Your dodge doesn’t work for his other example (police work) – cops are called upon to die or kill.
I don’t think people become cops so they can become more able to die or kill. They do it to protect.
If you’re the aggressor then who are you protecting?
I think there’s a difference between the two statements:
-
“I support the war, but I would rather not have anyone’s kids fight in it.”
-
“I support the war, but I would rather not have my kids fight in it.”
The first treats war as as ugly facet of existence, something to be avoided when possible but requiring support when it is not. The second is raw, naked, selfishness at work.
While I am against the war, I don’t think the question is not a useful one
-
Just because you would send your son to war doesn’t make it good, just or warranted. Most Germans were quite happy at the beginning of the WWII, especially after the early successes
-
The converse is also not true - a “just” war (if there is such a thing) may have no support.
war is just irrational, stupid and to be avoided at all costs, unless you are directly attacked.
I don’t think the question is a useful one :smack:
Noted. I’ll do this in the future. Thanks.
I would, myself. Please note that I am a veteran myself - actually a veteran of a foreign conflict, if you must know.
At that age, my son or daughter should be making up their own minds on the subject.
If they cannot fight for moral reasons, they shouldn’t join the military, because refusing to fight when you’re already in can lead to a situation where you place yourself or others in grave danger, and that cannot be tolerated.
The military, even during conscription, will allow people not to fight if they have genuine moral objections to war as a means to resolve conflict. It will not allow people to desert or refuse to follow orders on a battlefield.
I’m not only a veteran, I’m also a member of our local Selective Service board, and as such have to be relatively informed on the rules in this area.
I agree with the first part, but I think the second is an iffier guess. Maybe no one is “happy” to be there, but I’ve been led to believe there is some number who feel it’s the right thing to be there, that what they are doing is purposeful and important. They don’t object to the war in principle, even if it’s a bitch being over there.
I mean, I don’t have firm numbers–in my limited experience I’ve heard of soldiers with a big variety of attitudes. But what I have seen suggests that the ones who believe in the effort–and don’t feel like they lost at Russian Roullette–aren’t a tiny majority.
Stupid nitpick, I know, but I didn’t want to let it go unaddressed.
I can’t agree. If these “non fighting tough guys” as Black455 calls them (or chickenhawks) want to strut and posture, fine. Let them put themselves and their spawn at the same level of risk as the other people who have to do the dirty work and get shot at. It would show that they really believe what they are doing. It’s easy to demand that someone else do the fighting, it’s a whole other thing when your own are expected to do the same. As for saying that our military signed up and takes their chances, that only goes so far. They can be expected to fight in defense of the country. They must not be expected to fight for someone else’s family grudge, oil, or dreams of empire. Again, anyone who really suports a war, any war, should put their money where their mouth is. It’s easy to sit safe and snug at home and let other people fight. It’s not quite the same to go do it yourself.
The fact that some of these folks qualify as “chickenhawks” does not prove that all of them are. Do you see the difference?
Do you honestly think that we can expect parents to act completely rational when it comes to their own children?
Not content to accuse the other side of being wrong, you have to accuse them of cowardice and hypocrisy as well?
I can’t agree with this at all. Sorry.
I’m a veteran myself, and it would be so very easy to sit back and smugly dismiss those who’ve never served. It would be satisfying to demean their patriotism and their courage. I’m not denying that it would be.
But catering to my basest emotions at the expense of my fellow citizens would be wrong. And that is true whether I, as a veteran, support or oppose the war.
And those who insist on courage from other people that they’re not willing to exercise themselves, calling someone a chickenhawk while not doing any fighting themselves - how should we feel toward you? You have an opinion about the war without your ass being on the line, don’t you? And the freedom to oppose the war is also the freedom to support it, isn’t it?
What it all boils down to is that this is just about the stupidest argument imaginable. The war, if it is to be opposed, should be opposed for real geopolitical reasons, or supported for the same. And if someone is to serve, they should enlist on their own merits and then serve honorably, or avoid service equally honorably.
There isn’t a real connection here, except in the fevered brow of some who feel the greatest sin isn’t war, or murder, or greed, but hypocrisy.
I don’t disagree at all. Yes selfish, as parent’s tend to be when it comes to kids, but there is nothing hypocritical about it. I just don’t see it as being a huge “Gotcha!” for a war supporter (how they can still exist is beyond me, but that is a different GD).
I did have my ass on the line. I enlisted in the Army, back when Vietnam was still going on. I never had to go there, because Nixon pulled the plug (to my relief). But, if I had gotten orders, I would have gone just like anyone else. Now at 52 I’m just too “old”. Yes, I have a “problem” with people who wave the flag but never did anything themselves - Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Charlie Daniels, Ted Nugent, Karl Rove, Lee Greenwood, etc etc etc. I feel just fine in calling them cowards and hypocrites. On the other hand, I work with people who have been deployed or will be deployed. Them, I respect, regardless of how I feel about this particular war. Hell, you I respect, for the same reason. You DID something, unlike so many others. That’s the difference.
So would you limit public service to veterans? After all, one of the duties of those public servants is to send soldiers to war if need be.
Personally, I was ordered into the Yugoslav conflict by Bill Clinton, who doesn’t meet anyone’s definition of a war hero or veteran.
I called the man my commander-in-chief and I went. And though I did oppose Clinton politically, I never at any time questioned Clinton’s ethical or moral right to send me over there.
The right he had to send me to fight attached to him by virtue of his election to his office by the people of the United States, not by his service or lack thereof some twenty years or more earlier.
Well, a reply from the person who has been in a situation of conflict, and does not support the war, and no reply from the person who is in support of the war, but does not wish to get directly involved.
Says it all really.
With all due respect, Steve, that’s just a bunch of emotional nonsense and has nothing to do with the OP.
If you want something done right - do it yourself. If you don’t believe enough in a war to fight it yourself, then how do I know you are not supporting it for personal gain at the expense of other people’s lives just because you are a cruel greedy bastard? If someone is not willing to make the commitment to fight in a conflict I can not see how they are any more then freeloaders who want others to fight and die because “the spice must flow”.
That sounds like a foundation for a great society. Why haven’t we implemented it already?
Sorry, but there are forms of work and service I value as much or more than military service. Therefore, I wouldn’t assign benefits to military service beyond those that are fair compensation for that sacrifice.
Additional levels of citizenship seems a bit much.
Mr. Moto, I don’t advocate additional levels of citizenship, as in that Starship Troopers movie at all. I do advocate honesty and competence from our leaders, and obviously have little patience for our current administration of “war leaders”. That last is pretty obvious. If I had any reason to believe the war was a “just war”, I would not have the same reservations, but it seems that the longer it goes, the uglier the background story gets, what with the latest (Downing Street memos) etc. John Mace, I didn’t think I was getting emotional - maybe I was (or wasn’t). Maybe my contempt for SOME of the flag wavers however is not misplaced. Not too long ago, there was a thread about them, Ted Nugent in particular. He (Nugent) admitted to smearing himself with his own excrement, in order to “cop an insanity plea” and avoid Vietnam. Now however, he is right up there with the rest of the flag wavers. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that sort of conduct? How about parents who support a war until it is their kids on the front line? It as fine so long as it was someone else’s kids. Is that not also hypocrisy?
Yep. So once again, it’s different if it’s a war you agree with.
Here’s a proposal. Why don’t you just oppose the war on it’s own terms?