this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
60 points (90.5% liked)

Indiana

336 readers
4 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This article covers upcoming deployment.

I haven't come across overall Indiana sentiment on this yet

There are many things I'm unhappy about in this matter:

  • Deployment of Indiana guard for something the federal government should be doing.
  • Putting Indiana citizen soldiers in a very difficult position: having to deal with immigration policies in actual practice, political shenanigans, dealing with humanitarian issues when the primary mission isn't saving lives. We are good at war and helping save lives, anything else is asking for trouble.
  • Combining immigration policy with border protection. I don't like that they aren't separate. I feel like it's all political games, but someone convince me that we can't control borders without barring all immigration.
  • Crazy talk about federalizing a state's national guard.
  • Crazy talk about States and federal government clashing to the point of escalation. I don't think cool heads and reason win the day anymore. I feel like the populous seems willing to support more extreme measures these days
  • Separation of service members from their families

On one positive side, this will give 50 service members and their families a first hand view of a major topic instead of hearing it from the news.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I regret mentioning you in that question.

Also you said we’re (the US ) good at war and saving lives… You can’t have both of those be true, buddy.

Well buddy, I think it would have been more rational to infer that was meant to be an 'or' statement. The military is naturally good at 'war' 'OR', in the case of the national guard, saving lives. The saving lives comment had to do with national guards getting activated to assist in natural disaster/community/civil support. I thought that would have been obvious in the context, but yes, we'd need to be talking about weird/specific scenario to insinuate war is saving lives. Nobody else seemed to need this explained to them.

you’re either a veteran who REALLY drank the Kool aid, so likely a psychopath or someone who ranked up and never saw actual combat, or your REALLY want to be seen as someone who served but didn’t

Your assumptions here are pretty ~~retarded~~, ~~stupid~~, ~~childish~~, off. You're welcome to think whatever, but I'm also free to think they're silly as shit, and also false. Asking questions might help instead of assuming. If I was going to make some basis assumptions, I'd say you're some dumb, childish, kid. You probably never sacrificed anything for your community, struggled with mental health issues, substance abuse issues, almost been killed, seen other people killed, or does/says anything that wasn't fed to you by CNN, but all that might also be silly. Maybe go back to reddit, they need you for their IPO.

How about voting to help those most likely to turn to drug abuse due to economical and mental health issues.

On a serious note, That's what I think people are starting to realize. There's likely always been some form of sustain abuse in society, I haven't seen anything to say whether it's better or worse now, but I feel like we only recently accepted mental health as a general real issue in the last 20-20 years. I'm wondering if it wasn't a bunch of military suicides that help enlighten people it's not all 'crazy' people who have mental health issues.