Some veterans hate the "thank you for your service" thing. They say that rather than just saying TYFYS we should be holding politicians to account and making sure that military force is used when needed, or that we should be providing good quality medical care and support to move into civilian life.

Here's one flagged article about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9089903

Having been on the receiving end on that phrase numerous times, few genuinely felt sincere. It seems to have degenerated into a virtue signal more than anything else.

Yeah, maybe it's because I've got a lot of friends & coworkers that served or are active, but I just don't get the whole thanking thing. It's just another perfunctory statement.

I've kind of come around to the idea that asking some questions about the person's experience, and letting them tell some of their favorite stories is usually a better way of showing appreciation, even if it isn't openly stated. Everyone likes to be heard, and it's a rare veteran that doesn't have a bag of moving / funny stories to tell about being in the military, so everyone gets something out of it.

Only time I've ever said it was when I met a WW2 vet. Not that I don't support other vets it's just I feel that I actually had something to thank him for. I can't say my life would be all that different if we didn't invade Vietnam or Iraq. Everyone else I just buy them a beer and listen to their stories.

I remember seeing a lot of "support our troops: bring them home!" posters and bumper stickers in the mid 2000s.

On the other hand they are a volunteer army who chose to sign up, I'm not attacking them just pointing that out

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to conscripted soldiers who didn't have a choice.

These days its hard to say anyone signs up for the military in the major democracies without realising what they where signing up for.

Eh, tell that to the broke kid from Centre(sic), Alabama who has the choice between working at the 711 and probably getting a nice meth addiction (or watching most of his high school deal with their own), slinging meth himself eventually ending up doing 5-10 in the state pen, or the Army. The Army recruiters promise college, which he damn well can't afford in three lifetimes, training, a sense of honor, and a trip out of a red neck suck hole that took his dad, brother and most of his buddies so deep they can't see sun.

It's "volunteer" in the sense that you technically make the choice. But for a lot of kids signing up those choices are sleeping on the couch in the trailer park, a prison cell or an Army cot.

While the choice for volunteers is bad, the state has a much better option - divert some of that money spent on the military and spend it on improving many aspects of society that need it.

I recall a situation from around the early 1990s when there was a proposal to spend about $2 billion on public education. The reaction from lawmakers was like this: Where the heck are we going to get all that money from?

That was just $2 billion! Funding Operation Desert Storm was no big deal.

>These days its hard to say anyone signs up for the military in the major democracies without realising what they where signing up for.

The British armed forces recruit children from the age of 16. I don't agree that 15/16 year olds in their final year of compulsory education know what they are signing up for when the army recruiters come to their school.

There are campaigns to change this, but as far as I know they haven't achieved much support.

For example: http://battlefieldcasualties.co.uk (the powerful video on this site is also relevant to the wider points being discussed upthread about the treatment of ex-military people and how it compares to the fetishisation of the military in other contexts)

The US does this too. I think schools are legally obligated to provide contact information for students.