[Alex3917]

>Perhaps by using an uncited statistic

"With almost 50 percent of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans' medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health care costs will total $600 billion to $900 billion. The social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable."

http://www.slate.com/id/2302949/

"You yourself are part of the propaganda machine"

Really? Where are my millions of dollars? Where is my government-issued sockpuppet management software?

"All communication can be cast as propaganda. The right to free speech guarantees that people will try to convince each other of things."

Again, you are leaving out the part where the government is paying millions of dollars so that soldiers can downvote and drown out any comments that are critical of the military on social news sites like this one. Do you really not see any difference between having a conversation where neither party is paid for their opinion, and a conversation where one side is unpaid and the other side has a billion dollar warchest to drown out any dissent? That's not exactly the same as two neighbors having a chat.

[jackfoxy]

Alex3917,

You are arguing some very abstract terms (albeit, citing statistics along the way). As someone else who has known well many professional military persons in my life (although I never served), I can also attest the blurb in the Atlantic article reflects what I have seen. Yes, this is anecdotal information, however for certain purposes (like judging individual people) the weight of anecdotal information becomes important. It seems at least some others are coming to the table with similar information.

How many professional military (defined as in for at least a full hitch, and preferably longer) do you know? What kind of anecdotes do they provide?

EDIT: Let me change my definition of "professional" to mean officers Captain or higher (Navy full Lieutenant), NCO, or warrant officer.

[Helianthus]

I'm going to perform the minor rudeness of predicting his response; if he knows military personel, I expect they will have been those that support his opinion: the lower-class more readily exploited for their service, those who came into conflict over money matters with the military establishment and felt (whether rightly or wrongly) cheated via some form of bureaucracy, and in general a selection not fully representational of the military as a whole.

I'd give myself bonus points if he included some visceral anecdote.

[jackfoxy]

That's OK. The point I wanted to make is this article is about what people in this job are like and what may be surprising to people who don't know much about it. I think anecdotal information becomes interesting in this case when it illustrates a trend, and it is about "professional" military, not about short timers and those who should never have entered the military.

[Helianthus]

>http://www.slate.com/id/2302949/

Why is it that you don't think of this as propaganda? At what point does a person expressing their opinion become a mouthpiece? The answer is not so simple as "when they are paid for it," because belonging to a viewpoint is not so simple as being given money.

>Really? Where are my millions of dollars? Where is my government-issued sockpuppet management software?

What is the source of your ideas? Do you really think you have any special provenance on fact?

>That's not exactly the same as two neighbors having a chat.

It is _exactly_ the same. The battlefield is over the opinions held in people's hearts and minds. Once a viewpoint owns a man, it doesn't matter whether that purchase was made with cash, with returned loyalty, with loudness, with calls to idealism, with calls to righteousness, or even with calls to "fact" (perhaps the most laughable--fact's provenance as 'truth' makes it the most important to manipulate and therefore the most manipulated).

You are owned wholesale by your viewpoints because they define who you are. You were _purchased_, and while it might matter to _you_ what coin was used, you are simply _not cynical enough_ if you think you haven't been manipulated.

You say "where is my government-issued sockpuppet management software," but the fact is that you are providing arguments that are very much sockpuppet arguments: the soundbytes we've all heard that don't end in a workable solution, which provoke exactly the generic irrelevant soundbytes that we've also all heard before ("You people who know absolutely nothing about the US's role in Iraq or elsewhere, while calling US soldiers baby killers or propagandists").

Maybe your software doesn't come from the government, but it sure as hell comes from somewhere, and I don't get the feeling that you know where.

[kapilash]

[Not a contribution to the discussion] >It is _exactly_ the same. The battlefield is over the opinions held in people's hearts and minds. Once a viewpoint owns a man, it doesn't matter whether that purchase was made with cash, with returned loyalty........

hear hear! Much appreciated