I don’t know if you were kidding or not, but that’s just wrong. This sort of talk really ticks me off. First off, calling a group of people ‘ragheads’ is simply uncalled for, and secondly, there are a lot (indeed, a vast majority) of ‘ragheads’ who are just normal people like any of us, trying to get through the day without having to worry about one government or another blowing up their city. Making such a broad and offensive generalization like this really peeves me.
You may have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean what you say should be said.
Oh I agree. We need to be much more sensitive to a culture that espouses hatred of us and has sent forth terrorists to harass us since the 19th century (If you just said “huh?” check out Pershing’s tenure in the Philippines).
TeleTronOne, the point of free speech is that YOU are not the arbiter of whether tikoon “should” say something or not.
I think raghead is perfectly fine as a group term that also encompasses tikoon’s expression of his feeling toward this culture. It’s a far sight better than the epithet I normally hear used about this group (It involves Sand and the word that caused so much ruckus in the Mark Fuhrman trial…)
What a totally idiotic , asinine thing to say. This is a debate not a forum for your stupid prejudices. If you guys want to bond and use racial epithets, I think you should do it elsewhere.
Ive never been in the military or in a war, so i cant claim to know what its like, but it cant be pleasant. For the record i dont support a war, It seems to me that to declare a war and have the country as a whole supporting it, there should be overwhelming(with little doubt) support from the citizens and i personally dont see that yet.
My reason for asking this question was simply because i feel like some people that i know (and know of) support the war, but wouldnt be willing to put thier money where thier mouth is. Dont get me wrong, i respect the people who support military action and would be willing to carry it out; but i can still disagree about invasion of Iraq. I just have a different opinion about people who are for the war but wouldnt fight(hypothetically please keep in mind- disreguard gender and health) in the war. I was just looking for some responses- i dont claim to have all the answers…
I would go. However it is not a war. Iraq will take a one sided beating. Most of our guys will die from freindly fire or accidents. More people in America will die from car crashes in one day then both of the Iraq wars put together.
—anyone bold enough to support a war but not to fight in it?—
Yes. The army serves the people. It isn’t “the” people. We have a voluntary army today, not a draft. We offer people the opportunity to join the army, with all the training and benefits that go with it, in return for their service for a certain portion of their life. When you join the army, you agree to civilian command, and that command works through the political system.
As ElJeffe said: are you bold enough to support city garbage collection but not immediately become a garbage collector?
I’m not sure how I feel about allowing people to leave the service with a dishonorable discharge. It would be a huge waste of the resources we spent on training them, which they would have gotten for nothing in return, as well as leaving a dangerous amount of uncertainty insofar as our military resources. Would it be okay if the U.S. were attacked… and then half the military quit all of a sudden? But it also seems odd to enforce control on someone’s for many more years than it can take for someone’s opinions to change, forcing them to face a prison sentance if they don’t want to continue being under an obligation to fight.
this.
Note: the Abrams MBT has its own chemical, biological, radiation protection.
I’m not enthused with war, but I’d go if called. I’m too old to try to be a hero. See that guy hiding in the trench with all his body armor on? That’s me.
" being a cop is still a job that YOU CAN CHOOSE. The people in the armed forces CANNOT choose which war they want to fight, that is left up to other people. "
you can choose to join the military and when you choose to join it is with the knowledge that you just might have to go to some war somewhere. When you voluntarily join the military, you voluntarily give you your choices on quite a few things.
And as to the OP YES I would give anything to be able to go fight if something pops off.
I wonder what some of these people would do if someone actually could and did invade the states.
So let me get this straight: Because we are civilians, and therefore don’t have to fight a war, we have no right to engage in one?
If that’s the case, then just what is the military for?
Or are you suggesting that we should get rid of the notion of civilian control of the military and let the soldiers decide who and when to fight? When Robert Heinlein proposed something like that in “Starship Troopers”, he was called a fascist. Is this now your proposed plan?
Just what is your point here? Should we go take a poll of the military every time we need to send them into harm’s way? “Hands up, all of you who want to storm that machine gun nest!”
And anyway, if you took a vote of the military you’d lose anyway. Support for an Iraq war among the people who would actually have to fight it is extremely high. Something like 80-90%.
And my next assignment will take me into countries ending in “Stan”.
I’m not overy concerned with whether or not Saddam has thousands of chemical and biological weapons laying around in some secret underground bunker. I’m very worried that he’s tried to sell or export this to terrorist groups. After (and I hate to bring this up) 9/11, after seeing what my Mom had to try to survive, I can’t imagine al Qaeda doing something even more subversive than a biological or chemical attack.
Should any administration find it fit to seek answers through an unfortunate war, I’ll be the first one on the line. I want to know who he’s sold what to.
Tripler
I’m not about oil. I’m about tracking down terrorists who have “slime” and “bugs”.
Even if you were drafted, you’d have a pretty slim chance of actually fighting. IIRC, over 2/3 of the military are actually combatants, most of the rest are support, logistics, administrative, transport, communications, maintenence, etc etc etc.
In the air force, there’s not too much danger unless you’re actually in a plane. In the navy, you’re on a ship or sub that Iraqi forces cannot reach, under most circumstances.
I was unable to get to the computer for a couple of days so I am sorry for my slow response to your question.
Your question is not hypothetical to me. I have lost someone close to me. He was on active duty overseas and killed in a terrorist attack. He was my father. My brother and one of my best friends both enlisted last year.
No, I don’t think we are jumping to war to quickly. If anything I think we have waited too long.
Spit, single-handedly is about the only way i would fight a war.
If I’m drafted, i’ll go grudgingly, especially since I proably will not see the front lines, but not due to fear of combat.
I just would prefer not to die in two ways (well, lots of way, but the main ones I am afraid of vis a vis military service are):
–drowning,
–doing something stupid.
Now, if I were drafted I would hope not to get into the Navy, for obvious reasons. But in the military, sometimes doing something stupid is not an option. You have to do it because your CO tells you to. While of an above average intelligence, I dont have the force of personality to convince people of their stupid decisions. I’m always more of the “told you so” type. That tends not to work when you’re dead.
I would have gladly gone into Bosnia alone, even before the United States did, if I thought it would do any good.
It would have only been more trouble than its worth, though, even if there were volunteer groups to accept me AND let me operate without having to follow stupid orders, since I didnt have any money to support myself at the time, and it would have takena lot of training to get me to a point where I would be effectual and not get myself killed unnecessarily.
Life is not a Heinlein novel. Nor is the question a ridiculous one, although it is being dismissed as such by people who know they won’t have to face the consequences themselves and feel free to demand that others take action instead.
Yes, the people in the military have volunteered to risk their lives for the greater good of all of us. But, even if they don’t often say so, that puts a burden on the rest of us not to waste them in a cause that isn’t for the greater good.
Yes, some people volunteer to be police, also risking their lives for the rest of us. But the rest of us have to use that gift wisely, as well. We don’t waste cops, and we don’t dare waste soldiers.
So the question is really a cost/benefit analysis - if we are confident the world will be a better place for this, in the long run as well as the short run, and there’s a realistic strategy for it, also in both the short and long runs, and the people are committed enough to it to stick it out for good and bad, then the risk is worth taking. If it isn’t, then we don’t dare waste lives on it. Given what we know, and what we think will happen, and how committed we are to the long run, I could not put my own life on the line and could therefore not ask anyone else to. The chickenhawks, on this board as well as in Washington, are safe enough personally that they can avoid the question.