"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about."
That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.
Please explain to me how the US military isn't breaking their loyalty to their soldiers when more people die of suicide than was killed in action, when soldiers requesting psychological assistance (which is hard to do by itself) after carrying the bloody children left behind by a gunship just to hear that they should "suck it up" or when the soldiers with blisters from chemical weapons aren't believed their damages are real in a war that was supposedly about finding those kinds o weapons.
As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
> No, I don't understand you since you have no arguments.
Seems pretty clear to me:
1. You say that Captain Kudo's loyalty to his Marines is "mostly a cliché"
2. I disagree and provide personal examples (which isn't really necessary, because examples of loyalty among soldiers are pretty well known)
3. You say that I don't know what loyalty really is
> As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
Your definition of loyalty seems to require the meeting of impossible goals. The military would not be able to meet its obligations and also fully protect all soldiers. PTSD is an unavoidable reality that comes with the job, and the military has really made massive improvements in handling it in the last decade. There are plenty of examples that demonstrate failures, but that is true of every system that has ever existed.
Maybe you should provide an example of loyalty that meets your lofty definition of unfaltering perfection.
> Or maybe I should understand you by your lack of arguments?
Or the more obvious answer: We aren't going to come to agreement on anything because we can't agree on a definition for "loyalty".
I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves.
I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias in the form of "psychological conditioning".
"In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things."
Because as soon as they mention their profession, they stand out. Because they stand out it makes them a target. A lightening-rod to anyone who is looking to rant and let off steam about their POV, Ad-nauseam. @woodman has clearly answered your points. Marine & service men & women just want to be treated like everyone else, no more, no less. Polite, tactful, restrained, but won't back down. This is called bearing.
> In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things.
He is probably cautioning you against antagonizing Marines, because we'll resort to telling jokes about the Army, and quoting Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody wants that.
> Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias...
Hmm, who to trust between two individuals - one who recognizes his own biases, or the other without such introspection?
That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.