• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This makes me sick

Should Staff Sergeant Cherish Byres get a dsihonorable discharge


  • Total voters
    34
All the things you mention are not what military bearing is, quite the opposite in fact.
Imagine how far back you would have to go with lewd behavior.
I don't imagine pissing on dead enemy soldiers caused any harm to our World-Wide image huh,
let alone how many of our soldiers may have died due to more Muslims joining up.

And we all know how brilliant "Bring It On" was, a quote that will live in infamy .
 
She is in uniform, so it aint funny.
I'm not sure why, but I think that is funny as hell.

And don't ask me why I think it is so funny because I don't want to or need to know.

Sometimes a good laugh should be just left at that.
 
Please explain further. Just want to make sure I understand your point.

Starting in the seventies, and gradually petering out since then, there was an unfounded belief that there are/were large numbers of POWs kept by the Viet Namese after the war and the evil liberals in the USA's government refused to do anything about it and conspired to cover up eexistence of those prisoners. That was what that POW/MIA symbol originally represented for many people, a protest against our government for allegedly refusing to do anything about the those POWs. For others, it was just an expression of mourning and/or support for the families of POWs/MIAs.
 
Last edited:
Starting in the seventies, and gradually petering out since then, there was an unfounded belief that there are/were large numbers of POWs kept by the Viet Namese after the war and the evil liberals in the USA's government refused to do anything about it and conspired to cover up heexistence of those prisoners. That was what that POW/MIA symbol originally represented for many people, a protest against our government for allegedly refusing to do anything about the those POWs. For others, it was just an expression of mourning and/or support for the families of POWs/MIAs.

Thanks for explaining. I am assuming you are on the side of mourning & support for the families?
 
There is a certain amount of decorum that is expected of members of the US Military. The activity shown in the photograph goes well outside the boundaries of that decorum.

No, *YOU* expect something that you have no business expecting and you want everyone to abide by your desires.
 
It does serve a purpose though. There needs to be a higher level of discipline in the military than what is found in the majority of the civilian world. While some things are completely idiotic, there are still rules.

No one said there shouldn't be rules, but we're talking about the merits of a few particular ones. And actually, I disagree about the necessary amount of discipline. Unless the job in question is specifically going into high risk combat zones, there is no more discipline needed to do the same job for the military is there is anywhere else. A military doctor needs no more restrictions on their behavior than a civilian. Nor a technician, a cargo plane pilot, a lawyer, a clerk, or really anything else besides exchanging fire with the enemy, which is becoming a smaller and smaller part of what the military does.

And there is nothing "dehumanizing" about punishing a person (with a reasonable punishment) for breaking a rule because they did something stupid and what can be viewed as disrespectful.

I was referring to the whole mentality of strict adherence to command, the "break them down and build them back up" that basic training is notorious for. Going in that direction can be a good thing, but I argue that we're farther than we ought to be.

It really wouldn't be much different than the civilian world in that aspect. [..] The only difference I see here is because it is a government job and the punishment shouldn't be losing her job for something like this.

That makes a huge difference. Anything beyond the specific duties that a person is employed to perform shouldn't matter, though. The Chick-Fil-A person's conduct outside of the store shouldn't matter, and most of their conduct unrelated to selling sandwiches shouldn't matter either. Just the same way that this woman's actions besides her duties shouldn't matter. Nor should anyone, every, anywhere, face any kind of punishment for their attitude towards a symbol. That is as un-American as we can possibly get.
 
Thanks for explaining. I am assuming you are on the side of mourning & support for the families?

Yes, it was the conspiracy theories and refusing to heal old wounds that was ridiculous.
 
Yes, it was the conspiracy theories and refusing to heal old wounds that was ridiculous.

I understand that and agree and again thanks for clearing that up.

My hope is that we can bring as many home as possible alive or otherwise during any time we have a battle. I believe the cause deserves a great deal of respect in the fact that today's society easily forgets even something as important as one of our own being left behind. This cause draws attention to that fact and with that symbol most people at least reflect on it. I believe this helps the families know that as a country we have not forgotten the service their loved one gave to this country. We at least owe that to the service member.

Some ( Not you ) on here have expressed they simply do not care. That's a damn shame. To think that there are people who live in this country and enjoy the freedoms we have do not care that we have service members that are not coming home to their families. They may be locked up in a jail in some country being starved, tortured and they do not care. I just lost a little more hope in this country hearing that. I would think that among everything else in this world we could agree on that.

Anyway thanks for the response.
 
You cannot possibly be that stupid or that ignorant of history. I can only conclude that you are a troll.

It became a state in 1959. As a territory it's further from LA than is NYC. So, I am not going to lose any sleep over someone attacking a place we should not even be back in 1941.

And, telling me that us having had a naval base in Hawaii back then somehow assures my freedom today is a bunch of bull****.

Feel free to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the U.S. pretty much stole Hawaii in 1893. It was a very first exercise in overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation. It "legally" became our in 1898 when we annexed it, although the actual Hawaiins didn't want this and I use the term "legally" very loosely.

Regardless it's value as a strategic naval base is undisputed.
 
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?

Regardless men and women died there during the fight. It was a strategic naval facility that served to base our Pacific fleet assets that were in fact charged with, among other things, protecting the mainland from enemy naval forces. State or not it's value in the defense of our western coast is without question and was instrumental in our eventual offensive to defeat Japan.

Had the Japanese been able to secure Pearl Harbor and keep our Pacific fleet contained they would have absolutely used it as a base from which to launch naval and air attacks against the U.S. Possibly even a ground offensive, but that would not have had much chance of success.
 
Imagine how far back you would have to go with lewd behavior.
I don't imagine pissing on dead enemy soldiers caused any harm to our World-Wide image huh,
let alone how many of our soldiers may have died due to more Muslims joining up.

And we all know how brilliant "Bring It On" was, a quote that will live in infamy .

Pissing on a dead enemy soldier is meant to boost moral in our troops and degrade moral in enemy troops. This pic is exactly the kind of pic the North Vietnamese would have had Jane Fonda take if they had thought of it.
 
Pissing on a dead enemy soldier is meant to boost moral in our troops and degrade moral in enemy troops. This pic is exactly the kind of pic the North Vietnamese would have had Jane Fonda take if they had thought of it.

So now the OP needs to bring in Jane Fonda and the Noth Vietnamese to make his point. What point was that again sawyer? My older Vietnam buddies still have pics of dead VC heads on their choppers. Do you approve of that for boosting morale also ?
 
No one said there shouldn't be rules, but we're talking about the merits of a few particular ones. And actually, I disagree about the necessary amount of discipline. Unless the job in question is specifically going into high risk combat zones, there is no more discipline needed to do the same job for the military is there is anywhere else. A military doctor needs no more restrictions on their behavior than a civilian. Nor a technician, a cargo plane pilot, a lawyer, a clerk, or really anything else besides exchanging fire with the enemy, which is becoming a smaller and smaller part of what the military does.



I was referring to the whole mentality of strict adherence to command, the "break them down and build them back up" that basic training is notorious for. Going in that direction can be a good thing, but I argue that we're farther than we ought to be.



That makes a huge difference. Anything beyond the specific duties that a person is employed to perform shouldn't matter, though. The Chick-Fil-A person's conduct outside of the store shouldn't matter, and most of their conduct unrelated to selling sandwiches shouldn't matter either. Just the same way that this woman's actions besides her duties shouldn't matter. Nor should anyone, every, anywhere, face any kind of punishment for their attitude towards a symbol. That is as un-American as we can possibly get.

If you are in the uniform of the people you work for, you represent that place, whether you mean to or not. So yes, your conduct does affect those you work for. And this is even more true for a place like the military.
 
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.
Maybe she's just protesting for co-ed barracks.

If she's so horny and frustrated that she has to make out with a flag...
 
Regardless men and women died there during the fight. It was a strategic naval facility that served to base our Pacific fleet assets that were in fact charged with, among other things, protecting the mainland from enemy naval forces. State or not it's value in the defense of our western coast is without question and was instrumental in our eventual offensive to defeat Japan.

Had the Japanese been able to secure Pearl Harbor and keep our Pacific fleet contained they would have absolutely used it as a base from which to launch naval and air attacks against the U.S. Possibly even a ground offensive, but that would not have had much chance of success.
OK. So why did the Democrats expand "lend-lease" to include China during their war with Japan, impose economic sanctions on Japan, impose forced conscription on US citizens and then move the Pacific fleet from San Diego, where it could protect the USA to Pearl Harbor?

The US did not have to take sides in that war. Japan was not a threat to the USA.

Not only did FDR make slaves out of US citizens by conscripting them into the military, he also imposed wage freezes on the men & women working for the military-industrial complex.

FDR was one evil mother****er.
 
If you are in the uniform of the people you work for, you represent that place, whether you mean to or not. So yes, your conduct does affect those you work for. And this is even more true for a place like the military.

That seems very silly. Only someone actually designated to speak for an organization should be representing it. Despite the paranoia that a lot of businesses have, most of the actions of their employees are completely innocuous. And that's with the constant fear that unreasonable customers will decide to avoid your business over something trite like this (Ellen Simonetti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But the military doesn't need to sell its product, so why the extra doses of crazy? Maybe it's just about exercising power over people. And that is the antithesis of what we believe in this country.

You keep saying that the military is different, but you don't have any good reason for WHY it should be so.
 
it is a reasonably big deal but not one this lady should be fired about. The US military needs every able bodied person it has in it's ranks. She should perhaps be demoted or docked pay for her serious lack of respect. But it is not like she is urinating on fallen enemies.
 
That seems very silly. Only someone actually designated to speak for an organization should be representing it. Despite the paranoia that a lot of businesses have, most of the actions of their employees are completely innocuous. And that's with the constant fear that unreasonable customers will decide to avoid your business over something trite like this (Ellen Simonetti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But the military doesn't need to sell its product, so why the extra doses of crazy? Maybe it's just about exercising power over people. And that is the antithesis of what we believe in this country.

You keep saying that the military is different, but you don't have any good reason for WHY it should be so.

That is not how it works in reality though no matter how much people may wish it did.
 
OK. So why did the Democrats expand "lend-lease" to include China during their war with Japan, impose economic sanctions on Japan, impose forced conscription on US citizens and then move the Pacific fleet from San Diego, where it could protect the USA to Pearl Harbor?

The US did not have to take sides in that war. Japan was not a threat to the USA.

Not only did FDR make slaves out of US citizens by conscripting them into the military, he also imposed wage freezes on the men & women working for the military-industrial complex.

FDR was one evil mother****er.

I don't agree with all Muhammed said about FDR etc., but it does seem like we didn't want Japanese imperialism in the pacific to interfere with our imperialism in the pacific, and having a naval base in Hawaii was something of a provocation. On the other, the world is probably better off without one nation, Japan, dominating the pacific and Asia.
 
It became a state in 1959. As a territory it's further from LA than is NYC.
So, I am not going to lose any sleep over someone attacking a place we should not even be back in 1941.
And, telling me that us having had a naval base in Hawaii back then somehow assures my freedom today is a bunch of bull****.
Feel free to disagree.

This is disappointing from you calamity.
There would not even have been a Battle of Midway without our Aircraft Carriers, none of which were in Pearl at the time.
Midway was the pivot point in the War in the Pacific.
With Japan also in the Aleutions, we had a real problem, and many thousands of our soldiers paid the ultimate price.

To think that the USA Navy attacked at Pearl was not the pervue of the USA is hard to even fathom in one's head.
Like saying we shouldn't have expelled the Japanese from the Philipines, MacArther,
or dropped the two bombs, to prevent a half million more dead soldiers .
 
OK. So why did the Democrats expand "lend-lease" to include China during their war with Japan, impose economic sanctions on Japan, impose forced conscription on US citizens and then move the Pacific fleet from San Diego, where it could protect the USA to Pearl Harbor?

The US did not have to take sides in that war. Japan was not a threat to the USA.

Not only did FDR make slaves out of US citizens by conscripting them into the military, he also imposed wage freezes on the men & women working for the military-industrial complex.

FDR was one evil mother****er.

A couple of reasons I think. Because it was the right thing to do as "friendly" western European countries were fighting Germany and Italy, to whom Japan was militarily allied. True Japan was no threat to the U.S., but I think at some point they would have become a threat to Russia: a prime target for Germany. So it made strategic sense to hinder Japan economically.

And the other reason I think was it made sense from an economic perspective. The U.S. became a major exporter of war material.

Honestly it made sense for Japan to attempt to cripple our fleet. They needed the resources the Dutch East Indies held and they figured that there was no way the U.S. would just stand by and let them gobble that up. Which was correct.

I do think we had to take a side however. You couldn't oppose Germany and Italy and not oppose Japan as well.
 
I do think we had to take a side however. You couldn't oppose Germany and Italy and not oppose Japan as well.
The USA did not have to take sides in the war in Europe in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom