Volunteers Needed: "The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq"

The BBQ Pit
221

Not at all. You’re not butting in. I asked you for your response.

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.

An interesting argument. I think there are some merits to it. The insurgents are fromidable. I wonder why. I think running fifty miles, like I have, is a bit of a narcissistic vanity. Part of the reason I do it, is because I think we are very pampered people and not particularly tough or used to discomfort. Doing so is an attempt to step away from that. To toughen myself. I’m not sure that it means a lot compared to a life of hardship and desperation, but I don’t think it means much. That’s kind of besides the point anyway. The insurgents use different tactics. It doesn’t take a lot of training to be a suicide bomber. Many of the things they do don’t require training, or significant training. The insurgency is by it’s very nature and ad hoc sort of enterprise which I would guess is both a strength and a weakness.

The insurgents as a general rule don’t engage in open combat. We do. They don’t engage in disciplined and integrated arms operations. We do. An American soldier by his very nature is highly trained. I don’t think you can reasonably equate the insurgency to the US military and suggest that the success of the one means that our troops don’t need to be trained. Perhaps I’m wrong, though. Do you feel that we should be sending poorly trained or untrained troops into combat?

An interesting argument, but ultimately, I think, a poor one.

Yes. I choose not to enlist, but I still support the war and the troops that fight in it. On the other note, I don’t really no about those other guys but if we are to measure toughness they don’t really count for much. Nobody is more macho or talks tougher than you…

from the very safe anonymity of the internet.

I don’t know what they think. I do know that I would not be willing to have kids and then enlist in the military and face getting killed or maimed while those children depended on me.

I respect that other people may feel differently and make different choices. Being a free country with a volunteer army that’s the way it is. I don’t expect everybody to feel the same way or make the same decisions, and I don’t look down on them at all if their decisions and mine don’t match and they prioritize differently. To do so is intolerant.

The false dilemma is a pretty common fallacy. It rarely comes down to “no choice.” Certainly some people had poor alternatives and made the best decision they kid.

I frankly don’t see what bearing that would have on my choice, and I really don’t see how you can make that argument reasonably unless you refuse to eat because other people in the world are going hungry. Do you?

I take my commitments seriously, and I do my best to fulfill them. I wouldn’t dare equate my choices with those of a dead or disabled serviceman who served the country whether or not he agree with the war.

Once again, I think you sure are a very tough, pull no punches, aggressive sort of guy…

while typing anonymously on the internet.

FWIW, you do have a point though about the shit I’ve spewed. I mostly regret the vitriol and anger that I’ve shown here. I don’t think it’s very becoming or manly or particularly meaningful in this context where it can have no consequences, and it does nothing to enhance an argument other than inflate a compensating and cowardly ego.

Hurling insults over the internet to anonymous strangers makes one something of a cowardly weenie, IMO. So I’m trying to stop. That’s my new year’s resolution anyway.

It was pointed out to me once that if you think about that phrase, it can be inspiring. I know. I’m trying.

I haven’t been there and lack your experience killing bad guys. I guess I’ll have to take your word about how easy it is, and how little training it takes to be an effective soldier.

I don’t know. You sound pretty tough, and you make it sound so easy. I know you don’t agree with the war and all, but boy it sure would save a lot of lives and money on both sides if you just took all your experience and knowledge and when over there and won the thing.

You can read minds, too? That’s you, Elvis, and RTF!

I don’t know which is more amazing, the ability you guys have to read minds or how often your arguments depend on that ability.

Whatever’s good for you.

222

Uh…no! In fact, that’s the point of this entire thread, so it’s sorta funny you and Mr. Moto are still confused. If you think the terrorists win and western civilization, as it were, is in serious danger if we lose in Iraq then you should get over there right away because the consequences would be so dire. I mean, we’re talking about western civilization here…the light and hope of the world and all that shit, y’know?

Everyone else, the sane people, don’t believe that, so the idea of Democrats or smart Republicans signing up to support a fantasy as you and others suggest would be…well, interesting. Besides, most people don’t like killing kids or becoming unhinged during the relentless slaughter and going off and raping women or whatever.

If you support the Iraq war but don’t think anything particularly bad will happen to us when we lose/finally get tossed out of there then no one has a problem with you not signing up. Well, beyond wondering why you support it…but yeah, you get the idea.

223

Well, not sure if it matters the way things have gone on their own on this thread, but I still think he was talking about civilian volunteers, kind of a like a Peace Corpse.

224

Two things bug me about this bit of dodgery.

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.

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.

225

Maybe you either didn’t read the OP, or have forgotten what this debate is about.

226

In case you didn’t realize it, you’re calling someone out for a personal attack while addressing them with terms like “sleazeball” and “dipshit”.

What you quoted says specifically that not all of the attacks were approved by Rumsfeld. The time sensitive ones were not.

Here’s how I view the ethics of the whole thing. First and foremost, it is an ethical abomination to aggress a people who have done you no harm. I call it “coercion”, or “initial force”. Every action taken by the aggressor after his initial salvo is as coercive as the first even if it is in defense of an aggressive response. Thus, I can’t out of the blue slap you and then put up my arm to defend against your return slap. What appears to be a defense is only a further aggression. You are entitled ethically to retaliate against me with force necessary to end my aggression. But even though I might have aggressed you, you have no right to aggress Mr. Smith in your efforts to get back at me.

227

Seems he’s calling someone out for attacking the messenger rather than the message. I don’t see the inconsistency in throwing in a few choice words while doing so.

At least he’s not chastising someone for being rude while having been rude himself one page ago.

228

Yeah, and thus personal. (A messenger is a person.)

And yet…

…you see it when it suits you.

229

Look, you fucked up, plain and simple. You suggested hypocrisy for using a personal attack while he was pointing out that you were attacking the source rather than the message. It’s hardly hypocritical to say you’re a dipshit for avoiding the issue.

Boy, how did we ever get along without this nitpicky and incorrect semantic legerdemain?

230

This from someone given to issuing threats to other Dopers - online.

:smiley:

The hypocrisies of the left are like the mercies of the Lord - new every morning.

Regards,
Shodan

231

My position on that is, as I have indicated, mostly unformed. But of course, as you have described the issue, the issue itself is kind of a jumble, beginning with your “hypocrites, and possibly cowards” formulation - as the ‘chicken’ of ‘chickenhawks’ clearly implies a lack of personal willingness to take the risks that the ‘hawks’ part implies that one is urging on others.

As I have said, the spectrum from integrity to hypocrisy and that running from bravery to cowardice are two completely different things.

If I had a position on this issue, it would probably be at least as nuanced as my position on what I earlier called ‘hypocrite hawks’, IIRC. I would not confuse my urging that there be no personal morality test for posting here at the SDMB with what I would expect from either a friend, a politician, or an opinion-maker.

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. Otherwise, what we have is a silly ‘gotcha’ moment that doesn’t say much for your integrity as it applies to these debates.

Not that that should keep you from posting.

232

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.

The other thing (which I didn’t bother with at the time, but now that you’re persisting) is that my ‘mind-reading’ consisted of noting that Bush had taken two seemingly contradictory positions, and observing that there was apparently no connection between the two in his mind.

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.

But feel free to score all the cheap, irrelevant points you want if it suits you. I once thought you were intelligent and funny. Maybe you once were.

233

Let’s address a few things here, just to clarify some matters and muddy up some others. Might as well have some fun.

Now, I certainly don’t think you need to agree with the current administration to join the military, and I think that would be a lousy way to go about business. If you decided you liked the military and wanted to make it a career, you could count on serving Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

I’m one of the most partisan members of this board, but my military service was from 1993 to 1998. I served at all times a president I generally did not like or agree with. And even if I disagreed with some of the orders I received, I had no problem following them through.

This included, BTW, service in the Yugoslavian conflict (albeit in a noncombatant role) and I had strong opinions at the time (and still do) about our policy.

My job was to carry out policy set by others. I think on balance things are better for us (and me) having done so. Had I been making policy, though, I would have done things differently.

I read an article recently by Pat Conroy that absolutely floored me. I said before that people had to choose their path, and he had chosen his. During Vietnam he dodged the draft and became a war protester. A teammate of his went to Vietnam and became a POW. And when Pat Conroy met up with Al Kroboth years later, he became deeply ashamed of his actions, and decided that a less cowardly course would have been to go to Vietnam and then later protest the war.

Article here.

Now, this may be a subject for another thread, but I think it is worth discussing anyway. The onus in these discussions tends to be put on Iraq war supporters to enlist, since they’re supporting the war rhetorically but not doing much about it. Yet this war was voted on by democratically elected representatives, and as unpopular as it may be now, we are all in it together in some sense.

And when our soldiers die over there, it is a loss to us all. Additional manpower and leadership might make a difference, as Pat Conroy thought.

Additionally, there is a good bit of evidence that while political conservatives and the apolitical will serve in the military under a Democratic president, liberals don’t serve in anywhere close to these numbers under either Democrats or Republicans. Surveys tend to bear this out, and I discussed this disparity on these boards before.

So with all of that, shouldn’t people of all beliefs (apart from pacifists) be considering the military? And shouldn’t they do so even if they believe a particular mission or battle or war might be misguided?

Pat Conroy thought so. Of course, he shirked out of an obligation. The only obligations on us now are moral ones.

234

I think it’s a good question. Scylla has already raised it, in a manner more specific to this war.

I’ve started a GD thread on this issue. See you there.

But before you go, any thoughts about what I asked you @209?

235

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 a outdoors centered lifestyle until he died of cancer in his late 70s. Even so, the Army didn’t want him.

Not only did he have to explain this to some people who questioned it at the time, I always thought he felt guilty about it in some sense, even though, of course, it wasn’t his decision or his fault. And obviously, he knew quite a few people who didn’t come home.

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.

I’m not going to demand that people with stickers on their car join up. But I will ask what stake they have in this war that isn’t magnetic.

It is actually a question I have for all of you, not expecting an answer, just some serious reflection.

236

Can I boil that down to a “a ‘support the troops’ magnet would have been an empty gesture in WWII”?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just asking.

237

No, I didn’t. Neener neener neener. :rolleyes:

He said I was attacking the messenger. That’s an accusation of ad hominem by definition.

Probably the same way you always have — by obfuscation, incomprehension, and nonsense.

238

I’ll try amd make this simple. Like I’m talking to a not too bright five year old.

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.

Alright, molasses for brains, let’s back-up a minute here. All I claimed in my FIRST 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”

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

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.

239

It is an empty gesture now, if that is all the person is doing. Of course, we cannot know at first glance. A woman driving with such a sticker may be an emptyheaded dittohead or the wife of a serviceman in Iraq. No way of knowing without knowing her.

Which is why it comes down to individual hearts and minds and actions for me, not stickers. And I don’t have one on my car.

240

Serendipitously, The Washington Monthly features the following exchange between Jim Lehrer and Bush.

So we are all sacrificing. We are sacrificing our beautiful minds. Good to know we’re all in this together.

Of course, Bush has repeatedly railed against showing terrible images of violence on TV every night. So, if he were to have his way, I wonder what our sacrifices would be then?