Our ambassadors of peace speak

Lets clarify this...We STILL have a draft. It is only suspended at the moment and could be in full effect as early as tomorrow morning. And, as an American, you still have a military obligation. That aside, it comes down to, why should ANY American fight and die for other Americans who think they are too important or too good or too special to be asked?
 
Were you on another planet last year when those planes slammed into the Twin Towers? We're already at war, the only question is whether we're going to fight or not. This isn't about playing policeman, it's about defending the country. You can argue until the cows come home about which of the countries over there we should attack first, but that's a question of how the war should be fought, not whether it should be fought.
 
You both are making good points!!!

I don't think there is a "right" answer to this. Certainly as citizens you have a right to support the actioins that your gov't and its military may take, and to encourage it to take actions you deem worthy. The people don't EXACTLY have the power to choose what actions the military should take though, I mean being a republic and all, as opposed to a direct democracy. At the same time though, its not exactly fair to say you have NO right to support one view or the other if you won't fight for it personally. You have that right. Of course, all of us have that right. Its free speech, and you are not forced to military service, so you have that right regardless of whether you are a member of the military. Its not a matter of is it "right" or "wrong" for you to want someone to go to war for an issue that he wouldn't personally go to war for himself. I think somewhere in here Gato's point got lost. It seems there is a little anger on both sides. He isn't arguing whether or not YOU CAN do something, or whether you should or should not have the right to do or say something, but whether or not it makes you a HYPOCRITE to ask others to fight and die for something that you would not fight and die for yourself.

Its certainly hypicritical, but we all are at times. Thats life. I think you as a citizen have the right to wish for our military to carry out some missioin that you deem worthy, and even to try to rally support for it, EVEN if you won't fight personally. However, it does't make it less hypocritical. To say you want it, but you won't fight or sacrifce for it is hypocritical. Is it so bad to be a hypocrite? Not really, we all are at one time or another.

I'm not in favor of any action there. And to be honest, in most cases, if I was supportive of some action, I would still have to tell you I wouldn't go. I won't lie about that, I wouldn't go fight, even if I was for this . And MOST of us feel the same way, whether we admit it or not. If it were a MAJOR WAR one in which everything was at risk, such as WWI and WWII, it would be another matter I suppose. Although, one could argue that we didn't need to participate in those either but thats another issue.

I still think that this is matter of the cost of war, and what one is willing to sacrifice, but thats just my opinion.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Were you on another planet last year when those planes slammed into the Twin Towers? We're already at war, the only question is whether we're going to fight or not. This isn't about playing policeman, it's about defending the country. You can argue until the cows come home about which of the countries over there we should attack first, but that's a question of how the war should be fought, not whether it should be fought.
Click to expand...

I've already conceeded that point in one of these threads Ards. But that takes us back to the logic of "Why isn't Saudi Arabia next on our list?". !5 of the 19 hijackers can't be dismissed as insignificant. But thats a whole other discussion.
 
"Were you on another planet last year"

Are you refering to me? Well, I thought we were at "war" against "terrorism." Kind of an abstract idea isn't it? No, we aren't at war with Iraq, I think ANYONE can clarify that issue for you if need be.

At war with whom?

Explain to me when exactly we declared war on Iraq?

I'm quite sure that if Saddam could be tied in ANY WAY to the acts on 911 Bagdad would be a glass factory by now.
 
Ok, directly, no. I can't tell you what to do. However, ultimately, the decision comes from the people, whether or not they are or plan to be in the military.
 
Well, not really. Most people were against attacking Iraq a few months ago. its only because our leader has been pushing so hard that public opinion has made such a dramatic change. I remember, cuz I was for it then, and the majority was not. I changed my mind of course, but so did the majority.
 
Sorry, PT, but, ultimately, the decision to use the military comes from Congress. If you don't like how the representatives are doing their jobs, then you can voice your concerns through your vote. That's where the true power of our republic comes from. The majority does not rule this country per se. The majority can decide the leadership, but the constitution clearly spells out what the majority can, and cannot, do. The people cannot declare war. The people cannot declare a military disaster. Only the legislative branch can declare war, and only the president can declare a military action. The founding fathers knew, as do we all deep down, that the majority is not always correct. That's why I say that, ultimately, the citizens of our nation can only make changes through our power of the vote. That's our contribution to the republic, and that's pretty much where our contribution ends. Vote for and elect the wrong person, and you're pretty much stuck with that bad decision for 4 to 6 years. At the end of that time, provided the pork barrel doesn't change your mind, you can elect to fire the person through your vote.

Credibility and integrity were the main issues as to whether your opinion counted. I concede that, based on the things you wrote, your opinion is more valid than I originally gave credit for. I will say this, and I hope everyone will take this to heart. There are those who do, those who will, those whocan't, and those who won't. Those who do and those who will are the people that can and will make decisions and form opinions that are the most valid. A close second goes to those who can't. Why? Because they may be willing but they are physically or emotionally unable to do something. Those who won't, regardless of their limitations are the worst to listen to. They will tell you what to do, how to do it, and why it should be done, but when it finally comes down to it, they feel that they are too important to make the same risks they ask you to make. There is no winning or losing that will make them understand where the right or wrong of the situation is, either. They are the ones who show up after the fight and dance the dance of victory if we win, or cast blame if we lose, never once offering their services when the fight is on-going. In this debate, there were quite a few harsh words spoken. Some by me (most maybe) and some by others in order to make their point. I do not apologize for mine, and would feel even more insulted if you apologize for yours. This debate has taken many twists and turns, but the main idea always remained the same. Either you can be counted on when the going gets tough, or you'll fade into the background, watch the carnage until the winner emerges, and pretend you were on the winning side. I feel that, even though we have differing opinions, our convictions are all on the same wavelength. The only thing seperating our views is the degree to which we'll go to enforce them.

This post was not directed towards anyone in particular, so please do not take it personally.

Thank you.
 
Damn fine job there, Gato.

You have a very good point, there are some people that will say what to do, how to do it, and never offer a helping hand to actually do the job, yet will take full credit after the job is done, or be the first to lay blame when it doesn't get done correctly. (Vietnam in a nutshell).

However, you say you still place those who can't a close second. I don't agree with that, as just because they can't, does not mean they are unworthy of speaking their mind. To me, the fact that I feel it is more important to stay with my family is the reason I can't. I would go if I felt I had to, but I'm not volunteering if I don't. Does that make me somewhere in between in your mind? I'm really not trying to change your mind here, I have given up on that, you will think and believe what you feel is right, just as I will.

I have a feeling I know where you are coming from now, however. I do not recall you ever mentioning your rank, but I am almost certain you are among the enlisted. I also suspect you have had an officer in charge of you that has told you to do things that he or she would not do themselves. That is wrong. Before I got into the IT field, I managed a Restaurant/Bar. One of my major duties in managing the restaurant was to train new staff. I prided myself with the fact that I knew how to do every job in the restaurant, down to cleaning out the grease trap under the sinks, and was willing to do every job in the restaurant as well. My employees knew that, and it made it much easier for me to ask or tell the employees to do something knowing that I had done it myself. The employees were far more loyal to me knowing that I was willing to get in there and clean out the grease trap myself than if I had sat in the office all day, barking orders to do the real work.

Also, never apologize if you feel you were right, I don't plan on it either.
 
Squiggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already answered the question and my answer was definitive. I am past the age that the military would accept now, so I didn't think it would mean much form me to simply assert that I would be willing if I were young enough. The only proof I could offer was that I was willing to go when the Gulf War was fought and would have joined up then if it had been necessary.

I knew from the beginning that neither you nor Gato would be satisfied with a simple assertion that, yes, I would be willing to go. I didn't want to get into a debate about whether I would really be willing, or whether I was just saying it.

"Would too!"

"Would not!"

It's stupid, and it's totally beside the point. The debate was about whether we ought to be fighting a war against Iraq. This BS about who is willing to serve is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against those who support the war.

Am I willing to fight for my freedom? Yes! Do I believe this war is necessary to defend my freedom? Yes! Would I be willing to go if it were necessary? Yes!

Is it necessary? No!

We pay taxes to support a standing, professional volunteer army. It's their job to defend this country. They accepted the job when they signed up. It's our job to make sure that they have the best training and equipment that money can buy, because, as Patton said, war isn't about dying for your country, it's about making some other poor bastard die for his. It's also our job to respect and honor the people who serve in the military. Above all, it's our job never to send them into a war that does not serve our country's best interest.

Sending our soldiers into BS "police actions" like Bosnia, Vietnam, Somalia, etc, was wrong. Those wars did nothing to make America more secure. There was no vital national interest at stake. I do not blame men who refuse to fight in such wars.

Having said that, I do blame a soldier who takes the country's money, receives our technical training, and then when asked to go fight a war to defend our freedom says, "you don't have the right to send me unless you're coming too." Yes, we do have the right to send him. We paid his salary, we paid for his training and he agreed to fight when needed. If we all have to go fight the war, then we don't need to worry about having a standing army. We'll just call up the militia when the shooting starts.
 
Squiggy said:
I've already conceeded that point in one of these threads Ards. But that takes us back to the logic of "Why isn't Saudi Arabia next on our list?". !5 of the 19 hijackers can't be dismissed as insignificant. But thats a whole other discussion.
Click to expand...

Iraq's not my first choice either, but it'll do.

Given the world-wide opposition to attacking a country that's launched two wars against its neighbors, bombed another neighbor with Scud missiles, used poison gas against dissident factions within its borders, is actively trying to develop a nuclear capability, and has defied UN attempts to end its quest for WMDs; how do you think a declaration of war against Saudi Arabia would go over? Yes, Saudi men participated in the attack on us, and I certainly don't think it's a coincidence. Where's the direct link to the Saudi government, though?

If you want to advocate that we start with Saudi, then go ahead. You realize though, that if we don't attack Iraq, we're not going to attack anyone. We're just going to become paralyzed, sit on our hands and wait for the next 9/11.
 
Personally, I think Iraq is just to "get a foot in the door." I think "we" are hoping that the rest of the middle east will be enraged, and it will justify general war in the region. That is what worries me the most about this. "Anyone who isn't for us, is against us" you know. Well, it wouldn't surprise me if we are banking on the fact that the rest of them are gonna get really pissed at us, pull some shit, and have us declare war on the lot of them. Their are a lot of terrorist supporting countries over there after all. Again, its just my opinion.
 
RD said:
If it were a MAJOR WAR one in which everything was at risk, such as WWI and WWII, it would be another matter I suppose.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think we're facing here? America & most of it's allies have been attacked, at one time or another. This will eventually lead to a showdown with China. Right now, we have to put a stop to the potentail outcome. Take away the troubles before they become dangers. If we (and the UN if they get off their ass) put an end to this now, the eventuality may be stopped. If not, piss ant countries like Iraq will have WMD's & our job gets a whole lot harder.

Ards said:
I do not blame men who refuse to fight in such wars
Click to expand...

If they join the military of their own free will & war, of any kind, breaks out during their enlistment & they refuse to fight. Cool. 20 years in the brig ought to teach them. They can not expect the perks of military life & then back out when the going gets tough.
 
Gonz said:
Ards said:
I do not blame men who refuse to fight in such wars
Click to expand...

If they join the military of their own free will & war, of any kind, breaks out during their enlistment & they refuse to fight. Cool. 20 years in the brig ought to teach them. They can not expect the perks of military life & then back out when the going gets tough.
Click to expand...

War didn't "break out" in Somalia. That was just our idiot president sending our soldiers over there on a "humanitarian" mission. A man doesn't sell his conscience when he joins the army. He still has to judge the morality of what he's being ordered to do. If 20 years in the brig is the consequence of refusal, then that becomes another factor to consider, but it's not the only factor.
 
That is a chance one must take upon entering the service. Somalia was a war. We didn't need to be involved though. The UN was taking care of business :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top