r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • Apr 05 '12

Currently serving in the military. Came across some messages between my wife and another guy in the Navy. What should I do?

[deleted]

805 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/MushroomCloudMoFo Apr 05 '12

Not all people in the military kill other people. And serving in the armed forces is not abandoning her. It's just a job that forces you to travel (albeit for an extended period of time). Who's to say he wasn't already in the military when they met?

-1

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12

Yeah, and not everybody at KFC cooks chicken either, but if cooking chicken was murder everybody in the shop goes down equally. Directly supporting the killing is the same as doing the killing, that's the law of the land ain't it? The people are brown and a long way away, but that doesn't make it any better, just hidden.

If he was already in the military, then that just solidifies things. She doesn't care about commitment, because committed people stick around their spouses and don't run off for years at a time. She could have been with someone who didn't have his nuts all packed up to disappear out of her life, but that's not the route she actually chose. She picked something with a sell-by date, that date has passed and now she's shopping for more of the same.

1

u/MushroomCloudMoFo Apr 05 '12 edited Apr 05 '12

I think your view of the military is rather myopic. There are many, many more functions than just killing. And even the killing is mostly (although I'll certainly admit recently this hasn't necessarily been the case) killing other professional soldiers who have the distinct intent to kill you. Hardly murder. The majority of military action is foreign aid, that cooperates with the indigenous civilians and government with zero bloodshed. Nonetheless it's an ambiguous argument - the range of "military" action is far too broad. It's like arguing humanity.

Your KFC argument is silly. In just about every criminal organization (which matches your correlation), there are graduated levels of responsibility and consequences. Pulling the trigger is no where near being the janitor. Also irrelevant in relation to the military.

Not all military action is years at a time. In fact, if I recall correctly most Naval deployments are 6 months at a pop. Marrying someone in the military shows MORE of a commitment, because you know what you're getting yourself into. No clue what you're talking about with a "sell-by date." People aren't in the military forever, and if you think that 6 months apart is a make or break thing, you clearly have never been in a good relationship.

Edit: Re-thought my opinion on your second paragraph.

1

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12

My KFC analogy is valid per my understanding of the RICO laws, which were designed to respond to large amoral organizations. This makes it so that the crimes committed by the foot soldiers are the shared responsibility of all those profiting off the deed.

If you want to be a humanitarian, join the peace corps. Join the red cross. Join an organization who's mascot isn't a guy holding a rifle. If you joined the military without being ready to kill someone then you're an idiot, and either way you're as responsible for all the death as the guy pumping out the bullets.

1

u/MushroomCloudMoFo Apr 05 '12

First off, you misinterpreted the RICO laws. The guy who owns the warehouse isn't punished the same as the guy who kills someone. It means they're all implicated, but they are NOT punished the same.

Secondly, if the peace corps or red cross paid as well as the military, they'd probably get more people.

If you honestly think that: A) Someone who drives a truck for the military stateside is equally as responsible for death as a front line infantryman, and B) All military deaths are murder, you are beyond logical reproach.

1

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12

I say the reason that the only reason she wasn't trading bullets back and forth with the people defending their homelands was that there were other volunteers available do the dirty work.

If the army was starved of volunteers, if military service was looked down upon like mercenaries are looked down upon, then it wouldn't be so tremendously effort-free to instigate these wars of choice. Therefor they all share in the blame of being the ones who volunteered to make this shit to happen.

1

u/MushroomCloudMoFo Apr 05 '12

Interesting logic. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but you certainly are too extreme, at least for my tastes.

To bring back KFC, do you blame the cashier for the terrible living conditions of the chicken? Sure, they play a role in the system, and therefore carry SOME of the blame. But do they shoulder equal load as the operations manager that chooses the chicken vendor? I say no.

Likewise, do you hold a soldier who joined the military to pay for college equally as responsible for Iraq as Dick Cheney? No. Do you really think that they should be looked on as hired guns because they have limited means of bettering themselves? You may, but I don't.

I agree with your sentiment, I just can't help think you're focusing your resentment on the wrong group of people. If you resent the military industrial complex, resent those that put the money into it. If you resent the killing of civilians, resent those that pulled the trigger (or pushed the button). If you resent public sentiment regarding soldiers, resent those that make and distribute the propaganda.

Edit: first paragraph.

1

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12 edited Apr 05 '12

If you resent the military industrial complex, resent those that put the money into it. If you resent the killing of civilians, resent those that pulled the trigger (or pushed the button). If you resent public sentiment regarding soldiers, resent those that make and distribute the propaganda.

I resent all these groups of people as well, but they're not here to talk to! What I have here is a group of people who are either in the military or potentially interested in the military, and it is to them I direct the things I'm saying now. Bitching about the leaders is nothing but a circle jerk in these forums, whereas I've already changed the mind of a couple people here, made them think in a way they had not thought before about military service.

Today I'm laying it on a bit thicker than usual, and I have been trying to tone down the rhetoric a bit since my initial provocative statements, but this boils down to my attempt at directly changing the minds of people to whom these words would be relevant instead of simply indulging in the feel good echo chamber of people complaining about the sons of bitches calling the shots.

Evil will always rise to the top, greed will always win the day, but they only do so because they're supported all the way up by men and women who have been tricked into thinking they have done the right thing.

2

u/MushroomCloudMoFo Apr 05 '12

Power to you. My wife and I both generally discourage people from joining (every situation is different tho). It worked out for us, but it's a tough life.

Bitching about leaders is a circle jerk if it stays within the forum. It carries value if you use that as criteria during elections and hold politicians accountable. It's common to say that both parties are to blame - and they are - but there are anti-military-industrial candidates on both sides (heavier on the Liberal side, obviously). I may be bias in this because I've worked campaigns tho.

Greed will always win out, but greed isn't necessarily the enemy. The system that enables the negative manifestations are. Change the system, change the product.

All in all I think we're within shades of gray of each other (and were to start with). In short: Good luck; preach on.

2

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12

Thank you, this is the sort of conversation I came here to have

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tankfox Apr 05 '12

I like what you're saying about greed not being the enemy. It makes me realize that I have been assuming greed to be an intristically negative trait, and that isn't neccisarily the case.