Oregon paper to obama: Stay away after gun talk!

No it does not glorify violence, but sometimes violence is needed. Best example Hitler. You see as a former member of the military, I'll defend your right to say whatever you like...But let me put it into layman's terms for you so you might understand...I'm assuming you're a woman so even if you were mad as hell at her, I don't think you would physically attack Ronda Rousey because she would clean your clock in about 5 seconds...This is why our military must remain strong...If we are strong, then the likelihood of another nation attacking us is slim. Or should we be like Kuwait and depend on another country should we be attacked by China or Russia?

 

We have those already. They're called Chicago, Baltimore, Camden...

 

You never explained how anything you said shows that the military doesn't violence.

 

You don't have to get all emotional about it.

- - - Updated - - -

How does our military prevent school shootings?

 

What part of having a strong military prevents another nation from attacking the US. Did having a weak military presence prevent Kuwait from being invaded by Iraq? There is a reason none of the countries surrounding Israel will attack it militarily...Because Israel will kick their butts and they know it, and they will be backed by the US military. Think about that one little country Israel surrounded by many Muslim nations that want to destroy them, but don't dare because Israel has the strongest military in the region. That does not glorify or promote violence, it deters it. Is that simple enough for you?

 

The military advocates using violence to solve problems. That is a glorification of violence. Just because sometimes violence is useful doesn't change that.

 

Do you feel any need to prove your assertion, or are you expecting everyone to swallow it whole?

 

Hard to swallow the 'evidence' provided for the statement made, as sufficient to justify any discussion.

 

Still longing for the good ole days, aren't you.

 

An attitude that most who have never served, yet question the rights others protect for them, have.

 

Who's questioning anyone's rights? This thread is about minimizing the glorification of violence in this country.

 

Actually the thread is about the OR shooting and Obama's visit.

Perhaps you could explain how the military glorifies violence. I don't ever remember doing a touch down dance after a firefight, other than to be thankful I was still alive.

If you want to hear glorification of violence, all you have to do is tune in to a hip hop radio station.

 

It was brought up in the OP, so it's fair game.

I did already, by advocating violence as a noble and honorable means by which to resolve problems. I don't know where you got the idea that glorifying meant simply dancing.

I don't disagree.

 

You can't just make such a blanket statement about the military. The Coast Guard and the Navy specifically do a LOT of humanitarian missions.

The POLITICIANS are the ones who use the military as a weapon of violence. It doesn't have to be that way.

The military's primary mission, and the overall mission are about protection and defense. Sometimes you have to kill people while doing that.

Killing is not necessarily glorification. I will admit there are some individuals in the armed forces that enjoy killing, but for every one of those we have 1000 professionals who detest it, while recognizing the necessity.