# Volunteers Needed: "The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887 "2007-01-14T01:06:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/241 "2007-01-17T22:15:14Z")
**Mr Moto** > [@](#): > > During WWII, my grandfather was ruled 4-F because of a heart murmur. Of course, he was perfectly healthy and active and athletic, and would lead an outdoors centered lifestyle until he died of cancer in his late 70s. Even so, the Army didn’t want him. > \ > Now, obviously, he wasn’t going to serve that way. But he did his part by working in the steel industry in Pittsburgh, an industry vital to the war effort. My other grandfather was out of the draft pool due to age, but moved from Pittsburgh to Baltimore to build Liberty ships. That’s a great story concerning both your grandfathers and how they did their part to serve their country in WWII without actually joining the military. \* Very\* commendable. Moving forward a few decades, **John Ashcroft** avoided the Vietnam War and military service entirely because his job (teaching law at the Univ of Missouri) was deemed vital to the security of the United States. (or maybe some well-connected individual was able to get that job declared “vital”?) Or how about **John Engler** ’s being 2 pounds overweight for his draft physical (also during the Vietnam War)? **Mr Moto** , how do you think your grandfathers would have felt about Ashcroft’s and Engler’s “contributions” to their country? To me, what those 2 did doesn’t even hold a candle to what your grandfathers (and many others) did stateside during World War II. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/242 "2007-01-17T22:35:32Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] I’ll try amd make this simple. Like I’m talking to a not too bright five year old. [/quote] If you believe you are arguing with an idiot, then the joke’s on you, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Listen-up, asshole, my complaint was that you spent your time digging-up shit on _Chris Floyd_ and NOT the thruthfulness of what he WROTE. Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? Why the coy metaphor? The fact is that I wasn’t commenting on Chris Floyd, but on you. (Note the use of second person in the original response.) > [@](#): > > Alright, molasses for brains, let’s back-up a minute here. All I claimed in my [FIRST](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8158333&postcount=193) post on the matter was that, and I quote myself: _**“Moreover, although my google-fu is not helping, I clearly remember reading that Rumsfeld had to be consulted in pre-war raid (of which there were many) when the chosen targets posed danger to fifty or more civians in the surroundings. He approved each and everyone of them”**_ I did not ever address that post. Why are you repeating it? > [@](#): > > Now read that again…take your time and tell me how either of my cites fails to back said claim? There ain’t dick there about “time-sensitive” missions is there? In fact, if my memory was faulty at all, you should’ve pointed to the _lower_ civilian death threshold held as a standard. Not that it mattered of course, since – say it with me now – **Rumsfeld approved them all** It was, in fact, in your [third fuck-off-and-die post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8158763&postcount=205) to me, not in your first or second. From the [cite you linked there](http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4946478-103681,00.html): Fifty such attacks were proposed, and approved, according to the air force commander during the war, General Michael Moseley. But attacks that were time-critical were not subject to such a process.You did not quote that portion. > [@](#): > > And that’s what I call a steaming pile that has jackshit to do with the FACT that I proved my original recollection of the Rumsfeld approved, pre-war, civilian killing sorties through the use of VERIFIABLE INFORMATION/CITES. > > So print this post and eat it. > > Unless of course, you want to go on another fishing expedition to try and discredit air force commander, General Michael Moseley, as another “notoriously one-dimensional political hack quoted in a leftist blog.” > > Ian Andersen must have been thinking of you when he wrote the lyrics to the great tune “Thick As A Brick.” There, chew on that for a while, dipshit. And stick a flute (not Ian’s please!) up your ass. God, how dramatic. And people worry that _I’m_ due for a meltdown. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/243 "2007-01-17T23:05:31Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I don’t think your opinion here is very good. [/quote] You might begin to explain why, however. > [@](#): > > It shows me that when I had children I decided there were my #1 priority. I’m proud of that, Elvis. There are many parents now getting their asses blown up in Iraq, too. So? > [@](#): > > But no. You did **not** address all my points. All the ones relevant to your position, your own hypocrisy, your own false bravado, yes, I did. The other shit was your usual general-purpose bluster about the right to post on a message board. > [@](#): > > Then you’re not reading very well. That is not my position. If you’re not going to even try to explain what you \*did \* mean, though, what else can be inferred except that you once again can’t face being shown to be a selfish fool? **Liberal** , you too. You engaged in a foolish _ad hominem_, you have no substance to refute an argument which leads to distasteful conclusions, and you’re the only person left who can’t admit it. Guys, \*most \* people outgrow your phase of development around the age of 11. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/244 "2007-01-17T23:16:06Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] If you believe you are arguing with an idiot, then the joke’s on you, isn’t it? [/quote] Nope. Good for a laugh at your expense. Surely you know what they say about laughing? > [@](#): > > Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? Why the coy metaphor? The fact is that I wasn’t commenting on Chris Floyd, but on you. (Note the use of second person in the original response.) You mean this? [The source is obviously yours, too. A notoriously one-dimensional political hack quoted in a leftist blog.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403956&page=4) Note the ad-hominem attack on the writer, which was what I objected to – don’t give a turd what you call _me_ as long as I am correct. Again, it’s right there in RED for you to see. Although I’m afraid that along with the rest of your multiple ailments you’re colorblind as well. [QUOTE=Lib] I did not ever address that post. Why are you repeating it? [/quote] Because my claim in it was the genesis for the subsequent cites, Sherlock. Hard to figure, I know. > [@Lib](#): > > It was, in fact, in your [third fuck-off-and-die post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8158763&postcount=205) to me, not in your first or second. 😕 Could you try that again? In _English_ this time? Many thanks. > [@Lib](#): > > From the [cite you linked there](http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4946478-103681,00.html): > > Fifty such attacks were proposed, and approved, according to the air force commander during the war, General Michael Moseley. But attacks that were time-critical were not subject to such a process.You did not quote that portion. What the living fuck? Are you really this stupid or are you making a especial effort just for me? READ the fucking post again. The quote’s right there and in RED yet again. Here, I’ll re-post it, so you can give your arthritic, printless index finger and your scroll-wheel a break: Originally quoted by Red: > [@](#): > > Under US army rules of engagement, Mr Rumsfeld was required to authorise any air strike that was likely to result in the deaths of 30 or more civilians. > > \*\*Fifty such attacks were proposed, and approved, according to the air force commander during the war, General Michael Moseley. But attacks that were time-critical were not subject to such a process. \*\*Accordingly, says the Human Rights Watch report, “attacks on leadership likely resulted in the largest number of civilian deaths from the air war”. See it now? I’ve even done you the favor of coloring the two different statements. Thus no matter how much you want to get into semantic wranglings and any/all of your other dishonest tactics, my ORIGINAL point STANDS. Scumbag Rumsfeld felt no compunction authorizing at least fifty strikes with the knowledge that at least 30 civilians were likely to die. Get it now, or do I need to use a box of crayons? > [@](#): > > God, how dramatic. And people worry that _I’m_ due for a meltdown. 😃 Dude, if I had a C note for each of your breakdowns, my kid’s college bill would be bought and paid for. You’re welcome to keep hoping though… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/245 "2007-01-17T23:19:46Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **Liberal** , you too. You engaged in a foolish _ad hominem_, you have no substance to refute an argument which leads to distasteful conclusions, and you’re the only person left who can’t admit it. [/QUOTE] You’re including _moi_ in your indictment? Color me surprised. My conclusion is the same as it was nearly five years ago. The war in Iraq is an ethical abomination, and those who execute it are tyrants. Our own people are losing their liberty while “freedom” is being made into a dirty word all over the world. Meanwhile, you and your ilk have complained about everything from Bush’s pronunciation of “nuclear” to Condi’s hair style. And in obsessing over this piddly shit, you are fiddling while Rome burns. These are nothing but operations procedures for the administrative bureaucracy of the Pentagon. Get a fucking sense of proportion. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/246 "2007-01-17T23:21:29Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] See it now? [/QUOTE] Yes, I do. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/247 "2007-01-17T23:32:37Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] You’re including _moi_ in your indictment? Color me surprised. [/quote] I’m coloring you clueless instead. My “indictment” was over the childishness of your conduct, not your attitude toward Bush’s war. They’re not mutually exclusive. Now go work on your reading comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/248 "2007-01-18T00:15:32Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] My “indictment” was over the childishness of your conduct, not your attitude toward Bush’s war. [/QUOTE] Oh, great. I have another fucking nanny. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/249 "2007-01-18T02:16:34Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Oh, great. I have another fucking nanny. [/QUOTE] Oh, is that why you’ve ended up as you are? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/250 "2007-01-18T03:05:00Z")
[QUOTE=wolf\_meister] **Mr Moto** That’s a great story concerning both your grandfathers and how they did their part to serve their country in WWII without actually joining the military. \* Very\* commendable. Moving forward a few decades, **John Ashcroft** avoided the Vietnam War and military service entirely because his job (teaching law at the Univ of Missouri) was deemed vital to the security of the United States. (or maybe some well-connected individual was able to get that job declared “vital”?) Or how about **John Engler** ’s being 2 pounds overweight for his draft physical (also during the Vietnam War)? **Mr Moto** , how do you think your grandfathers would have felt about Ashcroft’s and Engler’s “contributions” to their country? To me, what those 2 did doesn’t even hold a candle to what your grandfathers (and many others) did stateside during World War II. [/QUOTE] Why don’t we tell some other stories? I seem to recall one about a certain politically connected young man from Arkansas who was able to get the draft board off his back by telling them he was heading off to the ROTC. Of course, that never happened. Funny how, when you go to tell stories, some come to mind more than others, huh? I doubt either one knew about Ashcroft or Engler. In the case of Clinton, one grandfather was dead by then, and the other one voted for him, figuring that so many years later, it didn’t matter much. So there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/251 "2007-01-18T03:27:44Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] You never did show how my argument _depended_ on that ability. You have now made that assertion twice, but you have never explained it or backed it up in any way. [/quote] Of course I did. I made the assetion in post 133. You said (earlier): > [@](#): > > And there’s of course no connection between the two in his mind, because he’s got the brains (and morals, but that’s another story) of pond scum. > > But those who can draw that connection - that (in Bush’s alternate universe) the risk is enormous, that all of us face that risk, and that the army could use a few more good volunteers so that they wouldn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in recruiting, and so those soldiers who feel they’ve already done as much as they can handle won’t have to go back for their third and fourth tours in Iraq - maybe they could do their patriotic duty. Which is hardly connecting the dots here, but rather creating a whole new different argument which Bush never made. If I have it wrong, you can explain the part about how you deduced that Bush feels we need “good” volunteers to avoid scaping the bottom of the barrel in recruiting. As far as I can tell he never said anything that would allow one to reasonably infer that without mindreading. Maybe I was hasty though, so I will reserve judgement awaiting your explanation. > [@](#): > > Inferring people’s thoughts from their words is something people routinely do in their daily lives. Except when **Scylla** wants to get pedantic, it is rarely considered ‘mind-reading’ to do so. Perhaps you’re right. Will you explain to me how you infer that he beleives our current recruits are “barrel scraping,” and needs “good ones” instead? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/252 "2007-01-18T03:35:49Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] Two things bug me about this bit of dodgery. [/quote] Ok. > [@](#): > > The last paragraph specifically because of the heritage nature of the military. A good chunk of my friends with military fathers joined the military, so I don’t see that “I won’t do that to my kids” as a particularly obvious objection to military service. Many military postings allow for a family life, much of the time. Certainly the reserves, for christ’s sake. It’s not your fault as this is a long thread, but this is sometimes what happens when you come into the middle of a discussion. I directly addressed this in an earlier post in this thread. For my situation, it is partly **specifically because** I was raised in a household with an absent father serving in the military that I wouldn’t want to inflict this on my children. It’s one of the reasons I waited until later in life to have kids. You might wish to peruse the earlier posts if you would like this further clarified or discussed. > [@](#): > > But more irritatingly, the first paragraph seems to disregard the fact that many reserve members and guardsmen have children. Either disregarding or there is a serious disconnect between how Scylla thinks the US military is securing the future of America and how we save his own kids. If he joined the military it would be a “risk” for his children but lucky for Scylla, others decided to do “protect America’s future” by waging war in the Middle East for him and his kids. Lucky those reservists don’t think quite like him, at least the stay at home with their kids part - it’s good they think the gung-ho part. Again, I **did** specifically address this in an earlier post. I’d welcome the commentary and criticism, but you might want to go back and refer to what I wrote on the subject and frame your criticism from that. Suggesting that I’m disregarding this issue is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/253 "2007-01-18T03:52:34Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Of course I did. I made the assetion in post 133. [/quote] Dude. ‘Making the assetion’ isn’t the same as explaining it. This post of course is the third time you’ve made it, and now that you’re _finally_ getting around to explaining what you mean, it was a misunderstanding that I could have explained to you three pages back. > [@Scylla](#): > > You said (earlier): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > And there’s of course no connection between the two in his mind, because he’s got the brains (and morals, but that’s another story) of pond scum. > > > > But those who can draw that connection - that (in Bush’s alternate universe) the risk is enormous, that all of us face that risk, and that the army could use a few more good volunteers so that they wouldn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in recruiting, and so those soldiers who feel they’ve already done as much as they can handle won’t have to go back for their third and fourth tours in Iraq - maybe they could do their patriotic duty. > > Which is hardly connecting the dots here, but rather creating a whole new different argument which Bush never made. If I have it wrong, you can explain the part about how you deduced that Bush feels we need “good” volunteers to avoid scaping the bottom of the barrel in recruiting. > > As far as I can tell he never said anything that would allow one to reasonably infer that without mindreading. Maybe I was hasty though, so I will reserve judgement awaiting your explanation. In a number of posts at that point, I’d been describing as “Bush’s Iraq” or “Bush’s alternate universe” the Iraq we have, only with the apocalyptic consequences of failure there. The thought processes described were of “those who can draw that connection.” Not Bush. Got it? If you’d explained your assertion in the first place, I’d have told you this 120 posts ago. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/254 "2007-01-18T04:04:03Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Dude. ‘Making the assetion’ isn’t the same as explaining it. [/quote] I quoted directly the part that required mind-reading and basically stated that you made it up. What more to explain? > [@](#): > > This post of course is the third time you’ve made it, and now that you’re _finally_ getting around to explaining what you mean, it was a misunderstanding that I could have explained to you three pages back. > > In a number of posts at that point, I’d been describing as “Bush’s Iraq” or “Bush’s alternate universe” the Iraq we have, only with the apocalyptic consequences of failure there. > > The thought processes described were of “those who can draw that connection.” Not Bush. Got it? > > If you’d explained your assertion in the first place, I’d have told you this 120 posts ago. After having asked me to explain, and after I have done so, you’ve still failed to address the part that I asked you to. You’ve stated (my paraphrase, I’ve already quoted it) that Bush would like “good” recruits because the current ones are “scraping the barrel.” What Connection do you make to get this? Where does this come from? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/255 "2007-01-18T04:11:55Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Accordingly, your claim that I have taken a stand on the ‘chickenhawk argument’ based on my position about posting here is only true as it applies to posting on this board. If that’s all you’re claiming I’m taking a position on, that’s fine. [/QUOTE] I’m having trouble parsing this, but yes my position on your stand is based on your posting here (as I have no knowledge of you in any other context.) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/256 "2007-01-18T04:27:22Z")
Well, the length of the thread isn’t too much of an issue, as I was replying to something you said 11 posts before me. I assume you mean that you addressed my points in post 221? Where you said: > [@Scylla](#): > > Yes. Of course. Obviously it’s much safer not to be in the front lines. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t enlist. I said that earlier when I said that’s also why I don’t ride a motorcycle anymore. When I had kids I put them first and decided that I should not take the risk of not being there for them, financially, and as a parent. Secondly, it would entail a very long absence from my children. When my wife and I had kids we talked a lot about the responsibilities, and I agreed to put them first. I quit smoking, got in shape, stopped high risk behaviors, and agreed that I would take a position that didn’t require me to be uprooted, travel too much, or have long absences. > [@](#): > > Yes. I choose not to enlist, but I still support the war and the troops that fight in it. Which seems more of a reiteration than anything else. I get it, we all make choices and you respect theirs, etc etc. I guess I’m an old fashioned guy and think a “war” should be an all or nothing affair. It shouldn’t be some side story while we get along with business as usual (no need to buy war bonds; keep topping up your RRSPs instead, or the terrorists have won!). I don’t blame anyone for wanting to be a traditional Father rather than getting his ass shot at. I would feel a little guilty about vocally supporting others being shipped off to get their ass shot off, though - your mileage obviously varies. I wonder, however, were you a fan of military adventurism when you were a young motorcycle-driving, smoking, childless risk-taker? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/257 "2007-01-18T04:52:38Z")
I’d like to point out, again, that it only seems to get characterized as military adventurism, and people speculate about the guilty feelings of others, only for wars they don’t themselves favor. When 9/11 happened, nearly everyone could see the necessity for military action, and so didn’t question the motives of other supporters or leaders advocating action. Now, I can certainly understand opposing the war, but I can’t understand why opposition has to be in such personal terms. A policy ought to stand or fall on its own merits. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/258 "2007-01-18T05:06:43Z")
**Mr Moto** Thanks for the courteous reply. Well, since you brought up someone on the left side of the political spectrum, let’s not forget Howard Dean (Democrat). He had a medical deferment for a spinal condition yet it did not deter him from skiing the slopes of Colorado. :rolleyes: It seems the concept of serving your country and sacrifice changed since your grandfathers’ era hasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/259 "2007-01-18T11:51:23Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] No, it doesn’t. That’s what _you_ want it to say so that you’ll have something to argue about. The OP said nothing about any “widespread rhetoric”. It cited a White House statement. I compared it to a statement from a different White House. If you have to make shit up, you’re losing the argument. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but as I’ve already pointed out, the Clinton speech just doesn’t say what you want it to say. Sadly, in this case, Hentor is right and you’re wrong. Long odds on that, I know, but it happens sometimes. I don’t know why you and Scylla think you have to resort to going out on such weak ass limbs when the basic facts seem so strongly against the idea that RTF is proposing. There are clearly a high percentage of right-wing war supporters either in the military or who enlisted post 9/11 and were gung-ho about Iraq as well. However, trying to pretend that Clinton said anything approaching what Bush said, or trying to pretend that MM’s trip to Iraq to write, inevitably, that things are looking up and she thinks everything is just super, are NOT, in fact, good arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/260 "2007-01-18T12:42:55Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Sorry, but as I’ve already pointed out, the Clinton speech just doesn’t say what you want it to say. Sadly, in this case, Hentor is right and you’re wrong. Long odds on that, I know, but it happens sometimes. I don’t know why you and Scylla think you have to resort to going out on such weak ass limbs when the basic facts seem so strongly against the idea that RTF is proposing. There are clearly a high percentage of right-wing war supporters either in the military or who enlisted post 9/11 and were gung-ho about Iraq as well. However, trying to pretend that Clinton said anything approaching what Bush said, or trying to pretend that MM’s trip to Iraq to write, inevitably, that things are looking up and she thinks everything is just super, are NOT, in fact, good arguments. [/QUOTE] It is almost as if the concept is a Newtonian Law of politics which guides the reasoning there:\* ‘For every action undertaken by the GOP: The Democrats will have undertaken an action equally bad’\*. I can only speculate that the proponent of that theory is driving at some as-yet nebulous ultimate position. But exactly what? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887.md?page=14)