Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.
Their service is commendable and I'll even go so far to say that they were betrayed. But I still don't agree. We all have a duty. Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters. Do you use it as an excuse to be self centered or do you recognize that if you're betrayed so have others. That those that betrayed you can only do so because you do not band together. Tha…
I am not angry. What I was ultimately describing was referred to as a 'social contract'. Like a regular contract, once it is not fulfilled, you cannot rely upon it ever again.
To illustrate this concept better I will explain it by example:
If you hire someone to fix your roof, you pay them, and they don't fix it; then a few months later you re-hired them again to fix your roof, and again they take your money and refuse to fix it.
Who is ultimately responsible for you losing money the second time around?
I would argue, (and so would their lawyers if you sued them), that you had a legal duty to "mitigate losses", and as you didn't learn the first time, you are responsible for throwing good money over bad, not them. You knew they didn't honour their contracts, so it was on you that you re-engaged with them.
That is not anger, that is common sense, and a basic common law legal concept.