Statue of Dead SEAL has gun; parents oppose

[Pulp Hero]

I find it insane that a rifle is considered "offense" on a statue, while in Washington DC there are many war statues that show wounded/armed military members. PC stupidity.

Though if these protesters make the issue unbearable for the local governance, why not have a statue of this guy in dress uniform?

[Coyote]

...
Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?

Bit of a strawman, don'tcha think?

[Tanasinn]

*snipped for convenience*

I probably should have seen a post like this coming.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to be literal, and I realize it was easy to take it that way: people who give life are just as important as people who may have to take it. In fact, puppies are important, too. Everyone is special and important in their own way.

You make it sound as if stem-cell researchers are universally reviled do-gooders and that soldiers are mercenary brutes who are obsessed with their uniform and glory before anything else. But hey, I'm sure that's not what you meant. Just like I didn't imply that stem-cell researchers were scum when I asked (albiet a bit unclearly) what was wrong with idolizing a joe-schmoe who fought and died for his country.

[SirNitram]

...
Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?

Bit of a strawman, don'tcha think?

Considering the strongest 'Military, rar rar rar' I have ever heard has always been from the Religious Right, who regularly decry doctors, scholars, scientists, and diplomatss? No. It's not. Perhaps not accurate to people here, but the idea that obeying orders in a war is the pinnacle one can reach is the very height of lunacy. Not even General Sun Tzu would agree with that.

[SirNitram]

*snipped for convenience*

I probably should have seen a post like this coming.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to be literal, and I realize it was easy to take it that way: people who give life are just as important as people who may have to take it. In fact, puppies are important, too. Everyone is special and important in their own way.

So you do in fact consider soldiers who simply obey orders more important. Thanks for clarifying that you're a worthless peice of knee-jerk, militaristic trash.

You make it sound as if stem-cell researchers are universally reviled do-gooders and that soldiers are mercenary brutes who are obsessed with their uniform and glory before anything else. But hey, I'm sure that's not what you meant. Just like I didn't imply that stem-cell researchers were scum when I asked (albiet a bit unclearly) what was wrong with idolizing a joe-schmoe who fought and died for his country.

You didn't ask what was wrong with idolizing some guy who simply did was he was told and trained to do. You said that was the life most deserving of reverence. That's a load of shit, and has been for thousands of years. But go on. Try and lie, kiddie. Try and bullshit your way out of your knee-jerk.

[Tanasinn]

So you do in fact consider soldiers who simply obey orders more important. Thanks for clarifying that you're a worthless peice of knee-jerk, militaristic trash.

I love your magic tricks. Especially this one where you conjure some bizarre, completely nonexistent viewpoint of mine out of thin air. Can you teach me to do it, too?

You didn't ask what was wrong with idolizing some guy who simply did was he was told and trained to do. You said that was the life most deserving of reverence. That's a load of shit, and has been for thousands of years. But go on. Try and lie, kiddie. Try and bullshit your way out of your knee-jerk.

"Doing what you're trained to do" is exactly what any professional who does anything does, be he a soldier, a stem cell reasearcher, a doctor, or the janitor at your local elementary school. I fail to see how "doing what you're trained to do" lessens the gravity of what one actually DOES.

As for "simply" doing what you're told, hey, I'd hardly call risking your life in a hellhole country for shit pay under a criminal president "simple," even if you like the man in the White House.

You said that was the life most deserving of reverence.

I personally consider someone who joins the grunt ranks of their nation's military to be a generally admirable person, and would indeed put those who sacrifice themselves for their nation, family, or friends at the same level of worth as any doctor. Do I elevate them above? No. To be honest, the comparison didn't occur to me until you brought it up, and I'll freely admit that it was somewhat ignorant of me.

your knee-jerk

Like yours, where I despise stem-cell researchers?

[Surlethe]

So you do in fact consider soldiers who simply obey orders more important. Thanks for clarifying that you're a worthless peice of knee-jerk, militaristic trash.

Now that you put it this way, it occurs to me that there's a very strong similarity between the idolization of military men who follow orders and the Christian idea that morality is simply obedience to a higher authority. This could be one reason for the Christian Right's current militaristic tendencies.

[SirNitram]

So you do in fact consider soldiers who simply obey orders more important. Thanks for clarifying that you're a worthless peice of knee-jerk, militaristic trash.

I love your magic tricks. Especially this one where you conjure some bizarre, completely nonexistent viewpoint of mine out of thin air. Can you teach me to do it, too?

And for my next trick, the copy-paste function of computers.

What could possibly deserve more reverence than the average or extraordinary man or woman who lost his or her life volunteering to protect his or her country in the most dangerous way possible?

If only all idiots were this simple.

You didn't ask what was wrong with idolizing some guy who simply did was he was told and trained to do. You said that was the life most deserving of reverence. That's a load of shit, and has been for thousands of years. But go on. Try and lie, kiddie. Try and bullshit your way out of your knee-jerk.

"Doing what you're trained to do" is exactly what any professional who does anything does, be he a soldier, a stem cell reasearcher, a doctor, or the janitor at your local elementary school. I fail to see how "doing what you're trained to do" lessens the gravity of what one actually DOES.

Doing it because you were told(As any grunt will be) and because you chose to(As a trained medical professional, or any other professional, who seeks out positions to better the world), are different things.

Next.

As for "simply" doing what you're told, hey, I'd hardly call risking your life in a hellhole country for shit pay under a criminal president "simple," even if you like the man in the White House.

Soldiers, in modern society, are celebrated, not reviled. The same cannot be said for scholars, those who work for peace, scientific advancement.. It may not be a majority who revile them, but that percentage is vocal enough to use firebombings when they want something their way.

You said that was the life most deserving of reverence.

I personally consider someone who joins the grunt ranks of their nation's military to be a generally admirable person, and would indeed put those who sacrifice themselves for their nation, family, or friends at the same level of worth as any doctor. Do I elevate them above? No. To be honest, the comparison didn't occur to me until you brought it up, and I'll freely admit that it was somewhat ignorant of me.

Liiiiiiiar.

What could possibly deserve more reverence than the average or extraordinary man or woman who lost his or her life volunteering to protect his or her country in the most dangerous way possible?

You openly said they were the most deserving of reverence. Reverence is typically more than mere admiration; it speaks of a sense of awe. I'll respect anyone who puts their butt on the line for someone else, but I'll keep my lessons from the Art Of War: The man who can win without fighting, that's the guy who we should be in awe of.

your knee-jerk

Like yours, where I despise stem-cell researchers?

I don't recall saying your name... This must be the magic tricks you hallucinate again.

Run along.

[SirNitram]

So you do in fact consider soldiers who simply obey orders more important. Thanks for clarifying that you're a worthless peice of knee-jerk, militaristic trash.

Now that you put it this way, it occurs to me that there's a very strong similarity between the idolization of military men who follow orders and the Christian idea that morality is simply obedience to a higher authority. This could be one reason for the Christian Right's current militaristic tendencies.

It's a long tradition. It was... 1070? 1080? When killing 'An Enemy' of Christ went from being a sin in Christianity that required a monk praying for 120 days for your soul, to being a form of penance. I wouldn't use the word 'current'.

Now, if someone wanted me to name a soldier I'd be in awe of, since they generally can't pull a Tzu? The ones who put their careers and livelihood on the line because they see shit going wrong. Consider the military lawyer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield. His career, I beleive, ended. Because he did the right thing and fought for the Constitution he was sworn to protect, knowing what was being done is wrong.

[Tanasinn]

And for my next trick, the copy-paste function of computers.

But Mister Nitram, I already know that one.

Doing it because you were told(As any grunt will be) and because you chose to(As a trained medical professional, or any other professional, who seeks out positions to better the world), are different things.

Next.

By and large, the U.S. armed forces (and as far as I know, those of most of the first world) are voluntary, and have been so with only occasional exceptions (such as the draft during the pointless Vietnam War). A grunt "chooses" to defend his country just as much as a doctor "chooses" to help people. Just because he has a boss that tells him what to do and where to do it doesn't mean he isn't doing something remarkable.

Next.

Soldiers, in modern society, are celebrated, not reviled. The same cannot be said for scholars, those who work for peace, scientific advancement.. It may not be a majority who revile them, but that percentage is vocal enough to use firebombings when they want something their way.

Being a celebrated individual is doesn't exactly make willingness to risk one's life in a foreign nation any less impressive. I'd wager most people would rather be obscurely living than famously dead.

There are plenty of repulsive groups that resort to violence against soldiers (so-called pacifists and the occasional group of rioting anarchists), too, you know. Scholars don't have a monopoly on weirdos attacking them for disgusting reasons.

Liiiiiiiar.

Wrong.

You openly said they were the most deserving of reverence. Reverence is typically more than mere admiration; it speaks of a sense of awe. I'll respect anyone who puts their butt on the line for someone else, but I'll keep my lessons from the Art Of War: The man who can win without fighting, that's the guy who we should be in awe of.

I do hold soldiers who lay down their lives in awe, and I do think they deserve it. Similarly, I think police officers or doctors deserve to be held in awe for their dangerous and difficult work. I'm sure I'll be called a liar again for the latter, though.

I don't recall saying your name... This must be the magic tricks you hallucinate again.

Run along.

Oh, my mistake. See, when you addressed a post at me after quoting me, I just assumed

Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?

was directed at me. I know, I was totally off-base for assuming a question directed at me without any mention of anyone else implied that I held such a view. I'll be more careful next time.

[SirNitram]

And for my next trick, the copy-paste function of computers.

But Mister Nitram, I already know that one.

Then why, my little lying peice of dogshit, did you say...

What could possibly deserve more reverence than the average or extraordinary man or woman who lost his or her life volunteering to protect his or her country in the most dangerous way possible?

And then claim it's a 'magic trick' where I created a 'bizarre, completely nonexistant viewpoint of mine' out of 'thin air', when I accuse you of thinking soldiers are more important? You say quite clearly they are the pinnacle of veneration.

Doing it because you were told(As any grunt will be) and because you chose to(As a trained medical professional, or any other professional, who seeks out positions to better the world), are different things.

Next.

By and large, the U.S. armed forces (and as far as I know, those of most of the first world) are voluntary, and have been so with only occasional exceptions (such as the draft during the pointless Vietnam War). A grunt "chooses" to defend his country just as much as a doctor "chooses" to help people. Just because he has a boss that tells him what to do and where to do it doesn't mean he isn't doing something remarkable.

So grunts get to choose if they head off to Iraq or Kosovo or the like? Golly gosh, that's the exact opposite of everything seen.

By the way, how many actually go in to 'Defend their country', and how many go to... say... 'Improve themselves'? I understand that's always been a good reason, and I can understand it, but it's fundamentally a reason about the individual, not about helping others. Whether it be by learning more skills, discipline, or just seeing the world.

So try again.

Soldiers, in modern society, are celebrated, not reviled. The same cannot be said for scholars, those who work for peace, scientific advancement.. It may not be a majority who revile them, but that percentage is vocal enough to use firebombings when they want something their way.

Being a celebrated individual is doesn't exactly make willingness to risk one's life in a foreign nation any less impressive. I'd wager most people would rather be obscurely living than famously dead.

So you are really going to argue that celebrating a career has no effect on it's attractiveness to candidates? Are you that credulous?

There are plenty of repulsive groups that resort to violence against soldiers (so-called pacifists and the occasional group of rioting anarchists), too, you know. Scholars don't have a monopoly on weirdos attacking them for disgusting reasons.

These pacifists who apparently go apeshit are rather rare. Indeed, even simply spitting on troops has become revealed as to be mostly urban legend, with very few, if any, actually happening.

How many pacifists have actually attacked soldiers? Would you like to name a number of incidents in the past year?

Liiiiiiiar.

Wrong.

If only 'Wrong!' were a rebuttal when you were caught red-handed.

You openly said they were the most deserving of reverence. Reverence is typically more than mere admiration; it speaks of a sense of awe. I'll respect anyone who puts their butt on the line for someone else, but I'll keep my lessons from the Art Of War: The man who can win without fighting, that's the guy who we should be in awe of.

I do hold soldiers who lay down their lives in awe, and I do think they deserve it. Similarly, I think police officers or doctors deserve to be held in awe for their dangerous and difficult work. I'm sure I'll be called a liar again for the latter, though.

Why should we hold these people above all else in society? That is what your own words say we should do. Now say why. Immediately.

I don't recall saying your name... This must be the magic tricks you hallucinate again.

Run along.

Oh, my mistake. See, when you addressed a post at me after quoting me, I just assumed

Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?

was directed at me. I know, I was totally off-base for assuming a question directed at me without any mention of anyone else implied that I held such a view. I'll be more careful next time.

Maybe next time, you'll not be so stupid as to think you can get away with saying that a grunt should be afforded the greatest respect possible in society when someone quotes you.

[AidanMcfay]

I'd like to see the demographic of the people complaining... Soccer moms... I can see it now...

Past that, PC gone crazy... Perhaps if the Statue were "shooting" and other figures near by were "being shot" I could see it as bad. But as it stands a guy with a rifle in our military should be a good symbol. Why trash it.

[Tanasinn]

Then why, my little lying peice of dogshit, did you say...
---
And then claim it's a 'magic trick' where I created a 'bizarre, completely nonexistant viewpoint of mine' out of 'thin air', when I accuse you of thinking soldiers are more important? You say quite clearly they are the pinnacle of veneration.

1.) My "magic trick" quip (Do you like it? I thought it was clever.), was directed at the "do you think these people are to be hated and scorned" comment more than anything else. I suppose, though, it's also directed at your (badly mistaken) opinion that I view soldiers as the "pinnacle of veneration." (I like the religious allusion, by the way. It's pretty clever.)

2.)As I've stated before, I firmly believe that there is no group any more deserving of respect than soldiers, not that soldiers are the greatest of men, bar none. I already told you this, but I was lying, right?

So grunts get to choose if they head off to Iraq or Kosovo or the like?

No. Grunts get to choose to JOIN THE MILITARY. With the job of "grunt" comes the agreement that one is willing to risk their life for their nation/family/friends. Just because Private Peanuts gets an assignment guarding boxes of tuna fish at a base overseas doesn't mean he isn't willing to risk death in his chosen profession.

By the way, how many actually go in to 'Defend their country', and how many go to... say... 'Improve themselves'?

By the way, many doctors choose their profession to 'help better humanity', and how many do so to...say...'make lots of money'?

I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine.

Obviously, when discussing who deserves respect, we're both talking about the "ideal" soldier or doctor who chose his job to help people, not to advance his or herself. I don't idolize soldiers who join up to see the world and kill exotic people any more than you idolize the Misery-esque doctor who uses their job to secretly murder people, for example.

So you are really going to argue that celebrating a career has no effect on it's attractiveness to candidates? Are you that credulous?

Not exactly. I'm simply of the belief that statues and 21-gun-salutes are not sufficient incentive for your average person to take a job involving fighting enemy armies. It has its effects, particularly during times of peace, I concede that. Stem-cell reasearchers (to use your example) are not universally reviled, either: the researcher who makes a radical breakthrough in the treatment of cancer via his research in stem cells also can hope for glory. I agree that soldiers are more likely to hope for glory than a researcher studying a small but important step in our understanding of stem cells is, but I don't think that either person is diminished by an on-the-side desire to have some fame and respect. That's only human.

These pacifists who apparently go apeshit are rather rare. Indeed, even simply spitting on troops has become revealed as to be mostly urban legend, with very few, if any, actually happening.

How many pacifists have actually attacked soldiers? Would you like to name a number of incidents in the past year?

Indeed, the "spitting on Vietnam soldiers" thing was largely uncommon: the soldiers were often friends and family of war protestors. My point was, regardless, that attacks on soldiers do happen, and that they are not universally loved and respected.

The only recent incident I can think of is tangentially related: those anarchist and anti-globalization rioters violently attacking German police in Rostock over the G8 Summit. I'd certainly understand if you would dismiss this example, but I note that the police officer's job is quite similar to the soldier's in that it is quite dangerous and serves the role of protecting a country.

If only 'Wrong!' were a rebuttal when you were caught red-handed.

Complaining about your misinterpretation of my opinion won't make your cries of "liar" any less incorrect, I'm afraid. I reassert that you are wrong.

Why should we hold these people above all else in society? That is what your own words say we should do. Now say why. Immediately.

No, my words say that no one is deserving of any more respect. I do not hold soldiers in higher regard than doctors, despite what you continue to think. As for why I think soldiers should be amongst those most revered, the answer is simple: soldiers, ideally, protect a country from foreign invasion and help keep it safe for its civilians in times of dire need, all at the significant risk of violent death. Evil can be wrought with soldiers, but it should go without saying that a soldier who knowingly does evil does not deserve to be revered.

Maybe next time, you'll not be so stupid as to think you can get away with saying that a grunt should be afforded the greatest respect possible in society when someone quotes you.

So what you're trying to say is that, yes, you accused me of thinking that stem-cell researchers should be "hated and scorned" because I said I hold soldiers amongst those deserving the highest of reverence? I think that's what you're getting at here.

[SirNitram]

So now we see how it's turning out: Wordplay and squirming.

1) It's not that they're the pinnacle of veneration, it's that they're the most deserving of it. Self-contradiction is fun, apparently.

2) If the celebration is not absolute, it's meaningless. Because a few pacifist attacks have happened, and which are refused to be cited, it doesn't matter society is knee-jerk militaristic.

3) If the revilement is not absolute, it's meaningless. Nevermind the death threats.

No, my words say that no one is deserving of any more respect. I do not hold soldiers in higher regard than doctors, despite what you continue to think.

Quoted for fun of self-contradiction.

And of course, you end with a childish strawman. How cute. But a useful demonstration of how quick and base the militarism in you and many others is, immediately saying they are the most deserving of veneration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I believe that militarism should be venerated, glorified, and propagated throughout all of society. I believe so because in so doing we will reduce the number of wars we fight, by making them a serious, mass affair on the whole part of the populace, and by exposing the whole of the populace to military conflict and the horrors it entails, making those horrors universally understood.

The people who vote for war are the fat lazy slobs who've never spent a day in uniform themselves. If they could remember what the crack of a shot over their heads felt like, they might just think twice.

[Tanasinn]

1) It's not that they're the pinnacle of veneration, it's that they're the most deserving of it. Self-contradiction is fun, apparently

"Pinnacle" implies that they are the only group to hold this spot. As I've told you multiple times, I think that there is no group that deserves any more respect. I do not think they are superior amongst all professions, and would hold many at their level, such as police officers or EMTs.

You say I'm using "wordplay and squirming." I say you're throwing a fit because you made an assumption about my opinion that I openly admitted to you was not well-worded.

If the celebration is not absolute, it's meaningless.

I certainly never claimed such a thing: in fact, I specifically said that I agreed with you that hopes for glory (or, as you said, celebration) were more likely to turn up amongst soldiers, but I hold that most people aren't willing to risk death for a chance at five seconds of fame. I personally hold that those who join merely for fame do not somehow diminish the rest.

Because a few pacifist attacks have happened, and which are refused to be cited,

You acknowledge that "a few" pacifist attacks have occured, and then imply that my claim is illegitimate because I have not backed it up with specific examples? (I take it my police example doesn't count to you, then.)

As I told you earlier, I brought up false "pacifists" and rioters simply to show that soldiers were not universally loved, not that they were more reviled than scientists. This isn't supposed to be something to elevate soldiers as the peerless gods amongst men, but simply a statement against the idea of soldiers being universally loved. It was you who said that "Soldiers, in modern society, are celebrated, not reviled. The same cannot be said for scholars," I simply wanted to point out that this is not always the case. On the same note, I was not attempting to belittle the dangers some scientists face at the hands of far-right lunatics.

Quoted for fun of self-contradiction.

How can I make it any clearer? I hold soldiers should be in the group of those most revered. I also hold that others, such as doctors, should be held at the same level. I've been saying this for a while.

And of course, you end with a childish strawman. How cute.

If I'm strawmanning when I said "...what you're trying to say is that, yes, you accused me of thinking that stem-cell researchers should be "hated and scorned" because I said I hold soldiers amongst those deserving the highest of reverence," then can you please tell me what you had intended to say?

they are the most deserving of veneration

Again, I'll tell you what I told you before. I hold soldiers amongst those deserving the greatest respect. I also hold doctors, for example, to the same degree of esteem. I assert that there is no profession deserving of more respect than soldiers, and I stand by it. I'm sure you'll accuse me of wordplay regardless, though.

[His Divine Shadow]

Someone who toiled away, unheard of, unseen, unthanked, and openly despised for not beleiving the Word Of God is literal in every sense, spending his career seeking ways to preserve life from the most horrible of diseases?

That's just one extraordinary example, and if you're not totally simple, you'll realize it's a stem cell researcher. There's lots of people out there who do things they hate simply for other people, not for the glory and pride of some silly uniform and militaristic worship, but because it is genuinely to help others.

Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?

To me it's not about the killing, it's about getting killed. So I'd support a statue of a stem-cell doctor holding an aborted fetus in his hands and a needle in the other, if he was killed by some crazy right-wing christian.

Well okay nix the aborted fetus idea. But I like the idea of putting up statues for doctors and such, the guys who invented Aspirin and Penicilin for instance really ought to have a few statues put up over the country with a plack showing the estimated number of lives their work has saved to date.

[Darth Wong]

I love the assumption that widespread military iconography and veneration can't possibly have any harmful side-effects, especially when it comes from so many people who can't understand why their country turned into a mindless mob and chanted war slogans all the way into Baghdad.

[Surlethe]

I love the assumption that widespread military iconography and veneration can't possibly have any harmful side-effects, especially when it comes from so many people who can't understand that their country turned into a mindless mob and chanted war slogans all the way into Baghdad.

I think this would be a more accurate description of the situation. People don't generally realize how jingoistic and militaristic we were and are, especially not in those terms. In fact, if they think about it, they think that this is the normal level of patriotism for a country. When you mention other countries, they'll sigh and shake their heads at the lack of national pride. "Jingoism" and "militarism" are reserved for patriotism we perceive as over-the-top, like Nazi Germany's, not ourselves.

[General Zod]

I love the assumption that widespread military iconography and veneration can't possibly have any harmful side-effects, especially when it comes from so many people who can't understand why their country turned into a mindless mob and chanted war slogans all the way into Baghdad.

If that were the actual case in the article though, wouldn't it make more sense for the opposition group to be against the entire statue altogether as opposed to just the gun? You'd have to be pretty dense to not realize what a soldier's job is with or without a firearm present.

[The Spartan]

Now, if someone wanted me to name a soldier I'd be in awe of, since they generally can't pull a Tzu? The ones who put their careers and livelihood on the line because they see shit going wrong. Consider the military lawyer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield. His career, I beleive, ended. Because he did the right thing and fought for the Constitution he was sworn to protect, knowing what was being done is wrong.

I realize that this is going off on kind of a tangent but would Hugh Thompson, Jr. count? (The helicopter pilot that helped end the My Lai massacre.)

[SirNitram]

Now, if someone wanted me to name a soldier I'd be in awe of, since they generally can't pull a Tzu? The ones who put their careers and livelihood on the line because they see shit going wrong. Consider the military lawyer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield. His career, I beleive, ended. Because he did the right thing and fought for the Constitution he was sworn to protect, knowing what was being done is wrong.

I realize that this is going off on kind of a tangent but would Hugh Thompson, Jr. count? (The helicopter pilot that helped end the My Lai massacre.)

I will admit my knowledge of the specifics is bad, but if he put himself at risk to do the right thing, yes, I think he'd count. It's one thing to do what you're told at be at risk, it takes a whole 'nother classification of balls to put yourself at risk because you take your oaths seriously about conduct and the like.

[The Spartan]

Now, if someone wanted me to name a soldier I'd be in awe of, since they generally can't pull a Tzu? The ones who put their careers and livelihood on the line because they see shit going wrong. Consider the military lawyer in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield. His career, I beleive, ended. Because he did the right thing and fought for the Constitution he was sworn to protect, knowing what was being done is wrong.

I realize that this is going off on kind of a tangent but would Hugh Thompson, Jr. count? (The helicopter pilot that helped end the My Lai massacre.)

I will admit my knowledge of the specifics is bad, but if he put himself at risk to do the right thing, yes, I think he'd count. It's one thing to do what you're told at be at risk, it takes a whole 'nother classification of balls to put yourself at risk because you take your oaths seriously about conduct and the like.

From what I understand he landed his helicopter, of his own initiative, between the Vietnamese being murdered and the American unit that was involved, threatening to have his door gunner shoot any of them that didn't stop. He also got out of the helicopter and personally escorted some of the villagers back to the aircraft and flew them to safety.

His career was essentially over after that and he was largely reviled by those that thought he was a traitor to his fellow soldiers.

[Raptor 597]

I find it insane that a rifle is considered "offense" on a statue, while in Washington DC there are many war statues that show wounded/armed military members. PC stupidity.

Though if these protesters make the issue unbearable for the local governance, why not have a statue of this guy in dress uniform?

Well there is a reason not to have the dress uniform. Sure it looks nice and snazzy, but this guy was not a general or famed officer. He did his day to day work in BDUs and his weapon was always there with him. I know personally I wouldn't want to be commemorated in a uniform I've only worn twice over a year.