Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Couldn't find an actual story since it seems to be one of those grass-roots campaigns (aka: share this in Facebook ), but as a primer:

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/sarah-palin-hero-sniper-chris-kyle-deserves-flags-at-half-staff/article/2521161?custom_click=rss#.USDpgb-9LTo

So people were upset that POTUS Obama didn't order flags at half staff for him.

Now it appears that there is a grass roots effort to have flags flown at half-staff on March 2nd for him. No governmental proclamations (although I wouldn't be surprised if some governors/mayors/etc join up), just everyday citizens flying it out of respect for Kyle.

Now I admit that I don't frequent the corners of the Internet where this plan likely originated from. But I did have a question: have efforts like that ever been made to fly flags at half last for every veteran that gets killed after leaving the service, or even every active duty soldier that gets killed?

I know I am a cynical SOB sometimes, but I am wondering if he really was that special of a veteran that he deserves a national rallying cry for half-staff flags more so than any other veteran or active duty soldier. Or does this have more to do with him being a high profile veteran that stood up to Obama on guns? To me this almost comes across more as using his death to fly flags at half-staff against Obama, but politics has lefts bitter.

I wouldn't be opposed to have flags at half-staff nationwide for every veteran or active-duty death. Maybe it would be a reminder of the human cost of war. And to be really serious, working at a veterans hospital, I would really like if we just flew our flags at half last for 24 hours every time one if our vets died, I would think it might mean something to the family as they are driving up to the building.

What does Dakka think? Has my political bitterness just caused me to see everything worse than it is?

 d-usa wrote:


Now I admit that I don't frequent the corners of the Internet where this plan likely originated from. But I did have a question: have efforts like that ever been made to fly flags at half last for every veteran that gets killed after leaving the service, or even every active duty soldier that gets killed?

I know I am a cynical SOB sometimes, but I am wondering if he really was that special of a veteran that he deserves a national rallying cry for half-staff flags more so than any other veteran or active duty soldier. Or does this have more to do with him being a high profile veteran that stood up to Obama on guns? To me this almost comes across more as using his death to fly flags at half-staff against Obama, but politics has lefts bitter.

I think this is the meat of the movement, here. Days after his death, I started seeing outrage from the conservative corners of FB about "OBAMA ORDERED FLAGS AT HALF MAST FOR WHITNEY HOUSTON BUT NOT CHRIS KYLE!!!" being an example. (Which is untrue, by the way.)

I feel like it's more of an anti-Obama movement than to actually honor a fallen soldier. It's easy for people to point in derision and say how awful it is that the President hasn't ordered flags at half mast without answering the question of - why? Flags don't fly at national half mast for any other fallen soldiers, not even those killed in combat. I may be wrong though? I feel like there's probably some regulation about what constitutes an order for national half-masts, but I might be wrong. And yes, I'm well aware he could probably do it whenever he likes. But then that would draw down way more of the "Well why did he order half mast for this person, but not this other person, who I feel is way more deserving?"

Yeah...Sarah Palin can go F herself. My dad won multiple medals in Vietnam. He was based in the thick of where they were using Agent Orange and other defoliants. We lost him after a nine year battle with prostate cancer which the government pretty much automatically assumes was caused by the Agent Orange. The last year in particular was agonizing and humiliating for him, and nobody should ever have to go out like that. Where were his f-ing flags at half-staff? At least Kyle got it quick.

Just to clarify...Obama can go f himself too over the WH thing.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

Just to clarify...Obama can go f himself too over the WH thing.

Obama didn't order flags at half mast for her. That was Chris Christie, in New Jersey.

Whoever...I'm not anti-Obama or pro-Obama, and I don't really associate myself with any party. It just burns me when I see crap like this, regardless of who's pushing it.

Jesus. It's hard for me to have my opinion of Sarah Palin reduced, but here we are - taking the tragic death of a veteran, and using it as a political football to again try and portray the President as "unpatriotic" somehow.

I'm generally in favor of half masting for anybody who did secret squirrel stuff during GWOT.

That said, this doesn't need Republicans pushing it. Obama doesn't need any help continuing his Clinton-esque relationship with the military.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm generally in favor of half masting for anybody who did secret squirrel stuff during GWOT.

Why not all the veterans who stormed a beach during WW2? What makes the GWOT so special?

 Ouze wrote:
Why not all the veterans who stormed a beach during WW2? What makes the GWOT so special?

Nothing makes the GWOT so special, which is why I said I was generally in favor of half masting for anyone who did secret squirrel stuff during GWOT.

What about the active duty soldier who died holding a position that allowed everybody else to escape? He doesn't get half mast?

To me this basically just says that the other thousands of active duty soldiers who died in GWOT weren't special enough to deserve nationwide half mast, but a veteran who was a secret squirrel and was shot after discharge and not on duty is more special than all of them.

Like I said before, I'm a bitter old left-leaning fool. But I honestly think that a large portion of folks calling for the half mast are calling for it because he was a pro-2nd Amendment veteran who told Obama to feth off.

 d-usa wrote:
What about the active duty soldier who died holding a position that allowed everybody else to escape? He doesn't get half mast?

To me this basically just says that the other thousands of active duty soldiers who died in GWOT weren't special enough to deserve nationwide half mast, but a veteran who was a secret squirrel and was shot after discharge and not on duty is more special than all of them.

Like I said before, I'm a bitter old left-leaning fool. But I honestly think that a large portion of folks calling for the half mast are calling for it because he was a pro-2nd Amendment veteran who told Obama to feth off.

I'm supporting it because he's a Silver Star recipient who was blown up about ten times, got shot on two occasions, and was generally an all-around good guy.

Lean left all you want.

I believe the flag should be lowered for him and every other soldier who has lost his life in the War on "Terrorism". So until the last guys are confirmed to be stateside, all flags should be at half staff.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What about the active duty soldier who died holding a position that allowed everybody else to escape? He doesn't get half mast?

To me this basically just says that the other thousands of active duty soldiers who died in GWOT weren't special enough to deserve nationwide half mast, but a veteran who was a secret squirrel and was shot after discharge and not on duty is more special than all of them.

Like I said before, I'm a bitter old left-leaning fool. But I honestly think that a large portion of folks calling for the half mast are calling for it because he was a pro-2nd Amendment veteran who told Obama to feth off.

I'm supporting it because he's a Silver Star recipient who was blown up about ten times, got shot on two occasions, and was generally an all-around good guy.

Lean left all you want.

Honestly?

Saying that it's as simple as "leaning left" is silly. This smacks of political grandstanding by someone who wants to be in the political spotlight again.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I believe the flag should be lowered for him and every other soldier who has lost his life in the War on "Terrorism". So until the last guys are confirmed to be stateside, all flags should be at half staff.

I believe it should be at half mast for every soldier who serves their nation and then dies.

So, it should just be at half mast forever.

And yes, it's yet another attack on Obama, a fairly desperate and flailing one.

Palin really is dwindling into well deserved obscurity and these sorts of random outburst are more and more wide of a mark she's never really hit. Bye bye baby...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly?

Saying that it's as simple as "leaning left" is silly. This smacks of political grandstanding by someone who wants to be in the political spotlight again.

Honestly?

I was using d-usa's own words with the "leaning left" bit after giving my apolitical reasons for supporting it.

You know, after I said a couple posts up that Republicans shouldn't be pushing this.

Yeah, I don't think we should decide who was "moar patriotic" and do half-masts depending who was more politically popular or not. Maybe we should just keep doing it the way we've been doing it. Otherwise, half mast forever, all the time, it's the only other fair way.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly?

Saying that it's as simple as "leaning left" is silly. This smacks of political grandstanding by someone who wants to be in the political spotlight again.

Honestly?

I was using d-usa's own words with the "leaning left" bit after giving my apolitical reasons for supporting it.

You know, after I said a couple posts up that Republicans shouldn't be pushing this.

Apologies. I didn't see that part.

I still maintain that it's political grandstanding by Palin.

Why not just have a day where all flags of flown at half staff, like A Memorial day or something

Maybe that's not enough though, maybe they could have like a day, a day for only veterans... oh wait


I guess we need a Chris Kyle day, a day to reflect on the simple things that connect us all, like the love for our lord Jesus Christ and hatred of anyone of other faiths, we could all celebrate by getting drunk and fighting others in various bars or at the very least collectively lie about it, we could follow it up by teaching our two year olds how to use firearms or at the very least a veteran suffering from ptsd.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Why not just have a day where all flags of flown at half staff, like A Memorial day or something

Crablezworth wrote:Maybe that's not enough though, maybe they could have like a day, a day for only veterans... oh wait

Exalted...

This is exactly why Memorial Day exists - because it is an exercise in failure to try and determine one vet gets special consideration and another doesn't. Personally, I think they should leave the half staff tributes to dead presidents and national tragedies involving many people, and leave it at that.

I don't get this kind of thing at all.

Person gets shot serving there country or the public (Be that army, police, fire dept) I can understand the greef and want to honer that person (Even if I don't agree with SOME of it).

With this guy he was in the army. That had no bearing on him being shot. It should be "Guy killed (Who used to be in the army)" not "Army guy gets shot".

Yes, possibly his friends PTSD did have some effect on this. Possibly if he had not been a sniper he may not have gone to the shooting range, but ultimatly it had no real bearing on his death, they are using the fact of who he was as a political football. Whoever he was in life that is wrong.

Steve steveson wrote:
With this guy he was in the army.

Navy.

That had no bearing on him being shot. It should be "Guy killed (Who used to be in the army)" not "Army guy gets shot".

It's more "highly decorated and semi-prominent special operations veteran killed."

 Seaward wrote:
It's more "highly decorated and semi-prominent special operations veteran killed."

And he was the first and only highly decorated semi prominent ex-service member veteran to ever die? One doesn't have to be special operations to be highly decorated or semi-prominent, so unless we are saying anyone who isn't spec ops is gak and not worth noting, I don't think that part should have much bearing.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I believe the flag should be lowered for him and every other soldier who has lost his life in the War on "Terrorism". So until the last guys are confirmed to be stateside, all flags should be at half staff.

I believe it should be at half mast for every soldier who serves their nation and then dies.

So, it should just be at half mast forever.

I'm fine with that.

Isn't the decision to fly (or not to fly) flags at half mast for any one a political decision? It seems to me that it is purely political. Therefore, I don't think there is a meaningful objection to acknowledging that this instance is also political.

 Seaward wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
With this guy he was in the army.

Navy.

That had no bearing on him being shot. It should be "Guy killed (Who used to be in the army)" not "Army guy gets shot".

It's more "highly decorated and semi-prominent special operations veteran killed."

Sorry, yes, he was a Seal. My point was he was not killed in action or as a result of combat (except in a roundabout way) so I don't see what bearing his millatry service has on him receiving honors above and beyond anyone else. Yes, I can undersand why the news think his death is important enough to report on, but saying he should be celabrated by the state above and beyond the millions of other people who die after years of hard work for the good of society just seems silly to me and an excuse to use someones death as a political cause.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's more "highly decorated and semi-prominent special operations veteran killed."

And he was the first and only highly decorated semi prominent ex-service member veteran to ever die? One doesn't have to be special operations to be highly decorated or semi-prominent, so unless we are saying anyone who isn't spec ops is gak and not worth noting, I don't think that part should have much bearing.

Except to correct the record in terms of referring to him as "some army dude."

But hey, if you want to argue just to argue, go right ahead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
Sorry, yes, he was a Seal. My point was he was not killed in action or as a result of combat (except in a roundabout way) so I don't see what bearing his millatry service has on him receiving honors above and beyond anyone else. Yes, I can undersand why the news think his death is important enough to report on, but saying he should be celabrated by the state above and beyond the millions of other people who die after years of hard work for the good of society just seems silly to me and an excuse to use someones death as a political cause.

Whereas I think someone who risked his life multiple times in service to his country, and received numerous awards for valor above and beyond, should generally receive as much recognition as we're capable of giving. Sending someone out early one morning to lower a flag a few feet doesn't strike me as unduly burdensome.

 Seaward wrote:

Except to correct the record in terms of referring to him as "some army dude."

Except you did that in the previous response in that same thread and then went on to add that as a separate response to a different line.

 Seaward wrote:
But hey, if you want to argue just to argue, go right ahead.

But hey, if you want to ignore what you wrote and how you wrote it just to try and feel like you are one upping someone on the internet, go right ahead.

I was caling him "some army dude" to make a point that I don't belive that his military record has any bearing on his death when his death is not related to his work. I also thought he was a ranger rather than a seal for some reason.

It is not a matter of wether or not getting someone to lower the flag is unduly burdensome or not, but a question of appropriateness. They are calling (for political reasons) for an honnor to be accorded to him that is not given to people who die in combat. It would also be setting a precident, and fankly an insult to anyone else who was just as decorated but did not get the same media covarage, or happend to die from, say, a car crash. Now, if there were a movement to lower the flags every time someone who has won, say, a medal of honor dies, then fine, but this is just because he was well known.

Steve steveson wrote:
I was caling him "some army dude" to make a point that I don't belive that his military record has any bearing on his death when his death is not related to his work.

So I take it you also oppose state funerals for former presidents?

It is not a matter of wether or not getting someone to lower the flag is unduly burdensome or not, but a question of appropriateness. They are calling (for political reasons) for an honnor to be accorded to him that is not given to people who die in combat. It would also be setting a precident. Now, if there were a movement to lower the flags every time someone who has won, say, a medal of honor dies, then fine, but this is just because he was well known.

It's not in my case.