This is inspired in part by an event from yesterday:


I was sitting in my truck waiting for my wife to finish with a class she has to take in a church. I had the windows down and was reading Swamp Thing. Boy Scouts also use the church for some activities. A guy and his scout kid walked up to the car next to me and the kid was talking to the Dad about why the Dad doesn't think George (presumably W, not his Dad) Bush isn't a leader. The father, almost angry-sounding, said, "that's what I wanted you to pick up."

Now, this is a mild issue of parental propagandizing. But, I couldn't help but wonder, "is this really what they were doing in a damn Boy Scouts meeting? Isn't this stuff supposed to be, learn survival techniques, make crafts, earn merit badges?" Why would someone pollute a Boy Scouts meeting with politics?




Another time was last year, and this, I found to be a much more disturbing view of parents forcing their views on their children:

January, 2007. Two other guys and me from our Army AIT course went into Washington DC for the weekend (we were stationed just outside the city) to witness the biggest anti-war protest since we invaded Iraq. I'd never been to something like that and it sounded like it would be an interesting day. There was a lot of pretty ridiculous people out there, to be sure, but this one was disturbingly odd:

There were parents who had two of their children, roughly around 10 years old, give or take, lying on the ground covered in fake blood with a sign on them saying "I didn't ask for this." I couldn't even quite figure out what the hell they were supposed to represent. Dead Iraqi kids? They were dressed like average American shmoes. And who "killed" them? George Bush? It's not like I'm going to walk up to some kid who might be 9 years old and say, "hey, why are you all covered with blood? What's the symbolic purpose you're aiming for with this demonstration?"

Now, seeing this, I couldn't help but think, "who the fuck does this with their kids?" In this country, people whine and bitch and worry about video games causing violence and distorting our children's fragile brains, but this kind of thing is okay? And what's it like for the kids laying on the sidewalk? Do they even understand what's going on? Remembering back to my youth, I'd have to say that there's no bloody way they understand what's going on.





Which brings me to the point of this thread: People's thoughts on parents feeding their own children propaganda.

My Dad was pretty conservative as I was growing up. Voted Republican, went to Church, the whole deal. He never pushed ideaology on us. He merely stressed the importance of intelligence and education. We were allowed to look at the world and make up our own minds. Guidance from my parents was minimal and non-invasive to our juvenile minds. My Dad would occasionally make a remark here or there complaining about Clinton, but he'd never just start spouting propaganda to us about "The Evil Clinton Regime." Generally, he'd wait until we had a question about something and then he'd try to give an honest explanation.


This kind of propaganda spreading just seems so unhealthy for a child. Little kids don't need to be protesting politicians or worrying about some military conflict and who's to blame. They're kids. They should only have to worry about their household chores and schoolwork. The rest should be left for them to have fun and enjoy childhood. Personally, I think they should be allowed to keep thier innocence intact as long as humanly possible. They have their whole lives for politics and the world to corrupt their very being. Let them have their youth.

If you want to go protest something, hey, go for it. It's your right to bitch about the government (at least in the US) and try to make your voice heard. But it just seems so wrong to do that to a kid. I think this is far worse than any kind of negative influence a kid gets from any video game or movie or TV show. I think this is one of the biggest problems with kids in this country--the parents.

And it doesn't matter which side of the political fence you're on. Forced ideaologies from either left or right wings can be detrimental to a kid. That's why I'm going to be careful with my boy. I don't want him falling in with the Nazi crowd or the Commie crowd without thinking things through first. To me, there are places where politics and harsh ideaologies just don't belong, and one of those places is the minds of our kids. Seeing that guy yesterday, and remembering those fake bloodied kids at the protest rally, are solid pointers for me to keep in my mind about how careful I should be with raising my own boy. I don't think it's the job of a parent to force ideas onto a child. I think a parent's job is to teach a kid to think logically and intellectually for themselves and guide them away from harmful decisions, ideas, things, what-have-you.



On top of all this, the more you push a child one way, the more likely they are to go the exact opposite. All this will do in the end is put a strain on your relationship with your own kid. And if they don't go the opposite way, then parent's risk pushing them into "going too far" in the ideaological direction force fed to them. For instance, going from simple protesting to not-so-simple criminal behavior... just to defend or promote an idea.

Resident, Check out the movie Jesus Camp. Its basically exactly what you are talking about except in regards to the evangelical religious base. The movie surrounds a woman and her children's ministry. The movie is frighteningly scary for a documentary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

As an aside, I always enjoy your threads. In fact, I read all of them. Very down to earth and reasonable.

Very good post, Resident_Hazard. I agree 100%. However, I have get ready for a job interview right now. I will comment on it later.

Oh good point, I focused too much on politics--I note the same "forced teachings" if you will, in religion all the time.


In regard to both politics and religion, they are things which should have a deeply personal basis in an individual. They should reflect personal beliefs and views and they should be sought and studied before acceptance.


In my personal life, I found that politically, I can be described best as either a right-leaning Centrist or a Constitutionalist. Religiously, as is likely apparent by now, I'm Athiestic and scientifically-minded. Neither of these are really harsh viewpoints, but I'm still going to have to be careful in raising my child with them. Should he find religion and it suits him, that's fine with me--my job as a parent is to make sure he makes the choice for the right reasons and doesn't jump in blindly.



Jesus Camp? I wonder if Blockbuster carries it...



Also, thanks for the compliment, Orionmetalhead. A rarity on the intarweb is people actually being nice to each other! I have been trying to tone down the rhetoric-fueled way in which many of my posts (from ages ago) would mutate from thoughtful psuedo-essays into full-on internet rants.


[Edit: For clarification to Orion and because I grossly misspelled "acceptance."]

Isn't raising a child in general propaganda in one way or another? This is a little less than the points you raised, but just living in a house with parents who are always talking of their beliefs is propaganda.

I would say that is not exactly the case. For instance, when I was growing up, I didn't really know where my parents stood on "issues." I knew right from wrong and that they felt the same way (fighting wrong, cheating wrong, etc--basic things). I'm not talking about when a parent, like my Dad is a conservative Republican and his kids end up following a similar (though slightly different) path.


I'm talking about when the parent pushes the ideas. Being an influence on a child is a given when one is in a parental role. But, a child should be allowed to observe you and others as well to see what he or she likes.

My Mom was often into neo-hippie new-age crap when I was a kid--the energy crystals and incense and Yanni and that kind of crap. She went and got herself a "spirit guide" and those kind of things. That no doubt had an influence of some sort on her kids (my brother and I).

However, what I'm talking about with this thread is when it's forced. I'll continue with the example of my Mom in a simplified manner: If she had made my brother and myself get spirit guides and wear energy crystals around our necks, that'd be focing this belief on us. If she took us into one of these new-age stores and said that we needed to have an "energy crystal to even our aura" or something, that'd be forcing. If she took this new age spirituality crap and constantly vocalized it's importance to us. If my Mom wanted to go to some new age spiritual retreat, that'd be up to her--but if she made her kids go and tried to make us a part of that without allowing us to decide for ourselves, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. A parent shouldn't force a kid to wear an "energy crystal," that should be a choice on the part of the child. Something like this should come with a neutral explanation from a parent:

"Some people believe this crystal has energy that will sooth your aura and bring balance to your life."

As opposed to:

"You need this energy crystal to straighten out your boorish teenage ways."




Or:

"I don't like George Bush. I don't think he's a good leader for this country."

As opposed to:

"George Bush is a bad person and definitly not a leader. You need to learn that." (This was essentially what I heard last night from a Dad speaking to his Boy Scout son.)


Also, political and religious beliefs do not belong everywhere. For instance, a Boy Scouts meeting. I was never a scout, but my younger brother was for about a year. I know that politics is not the point. Part of being a Scout (in the US) is learning about America, but that doesn't mean a parent should be interjecting flat political views into it. That's what young Republican/Democrat groups are for, and what I'm saying is that should be a choice of the child who attends, not an assignment doled out by a parent.


One of the few things I was forced to do by my parents was attend Confirmation at our church. If I had been allowed to make that choice myself, maybe it would've been better. Maybe I would've gotten something out of it. As is, because I felt forced to do it, I never took it seriously and it never did anything for me. Some kids like church and Sunday School and whatnot. I didn't. I liked playing Nintendo and watching Star Wars on my Sundays.

Yeah this stuff happens all the time. So long as people have children, some will choose to indoctrinate theirs with whatever ideology. Sterilization, anyone?

A child's best hope (in my opinion) under such circumstances is to hopefully have an exposure to the rest of the world. That they can look upon their surroundings and come to the conclusion that such ideologies aren't "normal." Cheers to that Cub Scout you were talking about, sounds rather descent if he's questioning his fathers skewed ideals.

This is an interesting question and forces one to define what constitutes raising a child and what constitutes brainwashing a child. Personally, parenting has more to do with raising children to be able to judge the world for what it is and to instill basic moral and ethical beliefs. I think that teaching a child morals that make sense is not propaganda but is instead an integral part of raising a child to become a worthwhile part of society.

Propaganda has always maintained a tricky and conniving atmosphere around it. Its all made up but supported by facts that have no logical connection to one another. Its a power-tool basically. Parents who feel the need for control and to overpower all in their path use it on their children because they don't know any better. It's in a sense evil.

Funny really, a similar thing happened about an hour ago from this writing, anyways, a couple of friends came over to study, since we have an exam tomorrow, so we studied. When we were done, we started watching a local channel, and like other local channels, it has a lot of government propaganda, but this one was pretty cool, in my opinion, since it was saying that the Mexican Congress wants to adopt some law to punish those who negate rights to gays and lesbians for being gays and lesbians, i.e. punishing homophobic for violating their human rights. However, one of my friends just shouted in outrage, saying that "if homophobic are the problem, then what were gays?!", he believes that being gay is unnatural, and although I agree, I don't think that gay people are the cause of society's problems, its a choice they make, and thats about it, they're people, with ideas and feelings, and many of them see the world in a different way, I know, I have close friends who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Anyways, in my opinion, listening to EVERYTHING your parents say its extremely dumb, I mean, he always listens to his parents rambling about how society would be better without gays and bisexuals, and many politicians say that too, so I think that agreeing completely with one's parents is a dumb idea in general, you'll just end up being like them, instead of being better than them, becoming a complete as a whole, trying to see what the world really is, anyways, I suppose my parent's "mistake" was to never indoctrinate me with any religion or political idea, although they probably convinced me liberalism is best, which I admit I agree with them (after all, liberal people are the ones who change the world around them, right?, ok, maybe not), but that pretty much my point of view. Parents should never ever indoctrinate their children.

To be honest it's not something I can really say I'm all that worried about; every adult does that with their children and chances are I'll do that with mine. I'll take him to church with me; I'll play him a heap of metal and ambient stuff, and one way or another I'll probably end up teaching him similar values to what I have.

Overall this thread is quite a moot point, really. I guess it comes down to the fact that no one ever views their own beliefs as extreme; I bet that 'God Hates Fags' guy thinks he's doing his kid a favour, I bet the anti war parents think they're giving their kids a knowledge of the outside world, I bet Mors_Gloria thinks he'll be opening his kids' eyes up by teaching them about bizarre leftist anarchism. Sure, I'll try not to smother my kid with my values and attitudes, but while I may think I'm doing a good job of it everyone else may disagree.

Also, except in some really extreme brain washing cases (hell, even I thought Jesus camp was bizarre and unsettling) I don't really see this propaganda as being particularly effective in the long term. Most kids disagree with their parents on a wide range of issues; I don't really see anything wrong with giving your kid your values, as chances are they'll make up their own mind about it, assuming they have more then 2 brain cells.

Edit: i think I missed the point of the original poster? Whatever.

Well, of course this is something that'll happen. Parents are one of the most important influences on a child, and unless you completely detach yourself from your beliefs around your kid I don't know how you wouldn't be able to feed your kid a bit of that sort of stuff. However, I think that if a parent actually forces his or her shit upon their kid without giving them a chance to think about it critically is taking it much too far.

I'd like to think that my parents did a good job in raising me to have an open mind and allowing me to think critically about a number of things. Admittedly, I share quite a few political views with my parents (but I think those may have come with my experiences from where I grew up - I don't know) but on the other hand, I don't even know whether my parents believe in God or not. They never forced me to think within certain rigid boundaries and I would like to think that if I have a child I'd do the same. Kids shouldn't be very politically minded or forced into a mold, in my opinion.

I don't think that teaching a child values is indoctrination. Values, at least the way I see it equate to morals and attitudes towards life. Raising your child with an optimistic outlook, instilling a sense of respect and such. I think that the main question at hand is "are parents who indoctrinate their children with their political, social, religious beliefs doing harm or good to their children?" This is different than simply giving a child a sense of value in spirituality or raising them to be politically aware - these are all things that can be done without pressuring a child to believe a certain way.



You saw Jesus Camp. Are those kids going to disagree with their parents? Their parents don't even allow them to get out of the house - except to go visit a local bowling alley where they are continuously being pummeled by the ideology of their parents to the point that they can't think for themselves. They are constantly in a state of indoctrination. Take that nine year old girl in that particular bowling alley scene. She prayed to get a strike. Actually she commanded God to give her a strike. She then went to another lane and told that lady that God was speaking, using the her (the child) as a messenger, and wanted the random woman to know that God loves her and that she could be saved. Somehow, I don't quite feel that without parental and supervisory indoctrination (which is different but we can also include that in this conversation) this girl would not have been compelled to do that. And the Dad told her she did a good job! yeah... way to go! Way to make someone feel 100 percent uncomfortable and bothered.

These kind of people are spread across the world, forced to believe something that they never had a chance to fight against. Don't even get me started on that Pro-life abortion guy that they had in the movie. Holy crap, you want to talk about indoctrination and brainwashing. How many 7 year olds understand that concept of abortion? Seriously. The Evangelical population is HUGE and the same thing goes on in basically all religions. Do you think that suicide bombers would be giving their own life if they weren't in some way indoctrinated by their parents or by their religious advisers to do so? The whole concept of Parental indoctrination is spread across so many facets of life. Political, Religious, Social that there is some major wrongdoing being done in the disguise of concerned parents.

There should be a concerted effort to show parents that how they raise their children has a major impact on their child's outlook on life, politics, religion et cetera later in life.

Orion, I notice that I didn't talk in absolutes, and by 'most kids disagree' I should've added some "over 16" sort of disqualifier.



Having said that, I also find it bizarre that people expect religious parents NOT to tell their kids about their god. Certainly I'm not going to go to the ridiculous lengths in Jesus Camp. However, I'm going to go to church and so for at least a few years my kids are going to have to come with me. Seems obvious, really.

I don't think that Scout was questioning his Dad. Actually, the kid sounded pretty dense. What he was actually doing was, essentially, getting clarification of his father's viewpoint. Which, I guess, may indicate that the father talked for a little while with the underlying message in his speech that "Bush is no leader."


This is one of the reasons I think there should be classes in school (one simple one in elementary school, and an advanced one later in high school) that teach kids how to think for themselves and how to think logically about something. I'm not saying to teach them to think a certain way, but how to sit and think rationally in general.


For instance, when they hear a statement they've never heard before, for example: "Fidel Castro murdered pro-Capitalist people in Cuba." They shouldn't just take it at face value and adopt it outright. Where the pro-capitalist people performing illegal activities? Were they actually killed? What were the circumstances? When did this supposedly happen?

Teach them to think for themselves. Which politician actually has views that compliment your own? This kind of uninformed way of doing things has led to Hillary Clinton and John McCain garnering power to run for President. I've heard too many people supporting them "because they have the best chance to win," rather than saying, "they carry the values I agree with." Granted, according to a lot of polls and articles, Hillary no longer has the best chance, but you get my point, hopefully. People aren't thinking for themselves and aren't researching. The biggest and most recognizable names running for President are the ones with the most support. It indicates that people aren't researching enough.


When you teach kids to think for themselves, teach them how to think rationally and logically, smarter people are created and they are less likely to be sucked in to harsh dogmas or skewed viewpoints. Granted, home-schooled children would miss out on the Logic classes, and perhaps some private-school children, but if implemented in the public school system it would reach the vast majority of kids. The goal isn't to turn a generation of children against their parents, it'd be to teach them to think for themselves. Not to follow the crowd, not to follow home-grown propaganda, not to take statements and consider them facts at face value.


The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe I should run for public office when I get back from Iraq. Someone has to implement these new ideas. The people running the country are too stupid to think of it. That's the risk you run when you're a rich bastard who hasn't lived in Real America for the last 50 years.

I think it is wrong to force anything on somebody, but it is only natural for a parent to teach their children what they believe is right.

I do not think that it is the actual teaching that is wrong, it is the suppression of questioning. It is getting angry at questions, or getting angry when your child mentions a thought of his that is in opposition to your's (in fact, I will be excited when my son becomes so bold as to consider that I may be wrong!)

I know that if I am ever a parent (God, I hope so), I will teach my kid what I believe. I will explain what I think is right and wrong. The most important part of raising my child will be teaching him to question everything. Not in a stereotypical 'rebel/nonconformist' way either, but merely to look at everything and ask 'why?' I sure as hell will not discourage my son from asking me anything on his mind. That is the most important thing, for them to feel that they can ask anything without fear of reprisal.

Of course, there is certainly merit to what you said about age. I will not be telling my eight year old son that it is wrong for the federal government to threaten the states into relinquishing their rights. Not only would it be uninteresting to him, it would most likely be entirely incomprehensible. I think the first twelve or so years should be spent teaching kids basic principal. In fact, I probably won't even discuss my specific opinions on most things with him until he brings it up first.

EDIT: Hmm, upon reading my post over, I feel that I strayed off into a tangent. The main point I was presenting was that it is natural to teach your children what you believe is right. That is not the issue, so long as you encourage them to ask questions. The worst thing you can do is silence them without explaining what they ask about.

I'll agree this point is pretty moot. I don't plan on forcing my kids to be atheist, or anything else- but I'll sure as hell be persuasive! I want to teach my kids what I think is right, which is what I think everyone tries to do. You can't ask that nobody do this- they have good intentions at heart (instructing their children in the best way, what they see as correct.)

Most people get their views on life directly from their parents. This issue is so widespread, it's impossible to even begin to fix- complaining is just complaining, because nothing will make it go away. I mean, my little brother is as christian as he can be at 11, but I just hope one day he turns on his brain and sees past the bullshit. I don't talk to him about it, because at this point it's pointless. He's not mentally mature enough to take on serious topics such as religion or politics. If he just sticks with his old beliefs out of habit, he will be lazy. Not really my parents' fault, they were just doing what they thought was best for him, just like they did to me. They don't force me to go to church though (like they do my 18-year-old girlfriend), which is I guess the problem. Though, it's pointless in itself, as making an unwilling child go to church just drives them away, they even acknowledged that in the time I was at church.

I sincerely hope I haven't missed the point, I didn't have time to read all the posts in this thread.

Boy Scouts is kinda political if you think about it, it's survivalism. Gotta prepare for that race war, right?

Teaching kids to question things is both annoying and important. Young kids, like my son's age (4) will question things but not be able to comprehend the answer and the questioning will continue. This can be annoying like you can't imagine sometimes, but you have to have a cool head about so as to not discourage the kid.


It's important that they ask "why" and I've set my mind to giving him answers rather than discouraging him. I'm not going to be the parent that explains something by saying "because I said so, that's why." I hate that crap, I always have. A kid isn't going to learn to think rationally and logically if he's fed answers completely void of those things.


In a sense, a parent should typically be like an Army Recruiter or a good salesman. They shouldn't just hand out information, they should wait until asked, and then answer honestly--but unlike a salesman, they should keep the answer neutral. Like it or not, though, sometimes kids have to be forced to learn. My kid only learned colors by losing a lot at Candyland. We wouldn't let him advance unless he could tell us what color he'd picked. We also taught him how to recognize his name because we stressed it's importance: "If you want to play Smash Bros Brawl, you need to be able to recognize your own name so you can select your character file."


In my opinion, the right time for a kid to learn about your political and/or religious (or other) beliefs is when they inquire about them. Typically, they know when they're ready to learn about something. Sometimes, like I said, some things have to be "forced," but generally, when a kid is ready to know about something, they'll start asking about it.

What the fuck are you saying???

I'd never intervene into my child's life. My kid (when and if I have a kid) has the right to do, think and act freely.

PS: I'm not a leftist. I don't even believe in the "left-right" dichotomy.

Without my father, I wouldn't be half as interested in world politics or even ethical issues. I've developed my own philosophies, but they seem to match with my fathers fairly well. No doubt, his opinions have influenced mine, but mostly in the sense of bringing up points I might not have given much thought to otherwise.

He's somewhat leftist, that is, doesn't belive that free market is ultimately good for everyone, or even the rich elite (as researches have shown that the best off people are rarely very happy or mentally healthy compared to lower middle class for example).

While I'm kind of busy right now, I'd just like to give a shout out to Resident_Hazard for being a cool mother fucker and an army buddy over MA.

This propoganda from parents to kids really reminds me of the incident where a kid punched me for enlisting, with his reason being that the troops fucked America over with the war. That though, might be because of stupidity.

Some people don't differentiate between wanting to do one's civil service and supporting a political cause.

Yeah, but I enlisted so that I could get money and have a decent career with good pay and flexibility. I have no interest in going to Iraq or even any interest in this government at the moment.

For what particular reason do people diss troops? The ones that I've met diss them because they think that all we do is KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL. Only 20% of the armed forces is actually a combat group, with the rest being combat support. What, are we the cronies of the big bad government or something? This is something a friend's parents have instilled in his head - that the armed forces is a terrible group of murderers and that the government is generally evil.

My parent's aren't conservative per se, but they do like to force their own beliefs onto me. I'm forced to go to church, to agree with their ideas, and I can't even argue with them on science. My parents have no care for politics and when it comes to religion, they are like sheep. If the pastor of my church told my parents that the muslims were robotic, neo-nazis from hell, they'd probably believe it and then make me believe it.

For a while, I used to believe in all the crap that they fed me and for a long time I used to be shit scared of hell. A few years after that, I started to raise questions on what my parents were making me believe. The only thing that did was turn me away from Christianity. In all honesty, if it weren't for my parents I never would have found metal.

A parent should never force their personal beliefs onto their children. Morals should be taught so that the child grows to be a law-abiding citizen.

I saw that movie. VERY SCARY SHIT indeed. Not too different from an Islamic madras that teaches its students to be jihadists.

I'm totally against this, just the other day I saw a child of maybe 5-7 years old in a political rally in Australia and it disgusted me. It's the right of the child to make up their own decisions in life, especially regarding politics.

I'm just glad my parents have left me open to interpret politics the way I want.

That's could well be because the parents wanted to go to the rally and couldn't find a baby sitter, though.

The child was dressed in an ALP shirt.

To be fair, I did take my 4-year old to a Ron Paul rally--but it wasn't to indoctrinate him. It was because the rally happened to coincide with a night that he was with me. My friend called me up, my wife really wanted to go and I'd rather be with my kid than leave him with a babysitter. We brought the Game Boy Advance with and when he got bored we let him play Sonic while we listened to the speeches. Some woman behind us was actually making disgusted faces at us because he was playing Game Boy. I was thinking, "what the fuck do you want me to do? Force a 4-year-old to get excited about politics? At least he's not running wild, and it's not like he's playing Max Payne--it's fucking Sonic the bloody Hedgehog."

I would have preferred not to have taken him to that simply because he is only 4 and that's just not a place for a kid to have fun.

HOOAH



Do some push-ups.



Wait, some kid actually punched you for enlisting? Yeah, that's peaceful. Most people I've met are smart enough to finally not blame soldiers for war. Unlike during Vietnam where troops where spit on and harassed for being soldiers--and back then, they didn't have a choice because the Draft was still in effect. It was even more stupid back then.

I, personally, didn't sign up for the most "honorable" of reasons. I didn't join for America or "defending freedom" or anything like that (although actually liking America helps), I joined because the benefits are too good to pass up, and at the time, my family and I were in a pretty tough spot, financially and otherwise. Being in the Army has pretty much turned everything around. While I don't really want to go to Iraq next year, I can't just ignore the fact that when I get back I'll be able to buy a decent house in a decent neighborhood.


And then I'm going to paint the house fucking black.

It's your choice to go to war, right? If yes, then I don't find a reason for someone who is against the war not to blame you (not for the whole war but for the fact you participated in that). However, punching someone is indeed stupid.

It's our choice to join the military. Often times, higher officials choose where to send us, but there are times when soldiers can volunteer for deployments. Blaming soldiers at all is still stupid because we didn't decide to start a war. That's a political decision. The politicians are the ones to blame. We're just doing our jobs.

Actually, if I were in politics, I'd grant veto power to supreme military leaders should they feel that a war is unjust, unrealistic, unnecessary, or could be too costly in both dollars and lives. Too much control is given to politicians and the President. That's not exactly democratic, in my view. I would also sign in a law forcing Presidents to evenly distribute political viewpoints in their cabinets. W Bush surrounded himself with yes-men and like-minded people so there was never anyone to disagree with what he was saying. His father, George H. W. Bush was much smarter and had his cabinet made up of people across the political spectrum so that he could always get opposing viewpoints before making rash decisions. Those cabinet officials at the time informed him that there is no viable exit strategy for all-out invading Iraq, which is why they only forced Saddam out of Kuwait (by request of the Kuwaiti government), and crippled his military power. It's also why Desert Storm was about our only successful war since WWII.


Now, in the case of something disgraceful like Abu Graib, those guys can be blamed for thier own moronic actions. Feel free to hate them. That kind of conduct is not condoned by the US Military. (The CIA maybe!)

As long as it is your choice to join their military it's someones right to express his opinion about it. As it is your choice to express your opinion about their own choices. Freedom of expression my friend

And don't worry. No one blames you for starting a war. They just blame you for joining military.

That's essentially "blaming me" for making a choice that made life better for my family, who are the people I was looking out for in the first place. People can be angry about it, sure--that's their right--but it's a stupid thing to be angry about. That's like being mad at someone for being a police officer. Or blaming you for getting a job with great benefits. The only difference is that my job could potentially involve gun violence.

Resident, everybody make choices. And everybody has the right to judge and be judged from his choices and actions.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the stupidity of hating soldiers for taking or doing their jobs. That's all. People like that have the right to be illogical and ignorant, and illogical and ignorant they be. Especially ridiculous when you consider that the soldier that said individual may be wasting their time and energy hating might be doing some evil job like, you know, being a cook or an office jockey. Or a medical or dental professional. There's this ignorant image of all military personnel as being kill-happy, gun-toting infantry warriors or that just because we're in the military we're over-joyed to go to war with the hope of slaughtering people; when most of us are people like me who just wanted a better life for themselves or their families and our jobs are actually non-violent and pretty mundane. I work on computers in an office for crying out loud. I'm a government employee. That's all. Do you follow what I'm saying now?

People are free to believe and think how they want and in fact, part of my job is supposed to entail defending that freedom. That doesn't change the fact that, freedom or no, some people are just really fucking stupid. Like the guy that punched OzzyApu just for enlisting. He's obviously ignorant to beat hell, and his actions indicate that he may likely be a hypocrite. After all, what do most anti-military people preach the most? I'm pretty sure it's still "peace."

As I said punching someone is indeed stupid. Being against militarism on the other hand is not stupid.

Being against individual soldiers just because they joined, though, is stupid. It seems like you're using "militarism" as a blanket term to hate anyone in the military. Like it or not, a military is a necessity for pretty much any government. Being against the military means being against a defense force for where you live. Again, what you should be directing your hate towards are the political leaders who misuse their militaries.

I have full coverage health care, a $400,000 life insurance policy, received a $20,000 bonus, and the Army is paying for $12,000 in old student loans. Next year in Iraq, I should be making something like $30,000-$50,000 for the year--and it's all tax free--booyah! Obviously, joining the military is pretty smart.


But if my kid tells me he wants to join the Army one day, I'll try to talk him out of it.


I'll tell him to go Air Force instead. He could be an F-22 pilot!

Having ideological issues with them though is not stupid.



One more reason to be against the military.



Being against the military means being pro-freedom.



Who says that political leaders are not being blamed?

No, it means being disillusioned. Why are you talking like an idealist?