theaterofdreams
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I do.
I don't. She's still a servicewoman who deserves more respect than a piece of pigmented fabric.
I do.
I'm not sure why, but I think that is funny as hell.I guess this pic has gone viral. It makes me want to vomit and this so called lady needs to be dishonorably discharged IMO.
View attachment 67162292
Symbols are symbols, not the actual thing or idea represented. Arguably, she was showing attraction to the man in the POW logo. It was probably just a silly joke and no actual POW/MIAs were harmed, only people looking for a reason to be outraged.
I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this. Seems it well past or should be. If it were so outrageous and hatefilled, why did it take three years for anyone to notice. Seems like punishing her now is just reactive stupidity.The picture shows Byers wearing her senior airman's rank insignia. Although it was taken almost three years ago, it has only now gone viral.
Boner.Wonder what would happen if it was a woman's outline she was kissing?
I guess this pic has gone viral. It makes me want to vomit and this so called lady needs to be dishonorably discharged IMO.
View attachment 67162292
A dishonorable is about the same thing as the death penalty to the military. I seen exactly one the entire time I was in legal and it was for a guy with a kilo of cocaine on base and a history of bad actions.
In this country we do not elevate symbols over people. Ever. No one has to treat any symbol any specific way. What is truly sickening is the idea that those who are fighting for this country are not entitled to its basic liberties. Even if someone could demonstrate that she intended disrespect toward POWs (which doesn't seem to be the case, she was simply joking around), she is entitled to do that. Unless this is somehow an interference with her duties (which I don't see how it could be), the idea that she should face punishment for exercising her rights as an American is ludicrous.
I guess this pic has gone viral. It makes me want to vomit and this so called lady needs to be dishonorably discharged IMO.
View attachment 67162292
I guess this pic has gone viral. It makes me want to vomit and this so called lady needs to be dishonorably discharged IMO.
View attachment 67162292
It really isn't that simple. As servicemembers, we really do lose certain rights/privileges when it comes to how it may reflect upon the military. It would be one thing if she did something like this out of uniform, but quite another to do it in uniform and post it publicly. There are actually rules that we must follow in the military regarding respect to certain symbols and traditions, particularly when it comes to while we are wearing the uniform. While some suggestions on what her punishment should be are way overboard for the offense, it is not wrong to expect her to be punished for her actions here. It simply should not be a harsh punishment at all. Heck it is even something that could be handled at a lower level than NJP.[/QUOTE
Like I said we don't know what her record is like.....If good then I go along with the NJP.
It really isn't that simple. As servicemembers, we really do lose certain rights/privileges when it comes to how it may reflect upon the military. It would be one thing if she did something like this out of uniform, but quite another to do it in uniform and post it publicly. There are actually rules that we must follow in the military regarding respect to certain symbols and traditions, particularly when it comes to while we are wearing the uniform. While some suggestions on what her punishment should be are way overboard for the offense, it is not wrong to expect her to be punished for her actions here. It simply should not be a harsh punishment at all. Heck it is even something that could be handled at a lower level than NJP.
What's the big deal??
No significant numbers?
If it's your kid or your spouse then ONE is pretty damned significant!!:censored
Ever stop to think that maybe that kind of restriction is unnecessary? That sort of groupthink comes from military traditions from a very long time ago, when a military was mainly made up of conscripted peasants who were sent off to fight someone else's conscripted peasants in order to win land or power for this aristocrat or another and were killed if they said they didn't want to. It took that kind of abolition of self in order to buy into the whole deal. I would think that our modern soldiers are a bit more worthy than conscripted middle ages peasants. Not that the whole "poor people dying to serve the interests of rich people" thing has changed at all, but at least there is some semblance of actual service to the nation in the mix.
There just isn't any kind of need to dehumanize people in order for them to accomplish these tasks, especially for people who aren't the behind enemy lines strike force types. And especially not for those people who sign up to risk their lives to defend the very same liberties that are suddenly denied to them. It's too hypocritical to ask that of them, and probably unnecessary.
Just like "FOUR" dying in Benghazi---stop the presses. "ONE" is the most important number ever, but if it's 24 second graders in Connecticut getting blown to bits by a nut with an AR-15, then all that matters is that no one takes away our gun rights.
Even i know not to disrespect the dead
The whole POW/MIA "issue" and religion-like cult of advocates left over from the Viet Nam war was based on silly Rambo-style wishful thinking and myths.
When Hawaii was "attacked" it wasn't even a state. So, forgive me for not seeing how anything that happened there affects my freedom.
Granted, it is a nice vacation destination today. But....it's not like Japan was bombing US cities and threatening our freedom. Ok?