It does seem to me, that when a war is decided on, it should be decided as if your children were the ones that were going to have to serve. If it is not worth the risk, then it isn’t worth the fight. Looking from the outside, it sure appears that this whole thing was done pretty damn cavalierly.
If it was Barbara and Jenna, perhaps there might have been a plan for after the win. If it was Barbara and Jenna, maybe we might have made sure there was enough armor for vehicles. If it was Barbara and Jenna, I would bet any money, they would have been willing to hear opposing views on the intelligence they were listening to.
The thing is, while it may not be Barbara or Jenna who are going, it will be my students; Richard, Lawrence, Shaneesa, and Durrell. I used to try to tell myself that they were safer in the military than on the streets, but it isn’t the street kids who sign up. Its the good ones. The ones that are first in their family ever to graduate high school. The ones that are the first female in their family ever to make it to 18 without a baby. The ones can conceive of a future.
Eisenhower had a son fighting on the beaches of Normandy during D-Day. He knew the odds for the young men on the ground, but he ordered the fight anyway. He did, however, make sure it was planned as well as humanly possible. I think that is the care I want put into any decision to go to war. I don’t want to go to a draft, but I do want the people in power to understand the losses they are causing, and make sure that anytime they put these young people in harms way, they make sure the fight is worth the pain they will cause.
Okay, so strawman is out. Would disingenuous fit better? How about an ad hominem attack? Emotional appeal? False dilemma? http://www.freewebs.com/thinkingstraight/Fallacies.htm
Just curious about which debate fallacy the OP falls into, I don’t really care overmuch about the actual argument. So, I guess this is a hijack, eh?
Jenna and Barbara are adults. George can’t be responsible for anything they do or don’t do, and vice versa. Jenna and Barbara didn’t start the war. Why should they pay for the sins of their father?
Sorry, I’m against the war, too, but this is idiotic. Are you saying “those who support the war” should be able to convince their (18-and-over) kids that they should serve in Iraq? Who the fuck lets their parents “convince” them to take any job, much less one that puts their lives at risk? Besides Fred Phelps’s kids, I mean.
Bingo. During Vietnam, several US astronauts wanted to volunteer to fight. The answer from the government was a resounding “NO.” The propaganda value would be through the roof if the VC captured or killed one of the golden boys. With the president’s family, it’d be even worse. Imagine if Barbara and/or Jenna were captured and held for an insane ransom? I can’t imagine that GWB would let them die. The consequences for America are way too scary to justify making a point about hypocrisy.
I would say that the “If the war is right, you’d send your kids” is an emotional appeal, and might also beg the question, and “Bush didn’t send his kids” would then be an ad hominem.
Oh, and Monty, upon further consideration, I was wrong. First off, I was using hypocrisy like I was complaining that other people were using strawman. I wasn’t using the correct definition of hypocrisy, just a concept that was vaguely similar. Wanting something done, but and wanting someone else to pay for it is not hypocrisy.
On the first draft of this post, I was going to apologize for misusing hypocrisy, but defend that there was something wrong with wanting something, but getting someone else to pay for it, but I’m not even going to do that, because that’s congress’s job. We pay congress to make decisions that usually affect someone other than the congressmember a lot more than the congressmember. We don’t ask members of congress to bear the brunt of their other decisions, why this one?
If Jenna and Barbara had been men instead of women, would your opinion of their not volunteering be changed at all?
I don’t know what their personal beliefs are about the war and about the military. If they support the war and still didn’t volunteer, it seems they have set a poor example as “First Children.” If they are opposed to the war, I wish they would speak up!
If George Bush were my father, I would think he would be great to have around at a backyard BBQ. Other than that…
[quoteShodan Yes, I know he didn’t use his father’s connections - he just lied. [/quote]
Which one of them lied and which one of them had a Rhodes scholarship and studied at Oxford? Let’s see…One was kind of in the Guard for a while and the other, oh…You know I am forever confusing Clinton and Dubya. You must be like that too. They are so much alike I just can’t keep them straight.
You do not know, and cannot know, that those who decided on fighting this fight did not decide on it as though their children would be fighting. You do not know, and cannot know, that the administration does not value the lives of other people’s children.
Well, you have that whole emotional thing going on, but that’s not a valid argument.
Well if you think their father has sinned then I guess you oppose the war. Note I did not pit Barbara and Jenna, I pitted their scum-sucking father who somehow thinks that this stupid war is worth spending nearly a trillion dollars on, over 2,000 American lives, and 100,000 Iraqi lives, yet still can’t even convince either of his two seemingly simple minded children that it is important enough that they serve.
Those who say that Jenna and Barbara would have targets on their back; how do you explain all 4 of Roosevelt’s sons serving in WWII?
But still it isn’t within Bush’s power to send his daughters off to war. It isn’t what Bush wants, it’s what the girls want. FDR’s boys did well to serve, but one doesn’t have an obligation to serve based on your father’s occupation.
How many German/Japanese soldiers knew exactly what they looked like? And the real problem isn’t the twins getting killed, it’s them getting kidnapped. Bush would be put in an impossible situtation (West Wing). The propoganda value for the enemy would be huge. This same argument applies to William and Harry.
