Don't forget the Gold Star Families
AOW #6 Responding to - "People don't sign up to die, but to serve" By Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
This Week's Focus:
Argument
Article Category: War/Conflict
Link to Article: People don't sign up to die, but to serve (October 18, 2017)
Most soldiers know they have a greater probability of dying, being critically hit, or facing some other malady; however, they most certainly don't expect it.
"We could honor these sacrifices by being a country that works to understand what people are risking in its name -- a nation that knows that service is greater than any one person and above anyone's politics."
However, how many times in this story does the author seem to negatively associate politics and the service of our military personnel, yet her whole story seems to be based on what she thinks are covert political jabs at her arch enemy, non-liberals.
Although I agree with much of what the author has said, I don't think it was necessary to divide up the country by geography, implying that those of us who live in your so called "elite villages" are incapable of understanding the grief of families who have lost loved ones and that all who live in the so called ignored parts of the country have a much better understanding. I for one understand the pain of losing a loved one, even though nobody in my family has died in combat. I am well aware of when there have been military casualties. And when I see their photos, I too cry. I feel as though she needs make her point without further dividing our country with prejudicial statements.
In conclusion, I feel that the greater point of this article is the general populace likes to romanticize war and create superheroes out of flesh and blood for our own psychological benefit. Lemmon just argued this in a heavily liberal- based point of view that made others misinterpret what she was trying to say.
Most soldiers know they have a greater probability of dying, being critically hit, or facing some other malady; however, they most certainly don't expect it.
"We could honor these sacrifices by being a country that works to understand what people are risking in its name -- a nation that knows that service is greater than any one person and above anyone's politics."
However, how many times in this story does the author seem to negatively associate politics and the service of our military personnel, yet her whole story seems to be based on what she thinks are covert political jabs at her arch enemy, non-liberals.
Although I agree with much of what the author has said, I don't think it was necessary to divide up the country by geography, implying that those of us who live in your so called "elite villages" are incapable of understanding the grief of families who have lost loved ones and that all who live in the so called ignored parts of the country have a much better understanding. I for one understand the pain of losing a loved one, even though nobody in my family has died in combat. I am well aware of when there have been military casualties. And when I see their photos, I too cry. I feel as though she needs make her point without further dividing our country with prejudicial statements.
In conclusion, I feel that the greater point of this article is the general populace likes to romanticize war and create superheroes out of flesh and blood for our own psychological benefit. Lemmon just argued this in a heavily liberal- based point of view that made others misinterpret what she was trying to say.
In conclusion, I feel that the greater point of this article is the general populace likes to romanticize war and create superheroes out of flesh and blood for our own psychological benefit. Lemmon just argued this in a heavily liberal- based point of view that made others misinterpret what she was trying to say.
Comments
Post a Comment