Yeah, your post gets lost in the scuffle, and that just proves so much. :rolleyes:
Yes, I would serve in Iraq. Yes, I would die, even kill if need be (the latter disturbing me more than the former). In fact, I did look around and found that I wasn’t eligible for any branch of the service due to age and health. Happy now?
Americans can’t send their children to war. Someone eighteen or older, seventeen with parental permission, can enlist of his or her own free will. HOWEVER, Americans 18-35 can enlist in the service, and Americans 18-39 can enlist in the reserves.
So one indeed wonders, why aren’t they doing this in great numbers?
Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back, armchair soldiers, because you’re confident that everyone who joined the military fully supports Bush’s war. But you’re completely wrong and you must know it. I joined the Army in 1994 and never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that America would let us get into a mess like Iraq in 2005. On top of that, I took it for granted that when the chips were down and we needed more warm bodies, Americans would be drafted.
It never occurred to me that soldiers would be prohibited from leaving the military, called back ten years after serving their total service obligation, and asked to serve in Iraq despite being over retirement age. All so that people like those posting in this thread can feel comfy about their voting for war but leaving it to the servant underclass of soldiers to die waging it.
I know, I know. You have other priorities.
Soooo, whats the hold up? Need a recruiters number? You are a fucking goofball if you think any of us believes you are more upset by the thought of killing someone than the thought of getting killed.
Ooops forgot this was not the Pit please accept my apology. But I did say “IF”…but I am very sorry nonetheless.
I do recall that crippled liberal FDR having his sons in uniform during WWII. What about the Bush twins? They are of age. That’s the point. If you are going to talk about spreading “liberty” and preemptive war, both of which were foreign concepts to an America before Georgie, it would help if you yourself had gone when your number was up. Cheney and Bush both shirked their duty like the cowards they are. Now, if you don’t like being called a Chickenhawk, which Cheney and Bush obviously are, then it would behoove you to not shirk your duty when the time comes. Truman was in WWI and Kennedy in WWII. FDR was, as I said before, crippled from polio but all four sons were in World War II and were decorated. These men seemed to be up to the challenge, why not Bush?
Personally, I would go to Afghanistan but not Iraq. Iraq is a bullshit war that has nothing to do with protecting our country and is making matters worse. Bush could go a long way in showing his commitment by having some of his children sign up or they could show respect for their father’s policies by doing the same. But guess what? It’s all bullshit so that isn’t going to happen.
I’m not really concerned about what your average Repub thinks about this because many Repubs do fight as well as Democrats. I know because my family has been in just about every American war starting with the Revolution. It’s the middle-class and the poor who do most of the fighting.
It is part and parcel with the Republican party to pretend that they are the most patriotic but we all know this isn’t the case as history clearly shows.
Please note bolding. And I’m sorry to see that you cannot imagine value systems different than your own.
THe difference is that there was a general draft on in WWII. There is not one now, and Bush cannot “make” his daughters go.
They are of age, as you point out, so it is their decision to make.
Gouss what, pal. In the military, you don’t get to choose whether to go to one or the other. You go where you are ordered to go. And either place is sufficiently dangerous and unpleasant that you probably wouldn’t really like going to either Afghanistan or Iraq.
If you have a problem with this, you’d better stay out.
Does anyone beside me think that this is simply a way for to try and take a cheap jab at an administration they don’t like fighting a war they don’t believe in? And not just liberals. Plenty of conservatives gave Clinton (who also punked out of 'Nam) shit when he was hurling rockets all over the globe.
Is the test of a wars legitimacy leaders really having so strong a belief that they would send their own children to fight in it?
I remember reading once, that one of Eisenhower’s sons was on the beaches of Normandy during D-Day. In Eisenhower’s pocket was a note that said,
He knew that D-Day was a horrible risk that could go very badly, and if anyone could pull rank and get his kid out of the way, he sure the hell could, particularly in that he had lost his first son to measles, there would have been many to sympathize if he tried it. He did not. The war was one that was worth the cost of his son.
I believe that should be the litmus test for a leader. “Is this fight worth my child’s life.” If it is not, then we shouldn’t be fighting it. Period. Not that you have to make your child go, but if, in your head it is not worth your childs life then we stay out of it, because some other father or mother is going to bury their child because of this decision.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/34_eisenhower/eisenhower_early.html (couldn’t remember how to code links and wasnt getting the cheat method working)
Excellent post Furlibusea. Maybe MM will have a harder time creating a straw-man for your post.
And what if the leaders decide that it is, but you think it isn’t?
Then aren’t we right back here again?
Look, I see what you’re saying. I really do. But isn’t it enough to ask if the fight is worth the lives of American soldiers in general?
No. I might disagree with them but at least they would not be hypocritical cowards.
Right.
Look, point blank, who did you vote for in 1992 and 1996, if this military experience is so damn important to you.
Keep in mind that Clinton’s opponents in these races were a man with 58 combat missions over the Pacific and a Distinguished Flying Cross and a partially paralyzed Bronze Star awardee.
This was the man who was ordering friends of mine into Sarajevo. He ordered troops into Somalia, where some of them died. And if 9/11 had happened on his watch, I have no doubt he would have sent troops into Afghanistan as well, where some of them would have been killed.
Do you doubt this at all?
Did you vote for the man, and if you did, how can you justify this vote given what you have said in this thread.
Look, I have never said that Bush should not be sending troops to war because HE did not go to war. This thread is not about bush, nor is it about policy makers. It is about people who are gung ho to send people to fight a war that they themselves are not willing to fight in.
I am NOT TALKING ABOUT BUSH! He is the president and it is not his place to fight on a battle field.
What we are talking about is cowards, plain and simple. I am not suggesting that only those who have served in combat should be listened to.
What I and many others have said time and again which you keep ignoring is that it is in fact hypicritical to advocate a war you would not fight. I am not asking for those who do not fight to justify it. Then you get disengenuous proclaimations like furts, Ohh waa I would fight but I am to sick.
Yeah yeah…but unless you plan to actually enlist and fight, it’s all big talk anyway.
I could as easily say that it’s hypocritical for people who oppose the war to continue to support a government and a society that stands behind it. Unless you all engage in acts of civil disobedience, you all are cowards and hypocritical to at least some degree.
Would that be a fair accusation? And if not, why not?
You don’t see a difference between supporting a government and supporting an administration, Mr. Moto?
It’s a thought experiment, rjung. Why don’t you explain to me the reason you can’t be all in in your opposition to the war, yet criticize some conservatives for not being all in in their support of it?
If you really cared, wouldn’t you be heading off to jail right now?
No one needs to justify why they do not want to kill somebody, think about it.
That could be a very fair statement to make, and if so, then everyone is guilty. The only truly effective option we have though, is to vote the “unwanted” people out of office. However, the people have spoken (that just sounds cool), so there it is. I’m not avoiding your other questions, I just can’t come up with a decent counter argument. Hence the delay in posting here.