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

[Bear_Nenno]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I disagree.
I don’t think the entire country should be willing to go fight in a war where THEY ARE NOT NEEDED. We had a global coalition with so much overkill it was RIDICULOUS. We were never in any danger of even remotely being prevented militarily from knocking the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
[/quote]
You’re saying that Americans were not needed there?

Why should people be inclined to go where they are not needed? Sometimes it can cause more trouble than good.

I thought we established that we’re merely talking about citizens judging the value and necessity of a war by the willingness they’d have to risk their own life for that cause.
They wouldn’t have to go anywhere, just be willing to die for the cause if they were there.
Anyway, I think that it’s a little pointless to confuse ourselves over the details since neither you or I agree with that judgement to begin with.

Note the Cartooniverse thread he posted days after 9/11/2001, detailing his experiences helping with emergency relief. He made mention that there came a time in some situations where, eventhough he was trained he really didn’t belong in certain situations anymore, becuase the professionals were already there and more hands weren’t needed.

Again, I thought we were talking about deciding whether or not to send the professionals at all, based on a nonprofessional’s individual perception of the actual importance of the event. That citizens should not order professionals to risk their lives for a cause unless those citizens believed the cause would be worth their own life.
Again, neither you or I agree with that anyway. But I thought that’s what we talking about when I said I hoped Kuwait would have passed even that test. Citizens wouldn’t have to be inclined to do anything. They would just have to believe in their heart that the liberation of Kuwait is a cause worth their own life.

Anyway…

I would hope that most people would be willing to liberate a sovereign nation. However, we have a CIVILIAN government, and I think your unwillingness to involve yourself in a military campaign that is neither short of men or really even needing more should earn you the derisive label “chickenhawk.”

Should? Or did you mean “shouldn’t”. And by “you”, you dont mean me personally. Right?

It doesn’t make sense for people to want to get involved where they are not needed. When I see a house burning down and firefighters already on the scene, do I leap out of my car and rush into the burning building? No, I don’t. Would I be willing to rush into a burning building to save someone? You know what, I would.

You would. Because you believe the cause is worth the risk to your life.

But would I do it when there are already enough people to DO JUST THAT?

But the point is that you still hold the same opinion as when there were NOT enough firefighters. The cause is still as important. It is a cause that you believe is worth risking your own life for. It just so happens that there are enough people already risking theres, so no effort from you is required. And you can watch those firefighters on the news with pride and say "I support what they are doing. I believe it is an important and noble cause, one that is even worth my own life! I agree with the person who made the decision to send those firefighters to save the people in that building. Good thing we have those brave firefighters!
You dont have to DO anything to believe in your heart that a cause is worth risking even your own individual life for.

Anyway, I dont think we’re actually disagreeing anywhere. Just we’re both analyzing newcrasher’s POV a little different.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Seriously, have you even fucking read the thread?

1. Newcrasher has never restricted this discussion to draft situations. He has said if you support ANY war, whether it be a war that involves conscription or not, you have a responsibility to FIGHT in said war, unless you are physically unable, if you do not, he labels you a “chicken hawk.”

I ask this, how many people here, in this thread, who were of fighting age in 1990/1991 wanted to see Kuwait liberated? How many of you enlisted to help bring it about? How many of you consider yourselves chickenhawks?

2. In the specific case of persons who DO dodge a draft, I’ve already said I find that criminal, so you’ve proven at least twice over you either have not read the thread, or have, and are simply too stupid to understand it.
   [/QUOTE]

None of that stuff is at all relevant. If you will undertake the arduous task of re-reading (or perhaps just reading) all two of the messages I wrote on this thread, you may (or may not, in which case you’ll need to try another re-read) notice that they specifically referred to cases that fall within the standard connotation of “chickenhawk” (person who came up with some BS excuse to avoid being drafted for Vietnam, and has now risen to a position of political power) in contemporary usage.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I call those who do it draft dodgers, not chickenhawks (simply because I associate use of the word chickenhawk with morons like newcrasher.)
[/QUOTE]

I hear that General Semantics gained some recruits among people who followed that line of reasoning, and just couldn’t bear to continue using the word “is” after that whole Clinton thing. :rolleyes:

[Mellivora_capensis]

[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
Mellivora capensis
Knowing what you know now, would you have been so willing to go into the military given the “illustrious” behavior of our current “leaders”? I was somewhat skinny back in 1973 but never thought of starving myself just to get a draft deferment. If I were eligible for the draft now, after hearing about John Engler’s severely debiliating “infirmity” (2 pounds overweight) I’d make damned sure I was 2 pounds underweight.
Whenever the draft starts up, I wonder if there’s going to be a sudden outbreak of equally “tragic” medical ailments among people of draft age. Given the behavior of some of our leaders, I wouldn’t blame this generation one damned bit if they were less than willing to do the fighting that their elders were too chickenshit to do. :mad:
[/QUOTE]

Wolf, the short answer is no. Admittedly hindsight is a perfect science, but most 18 year olds know jack shit about many things, peer pressure is overwhelming, and viable options are extremely limited. I still know jack shit about most things, but I guess I’m just more cynical now, and financially I have access to more reasonable alternatives. If the exact same circumstances had to occur today, I would pack up and leave the country.

[Mellivora_capensis]

[QUOTE=Balduran]
I guess I would question how would “sharing the hardships” actually help. For example in your previous post about this you talked about the civilian basically living on base, doing all sorts of things that are unnecessary to their job, sacrificing as the case may be time for raising their children and increasing the costs of the war by requiring more resources for them to share your experience. All of this for no benefit to the war effort.

It seems to me the only tangible way civilians can contribute is paying higher taxes so that you can get paid more and get better equipment.
[/QUOTE]

Apologies for the successive posts, doing so in between work, and giving the posts some thought.

Good point Balduran. My previous post was done in, shall we say, a rabid mood. I guess I tend to get a little fractious when my POV is dismissed as either “irrelevant” or “idiotic”. The subsequent post was in response to a more reasonable approach. Yes, paying higher taxes would be participating, and ultimately sharing in the hardships. The tricky part would be how to distinguish between supporters and non-supporters. Maybe a voluntary tax deduction?

begbert2, I’ll respond a little later.

[Mellivora_capensis]

Curiosity question: do you think that your position as a drafted soldier gives you different opinions on this matter than you might have had you enlisted voluntarily?

In my case, no. If I had felt compelled to enlist voluntarily, I would have effectively been supportive of that government’s policies, which I wasn’t, or more accurately, which I could not understand. As it turned out, I subsequently volunteered for service during the 1994 elections. By then I was older, wiser, and had a clearer picture. I wanted to be a productive part of what to me was a momentous watershed in this country’s history. Thus to me the cause was noble. I had and still have no political affiliations, and saw my participation as merely my contribution to a better society. Others saw their votes as their contribution. Each to his own. Does that make sense?

And I notice that you don’t seem to be distinguishing between persons who believe the war should be fought and those who don’t. Now, as a drafted person you might not support the war, and there might be some ‘why me and not them’ stuff going on here, but realistically, should a person opposed to a cause be required to make sacrifices to it?

In my perfect world, no, a person opposed to a war should not need to make any sacrifices for that war.

And, wether or not a person supports the war, should they have to invent these sacrificies if there are no avenues for them to actually assist in the war effort? (“I’m going to live in a tent for the duration!”

I’m a little flummoxed with the “whether or not” of this question. To me, if you support, you assist. The avenues would be set up by society, one suggestion being taxation as per Balduran above. Or have I misunderstood the question?

[wolf_meister]

Mellivora capensis
I appreciate your honest reply. As I said in a previous posting, knowing now about what our current leaders did then, I would definitely have gone the underweight deferment route. I was 5’3" and about 105 pounds when I got out of college. I suppose I could have easliy dropped that down to 90 pounds (unless I was skinny enough to begin with. Being quite naive at the time, I never bothered even to find out what exactly an underweght deferment required).
Before anyone starts questioning my patriotism, some of the current political scene is populated by individuals whose willingness to serve was, at best, questionable.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
In my case, no. If I had felt compelled to enlist voluntarily, I would have effectively been supportive of that government’s policies, which I wasn’t, or more accurately, which I could not understand. As it turned out, I subsequently volunteered for service during the 1994 elections. By then I was older, wiser, and had a clearer picture. I wanted to be a productive part of what to me was a momentous watershed in this country’s history. Thus to me the cause was noble. I had and still have no political affiliations, and saw my participation as merely my contribution to a better society. Others saw their votes as their contribution. Each to his own. Does that make sense?
[/QUOTE]
I think so; assuming you’re saying that, with your mature point of view, and no sense of resentment at whatever you’re (voluntarily) giving up that the stay-behinds still have, you still feel that those who support the war should be contributing to it in some active way.

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
In my perfect world, no, a person opposed to a war should not need to make any sacrifices for that war.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s nice to hear. The problem then would be preventing persons who are vocally in favor of the war from availing themselves of the tax deductions and whatnot anyway. The solution currently in place is to tax everyone…hence, everyone “supports” the war, whether or not they approve of it. (Ergo nobody’s a chickenhawk, nonparticipant, whichever…)

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
I’m a little flummoxed with the “whether or not” of this question. To me, if you support, you assist. The avenues would be set up by society, one suggestion being taxation as per Balduran above. Or have I misunderstood the question?
[/QUOTE]
If paying your taxes is participating, than most everybody is participating in the war effort. Does that work for you, as a solder? If not, then what else is a ‘mild supporter’ supposed to do to ‘mildly support’ the war? If ‘going to work’, ‘raising the kids’, ‘not knocking over the circle-K’ aren’t enough, then what is? Should we start a rubber drive? An aluminum drive? Stick magnets to our car bumpers? What?

If I pretended for a moment that I thought this war was a good thing, I would be hard pressed to think of something useful to do to support it. There are soldiers that do the soldering, and the rest of us who…pay taxes. (You don’t have to pay taxes, do you?) There’s really not much in the way of middle ground there, based on the avenues that society seems to provide. At least, not that I’ve noticed.

[Mellivora_capensis]

[QUOTE=begbert2]

If paying your taxes is participating, than most everybody is participating in the war effort. Does that work for you, as a solder? If not, then what else is a ‘mild supporter’ supposed to do to ‘mildly support’ the war? If ‘going to work’, ‘raising the kids’, ‘not knocking over the circle-K’ aren’t enough, then what is? Should we start a rubber drive? An aluminum drive? Stick magnets to our car bumpers? What?

If I pretended for a moment that I thought this war was a good thing, I would be hard pressed to think of something useful to do to support it. There are soldiers that do the soldering, and the rest of us who…pay taxes. (You don’t have to pay taxes, do you?) There’s really not much in the way of middle ground there, based on the avenues that society seems to provide. At least, not that I’ve noticed.
[/QUOTE]

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between supporting a defence force, and supporting a war. I think the taxes suggestion is along the lines of an additional tax, over and above your standard taxation. Standard taxation would normally cover standard military requirements, these being of a defensive nature. I don’t think many people will disagree with the need for a defence force and are only too happy that part of their taxes goes towards military spending for that purpose. Defending your borders comes at a reasonably predictable price tag.

However, when the military is used for anything other than defence, then for logistical reasons that price tag changes. It costs a whole bunch of extra money to go on the offensive and sail halfway across the globe and start a war. Perhaps this additional cost could then be funded by war supporters?

Just a thought.

[Balduran]

Or maybe sending money directly like you do for sponsoring a child in a developing country:

"For just $1 dollar a week, the price of a cup of coffee, you can send a soldier like poor PFC Smith ten full magazines for his M16. A chance for him to have a decent shot at his enemies. In return, every month you will receive a letter from your sponsor soldier telling you how their killing is going … "

[Mellivora_capensis]

[QUOTE=Balduran]
Or maybe sending money directly like you do for sponsoring a child in a developing country:

"For just $1 dollar a week, the price of a cup of coffee, you can send a soldier like poor PFC Smith ten full magazines for his M16. A chance for him to have a decent shot at his enemies. In return, every month you will receive a letter from your sponsor soldier telling you how their killing is going … "
[/QUOTE]

Hehehehe…