OK, here’s a modest proposal. You might say it’s a litmus test to see just how grand the GOP really is. Let’s say we unemploy all Republicans and draft all Republican sons off to Iraq to fight “The Bush Wars”. That way, the GOP supporters can really have a taste of their own medicine.
Now, don’t blame me…I’m just laissez faire as long as you don’t touch my piece of the pie, right?
Osama might have toppled the Twin Towers, but then Bush toppled the U.N. So, who’s the lesser of the two weasels? - Jinx
Let’s not think that’s a one-sided issue. I think every Congressperson – Republican or Democrat – who voted in favor of the war should either go to fight it, or have a child in the military serving. I find it appalling that there is only ONE Senator (Biden, IIRC) with a child in Iraq.
Amen. Yes, to be fair, I will agree to tone down my pointed anger and reconsider broader thinking - since being a ninny or a boob is a bi-partisan sickness! - Jinx
What a lame, unoriginal argument. Those offspring of the people in Congress who are old enough to enlist are also old enough to make decisions for themselves. Their parents have nothing to do with it.
Shit! :smack: Once again I’ve been tricked into opening a political thread. I had hopes that this was going to be a biblical rant. Or something the least bit different.
Yes, but how many members of Congress served when they were in their prime? How many don’t have children eligable to serve? Don’t look to their progeny, look to them. Children are people, not slaves.
No shit.
Look, that ain’t the point, kids. The point is not whether people in the US armed forces volunteered or not.
The point is whether or not our Congresscritters would be quite so quick off the mark to vote to go to war if they actually had a loved one who was going to fight in it.
Kdapt on a jungle gym, why is this concept to fucking hard to understand?
Would you also argue that no general or commanding officer of any rank can order an attack on an enemy position unless one of their offspring are involved in the battle?
Don’t you think it is an advantage that Congress and the Pres are NOT emotionally held hostage when it comes to making decisions about critical, deadly choices?
I’m not going to argue invading Iraq was a good idea. As a matter of fact, I’d argue vehemently against that. But, I’d like to think our leaders are making decisions not based on whether or not their progeny will die, but rather on the merits of the action in and of itself. Congress needs to answer to the voters and not be handicapped into inaction because they are afraid somone in their family will die.
Every single person in Congress who voted in favor of this because did so because they were afraid for their political career if they didn’t. Blame the $@#% ignorant voters.
Well the question sure as hell is. It’s a simple question to understand. It might be a stupid one, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist, yanno?
I agree, it’s an inane and disingenuous point. But it’s a simple one, and has nothing to do with volunteer armies, or “slavery,” or similar shit. It’s just a basic rhetorical argument, and it’s all Moore was asking: Would you still vote for the war/be an evil warmonger if your kid was going to have to fight in it?