# Bush voters with sons or daughters 18-25 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712 "2005-01-26T04:36:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/121 "2006-03-07T12:41:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If US military forces attack government-controlled or civilian targets within the internationally recognized borders of Iran, without the permission of the internationally-recognized government of Iran, between 27 January 2005 and 20 January 2009, the INVASION BET wins. If this does not happen, the NO INVASION BET wins on 20 January 2005 and is payable then. > > The burden of proof is on the INVASION BET side: that is, there must be credible evidence of the action, reports in major US media. No claim that black-ops special forces blew up a bridge in Tehran and disappeared into the night before anyone could prove they were there. > > I will take the NO INVASION BET for $200, even money. If you want me to cover any part of that with you, speak up. > [@Priceguy](#): > > I’ll take the INVASION BET for $100. Can’t really be sure I’ll have $200 to spare in four years in my unsafe profession. One year plus down. I’m happy so far. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/122 "2006-03-07T13:02:31Z")
There will be no American boots on the ground in Iran. History has shown that recent Republican presidents only invade those countries that cannot fight back. See Grenada, Panama, Iraq. Missile strikes at nuclear facilities- almost certainly. These will be timed to maximize their effect on the 2006 elections. To some extent, it will work (as seen on this board, there are some that will and do blame the Dems for everything) but I think they’ve milked this cow dry already and even this will not right the sinking Republican ship. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/123 "2006-03-07T13:05:27Z")
Just to the OP, do you want parents to have the ability to force their children to enlist? I though the idea was to have people _choose_ to join for themselves, are you against the right to choose? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/124 "2006-03-12T09:28:42Z")
Votes for Bush in the last election were votes for war right? If one voted for war, and had a son or daughter that was of enlistable age, one would advocate the use of their son or daughter as a tool in the democratization of Iraq. Vote for the President that decides to declare war, you then offer your children as warriors. How is that not reasonable? Is the motivation for the OP clear? No, it’s not. Americans that feel America should wage war on anyone, need to be able to sacrifice their own children for the cause. ---
**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/125 "2006-03-12T09:35:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There will be no American boots on the ground in Iran. . Most of us agree. Attack is defined as some sort of military strike. See previous posts. The US will attack Iran before Jan. 2009. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/126 "2006-03-12T12:46:43Z")
> [@dnooman](#): > > Americans that feel America should wage war on anyone, need to be able to sacrifice their own children for the cause. Wake up and smell the 21st century, children are people not property. They make their own decisions about joining the military. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/127 "2006-03-12T14:39:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > And before you jump all over me about current leadership and the war, please note that I detected these trends during my enlistment in the 1990’s, and Feaver conducted his survey also during the Clinton Administration. > > If college educated Democrats wouldn’t serve the military then, when would they serve? Slight quibble, and not picking a fight, I think you should also include the lower enlisted ranks and the noncoms too, as they are the majority in the military. Officers make the decisions, but unless there are others to carry them out we have a problem. I saw a Republican leaning trend back when I was in the Army - the Carter years (I was in 1973-1877). According to my memory, none of us much liked him back then. It wasn’t open animosity, but a general feeling of dislike. But the “old guys” didn’t like Nixon much either and he was Republican, so maybe I’m talking out my hat here. On the other hand, during WW2, party didn’t seem to make a difference. Maybe things were simpler then. The villains were more obvious. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/128 "2006-03-12T14:48:08Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Slight quibble, and not picking a fight, I think you should also include the lower enlisted ranks and the noncoms too, as they are the majority in the military. Officers make the decisions, but unless there are others to carry them out we have a problem. I saw a Republican leaning trend back when I was in the Army - the Carter years (I was in 1973-1877). According to my memory, none of us much liked him back then. It wasn’t open animosity, but a general feeling of dislike. But the “old guys” didn’t like Nixon much either and he was Republican, so maybe I’m talking out my hat here. > > On the other hand, during WW2, party didn’t seem to make a difference. Maybe things were simpler then. The villains were more obvious. Make that 1973-1977. I’m not Doctor Who, travelling at will through time 😃 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/129 "2006-03-12T15:43:23Z")
> [@dnooman](#): > > Votes for Bush in the last election were votes for war right? If one voted for war, and had a son or daughter that was of enlistable age, one would advocate the use of their son or daughter as a tool in the democratization of Iraq. You’re being overly simplistic about the motivation to vote for Bush, but that aside, they would be advocating for the _possibility_ that their son or daughter might choose to join the armed forces and be deployed in Iraq. As has been pointed out, it is their children’s choice, not theirs to sign up or not. But you know that. > [@dnooman](#): > > Vote for the President that decides to declare war, you then offer your children as warriors. How is that not reasonable? Is the motivation for the OP clear? It is not remotely reasonable because parents don’t sign their kids up for military service. The kids do it themselves. But you know that. > [@dnooman](#): > > Americans that feel America should wage war on anyone, need to be able to sacrifice their own children for the cause. Well, start writing letters to your congressman encouraging him to propose such a bill: that everyone who votes for a President that sends us to war must 1) have the ability to send thier kids to join up and 2) exercise this new power by signing up their children. PLease, I urge you to spend as much of your time as possible—make the ALL—on such a campaign. That way, you wouldn’t have time to post here and only one person would be subject top your idiocy. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/130 "2006-03-12T16:08:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, start writing letters to your congressman encouraging him to propose such a bill: that everyone who votes for a President that sends us to war must 1) have the ability to send thier kids to join up and 2) exercise this new power by signing up their children. PLease, I urge you to spend as much of your time as possible—make the ALL—on such a campaign. That way, you wouldn’t have time to post here and only one person would be subject top your idiocy. It’s not a new power at all. It’s called the draft. Any politician who backed it now, would probably be ending his/her career. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/131 "2006-03-12T16:19:29Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > It’s not a new power at all. It’s called the draft. Any politician who backed it now, would probably be ending his/her career. Huh? The draft is not what he was talking about. But you know that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/132 "2006-03-12T16:59:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? The draft is not what he was talking about. But you know that. 😃 I know, but why stop there? Show true conviction. Go all the way. No deferments for any reason either. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/133 "2006-03-12T21:30:58Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Hey, throw in the rest. I only picked Marines because it seemed dramatic and easy to define. But sure: if we start carpet bombing Iran, that’s your win too. I can live dangerously. > > The US will not undergo any nation building, or ultimately unfounded military actions within Iran while under the command of George W Bush > > Though you should probably not include the word “unfounded” in there: that’s a weasel word that helps US, not you. you mean all this tough talk is just bullship posturing? You mean our fearless leaders are really loudmouth pussies? And **I** a proud american? This realization may prevent my dick from getting hard until we get a new president…would that I never opened this cursed thread… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/134 "2006-03-12T21:40:51Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > - Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. After his hunting incident, I’m almost glad he didn’t serve. I’d have been terrified at the idea of having him on the same firing range as myself :eek: running away to hide now ---
**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/135 "2006-04-09T07:14:33Z")
[Update](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html) As you may know, the thrust of this tread was not to imply that parents could actually enlist their children, but rather that those voters might support Bush’s agenda, and therefore have no _political_ objection about sending their own children into war. Is this a stretch, of course. My main point is that Iran seems to be more and more of a target these days. People that voted for Bush voted for his policies and his ideals. Did Bush voters tacitly approve an Iranian attack? No. Would an attack on Iran be a result of Bush being elected, it seems quite clearly so. Anyways, the “bet”, for those keeping score, is not whether or not boots will be on the ground before Bush’s term is up, but whether or not there will be a military attack on Iran. ---
**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/136 "2006-04-10T06:04:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One year plus down. I’m happy so far. Still happy? Still willing to pay **Priceguy**? I know that you can’t prove a negative, but do you have any evidence that suggests that Iran is not being discussed as a strike target? Yes, there is a strike plan for every country in the world. If the US needed to invade Norway, there is already a (probably severly out-dated) plan for how to do it. But there are no active plans for invading Norway. Why would there be? So, **Bricker** , would you agree that there is a contingency plan for eliminating targets in Iran? Are you thinking that the plan will be implemented, but only after Bush’s term is over? Your current thoughts please. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/137 "2006-04-10T10:43:06Z")
What about non-Bush voters sons and daughters who would volunteer to invade Iran? Regardless, someone needs to set Iran straight. And I’ll tell you why. You know that strange kid in high school who was a bit anti-social, and sometimes he talked about killing hamsters and other small animals for fun? And then you ask about him at your high school reunion, only to find out that he’s been in prison for killing a family via Bind, Torture, Kill methods, and also skinned the dog for a fur coat? Iran is _that_ kid. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/138 "2006-04-10T12:07:31Z")
Can I get a side bet in that we do something (surgical strike, etc) that causes Iran to invade Iraq? Maybe some exotic parlay? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/139 "2006-04-10T12:46:00Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > …Regardless, someone needs to set Iran straight… OK, who decides which nations need to be “set straight”? Who decides what nation(s) have the authority to do the “straightening”? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712/140 "2006-04-10T13:28:35Z")
> [@dnooman](#): > > …Yes, there is a strike plan for every country in the world. If the US needed to invade Norway, there is already a (probably severly out-dated) plan for how to do it. But there are no active plans for invading Norway. Why would there be?.. There’s even one for Canada dating from the 1920s. It was part of a scenario in which the US was at war with the UK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-voters-with-sons-or-daughters-18-25/286712.md?page=8)