To all the folks who voiced unspeakably rude sentiments directed at the host of this board–which would be me–simply because I’m skeptical of the scramble for war at a time when domestic issues unattended to (or exacerbated) by the administration loom so large…
How many are actually in the service and would be required to fight? How many have children who would be required to go? And how many of draft age support a draft (and I’ll be going on the assumption that the rudest and most blustering who respond affirmatively to the last one are full of crap.)
Just wondering.
PAD
• 
Of the many people who say thay support the war, are of draftable age, and are willing to go if drafted or in favor of a draft, I didn’t see anyone say they were enlisting . I would like to add to PAD’s questions, “If you believe the war is needed & justified, and you haven’t enlisted to fight it, why not?
BTW, I’m not trolling with this, but truly curious, if people are so in favor of this war, why aren’t the recruiting offices doing record business (As they did with the U.S. entry into WWII)?
PAD et al.,
I try to stay out of the politics arena as much as possible because I’m so wrapped up in classes that I don’t have time to keep up with the latest developments and surf the web for tidbits of information. But for what it’s worth, I’m a 19 year old college student, who believes that what Saddam is doing is wrong. I would certainly hate to see the draft occur (not to mention that many of my friends are in ROTC and could be shipped out), but I think that depending on the evidence the White House has in its possession, it may be necessary. I believe that Saddam has been given too many chances, and I can’t readily think of any other consequences except war for the atrocities he is committing. So while it certainly scares the crap out of me, war and a potential draft may be necessary.
Chris
PS-Totally unrelated, but I was wondering, do people think that Mackenzie Calhoun and Apropos would get along if they met? Or would it be more of a Si Cwan and Zak Kebron relationship where they initially would hate each other and then finally get along.
As a Cuban American, I have to ask, “Why isn’t Bush planning on sending a military task force to take out a dictator which only lives 90 miles south of our country?” He’s been in power for 4 decades and the U.S. no longer has the “Castro has the USSR backing him” excuse.
Cuba’s people live in crippling poverty. So much so that pre-teen girls prostitute themselves to tourists so they can eat. Too bad coconut oil and tobacco Isn’t what Bush needs, huh? Cheers! Jose’
I am 38 and have bad knees and an even worse back. While I wouldn’t be allowed or even able to serve in combat I would gladly serve in a clerical or related capacity. I felt that we should have taken care of Hussein back during the Gulf War. As the old saying goes, “Never leave an enemy holding a grudge with enough power to do anything about it.”
Fazhoul
Peter David has blown it again! There goes his chance at working in the Bush Administration.
Will he ever learn?
Peter David has blown it again! There goes his chance at working in the Bush Administration.
Will he ever learn?
Your questions are an appeal to the emotion fallacy. You are claiming that if one supports a war against Iraq, he either does not care about the people will die. Describung it in terms of “Is one of your family members going to fight and possibly die?” is a cheap shot rather than a defense of your position.
PAD: Why insist on war, when a diplomatic resolution is still possible. Why does War has to be the first option instead of the last resourse….
First, it’s spelled “recourse”. Second, diplomacy has been in place for 10 years (13 if you consider diplomatic efforts didn’t get Iraq out of Kuwait). To see that diplomacy s going to work in Iraq shows a profound ingnorance on the cultural philosophy of the Middle East. Arabs recognize strength and power. It’s a syble of manhood to them, and it’s ho they do business. To drag our feet with diplomacy, with no show of strength is what lead to 9/11. We’ve never responded effectively to the first WTC bombing, the barrcks bombing in Saudi Arabia, the embassy bombings in Africa (firing missiles at empty tents doesn’t cut it.) and the USS Cole. What did that tell our enemies? We’re an easy target who won’t fight back.
Until now.
Some want to clnch their little fists, stop their little feet and demand the government keep them all safe and comfy, but don’t want to take the measures that are required.
Jame: Taking a cheap shot at PAD’s typo when your own post is full of typos? Bad form, old chap.
First, just to get it off my chest, I’m sick and tired of the racism I see in some of the posts here. Yes, insulting a country because of what _one_ man (a senile old general who was past his prime at the time) did _sixty-two years ago_, and refusing to see what this country has done since then (we backed you up in Korea, during the Cuba Missile Crisis, we were there with you in Germany for more than fifty years, and we have the dead, the injured and the sick to show for our participation in operations in Lebanon and the Gulf. Not to mention that we’re doing our part, and doing it well, in the war against Al Qaeda) is racism. So is the use of clich
For those who support this unilateral action, and even support a draft, but alas are prevented by medical difficulty from actually enlisting — in the service, in the reserves, even in the National Guard or a state militia — at this time:
Are you a member of the USO (see http://www.uso.org/pubs/8_14_19.CFM for a description)? If not, what do you do to support the men and women you’re sending over there, at least some of whom will die for your beliefs?
Thirty years old, female, disabled, granddaughter of two WWII veterans, daughter of a Vietnam veteran, sister of a serviceman, daughter-in-law of a retired draftee, proud supporter of US troops, and I don’t like what President Bush is doing any more than I liked what President Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. I see the same political motivation in both cases: public support is rallied toward the President, as attention is drawn away from embarrassing domestic issues. I think we’re doing a fantastic job of making Saddam into a martyr in the eyes of the common people, and that our problem only gets worse as we show by our actions that we Know What’s Best for everyone (and we’ll use violence to impose it).
Nevertheless, I am actively supporting my country’s warriors, whether it costs me time or money or convenience or all three, by the most direct means available to a person who cannot enlist. How about those folks who are certain that they were not, either, rude to our host? You’re only as noble as your actions, folks.
I’m 41; I’ve done my military time; I’ve been there, at 2:30 in the morning at Fort Leonard Wood trying to stay awake as “Proud to be an American” was being played during an orientation/propaganda film. I’ve spend Christmas Eve in the desert and my birthday doing 24 hour duty.
I used the Army to pay my school loans and they, in turn, would have used me to the death had I gone to combat, a Constitutionally-approved war or otherwise. The summer before I went to basic training I drove along the East Coast to see sights I wasn’t sure I would be able to later. I was going in as a medic and the mortality rate in that M.O.S. is high. I mean, it isn’t like we don’t have a big red target on our arms or vehicles or anything. Hëll, someone dies or is permanently disabled everyday in a training accident.
In the Army I bet some of the most horrible, ignorant people that I ever imagined. One guy is in Leavenworth for rape and sodomy. It used to scare me that many of my non-commissioned officers were more concerned about earning points and their careers than they were in training us to do our best in the field.
But then, especially as a medic, you see a lot of the troops for what they are: just kids full of more bravado and hormones then should be allowed and you hope that they, at least, make it through unscathed. You talk about going to war, but avoid talking about dying; the money you can make with tax exemptions, combat pay and hazardous duty pay is the driving force. Every once in a while, you would be lucky enough to cross the path of a sergeant or officer whose main concern was the troops
and you think that if you go to war, you might have a chance.
I know that this “war” is nothing more a way for Junior to redeem the error of Senior. Had the attacks of Sept. 11 not occurred, there would have been some other excuse found to go combat. Maybe I would be less distrustful of the situation and Bush’s motives if he would actually take the proper Constitutional step and go to Congress requesting an act of war. We’re told that the White House knows more than the general public; I should hope so; but I would feel a whole lot more secure about the validity of the action Bush wants our country to enter into if he presented the evidence before Congress.
And, the thing is, the sheep let the man do it. “My country, my President, right or wrong,” doesn’t have the same cachet it once did. When we see Iraqi citizens burning American flags or our leaders in effigy I guess that we, as a nation, are supposed to rise up and shake our fists in moral indignation, slap a flag on the back window of the S.U.V. and drive to the 7-11. Yet, when a video game is shown and sold on television that allows you to go kill Hussein, we find no fault in that? Life shouldn’t be about tit-for-tat, it should be about doing right in the worst consitions.
I am all for chasing down Osama and hurting him. If Bush has evidence that Saddam gave bin-Laden money or that he has missles aimed at us or he okayed a plan that provided aid and comfort to the Taliban, then present it, request an Act of War, and I can support it with a more of an open heart. However, to hand Bush a moral blank check and just send people off to die and to kill without being answerable for the action is wrong.
Gerard made his case for the French, to which I’d only add that the bravery of the French Resistance is something else that spouters-off might remember. Kudos to TPTB in the US for trying to start a World War, though–is this compensation for being so late getting into the last two?
Take care, Jon
From 1995-1998 I was in the Navy. Luckily this was a time of relative peace. However we all knew that at any given moment, due to political bûllšhìŧ, that we might end up in some sort of fight. Fortunately by the grace of God (or whatever diety you choose to believe in) there were no battles. Given the fact that I VOLUNTEERED for this stint of indentured servitude i knew full well that i could die should any battle ever occur. Now fo rmy part, this would not bother me in the least. Its part of the job, and as long as it helped keep my friends and family safe then thats ok. Notice i said my friends and family, I could give a rats ášš about the rest of you. Now that is a good reason to die, protecting my loved ones. But the current situation in this political climate is not a good reason to die. Sadam poses very little threat. There is no reason for us to go after him. Keep an eye on him and twist his arm when the situation calls for it, yes. But to start a war when one is not needed is a bad idea. Sadam has not stormed another country. He has not been waving around any types of weapons and threatening the world with them. He has not given us any reason to walk into his country and shut him down. So why are so many of you eager to go after him? Those of you posting all of these negative comments are not the ones that would be doing the fighting anyway. You wont be the one dying. You wont be the one that has to watch a best friend die on the dessert sand, for no more reason then the leader of our country wants to get a second term. It should also be pointed out that the people that we need to be after are still at large. The terrorists that still plot to destry our county as well as other countries are still not completely vanquished. Not one of you has noticed that we automatically went from going after these slippery devils to going after Sadam. Sadam is currently not the threat. THe threat is something thats harder to see. So instead of putting your support into a stupid expendeture of human life in another country, why dont you put that support into stopping the terrorists that still threaten us now. But that would be too logical for you people wouldnt it? Lets face it, none of you cared about this country or had any form of patriotism until 9/11. Then suddenly it was the “in” thing so you jumped on the bandwagon. FO rhte rest of us, we have had patriotisom for years on end. True it takes many forms. For me it was keeping my friends and family safe and ensuring that they would never loose their rights or freedoms or lives. That they would still have a “land of the free” in which to live those lives. Most of you never gave a dámņ before the towers were attacked, and in about 4-5 years you wont give a dámņ again. So to all of you who THINK you know what you are talking about, yes you the ones that dont have to actually fight the war and have false patrotism and slam on Peter for speaking what is essentially common sense that all of you should have, I and all the past, present, future veterans and service members invite you, to please, FEEL FREE TO SHUT THE FÙÇK UP!
Nice post and excellent points, Greg.
Whether we should fight in Iraq, I’ll remain neutral on for now, until Powell releases the evidence next week. Two points though:
1)That we gave Hussein the weapons and turned a blind eye to his human rights abuses during the eighties is fact, not conspiracy theory. You can look it up in any library or news database for proof. If we’re fighting against travesty and abuses then we should go to the Congo instead of Iraq.
2)You can not make a decent army out of slave soldiers. The draft does not create men and women willing to fight and die for their country, which is what’s needed in a fighting force. The arguement was put better than me in Heinlein’s Expanded Universe. Read it. Learn why espirit de corps is essential.
Actually my remarks about the French are directed towards the general cowardice and deception that I’ve seen practiced by their government throughout my lifetime. From scuttling a Greenpeace ship with civilians still on board, refusing flyover rights to American pilots heading towards Libya, leaking classified NATO intelligence to opposition forces, and being in general a country who can only be counted on to stab you in the back when it suits their purposes. France is a nation, not a race. When that nation decides to act like an ally I’ll stop reminding them of their past defeats and disgraces. Until then:
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_corner_google-french.jpg
I am very much against this war. I don`t want to start writing an essay but just want to point out two aspects now to people who are for it should also think about:
There is no doubt about it that Saddam is an unpleasant, dangerous dictator. But if you think a war is necessary to stop him, that he has weapons of mass destruction at his disposal he could use at any moment, how would such a man react? His conventional military capacity is no match to the USA or whoever will also attack. Saddam is certainly not interested to give up easily. I am afraid, at worst such an attack would be like cornering a dangerous animal and wound him. This would only make him more dangerous and irrational with the result that what you want to prevent will actually happen because Saddam thinks he has nothing to lose.
Also, let`s assume this war will indeed result in Saddam being killed or captured. What next? Who will replace him? Will he be better than Saddam? Who decides that? Are you willing to occupy Iraq until you are satisfied that this country has leaders that are to your liking?
Jarissa,
Go read the letter from the heads of eight European nations supporting us in taking action against Iraq (and note that two more have expressed their agreement with the letter). Then go to a dictionary and look up what “unilateral” means. Then explain how we could possibly be acting unilaterally with ten or more other nations allied with us.
I did not say anything rude to you. I feel I should say something anyway.
I have no idea what’s going on in the Middle East and what this whole war is really about. I can however say that I would not fight in it if asked. This is for one simple reason: in wars, people kill other people. I don’t know about anyone else, but I believe life is a sacred thing. I would never take another person’s life and I would never support someone else taking the life of another. I suppose you could call me a conscientious objecter. You folks may look down on me for this, but I stick by my values.
Now, can we get back to being funny.
I will not fight and die in a war over-seas when the current leader of our country is not worthy a leader to fight and die for.
Iraq has never harbored terrorists???? Wasn’t there a news item that Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious terrorists of the last twenty years was killed by Iraqi “security” forces last year. The fact that he was terminally ill didn’t matter though, did it? He must have snuck in there, right? Who has blinders on here?
The pre-text to getting Saddam out of power is he is not fulfilling his obligations from the Gulf War surrender. He has made a mockery of the UN inspectors then and now.
Has anyone ever thought how much easier and devasting chemical or biological warfare is to a nuclear weapon? How much easier is it to transport and unleash on an unsuspecting people? I hope America never has to find out.
Just remember how invulnerable Americans felt prior to the 1st WTC attack in 1993. I’m just a little more realistic that another country can attack us indirectly with much more effect. Think about it.
Taking a cheap shot at PAD’s typo when your own post is full of typos? Bad form, old chap.
Duly noted. Now, Do you wish to address my points, or are you in the, “You’re not in the military. You have no right to support awar.” category?
Do you wish to address my points
As far as I can see, you made a bunch of points about other conflicts, but never quite said what Iraq has done to deserve bombing and killing its innocent citizens.
I am not of draft age, and have no close relatives or friends likely to be drafted, although i do have nieces who are in the right age range. Although I consider myself a liberal, and have had reservations about the draft, I think if makes more sense to have it, with NO exemptions as a previous poster mentioned. Everyone should be liable to be called up, including the entire congress. If such was the case, I expect that there would be a much more sincere debate amongst the nation.
I understand the arguments that have been made supporting an attack on Iraq. The problem I have is that by attacking a nation that has not attacked us, we are the faulty party. If the same reasoning used against Iraq was used against other countries, everyone would be in a lot of trouble. Remember Tianmen Square? There’s another country that killed its own citizens for daring to support the things America stands for. We know they have nuclear weapons, also. Why has there been no talk of attacking them instead of Iraq? It’s because we have less chance of “victory.”
I don’t think Saddam Hussein is an innocent in all this. We should keep a very close eye on him. But unless he actually attacks us or an ally, for us to attack would be wrong. We would win, but it would be a pyhrric victory, for we would be doing the exact things that the fanatics accuse us of. And that would only spur more action against us.
Again, if he attacks us or an ally, then we should shut him down, no question. But the U.S. should not strike the first blow.
There is something deeply troubling about the “if you aren’t in the military/have been in the military you have no right to support a war” meme I’ve seen tossed about in this discussion. It may sound good on the surface, but the idea that only people who are serving, or have served, have any right to support (or campaign against) a war undermines an essential element of any stable republic–civilian control of the military.
The US Constitution deliberatly puts ultimate control of our armed forces outside the military chain of command, and requires that wars be authorized by Congress[1]. Under our system, the question of whether our not a specific use of military force is justified is intended to be a political question.
In America, the life-long civilian and the Congressional Medal of Honor winner are equal before the law, have the same vote (assuming they choose to cast it) and the same right to a voice.
And that’s a good thing.
[1] As a point of fact, should Bush choose to use military force in Iraq, he would be doing so with proper constitutional congressional authorization. HJ 114 “Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” on October 10, 2002 gives Bush the authority to invade should he decide it is necessary.
Even though I generally avoid political discussions, I think I’ll briefly chime in on this one.
War, if truly justified, cannot wait for perfect social conditions. World War II occured just as the United States was limping out of the Great Depression. Should the nation have waited to do something about the Axis until the economy was running smoothly?
As I recall from high school history, that’s precisely what we were doing when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, forcing us into the war.
Does Saddam deserve to be removed from power? I’d say yes, however, I believe that it should be done with UN backing (which we seem to be slowly gaining, huzzah). To do otherwise makes us the bullies of the international playground that the world sees us as. “He’s a threat to the US and our way of life.” What better way to tell the world that we don’t give a fig for their safety, that we just like to throw our weight around?
What exactly gives “us” the right to take a dubious moral high ground? We (“We” being the government and society of the US as a whole) Bought, stole, and otherwise conquered this land and herded its native peoples onto reservations. We have yet to bring ethnic, religious, or even sexual unity to our own nation, with hate groups of every stripe running free. I could go on, but I feel I’ve started ranting…
What it boils down to is this:
Are we the greatest nation in the world? By most measurable standards, on paper, yes. However, in many ways, we still have a long way to go, and when it we seem, at times, to be attempting to remake the world in our own image (and possibly have the military and economic power to do it) it scares me.
The threat from Iraq is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There has been regular bombing runs, usually at least a couple a week, for the past ten years. Children are sick and dying from from depleted uranium, the bombing of water treatment facilities in the Gulf War, and from the continuing sanctions.
NO ONE likes Saddam Hussein, but as things stand now, he’s less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US.
Imagine you have a friend for a little while. Then you don’t like him anymore and you start beating him up. You keep on beating him up regularly for 10 years. Then one day you think, “Gee- if he were to have a gun, he might try and shoot me!” So you decide you better kill him. And takeover his house and family.
If Hussein is to be dealt with at all, the US cannot be involved. They are not trusted, and have shown no reason to be.
This being so low on the page it might not get noticed, but I have to point out…
Does anyone else find it odd that at a time when our civil liberties are at their weakest in 50 years, the President is wanting to fight a weak foreign power? I mean, talk about your distractions…
Also let me mention that I am in a wheelchair and so undraftable,but I see nothing wrong with a fair(meaning everyone) requirement for either miliary or civil service. But that would be contigent on even the President’s kids having to serve, and not as just cooks.
Its odd that our President wants to go to war, when AIDS is killing so many. As my dad says, “Give the Top 10 Richest Men in America AIDS and you’ll have a cure in a month”.
Just a couple of random thoughts.
Col
Regarding Carl
“There is something deeply troubling about the “if you aren’t in the military/have been in the military you have no right to support a war” meme I’ve seen tossed about in this discussion. It may sound good on the surface, but the idea that only people who are serving, or have served, have any right to support (or campaign against) a war undermines an essential element of any stable republic–civilian control of the military.”
Try telling this to all of the P.O.W., M.I.A., and K.I.A.’s and their family members. Nothing is being undermined. We are, were, or will be the one’s that have to fight and die in any type of conflict. We are the only one’s that should have the right to truly support or not support military action, because basically we are the one’s doing all the dying because cokehead, i mean W. wants to be like daddy.
Why do the armed services want all their enlistees to be 18-21 years old? Because they are so easy to train to the ways of war. They don’t have the life experience to question their superiors’ orders, and thus they are better “soldiers”, etc., and are more likely to blindly rush to follow those orders.
Once they are trained to think this way, they continue to think that way for the rest of their lives, providing they survive their time in the service.
I was in high school and then a new graduate during the time of Viet Nam. For a long time, I would have been a voluteer; then, had I been drafted, I would have served. Finally, after seeing all the tv footage of the horrors of war, I was relieved that I hadn’t been there. A lot of people are talking that war is neccesary. It isn’t. Sitting here and saying “I would go if I could” is easy to say as long as the bullets aren’t flying.
If Clinton or Gore were in office right now, the conservatives would be screaming “Wag the Dog, Wag the Dog.” It’s amazing (and totally frightening) how the conservatives and people like Rush Limbaugh have brainwashed the American people.
Why can’t the public see this? I don’t know. It’s almost as if they have willingly put on blinders because they’re afraid to see what is going on.
What a sad, sad thought it is to know that we are about to go through one of the blackest periods of history for this great country. God Bless America.
Col,
Did you miss the $10 billion Bush asked for to fight AIDS in Africa?
Saddam is not a threat, he’s a convenient boogeyman being used by this administration to justify a “war”. BTW this isn’t a war, for it to be a war Congress would have to formally declare it so.
Iraq is a sovereign country, it seems that the US has forgotten the importance of sovereignty and why you don’t go invading other peoples countries.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 its been pretty well established that the Saudis were behind that. What the US could do is be honest and say “we’re invading Iraq to make source we have a ready source of oil for when we invade Saudi Arabia”.
Saddam Hussein is not a threat nor never has been, what he is, is a convenient target. If you’ve noticed no one’s talking about invading China or North Korea because they have Huamn Rights violations or “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Why not? Well because those two countries can fight back. There needs to be more than one superpower, and there definately needs to be a top superpower that isn’t the United States especially one run by a President who was put in place via a coup.
For all the people talking about “getting rid of Saddam Hussein” have you really thought about what you’ve said? What gives this country in this day and age a right to enact neo-Imperialist agendas?
What gives this country in this day and age a right to enact neo-Imperialist agendas
Xero,
Go read the letter from eight leaders of European countries and explain again how we’d be acting unilaterally.
Man, I stop reading he posts for a couple of days and…WOW! I come here for some fun. Especially after the shuttle explosion this morning…I needed some thing lighthearted. Anyways, I do not agree with us going to war now… mainly because I don’t trust Bush as far as I could throw him without actually touching him. I feel he “ruined” any sense of “National Interest” with his whole “Ten years ago this man tried to kill my Pa” crap/speech. I am sure Saddam is a global blight and should be dealt with… but I don’t see us dealing with it in any way that makes sense. I am glad that Bush has stopped campaigning FINALLY and can now address U.S. issues… but instead he talks about Iraq. Christ, we don’t even have the benefit of them invading someone else to “justify” all this. Basically my opinion comes down to: Don’t like Bush. Don’t trust Bush. Don’t believe Bush. Don’t believe this is a good enough reason to see more Americans or anyone else die. Period. That’s my 3 1/2 anywa. Now please! Can we get back to the fun!
Peter: The Federation would sure use special forces to enforce a treaty with Cardassians, i.e. “Chain of Command”, so why shouldn’t the USA with Saddam? Think about it buddy. (Love NF!!!) -Nick Urbanie
Actually folks, the U.S. has the support of over 21 Countries, and NONE of them question the threat that Saddam poses. And I hate to sound like a broken record but I must because it is TRUE: This is EXACTLY what people had said about Adolf Hitler. Check your history folks… Now back to the TREK!!!! (Peter despite our dissagreements, remember I am HUGE fan and Totally respect your work and talent!!)”Remember Columbia.” -Nick Urbanite
To Alan Coil
buddy you have no idea what you are talking about. the military takes most people from the age of 18-33. they want us at 18 because thats when we are legal and at our physical prime.
to say its because we dont have the life experiences to question orders is a major assumption for you to make. i and the others like me went through boot camp and believe me we questioned everything. hëll we all questioned our orders at various times from boot camp until we got out of the service. it happens all the time.
and by the way we are not brainwashed into think a certain way for the rest of our lives. i think the same way now that i did when i was in highschool. ok i may be a little bit more matrue now, but i am not the military atomoton that you seem to think we all are. you assume things you dont really know and that is sad. if they relaly did brainwash us then i never would have told a higher ranking officer to go f#&* himself. trust me there is no braiwashing involved.
you know i just wish that people who don know what they are tlaking about would not post. if you havent served then dont post things that you think you know abou tthe military. i dont come to you, ask you what you do, and then preoceed to tell you things i just assume are true about your job when they are not true do I?
I quote from a couple of posts back: “Why do the armed services want all their enlistees to be 18-21 years old? Because they are so easy to train to the ways of war. They don’t have the life experience to question their superiors’ orders, and thus they are better “soldiers”, etc., and are more likely to blindly rush to follow those orders.
Once they are trained to think this way, they continue to think that way for the rest of their lives, providing they survive their time in the service.”
Totally wrong,completely off base. I have been and am not a drone for the military after 18 years of service, you twit. Jeez, try talking to some active duty guys before you post such drivel. Where do you get your ideas of what the military is like – just the comic books? Give me a break.
My son isn’t of draft age but it would definitely be nice if the world was short one Saddam Hussein by the time he is. It may significantly decrease the possibility that a draft may be necessary when he does reach the age of 18.
I assumer PAD will address this in his next post, but something needs to be said about the tradgety today, with the loss of the crew of the space shuttle and the damage caused by fragments landing all over Texas. May they rest in peace.
Chris
I agree with PAD G.W.Bush is an idiot. I suppose that if he had an I.Q. above that of a carrot it would be easier to believe in his cause. I have a 14 yr old son, and if this moron starts a war odds are that it will still be going on when he is of drafting age. This is not a cause that I want to lose my son to, let Bush send all the slugs that are sucking up welfare money to die for him.
As far as I can see, you made a bunch of points about other conflicts, but never quite said what Iraq has done to deserve bombing and killing its innocent citizens.
Ifyou don’t understand, I’m not going to convince you. Firebombing Dresden and dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were terrible things to do to civilians, but we had to remove their leaders. Whether it sounds fair to you or not, Hitler and Tojo were their leaders, regardless of whether they were chosen. That’s the nasty thing about war, but sometimes you’ve got tomake a stand.
You overlook the fact as well that when civilans are killed by US forces, something went wrong. Saddam (and other terrorists) kill civilians, it because they were successful.
There is something deeply troubling about the “if you aren’t in the military/have been in the military you have no right to support a war” meme I’ve seen tossed about in this discussion. To Mr. Henderson,
“It may sound good on the surface, but the idea that only people who are serving, or have served, have any right to support (or campaign against) a war undermines an essential element of any stable republic–civilian control of the military.”
I don’t know if you’ll ever see this but I need to clarify something. Anyone who says a person can’t comment on war unless they’ve served in the military is a moron. That’s an obviously silly statement.
But that shouldn’t obscure the legitimate point that there’s a segment of America’s political culture (mostly conservative) that puffs out its chest about “supporting the military” and is usually the loudest voice calling for war, while most of the members of that segment have never put on the uniform and many actively avoided military service.
The Democrats since Vietnam have been the “anti-war” party, so it makes sense that many Democrats and liberals (in the post-draft era) would not join the armed forces. But the Republicans and conservatives have just as many Vietnam era draft evaders and I see very few post-Vietnam conservative pundits or Republican politicians volunteering to serve.
When people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity start slapping themselves on the back over how much they “support the military”, there’s nothing wrong with asking them why they never served if they think the military is so great.
Mike
To PAD:
I’ve really loved your work, and the gripping and funny stories you’ve brought us. But sadly I just really don’t agree with your political views.
I’m a Republican, and I’m curious about something too? Are you able to even, for a moment, see the other side’s view? I don’t want to change your views, but hear me out.
I try to remain open minded, and I think I can see Democrat’s view points. You don’t want to go to war, and you think Bush is an idiot. But to me, those seem like generalized ideas, based only on public perceptions. Do you know the percise workings of Bush’s mind? Do you know all the advice he gets on a daily basis? No, you don’t. I don’t either. I just have a little more faith that no matter what happens everything, in the end, will be all right.
I never liked Clinton, but I never hated him enough to run crying to the hills that the world was over.
I’ve always heard of how much Kennedy was liked and beloved. He was a liberal, except their where a few that cursed his name, practicly. They didn’t want him in office, and almost got paranoid views of how the world was going to end if he stayed in office.
To me, with Bush, although not as widely beloved, this seems like the same deal with Kennedy. The losing team curses his name, with almost paranoid views of how it’s all going to end.
So, doesn’t this make you wonder wether we can just accept the opposition’s side as a valid opinion, and not believe that “The Presidency was Stolen” or that “War is never the way”
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You can disagree, and I’m by no means trying to change your mind – but can you at least not verge on being insulting to other ideas. At least try. Take a cue from the Democratic point of view and try and make peace. If not in the world, then at least in your discussions.
When people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity start slapping themselves on the back over how much they “support the military”, there’s nothing wrong with asking them why they never served if they think the military is so great.
Luigi Novi: I support modern medicine, and how its advances has benefited us. That doesn’t mean I have to go to med school, lest I be labeled a hypocrite.
I’m single, white, male, civilian, 26. Perfect canon fodder. But I think the threat assesment bears out a strong possibility of a WMD armed Saddam giving those weapons to terrorists to smuggle in the U.S. or Europe or shooting them into Israel. Therefore, if Saddam doesn’t give them up, we should go in. Its self defense pure and simple. If I’m called, I’ll go.
Shawn
Firebombing Dresden and dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were terrible things to do to civilians, but we had to remove their leaders. Whether it sounds fair to you or not, Hitler and Tojo were their leaders, regardless of whether they were chosen. That’s the nasty thing about war, but sometimes you’ve got tomake a stand.
This of course, overlooks the little fact that Hitler and the Axis powers started World War II.
In this case, we are going to bomb and invade a country (and take control of its natural resources for “safekeeping”) on the stated grounds that it might someday pose a threat to us.
We will be the aggressors. We will be the ones attacking the weaker nation, occupying it militarily, and installing a government with the chief priority of it being acquiescent to us. Not very American, I think. But these days, you aren’t a good American if you don’t trust the President.
David Emory:
My, you do remind me of a certain someone in another thread.
Ordinarily, I’d be delighted to bite you back just as hard, all the while pointing out that you ignored two hundred fifty-eight words in my post to focus on the pair which comprise the seventh and eight words alone. Today, however, I do not feel particularly delightable; I’m mourning heroes. Nevertheless, it would be rude of me to ignore your orders to me as dated t’other morning.
Now, it happens that only a cad would demand that I go do this and that and the other, especially in such a tone of connotative writing, so I do not feel terribly obliged to obey every single one of the four commands you made to me. Again, were I capable of delight, it’d be a far more entertaining story. I will accomodate you on only one item in your list, and by far this is the gentlest of the four options I had available to me.
I like dictionaries, I do. Let’s take a look at the phrase: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=action
Hmm. The closest we get to your European nations writing a letter in which they support the action I was discussing would be in the third item from The American Heritage
Why is this cry of “how many of you are willing to go to war!?” is always the first thing out of someone’s mouth when they see people don’t agree with their views on not going to war?
Mr. Novi,
Luigi Novi: I support modern medicine, and how its advances has benefited us. That doesn’t mean I have to go to med school, lest I be labeled a hypocrite.
There are several problems with your analogy.
1. Doctors don’t routinely die in the ordinary practice of medicine, so comparing their contributions to that of soldiers is not quite accurate.
2. If someone constantly talks about how wonderful doctors are, how great it must be to practice medicine, and defends the medical world from any and all criticism voiced against it, but not only didn’t go to medical school, didn’t even think of going, and doesn’t have any members of their family in medicine…wouldn’t you think that was a bit odd?
3. It isn’t a question of person A or individual B not serving in the military. It’s why avoidance of military service is so prevalent amongst an entire group of people who proudly label themselves a pro-military.
As I wrote before, Democrats and liberals have been traditionally anti-war (and anti-military in some extremes) since Vietnam, so it would make sense for them not to seek out military service.
But Republicans and conservatives have, at times obnoxiously, prided themselves on being pro-military and in support of the use of military force in almost all situations. Yet they don’t seem anymore interested in actually serving in uniform than the anti-war Left.
Many Baby Boomer conservatives will, to this very day, argue that the Vietnam War was the right thing to do, even though they did everything in their power to avoid the draft and actually going to Vietnam. Most of their younger fellows on the Right will trumpet their support and admiration of the military, yet almost none of them thought signing up for the Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines was a good idea for them. In other words, they think the military is great as long as it’s someone else actually doing the job.
That doesn’t matter during peacetime. But in times of war, when those most loudly crying “Havoc!” are people who’ve never put themselves in the line of fire, it’s perfectly appropriate to question that.
If Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-military, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that a record of military service would be more common among Republican pundits and politicians than among Democratic ones? If that isn’t the case, as it appears, what is the explanation?
Mike