And you have yet to find anyone who is saying that; and when someone says that they would fight, you call them liars. In other words, you have constructed a position and refused to accept any evidence that would contradict it.
Unless you know that he is healthy and of the right age, it is a bit presumptuous to claim his statement is disingenuous, and the “waa” was not necessary to this discussion, at all.
I know this is a hot topic, but everyone needs to cool off a bit. We can move this to the Pit, but if folks think it is truly worth debating, then stick to facts and logic and leave the personal remarks out.
Guess what pal? I know this already (fuck head), as all of my male relatives have been in the Army except for one in the Navy who got a Silver Star in Korea. So you are right, I’ll stay out of it because BU$HCO is more concerned about Iraq than the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11.
There you go.
Except that, if it is a condition that is true for most of us, is it something we really should feel guilt over?
It would not be fair for me to demand that an opponent of the war engage in civil disobedience and go to prison. It is likewise not fair for others to demand that a supporter of the war enlist, or somehow make his adult children enlist.
Some on each side may indeed do these things, but it is not necessary to do them to have a legitimate opinion and the right to act upon it.
I support the war. I volunteered to go twice. I think that, in the long run, the cause would be worth dying for. Regardless of the administration’s reasons for going, I’d have my own. I don’t care if there are citizen’s in Iraq too short sighted to see how much better off their children and their children’s children will be growing up under a democratic government! 100 years from now, these people will be dead, but many generations will have benefited from what we are doing there now.
So I do think it’s worth me fighting for, and possibly dying for.
However, I wouldn’t want my neice to go there. I say “neice” because I don’t have any kids. She’s the closest thing I have. But I wouldn’t want her to grow up and go to ANY war, not just this one. It doesn’t mean I don’t support the war. It means I want my neice out of harms way.
I think it would be natural for any parent to say they don’t want their kid to go to war. Who the hell would want that??? But I don’t think it’s hypocritical for a person to support a war, but not want their children their. That just seems like a natural parental thing to not want your kids harmed.
So how does that effect your litmus test? What if someone is totally willing to go to war himself, is in the Army, volunteers to go to Iraq, but -if questioned in a survey- would say he wouldn’t want his kids to fight in the war??
Is he a hypocrite?
The premise of this thread is silly.
I support cops who keep our streets safe.
I’m not a hypocrite because I’ve never kicked in the door of a crack house personally.
I might try out crab legs at a fancy restaurant.
I’m not a hypocrite because I’ve never worked on a fishing boat in the Bering Straight.
I support the war.
I’m not a hypocrite because I or my hypothetical children aren’t serving in the military.
Direct personal slurs are not permitted in the pit, not even in parentheses.
Do not do this again. You might want to check out this thread with the sticky at the top of this Forum and the general guidelines for posting on the SDMB before any other tactless Moderators need to point out these rules. Is this sufficiently fair warning?
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Bear Nenno, Your position as you describe is one I can respect. You are right in that it is natural parental desire to keep their kids from harm. But, and it is a big but, war is the ultimate act engaged in by a nation. It is sanctioned murder. When we go to war we are deciding to end the lives of thousands of humans, including non-combatants. It is a decision that shouyld not be entered lightly. It disgusts me that life here in America basically continues uninterrupted. There is no response costs for this war. We suffer no direct observable consequences.
I think it would be far better to institute a universall draft, no colledge deferments no exceptions. Everyone should participate in the war effort. If we really believe the war is worth fighting we will do it. If we as a country do not feel it is improtant enough to totally disrupt our lives and economy then we will not engage in it.
To me war should be an all or nothing proposition. I do not agree with using violence as just another policy option. We do not permit it amoung individuals why is it an acceptable option for nations.
I believe that Americans continue with their lives uninterrupted because of the fact that soldiers fight in wars, and not despite it!
If there were not Americans freely making choices and going about their own lives and pursuing happiness in their own manner, then there would be no point in having soldiers. What would we be there to protect?
I also believe that such freedoms are an inalienable right of ALL HUMANS. The Constitution does not give us these rights, it merely recognizes them. I would fight to give that oppurtunity to any citizen of any country, anywhere! I would support any war that had an end state of removing a tyrant and leaving behind a democracy.
Unfortunately that doesn’t always seem to be the politician’s goal. Well I’m not a politician. And personally I think we need to hurry up with Iraq so we can start unifying Korea.
But there would be no point in burdening all citizens with that responsibility. Just like - as mentioned earlier - not all citizens should be burdened to fight crime. There are people who choose to do this for their own personal reasons. For me, being a soldier is a free choice I made to make me happy. Every citizen should make his own choice, and I don’t look down on scientists, cubicle people, or politicians for choosing a different route. I fight FOR them, not DESPITE them.
Yea, about that, we tried it once already. The result was not all that great, and they did not even have Nukes that time.
South Korea today is prosperous and free. Call it a job well done, but only half completed.
To some degree, isn’t voting for your elected officials some degree of expression of ‘belief’? Particularly in our current situation, when a president was re-elected mid combat?
As far as the universal draft goes in relation to this, I get your point, but there will almost always be people who oppose a war. When you say ‘if we believe,’ how do you quantify ‘we’? It seems that our current system of government and division of power is adequate for ensuring things don’t happen willy-nilly. Not everyone will agree with everything, and sometimes things that in retrospect will be clearly wrong-headed will happen, but that’s human nature. It seems like you’re trying to write out ‘wrong’ wars and only allow ‘right’ wars, but I don’t think it’s possible to do that.
I think Bear_Nenno makes good points about choice and the armed forces. It feels like a lot of your argument takes the choice away from those who serve.
My you are a cup half full guy aren’t you? Do you consider a job half done to be a job done well? Considering the end result last time are you anxious to send other kids over there to die? For what this time we can’t say we are containing communism. Oh I guess we could considering this administrations willingness to say any damn thing.
Lest you forget one of the three great truths :Never get bogged down in a land war in Asia.
(Inigo are you out there?)
The United States has never tried to unify Korea.
When the communist North thought they should unify Korea and make one big communist country, we intervened. We prevented the North from assimilating the South. I think that was pretty successful.
Unfortunately, once we pushed them back to where they belonged, we stopped. There’s politics again for you. We should have kept going.
And the job wasn’t “half done”. The mission was to put the North back in their place. It was not, unfortunately, to wipe out North Korea.
Giving millions of people what is rightfully theirs… freedom. Even if some of them are too brainwashed up there to realize it.
You may want to check your facts. On October 9th, 1950 The US led a UN sanctioned attack across the 38th parallel. The objective was to re-unify all of Korea. Needless to say it did not work.
obligatory cite : http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/TimeLine.htm
I stand corrected.
Though it was a rather brief attempt and it doesn’t appear that reunifying Korea was still our goal in '53.
But the statement I made about “never tried to unify Korea” is factually wrong.
Thanks for that link, btw! I’ve saved it under my Favorites.
/end hijack
Supporting the war is supporting an action. Policemen, firemen, fishermen, etc. are involved in occupations. You support these occupations by paying taxes, neighborhood watches, buying fish, etc. You support a war by providing the resources it needs, the most precious resource being people. Comparing a war to people in hazardous occupations is comparing apples to oranges.
Soldiers are also involved in occupations. An occupation they freely chose.
Policemen choose their occupation, but don’t get to choose which violent criminal to run into. Or which crack house to raid. They’re superiors choose that.
Soldiers and officers are not Apples and Oranges. They are both people employed in an occupation who sometimes are forced to do dangerous things against their will. The most valuable resource for war is people, sure. But the most valuable resource for kicking in crack houses or catching snow crabs is people TOO. How would we do those things without people? It doesn’t mean every person is responsible for supplying a son or daughter for every service imaginable.
I don’t think your statements hold much water. How are the two so different??
We can support the police (an occupation) and support his busting of criminals (a dangerous action) without supplying that action with our own son or daughter.
Similarly, we can support the Army (an occupation) and support their fighting of a war (a dangerous action) without supplying that action with our own son or daughter.
I dont think you’ve successfully shown how the two are as unalike as apples and oranges.
Come on Bear, the only people we send to KILL other people is soldiers. We don’t authorize cops to execute criminals. Sure they may have to kill but they are limited to defending themselves or others and to a limited degree aprehending fleeing felons.
Soldiers are not cops. War is not policing or fishing or any othe stupid shit. Yes, many professions can be dangerous, that does not make them analogous to imposing our leaders policy decisions through the use of organized violence.
Obviously comparing soldiers to police is a better comparison than comparing a war to a career. In the OP, I understood “supporting the war” to be supporting a specific instance of war. One can support the armed forces without supporting the war. This specific war needs more people. It isn’t necessary for you to populate every occupation to recognize the occupation’s usefulness. But if you refer to a specific instance then there are actions that show your support (or lack of support) of that instance. I accept that one can support a war without supplying one’s child. It’s a matter of degrees. Voting for the candidate who favors war is a way to support the war, but it doesn’t mean much.