Probably Still A Sensitive Subject..

Jinjo, I see your temp ban did no good. Topicbanned once again. Stop being so antagonistic.

I guess it depends on what you really think about the people who fought/fighing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I tend to side more with Byrth - that the least deserving of them are still more deserving of the honor than Whitney Houston. I guess if you see them as bloodthirsty, raping murderers, you'd disagree.

But I also think that when you said this:

You hit it right on the head. I've found that, despite both being more like "regular people," it's harder for people to relate to a vet than it is to relate to a celebrity. And, truly, lots of people have died - even heroically - in war, while there was only one Whitney Houston.

But, to me, the two are very different. Despite the end of her life, Whitney Houston may have been an amazing inspiration to a lot of people. She could have brought joy to thousands or millions of people's lives. She was also recognized for it constantly. Recognizing someone who has given their life to their country is likely the only time any of us will ever be aware of that person. To them and their families, it means a great deal. But, how long does it take before awards, praise, honors, attention, become "normal" instead of extraordinary?

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't celebrate her life and accomplishments. Or even that the flag is an inappropriate gesture. I do think, though, that there ought to be some kind of separation between how we thank her and how we thank a vet.

such an ignorant comment, people get treated like dogs out there for shitty excuses for pay, how is this not deserving of any support or respect from the people back home?

willing or not, those men and women have done more than someone sitting on their couch playing FFXI has to earn even the slightest respect.

Actually, to say the military has one and only involvement, "The War", is a bit far fetch from the truth. You can support the troops and not agree with everything that goes on, such as: "The War". A person does not have to have close ties with military/government individuals to acknowledge it's a gable when you enlist on what you're involvement in a given military operation may be. Rather, when someone supports the troops, they do acknowledge the sacrifices that individual makes for their plausible ultimate-sacrifice (to die for one's country) in the pursuit of freedom. "The War" does not earn the right of absolute 100% support or 0% support for our troops. The military is much broader and complex. Again, supporting the troops is a matter of acknowledging their sacrifices and what the USA attempts to accomplish not just it's role in "The War".

unless you personally knew the person, how entirely does a normal, average joe relate to an overpaid person theyve never met? i just dont feel sorry for, or any semblance of empathy for a person ive never met or connected with.

While I understand what you're trying to say, IMO your feelings towards the conflict as a whole is clouding your view of the individual pieces.

In chess I don't blame the pawns for the failure of the player.

It is not a logical fallacy to disagree w/ a war yet still have respect for the pawns that would die so the rest of us aren't forced to do the same.

Not to mention there are thousands of different reasons for individuals to enlist in the military. Yes some want to be there, some have financial hardship and the military is one of the only ways they can get escape, some were disciplinary problems as kids, etc etc.

To say someone supports our current conflicts because they enlisted is a logical leap that minimizes the situations that many of these soldiers come from. People often have to do things they don't blame agree with in hopes of making a better life for themselves or their families.

If you can't see this, then I'm sorry for your limited vision.

You've (maybe not you personally, but most people) didn't meet the guy's son that died, either. Don't know a single thing about him. And everything you think know is just an assumption. Was he a good soldier? Was he a terrible one? Was he an alcoholic? Was he abusive? Did he give half of his pay to charity? We don't know.

But maybe "relate" wasn't the right word - I think maybe "connect" was better. Or, maybe most people are just more interested in celebrities than soldiers.

I know this, though: People will sometimes ask me questions like, "what was it like?" or "would you tell me about what you did there?" And, when I answer, plenty of times they are freaked the hell out, don't know how to respond, and awkwardly gtfo the conversation as fast as they can. On the other hand, we've already been talking longer about Whitney Houston this morning than I've spent talking with my entire family about Iraq.

So, yeah, I think I should have used something other than relate, and "connect" was probably it.

So back to the original topic. Who cares if New Jersey wants to honor Whitney Houston or anyone else? If enough people agree that she shouldn't be honored than New Jersey implicitly risks devaluing the brand value of flying their flag at half mast. That may not be a good thing, but I don't see why it shouldn't be New Jersey's choice to make.

Ah, this statement assumes that people that disagree w/ our current conflicts care if they continue or not.

Big assumption IMO.

I don't think we should be overseas in our current conflicts, but I also understand reality.

There will always be conflict, it is unavoidable.
Conflict will always be waged by the many in the interests of the few.
No matter how much butt hurt I have its not going to change human nature.
I understand conflict will always occur, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Oh it's totally their choice to make. But it'd be silly of "us" to wait until it's become a total joke* before we said anything. The honor is important to people, though, and they want it to keep it's value.

I'm not writing any letters of complaint - I live in Colorado, and yeah, it's their honor to mess up or not. But I would if it was happening here.

But did "New Jersey" decide to do it, or did a single politician do it in an attempt to garner support by "honoring" someone that he feels many voters liked.

I am very aware that the gov represents the state and that its obviously not possible to have people vote on something like this, but it is pretty weak IMO.

Incoming half mast flags for, the cast of Jersey Shore? The Jersey Nets w/a they move to Brooklyn? etc etc.

Also towards OP, the dad from Mich, was totally within his rights.

If NJ wants to devalue their flag and image by honoring trash like whitney houston, then why should anyone have a problem with him devaluing their flag by burning it.

I think he made his point pretty well.

I'd like to buy Mr. Burri a dinner and discuss how wonderful his son was for serving our country.

@Term: NJ is already a joke ; )

Well if we accept your premise that he's doing it BECAUSE many voters like her, then implicitly the people are making this choice in substance even if it's a single politician making it in form.

Not necessarily.

Did Christie make the decision because the people of NJ DID want it to happen?

Or did Christie make the decision because he THINKS the people of NJ would want it to happen.

A fairly big difference IMO.

A pop-star, drug addict is not on foreign soil fighting for their country or their pay with their life constantly on the line.

Whether the cause is legit or not, soldiers aren't paid to argue it, they're paid to do their job. Nonetheless, they are sweating, bleeding, and dying to get their jobs done, so to say you don't respect them in the slightest for doing a service for the country you live in, just goes to show how much the ignorance there is in the world.

true but if he's wrong he risks not being re-elected. Politicians do a lot of shady things and I don't like them, but they've got a huge interest in knowing what voters want and as a result they're quite good at it. Occasionally they ignore what voters want, but very rarely do they simply not know what they want (and when they don't, they avoid acting).

OR, maybe he really did believe that she was a cultural icon who has given enough to the world - or at least to NJ - to deserve such an honor. It's kinda a crappy spot for him: We can disagree with him AND think he's shady, we can disagree with him but think his heart is in the right place, we can agree BUT think he's shady, or we can agree and think his heart is in the right place.

Four things, only one combination isn't at least partly tainted. Politics? No thanks!

Which is why the shrewd politician doesn't put himself in such a situation. 4 possibilities with only 1 being a win is bad odds.

If he were smarter, he would have found a way to publicly acknowledge the passing of a famous NJ (resident?) that doesn't overlap into something that could be associated with the military.

Totally.

if you agree with the gov., lower the flag, if not, don't... what is the gov. gonna do? arrest someone for not lowering their flag???

also, everyone has some shady history, you can't say that someone shouldn't have a flag lowered for them because of the bad choices, everyone has made bad choices... i'm sure there are people out there that were negatively affected by some "heroes" that have had a flag lowered in their honor...

That is with out a doubt the most idiotic thing iv heard in quite some time.

People need to realize that Solders and Government are not one and the same. A solider can join up for a number of reason. But when congress/president declares war on any group or nation, its not as if they go around and ask solders 'who wants to go today?'

A solider doesn't get that option. It's their job and duty to go. Even if they don't agree with the reasons why. Just because two ideas are related, does not make them the same.

--

Special Agent Gibbs: "All you care about is selling the war."
Ray Vincent: "You don't support the war?"
Special Agent Gibbs: "I support the men fighting it."

I disagreed with the war in Iraq. I think war is sometimes necessary (however rarely), and Iraq was simply not one of those times. But I do respect our soldiers.

My brother is one. He was a Captain in the Army, in the 101st airborne (go Screamin' Eagles!) before he retired a couple months ago. He did tours in Iraq. He wasn't there to fight, though. He was there by the request of some high-to-do Iraqi bigwig. By the request of Iraq! And he was there for one purpose-- train Iraqi police. He went there to help them, by their own request, and train them so they could better defend themselves. Guess what he got for his troubles? His best friend at the time, in the same company as my brother, shot in the head right in front of him by a sniper. His best friend died in his arms because he had the courage to go to a foreign country and try to help them.

His wife, too, my sister-in-law, is also in the army. She's a nurse. She also did tours in Iraq, not fighting but nursing. And not even nursing our troops! She nursed their people and she was happy to do it. Guess what she got for her trouble? A little Iraqi girl named Shareen, seven years old if I remember right, who'd been so abused by her own family that they set her on fire until she had 3rd degree burns over most of her body. There wasn't a single damn thing my sister could do except try to make that sweet little girl comfortable before she died. When my brother and sister-in-law had a baby this past summer, they called her middle name Shareen after that burned, abused, innocent Iraqi child.

No, I don't agree with the war in Iraq. But know this-- if an American soldier does 1,000 good things and 1 bad thing, the media will show only the 1 bad thing and that's what the American public will judge that soldier on (and harshly!), as well as all his fellow soldiers. That's what he'll be remembered for. Americans don't know even half of the story from watching the news, because the media is biased against it and refuses to show good deeds. Most people that I've spoken to don't even know that there were units of US soldiers there by the request of the Iraqi government itself training their troops up. And they don't care. You want to think of a soldier as nothing more than a bully who breaks down Iraqi doors and terrorizes Iraqi families? Fine, think that. Your ignorance and close-mindedness is nothing to me. But don't think for an instant that it's ok to honor some drugged-up has-been over those soldiers.

Anyways, that was a huge off-topic rant. As for Whitney Houston. She was a good singer, back in the day. And then she was so drugged-up that she couldn't even take a bath. And now she's dead. K. No one actually cares. When was the last time before her death that you heard anyone mention her, remember her, say they were a fan? Oh yeah, never. But now that she's dead, people are so, so sad. Feigning sorrow is a good way to get attention, I'm afraid, and people like attention. But everyone most people who are so, so sad today aren't even going to remember that she's dead in a week or two. Flying the flags at half-mast for some woman who was so knocked out on drugs that she couldn't even do the one thing she was famous for to begin with anymore is ridiculous and cheapens the gesture, in my opinion.

There are plenty of anti-American regimes on the planet, should we invade them all? North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Somalia and Cuba all qualify to say the least. What made Iraq so special? Why aren't we giving every anti-American country a dose of our righteous fury? Lets do Iran next!

We got attacked on 9/11 and the solution then was to enter a country that had nothing to do with the organization that attacked us? For what? To spread glorious democracy to people who are so wound up in their religious belief that the notion of democracy is wholly foreign to them? Saddam Hussain was a pretty barbaric dictator but he had nothing to do with Al-Queda and guys like Gaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Castro, Mubarak or King Abdullah are on the same tier.

We're allies with the Saudis who have an abominable track record on human rights yet we singled out Saddam why? Because he was an easy target for our channeled revenge.

Bush lied to the people, Colin Powell had powerpoint slides sure of those WMDs and at the end of the day the only people who won out from that effort were the defense contractors who made a fortune selling us weapons and rebuilding Iraq. The Neocons wanted a war and a war they wrought by invading the wrong country. How many lives were thrown away for nothing? How many caskets shipped back to the US draped in an American flag because our leaders failed to choose our battles wisely?

Physical and Mental deterrents? We have the most powerful army on the planet and that's enough of a 'deterrent' to keep countries in check. If you want to make an argument for invading Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and his cohorts fine but don't hand me that Iraq was anything other than a wild goose chase that wasted billions of USD and got us nowhere.

Had we used a surgeons scalpel instead of a sledgehammer dipped in the desire for revenge the course of history might have been very different from the 10 year exercise in futility Iraq will be remembered as.

agree and agree with burning a flag in protest.

while I agree with your sentiments I don't see the point in removing just the product (regime and or organizations) without changing the way the people think about us.

Let's say for instance a culture that is breed and taught to hate us, if we only take out the ones that actually try to harm us it will only breed more, to actually stop that with force you have to use an overwhelming force that will crush their ambition.

No?

Also the bit about keeping countries in check is true, but that doesn't stop organizations "secretly" funded by said countries to organize guerrilla attacks on us aka terrorists, hence why they go that route, since it's harder if not impossible to stop it. We should know how those tactics work, it's how we won our independence...