Pro-war males age 18-35 (I mean 42)

The BBQ Pit
61

It’s the pit. I’ve put up with several of your posts in this thread that were stupid, and refrained from saying so, since it is the pit, I did that out of no requirements upon myself. Eventually I decided it was time to take the kid gloves off and say that quite simply, I think you are an idiot.

Well then, let’s clear it up right now so there will be no confusion about what you are saying.

  1. You are saying that if someone supports a war, then they should be willing to risk their own personal security.

That’s clear.

Do you also believe that

  1. They must not only be willing they have to risk their security if they are at all physicall able, regardless of any other circumstances (ie they have important responsibilities to society and their family/etc at home.)

If all you believe is number 1, I can understand that position. However I don’t agree with it (I think it is just fine for someone to be willing to support a war and unwilling to fight it, not everyone is fit to be a soldier but that doesn’t mean they aren’t fit to have a political voice.) If you believe number two, then I find the position idiotic because taken to its logical conclusion it means that for anyone who is aged 18-35(42) to support a war EVERY one of them must get involved in it personally. Which just doesn’t make sense at all. In many cases the military wouldn’t even want that many people, think smalls cale conflicts like Panama or the peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia.

I’ve answered this at length in the thread that you created in IMHO.

In real life I don’t find that idiots are quite as rampant as they are on the SDMB.

62

Martin Hyde
I think that throwing around terms such as “blithering idiot” is a tad impolite - even if this is the “Pit”.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, you stated:

However, those men who stayed stateside during World War II had essential jobs and not because they were teaching law or playing professional football. Nor were they stricken with the medical “tragedy” of being 2 pounds overweight.
(Heck even during World War 2 I’ve heard stories about some guy who stayed in Hollywood to advance his film career rather than do the actual fighting.)
Do you think any of the 4 folks mentioned above really deserved being left out of the fighting because of their “vital” jobs?

63

'kay Marty. I am going to type slowly so you can follow. I stand beside #1.
I do not stand behind #2. I will, as I have stated before, consider them chicken hawks, but I would never support compulsion of their service.

So whew! I dodged the idiot bullet. However I think I was splattered by the grumpy/cantankerous/rude cluster bomb that seems to landed smack dab in the middle of your sunny day.

C’mere…hug it out…

64

But the “chicken hawk” in question does not see it as ignoble. The “chicken hawk” sees the War in Iraq as necessary – just because it isn’t as obviously necessary as a fire department doesn’t mean it’s necessary.

So then you’re back to square one; that is, arguing about the necessity of the Iraq war. So long as the person is a hawk, though, the term “chicken hawk” makes no sense.

To be honest, for that very reason I find people who use the term “chicken hawk” kind of…dumb. Apparently they can’t think beyond their own heads.

65

“just because it isn’t as obviously necessary as a fire department doesn’t mean it’s necessary.” That should be “just because it isn’t as obviously necessary as a fire department doesn’t mean it’s not necessary.”

66

The point of the soldier is to defend and protect the ideals of his government. In our case, this is a government of the people. The majority of the people thought going to Iraq was the right thing to do. So the soldiers went.

I can’t agree with the statement that everyone who agrees or supports a war should be fighting in said war. Generally, that would mean that over 50% of the United States would have to stop what they are doing and go fight.
That would destroy the way of life of this country. And it’s the way of life that the soldiers are supposed to be preserving. How can you send people off to preserve the country’s way of life if by doing so, the way of life was destroyed anyway?

People need to stay home and continue doing what they do. Parents need to work and raise their children. Everyone needs to do the things that they do. They country should operate exactly like it did before the conflict.

The soldier has sworn to bear the burden of war so that the citizens of his country don’t have to. And so future citizens will enjoy the same. Civilians can support the cause and thank the soldier. Or they can disagree with the cause but still thank the soldier. Demanding that he go to war to show his support undermines the value of the soldier and completely negates the point of his mission.

I don’t mind if a person is politically for or against the war. As long as those people can continue their way of life and live in security and enjoy the right to make public statements of their opinion, then that’s all that really matters to me.

You’re not honoring a soldier by forcing others to join him. The soldier is fighting so that others will not have to.

67

If you will reread my posts, I have said repeatedly that I would never want to force anyone into service based on their opinion of the war, or any other reason for that matter.

But thank you for a well reasoned rebuttal. I can see your point, and you made it without once calling anyone an idiot or dumb. Let’s hear it for civil discourse!!

68

Peer pressure is a type of forcing. You’re demanding that these people who support the war and believe it is just and necessary should go join the Marines to prove they really believe what they say.

Can’t a person be of the opinion that:
"This war is necessary for the future security of the United States and other nations. The citizens of Iraq as well as the infinite millions of future citizens will all benefit from the thriving democracy instilled on their land by the combined efforts and mutual aid of dozens of foreign nations. The war will not be without sacrifice or loss of life. But all things considered, I believe all the potential good outweighs the bad. This is a war worth fighting-- a job worth doing and worth doing right. It will be difficult and long, but in the end we will rejoice over what we’ve accomplished.

…And thankfully we have trained and dedicated soldiers to tackle the task so I won’t have to!"

Is that opinion okay? Or is that just too horribly hypocritical in your eyes? Personally, I can completely understand and support that opinion.

69

Since people keep referencing the police and fire departments, I’d like to propose a hypothetical situation.
Let’s suppose your city requires some of its citizenry (males 18-35) to serve as a firefighter, police officer, or other essential municipal employee.

Of course not everyone has to serve. You could have a medical infirmity whereby you would be excused from doing any mandatory municipal service. Let’s suppose you hear that one of the eligible citizens was found unsuitable for service because he was 2 pounds overweight. This would be a legitimate reason to be excused, but does it sound like a person who ever wanted to serve as a firefighter, police officer, etc? How would you feel if that person later became elected as mayor of your town, governor of your state or president of your country?

A citizen could also be exempt be from municipal service if that person had a job essential to the proper functioning of that community.
One person (who knows the “right people”), claims that his job of teaching law at a state college exempted him from being a firefighter or police officer? Would you feel this person was sincere or was this person just finding an easy and safe route out of dangerous duty?

Some other citizen does get assigned to municipal service. This guy also knows the “right people” and he ends up driving the street sweeper every day. How would you feel if some friend or relative died while performing his duty as a firefighter or police officer, the same day this guy was driving a street sweeper?

Yes, as with all analogies, I’m sure this one is not 100% applicable to the Selective Service which was in effect unitl 1973. However, by bringing this down to a local community setting does it make the OP’s point a little clearer?

70

I can completely understand that point of view. I just find it infortunate, and disagree with it. I have said before and I will say again, if it ain’t worth my life, it ain’t worth theirs. Especially the “one weekend a month, two weeks a year” National Guard guys or the people desperate for college money. But really I don’t care if they are a professional soldier or not. Their life is still precious, as are the lives of the enemy soldiers and civilians we will put an end to.

But certainly someone could hold that opinion. I will just consider them a chicken hawk.

71

I guess. :dubious:

But for some reason I am not making my point clear. My ultimate goal would not be to pressure more people into combat, but to pressure people to set their standards for going to war higher. People responding to this thread seem fixated on me pressuring or forcing people into combat, which is not my intention. I simply want people to reevaluate their support of unleashing the hell of war on all those who suffer so terribly as a result of war.

72

Ah, now I think I see. Basically you want the litmus test for going to war to be “Would I be willing to risk my own life for the cause”. You want people to ask themselves that question and be able to answer truely and honestly “YES” before they go supporting a war.
You’re not saying they have to quit their job and actually enlist, just that they should be honestly willing to–not just fooling themselves. Am I getting closer?

73

Now we are getting somewhere.

I wish I could have said it as plainly as that.

74

… and I suppose the real test will be when the draft is reinstated.

Of course, there will then be a concomitant “epidemic” of pilinoidal cysts, and other such “devastating” medical tragedies that will “prevent” the armchair patriots from serving so that they can later run for public office or spout their right-wing bullshit over the radio.

Thank you.

Can anybody notice that this issue does tend to get me a little bit steamed? :smiley:

75

Slight threadjack: I think this is a very interresting bit of philosophy. Would you be willing to allow me to quote this in the future (in emails and the like)?

76

That is ok with me. What are your opinions on the subject?

77

No, probably not. However, I have never made the claim that during war there have been people who stayed at home and really didn’t advance society very much, and were abstaining from the war for selfish reasons.

In general I think that is okay as long as they aren’t intentionally avoiding conscription efforts. Intentionally avoiding conscription with BS excuses is something I consider “not okay.”

However, also keep in mind that I do not agree with newscrasher’s premise to begin with. I do not believe that the only justifiable war is one in which the cause is so great that all able-bodied men have to pack up their lives, strap on a rifle, and get shipped overseas.

For example, I think the Gulf War was a very justified war. It was backed by almost the entire international community and multiple UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein’s armies had invaded, conquered, and subjugated an independent sovereign state with virtually no justification whatsoever. If we did not act against him, it would throw the entire UN into doubt, in my person opinion. The UN, collective security, etc all that stuff, was developed to deal precisely with this kind of thing. It was developed to make aggressive wars impossible for the aggressor. Act, and act we did, we had to, or the entire regime of collective security that the UN was built on would become meaningless in the world.

However, I see no reason whatosever to sign up 80 million adult males to the Army in 1990/1991 to participate in a war that, while it required manpower, easily satisfied those manpower requirements with the UN-backed coalition. Outfitting, training, and transporting 80 million adult males would be a daunting task beyond imagination, it would cripple our economy and our society…and would be wholly unnecessary.

And why were doing this? To satisfy the requirement of newscrasher that “no war can be fought unless every single adult male of fighting age is willing to go fight in said war.”

78

Well, now that newcarsher has clarified his philosphy, I’ll simply restate:

He’s a blithering idiot.

He doesn’t argue that 80 million people be sent away for every single war, he just argues that every single one of those 80 million who supports a war and DOESN’T head off to fight it is a chickenhawk.

Probably the single most retarded and idiotic use of the word chickenhawk (a word oft used idiotically) I have ever seen.

These people, these “chickenhawks” who decide not to enlist and go off to fight, and instead stay home and keep society running are much maligned under the philosophies of newcrasher. But under the philosphy of any reasonable, rational, sane human being these civilians would be recognized for doing what they are supposed to do: serve out their role in society.

Society needs bankers, lawyers, teachers, artists, entertainers, law enforcement, emergency services, doctors, accountants, et al. Virtually every person employed or unemployed has some sort of contribution they are making to society.

The soldier makes a unique contribution. It is a very, very important contribution that I would never denigrate or regard lightly. However, it is not a contribution that should, is, or could be done by all who are “physically” able to do it. We each have roles in society and I do not believe the role of the soldier is an appropriate one for the vast majority of society. Soldiers don’t believe that the role of the soldier is for the vast majority of society. Soldiers don’t want all the lawyers and teachers and businesspeople of the world to strap on arms and fight alongside them.

Avoiding a draft, I believe that is cowardly and ignoble behavior. I call those who do it draft dodgers, not chickenhawks (simply because I associate use of the word chickenhawk with morons like newcrasher.)

However, choosing not to volunteer for a war in which all volunteers are participating is not something that I view as cowardly or ignoble.

79

Martin Hyde, is there some reason you feel you must act as though being willing to do something is the same thing as doing it? They appear, on their faces, to be distinct conditions.

80

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Sounds like there is a war in your past where others fought and died, but you stayed home. Tell us. What was your “vital roll” during the First Gulf War? Cheerleader?

What is your definition of a chicken hawk?

And…sigh… I still am not advocating every lawyer and essential denture fitter need enlist. I dread making the point again, because if you have not gotten it, I hold out no hope that you will. I suggest people RAISE their standards for what political problems can be solved by war.

If people had applied my standard in the run up to this current fuckstain of a campaign in Iraq, the result would not have been you yanked away from your knitting. The difference would be that the American people would have taken a deep breath, looked at the situation and said, “Naaahhh”. Bush would have never had the political clout to send troops to Iraq, and we would not have turned a blind eye to while his cabal lied us into war that is costing us billion$ in treasure and costing countless lives, American and otherwise. Those soldiers would still be at home, or somewhere safer than Iraq, enjoying the relative safety you yourself have enjoyed all the while.

I would say most people, knowing what we know now, would call that a Good Thing. You, as always, have the right to disagree.