Bush voters with sons or daughters 18-25

One year plus down. I’m happy so far.

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.

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? :stuck_out_tongue:

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.

Most of us agree. Attack is defined as some sort of military strike. See previous posts. The US will attack Iran before Jan. 2009.

Wake up and smell the 21st century, children are people not property. They make their own decisions about joining the military.

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 :smiley:

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.

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.

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.

Huh? The draft is not what he was talking about. But you know that. :smiley:

I know, but why stop there? Show true conviction. Go all the way. No deferments for any reason either.

Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

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…

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

Update

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.

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.

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.

Can I get a side bet in that we do something (surgical strike, etc) that causes Iran to invade Iraq? Maybe some exotic parlay?

OK, who decides which nations need to be “set straight”?
Who decides what nation(s) have the authority to do the “straightening”?

CMC fnord!

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.