based strictly on facts, and not on propaganda and emotion. You have clearly heard of the fact that the ethnic cleansing was done by all sides involved and that there are practically no Serbs in Kosovo, Croatia and a greater part of Bosnia, despite the fact they were a majority in a greater part of these territories. Slobodan Milošević was a war criminal and the man I have always hated for what he has done in all of Yugoslavia, yet that doesn't change the fact the same thing goes for the war time leaders of other republics-turned-countries of former Yugoslavia. There are rarely innocent sides in a civil war, I know that very well. Sorry for your car.
The author of this quiz was clearly trying to making a nice gesture, and it was pretty rude to butt in for the sake of making yourself heard.
I am sure if you made a quiz of, for example, your country's national holiday, you wouldn't want a random quizzer saying they think it is a dumb or pointless holiday.
I absolutely know what happened there. A horrible war crime for which all the people involved should be prosecuted and sentenced for life. But what does that have to do with a bombing campaign 4 years after that war was finished? And how does one crime justify another crime?
Serbia was not indiscriminately bombed. Serbia was literally carrying out war crimes such as ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Albanians. Prior to that, Serbs were committing mass genocide against Bosniaks and also against Croats. Serb nationalists try to play victims when they were the perpetrators of the worst atrocities in post-WW2 Europe.
Regardless of what one thinks of what happened in Serbia, I agree with the general sentiment that automatically thanking veterans for their service is a little over-the-top. It's one of those automatic empty patriotic gestures ingrained by decades of propaganda.
First, many people in the military never actually "risk their lives" - in fact, being a soldier is less dangerous than being a logger or a fisherman. Next time you see a logger, why not thanking *him* for his service?
Second, people join the military for a variety of reasons - necessity, college tuition, family traditions, lack of other options... I'm sure some people join out of idealism. And I'm also sure some others join because they think it'll be like a video game. Why would you automatically assume that someone joined to "defend your freedom", when you have no actual idea if that's the case?
Third, whether or not the US military actually defends anyone's freedoms is up for debate. When has it last been used to defend any portion of US territory? I'm not saying that armies are useless, or that we should necessarily get rid of them, or even that soldiers are necessarily in agreement with how they are used and deployed, but it's hard to argue that the US army has not *also* been used to subjugate other people's freedoms, for geopolitical or commercial advantage. I'm also not saying that this is unique to the US, but it does happen.
Does participation is such an effort necessarily warrant thanks?
Anyway, I think it's pretty weird that the US has things like Veteran's Day, or veteran discounts, or that some people (apparently) thank random veterans they don't know for their service. This certainly doesn't happen in the countries I'm from. I'd be more inclined to thank a teacher than a veteran.
dg... Veteran's Day comes from WW1 Armistice Day. November 11th. It's still a holiday in France and in many countries by various names. Look something up once in a while maybe before jumping so eagerly to condemn Americans.
I like that you left out the country you're talking about is Milosevic's genocidal Serbian hellscape. The only post-WWII European country to openly engage in mass murder and genocide. Innocent deaths are horrible, but there is no one who thinks bombing Serbia was a bad idea. Sorry.
If that's enough for you, you can dive into Title 10 of the US Code and read that it's the only military branch of the armed forces under administered by Homeland Security, but when needed, the Department of Defense, under the Sec. of the Navy, can assume control.
That holds up for all branches. 10% of Americans, 16 million people, were in the military in World War 2. 10% of those were combat soldiers. Rear echelon members make up the bulk of any military branch.
"The Navy specializes in controlling the entry and exit points of the sea ports, while the Marines carry out amphibious combat missions." - differencebetween.net
I never would've expected the space force to be a thing about ten years ago. I wonder if there will be another branch of military in the future to cover something else we haven't thought about yet.
edit: holy wow there is xd
As far as bombing civilians needlessly, I'm very much against that.
many innocent serbian civilians died in this war unecessarily
I am sure if you made a quiz of, for example, your country's national holiday, you wouldn't want a random quizzer saying they think it is a dumb or pointless holiday.
Darned if you do, darned if you don't.
First, many people in the military never actually "risk their lives" - in fact, being a soldier is less dangerous than being a logger or a fisherman. Next time you see a logger, why not thanking *him* for his service?
Second, people join the military for a variety of reasons - necessity, college tuition, family traditions, lack of other options... I'm sure some people join out of idealism. And I'm also sure some others join because they think it'll be like a video game. Why would you automatically assume that someone joined to "defend your freedom", when you have no actual idea if that's the case?
Does participation is such an effort necessarily warrant thanks?
As a teacher, I accept your thanks.
If that's enough for you, you can dive into Title 10 of the US Code and read that it's the only military branch of the armed forces under administered by Homeland Security, but when needed, the Department of Defense, under the Sec. of the Navy, can assume control.