Are military personnel more important?

[Rainbowreflect]

First let me say I am completely disgusted, saddened and angered by what happened to Scott Olsen in Oakland. I have the similar feelings when the Phelps group pickets military families.
Now you may be asking what these two issues have to do with each other. Let me tell you. I am pissed off that the outrage seems to really come out when these things happen to our military, but not before. Would it be okay for what happened to Scott Olsen to happen to just any college student? Was it okay when the picketing was only done at gay funerals? Don’t get me wrong, I support our military men and women, but I wish society cared as much when others were mistreated as they do when it is a member of the military.

[Avalux]

1. I understand your point.....but consider this.....

members of the military make a commitment to fight for this country and die for this country if asked to do so.

It's not that Scott Olsen is more important; he is viewed differently because of the sacrifices he's made in the name of the United States of America.

I hope that makes sense.

[qb]

2. The additional outrage comes when one who put his life on the line to protect our freedoms

is attacked for exercising his freedom.
(not that Iraq threatened our freedoms, but the protection of our freedoms is the goal of those who serve honorably).

[MADem]

3. Personnel--No, they are citizens, just like everyone else.

The people who are playing up this kid's military past are taking the opportunity to use his service as somewhat of a bloody shirt, if you will. You wave the bloody shirt, you show the extent of sacrifice.

If he were a young college kid, they'd be touting his major, his community service, his family, his dog, his "everyman" status.

You use what you've got.

That said, this guy was a member of a military protest organization, so his military background/history are somewhat salient to his narrative.

But no, he's not "more" important. I'd say he is "as" important. I hope they upgrade his FAIR to GOOD soon.

[Vincardog]

4. In a FASCIST state the only priorities are the Military and the Police. Hence the reverence for Vets

[MADem]

6. -1. nt

[gratuitous]

10. +1

In the Land of the High Church of Redemptive Violence, one's existence acquires a premium based on fidelity to the Holy Cause. People who volunteer for the Peace Corps or VISTA or CPT or BVS (who receive far less financial remuneration yet face many of the same physical risks and don't carry a weapon) don't receive from our society anything like the cachet and consideration of someone who joins the military or the police.

[dtexdem]

5. What's important is the effect on current and former military personnel.

And so far, a lot of Marines are mad at the OPD. That is good for OWS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I suspect that if Scott had never been a troop

They'd be outrage. You see he was, thankfully, the only one in ICU. So we will never be able to test this now.

[provis99]

8. right wingers claim they are.

That's why it's important to point out their hypocrisy; they claim to support the troops, but treat veterans like shit.

[Rainbowreflect]

11. That is, unfortunately, very true.

[Old Troop]

9. I think it's the irony of having survived a combat tour just to be killed

or injured in the "safety" of home.

[lunatica]

12. I think anyone shot in the head and in an induced coma would create as much outrage

In this case the fact he's a vet is significant in that he managed to survive two deployments to Iraq only to be injured seriously by a cop at home during a peace protest.

But anyone getting hurt like that would have created just as much of an outcry. Maybe even worse.

[ArcticFox]

13. To some they are more important

I don't see it that way, but if the fact of his military service enlightens some, so much the better.

[LiberalFighter]

14. The military is important but there is such a thing as too much.

I don't consider all military to be honorable people. Never will. The same for judges, police, government, etc. They should not receive special privileges or rights. Or at least beyond what is appropriate.

I don't consider the fact that men and women enlist in the military is always for the reason to fight for America and putting their lives at risk. And to place that on a pedestal that we should all worship. Many do but I'm not going to give them a blanket honor to them.

How should those that enlist and those that are drafted be compared? Those that are drafted as in the old days weren't given much of choice. Should they really be treated at a lower level than those that enlist for economic or other reasons not related to serving the country? Yet, should those that do it because of their economic conditions be treated less?

The point should be that they be treated on an individual basis.