Our ambassadors of peace speak

PuterTutor said:
Was I willing? Yes.
Click to expand...

Was is the operative word here. I asked are, not were. And if you think you're stupid, that's too bad. I don't. A little confused, but not stupid. Here goes again.

1. You say that we need to go to war.
2. I say are you willing to go, too (note...able to go has not been mentioned).
3. You say that you were willing before. Note the past tense. We're talking today, right now, not last year, or the year before. That's what makes your opinion count. Are you willing to do what you ask others to do. If asked, would you respond, or opt out. If they come knocking, and ask if you can sign up after this thing takes off, will you come? That is what makes the difference. That seperates the hypocrites from the people who actually give a damn. That is what gives your opinions merit. Not words, not threats, not whether you're military or not, and not whether you're a citizen or not. Once more, the ball is in your court.
 
Oh my!!!

Well, I wish I had something clever to say, but I don't. Both sides have their merits. The "I won't go, I have a family approach," and the you must, its your right view is valid as well. Well, I don't no where to begin.

I can say, after reading through this whole thread, I'm favoring Gato's arguement.

I personally probably wouldn't go. Now I will give you my reasons as well if you like. I don't believe in MOST of what we have been fighting for for the last half century. Now, if there is another WW I will go. If there is a "real threat" to the US, I will go, age be damned, and family aside, I would go!!! Ok, I'm not that old yet, but by the time it happens I probably will be. The fact is simple though, if my family, my life, my freedom, and my country are not at risk, its not worth it. Saddam is not worth it, most of the things we have been involved with for as long as I can remember aren't worth it. To state it more clearly, not only weren't they worth it, I was opposed to most of it. I refuse to sign up, and give away my rights and my life for a cause I don't believe in. I will NEVER do that. If I believe in it, if its that important to me, if its life or death for my family, or country if I don't, I will go. Nothing like this has occured in my lifetime, not saying that it won't, but it hasn't yet. As things stand, I won't enlist, not EVER if things continue as they are. I refuse to be the "worlds policeman" and that is why I would NEVER serve. I object to the goals sorry, thats my excuse.

However, I don't feel that I'm a hypocrite cuz I don't approve of these silly wars or "police actions" if we are to be more correct.

My biggest problem is the families of our military men and women, and of the Iraqis. What about them? You guys won't serve, and frankly I won't serve either, but we (some of us) use arguments that our family is more important, our economy is more important, and well, I just don't want to die for this (that IS what you are saying, anyway you look at it). Ok, so you don't want to die for it. Obviously you don't want it that bad. You do want OTHERS to die for it, whether they be ameican service men and women or Iraqis. I can't agree with this arguement, no matter how it is made. Now I tend to lean to the right a little, but I will say this just the same. People on the right tend to argue logic, and reason, and leave the emotional appeals to the left, at least generally speaking. However, once logic and reason fails, we seem to rely on an appeal to emotion as well. Sorry, this is simple distraction. Ok, I'm using it too now, but the only way to argue against "an appeal to emotion" is with another. Its simple logic 101, if you can't beat the logic or reasoning behind your opponents arguement, attack the person, or appeal to emotion. Well, I did it too, I admit it. But I'm not trying to pretend I'm not.

I don't want this war, I don't want to die for some silly country in the middle east that can't manage to sort out its own affairs and manage a revolution on its own if they really "want a new gov't." Now I never argued that they DID want a new gov't, but some here have, so I'm just throwing that in. Its not our job, its theirs!!! Its illegal to interfere. Any International Law people out there want to argue otherwise? I don't want any of you to die for this, any of your children, or any of thier children, fathers or mothers (I mean the Iraqis).

This is stupid. I'm sorry, its just plain stupid. If we didn't play "world policeman" so much the towers would still be standing in NYC and if you guys can't see that, then you watch too much television. They didn't do it JUST because they hate us, they did it because we won't let anyone be. And if they do hate us, its because we THINK we are the "worlds policeman." If you want to stop terrorists, then stop showing support for overthrowing soverign nations gov'ts, and otherwise meddling in other nations soverign affairs, and the other illegal actions on our part!!! This isn't the first, and wont' be the last I'm sure.

by the way, the members of the military volunteered to serve and protect our country, not to be world policeman. At least last time I checked. Btw, why is it you think the US wants to be free from prosecution by the world court? Because these and other such actions are legal????


I'm sorry, but I think if you break down Gato's argument to the most fundemental form I must agree. If you don't support it enough to die for it, if in general ALL AMERICANS don't support it enough to die for it, then its not worth it (maybe he didn't want to say it that way, but I'm gonna put it that way, sorry).

We have a military to defend ourselves, not to build an empire. As such, I don't support all this garbage!!!
 
RD_151 said:
If you don't support it enough to die for it, if in general ALL AMERICANS don't support it enough to die for it, then its not worth it (maybe he didn't want to say it that way, but I'm gonna put it that way, sorry).
Click to expand...

Historicallly, the masses will roll over to whatever new power & leadership comes along. Most people aren't willing to die, even if their family is in immediate risk. It's easier to live with a brutal communist regime & actually survive than to fight for priciples that are only theory (see freedom).

If you recall the little problem NYC & DC had back in 2001 & had been paying attention to the world political turmoil, you'd se that the potential Iraq war has merit. He, saddam, has committed genocide. He's tested/used chemical & biological agents on the minorities & enemy of his state. He has/does/will support terrorism, both in the middle east & abroad. A prime example, he pays the family of Palestinian "martyrs" $25,000. upon their death to encourage such acts of violence against the peoples of Israel. He has never supported Palestinian causes before nor helped those people out. He has pissed down the back of the UN for 11 years & said it's raining. He has broken the truce he willingly signed in 1991 with the UN.

During most of that time, we had a weak, spineless leader who was unwilling to lead the world. Our economy was strong & as he spoke earlier, "It's the economy, stupid". We got involved in Hait & the Balkans, both of which required few resources. America has the responsibility to lead the world & be the World's Police because we are the strongest, biggest most potent power out there. If we turnour back, who is next to fall to a dictator? Turkey? Poland? Austria? Argentina? Brazil? There has to be a powerhouse willing to step in & avoid major world reconstruction.

It is a global economy. The more than fall to brutality & communistic ideals, the fewer there are willing or able to buy our products, which lower everyones standard of living. If anyone wants or needs to help out the struggling countries of the world, who better than the United States of America?

for the record, I'd be willing to fight in Iraq or anywhere else that supports terrorism. It would be for my family. Keeping the world safer from terrorism is a responsibility that rests on the shoulders of average men doing unthinkable acts in times of great peril at the expense of their lives to make the future a better place.
 
"not gonna do it" "wouldn't be prudent" What happened to daddy. he needs to straighten Jr. out a little. Just my opinon of course.

I don' think THIS is "prudent" at least "at this juncture" ;)
 
RD_151 said:
. If you don't support it enough to die for it, if in general ALL AMERICANS don't support it enough to die for it, then its not worth it (maybe he didn't want to say it that way, but I'm gonna put it that way, sorry).

We have a military to defend ourselves, not to build an empire. As such, I don't support all this garbage!!!
Click to expand...

My jist was not meant for all Americans, but for those screaming the loudest. You can't get all Americans to agree on something as simple as what a terrorist is or not, let alone when to go to war. No. My question is this. Are you, yourself, willing to do that which you ask others to do in your stead? I think it's a rather simple question that is only made complicated by those wishing to dodge the answer. ;)
 
Yes, indeed, its a very simple question. The answer is quite telling though isn't it!!!

I must admit, this was a very good argument. Its difficult to defend that we need something so badly, that its so important, that it MUST be done, when one is not willing to make a personal commitment or scarifice to do it. I for one will admit I won't make that sacrifce, not for this.

Ok, nobody agrees on anything, not with 280,000,000 to be in agreement. Even this board is never in agreement. Sorry, about twisting your words Gato, I did admit that it wasn't quite what you meant ;)

I'm just opposed to actions in Iraq, at least at this point in time. the "1000 points of light" aren't pointing towards Bagdad just yet ;)

You know, his dad wasn't a very good speaker either. :(
 
Ok, let me go at this from a different angle. I don't think the military needs me. For one, I'm 32 years old, getting real close to the age where they wouldn't take me anyway. Second, and this is my real argument, by the way.

War is not fought in the trenches anymore. Look at the last two major engagements we've had, Desert Storm, and whatever they called the Afganistan thing. Here's the scenario, we go in, we bomb the hell out of all the air defenses first using our stealth planes and smart bombs. Next we go after the ammo dumps, and any major concentrations of troops, then we start carpet bombing the areas that we suspect might put up some resistance. Then we send in the ground troops, to sweep the area, eliminate any threats that are left, and to mark and call in airstrikes if any major targets are found. This doesn't need the 1,000,000 troop army that we've needed for other wars. In fact, if you look at the casualties, I believe there were more friendly fire casualties than combat casualties in both of the recent engagements.

Also, one other thing, Gato, you say the military is actually needing people right now, didn't 9/11 give you guys a boom of new recruits? I thought I remember seeing reports of lines waiting at recruitment offices.
 
Hey, actually, thats a good point Puter, it is more of a technology based military. It is an important issue. However, you were concerned about loss of life, about your family, and i think our men in uniform, the pawns in this match, have families as well. Also, we have the Iraqis.

Gonz, made a good point as well. People will oftne, no, make that usually suffer at the hands of a dictator than suffer the hardship and uncertain fate of revolution. This isn't too difficult to understand is it. Better the devil you know than the one you don't. Isn't that a popular phrase? i wonder why? What makes it so likely the new gov't will be better. What ensures sucess? what IS success??? I'm curious. Aside from risking lives, the goals are not clearly defined, just like always!!! What happens after the colapse, what about the "peace keepers" who will stay behind for decades???? What about their familes? Don't you think they would prefer to live state side? I bet they would, you would!!! Wouldh't you? No, this is ugly. I for one am not willing to take any of the sacrifices at this time. I don't want to economy to dive, I don't want oil prices to rise, and I certainly don't want to die for this cause. I have almost no commitment. What about the rest of you? You are assuming there is no cost to you. What cost would you accept.

Lets put it this way, what is it worth to YOU to change this. Now, lets ask this about the people of Iraq. What is it worth to them? A son, a daughter, a whole family, a whole village, a 1000 casualties? What is the price you are willing to pay to change this situatin to a new and different uncertain situation?

Lets discuss what you ARE willing to sacrifice to do this? You family, your job, higher prices, where do you draw the line. I think that is the issue here. How much sacrifice are you willing to bring for this.

I won't pretend it won't benefit me to end this, to take him out of power, and to install a gov't friendly to the US (assuming all goes well). Sure, it potentially benefits us all. But what of the cost? What are you willing to pay for this? What if there is retaliation/ What if we loose D.C., NYC, or there is a small pox epidemic all of a sudden. Ok, the possibliites are small, but not so small as to rule them out!!!

What price is too high?
 
PuterTutor said:
Ok, let me go at this from a different angle. I don't think the military needs me. For one, I'm 32 years old, getting real close to the age where they wouldn't take me anyway. Second, and this is my real argument, by the way.

War is not fought in the trenches anymore. Look at the last two major engagements we've had, Desert Storm, and whatever they called the Afganistan thing. Here's the scenario, we go in, we bomb the hell out of all the air defenses first using our stealth planes and smart bombs. Next we go after the ammo dumps, and any major concentrations of troops, then we start carpet bombing the areas that we suspect might put up some resistance. Then we send in the ground troops, to sweep the area, eliminate any threats that are left, and to mark and call in airstrikes if any major targets are found. This doesn't need the 1,000,000 troop army that we've needed for other wars. In fact, if you look at the casualties, I believe there were more friendly fire casualties than combat casualties in both of the recent engagements.

Also, one other thing, Gato, you say the military is actually needing people right now, didn't 9/11 give you guys a boom of new recruits? I thought I remember seeing reports of lines waiting at recruitment offices.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with the question I asked? Are you, personally, willing to go? If the call goes out, will you answer, or will you say no? The cut-off, BTW, is age 35 for the National Guard and the Reserves, but that's niether here, nor there. Also...I haven't seen anyone under the rank of E-3 for quite some time. That means either a high wash-out rate, or the patriotic fervor died off when they actually read the contract.

I'll ask once more. Ignore the rest if it gives you a clearer view. Are you willing to do what you ask others to do?
 
Yes, I would, but I still argue that that is beside the point. I, as an American, have a right to say what Americas Army is going to do. Just because I don't serve or if I wouldn't serve doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid.
 
I don't think anyone is willing to commit to that Gato. That was my original question on the subject and I don't recall seeing a definitive answer yet.
 
hehe...I have to stop doing other things when I'm trying to post a reply....I always step all over myself that way.
 
The military is hear to serve us civilians. If we didn't want a military, it would be gone. That's what my DI would tell us :D.
 
PT, I can't agree that your opinion is as valid if you "wouldn't" serve. How can you not see the hypocrisy in that?
 
Because there are valid reasons for people not to serve. If everyone were required to serve, we would still have a draft. We don't, and mostly because the government realizes that people who are required to serve don't usually do as well as people that volunteer. But the fact that I haven't volunteered does not make me any less American.
 
Uhhh...Hate to say this PT, but you cannot, as an American citizen, say what the armed forces will do. Your duly elected representatives and the president have that task. You, as a citizen, can sway their opinions and influence their decisions, but that's it. As for the rest of the debate, I can now say that you are most definitely not a hypocrite. You are willing to take the same risks as those who you wish to do the job. It's more than just saying something. It's actually standing up and backing what you say. If you can't see the difference in all we've debated on this, then I don't know how else to explain it.
How about this...You have children. One day, they will be doing your yardwork. You can look at them at that point and have full knowledge that they aren't doing something you, yourself wouldn't do if nessecary (sp?). Not to say that we, in the military, are children, but it's the last straw I can grasp at. We'll call it credibility. Credibility builds respect for an opinion. Integrity also comes into play if, when the need arises, you do the job you're asking of others, no matter how small or onerous. That is what makes some people a leader, and others just mouthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top