You’re saying that Americans were not needed there?
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.
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…
Should? Or did you mean “shouldn’t”. And by “you”, you dont mean me personally. Right?
You would. Because you believe the cause is worth the risk to your life.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
In my perfect world, no, a person opposed to a war should not need to make any sacrifices for that war.
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?
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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?
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 … "
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?