Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 2 of 3
Finn,
Then we are left with the old:
"We can't afford to stay in Iraq indefinitely!"
Followed by the tried and true response:
"We can't afford not to!"
For my own part, I'd like our enemies to coagulate into a fightable force again. We can bomb a Headquarters and we can shoot a tank. It's much nicer than this amorphous blob of random resistance.
Plus it'll take them some time to rebuild and organize. Possibly more than a decade.
We could use that time to recover financially from this burden, and to plan the next engagement in a superior manner.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know. You said. But when we go back in to bomb the HQ and shoot the tank, it’s going to last about a month, then it will become the amorphous blob again. It sounds good because it achieves the only goal most Americans care about in this case, which is getting out of the mess in Iraq. But beyond that it’s really not much more then the standard practice of relying solely on American airpower, which we employed throughout the 90's. And maybe that is the best solutions for Iraq, I don't know.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
For my own part, I'd like our enemies to coagulate into a fightable force again. We can bomb a Headquarters and we can shoot a tank. It's much nicer than this amorphous blob of random resistance.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well,
In the old days, when you fought a war, you took over the country.
You occupied the country entirely. It became a part of your country. All of the assets of the country became yours. The assets of the country helped to pay for the costs of your war.
Then you moved colonists into the country in large numbers. The colonists intermixed with the native population to some degree. Acclimation of cultures occurred. If you were lucky, then in 2-4 generations, you became basically one people. If you weren't lucky, then some kind of revolution kicked you out of there.
It was a long-term and dedicated process, but since the process was partially funded by the conquered people, then (assuming they have valuable resources) it was an affordable process in some cases.
But wars haven't been fought like that in a LONG time.
So I have no idea what you're supposed to do with an enemy that really is never going to like you or submit to you.
You can't kill them all. You can't police them forever. If you leave, they'll regroup and rearm and attack you later.
So I guess the new method of war is you blow them up every ten or twelve years until one of you gets tired.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know some see this as horrible naive, but I truly believe that Iraqis are just like everybody else. Give a guy a house to live in, a job to work at, a school for his kids, etc., and I do not believe he will readily blow himself up for anyone or anything.
Now, here's the role that we play: Big Bad America, coming into occupy Iraq and smash Islam on a "Crusade" (GWB's Freudian slip). We solidify resistance and nurture distrust - we're a convenient target. The vast majority of Iraqis, just regular folks, are drawn to the 1% of darksiders because they become certain that we are evil invaders - they aren't working, so they have a lot of time on their hands to sit around and stew. The ingroup always unites against the outgroup - it's been proven time and time again.
Things weren't better for Iraqis before, but they were stable - this makes for some rose-colored memories.
What if we weren't there to be the target? What if we left and forced them to solve their own problems?
I know it's been said before, but I must finish with this... President Bush has openly lied. His policies and statements have been disastrous failures over and over again. Why would anyone propose supporting yet another (more of the same) course of action?
Americans aren't stupid, we're just locked out of the running of our own country by the children of privilege who think they know better.
If anyone disagrees with me, I'd ask this question: would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?
Hero, I know you like having a conservative President, and that's really okay - it's better than okay - it's the beauty of our system. Unfortunately, this conservative president is also a moron and a liar who can't string together a thought half as coherent as most of what gets said on our little FFF.net. He's stupid and a slow, slow learner.
I'd have to say that the 95%/5% ratio of anti-Bush comments in this here thread should tell you something.
He's just a bad, bad person. That's it.
"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?
This isn't directed at me, but I'll answer it. I'll answer it because I HATE this argument whenever I see it.
I would completely support my son's decision if he wanted to join the military, even if it was a time of war. I'd sit down and explain to him that there's a chance he could die horribly or experience grotesque horrors the likes of which modern humans aren't conditioned to see. Then, if he said he still wanted to join, I'd give him a hug, tell him I was proud that he'd found some direction for his life, and give him my every support.
The decision do join the military or not isn't based on your love or hate for the 'war of the moment.' It's based on what you wish to do with your life, and where your priorities lay.
As to part II of that question, "Why aren't I in the Marines?"
Well, because I'm out of shape and lazy. There was a time I considered joining the military. I have a lot of respect for their mission. Namely, protecting and serving the United States of America. But I just couldn't see myself getting through boot camp. Honestly. I've promised myself that if we're ever invaded I'll join the militia and do the best I can with my SKS rifle.
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.
If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?
If we had a popular war, and everyone who supported the war was required to join the Marines, wouldn't that make the country grind to a halt? You wouldn't expect 300 million recruits during a popular war, would you?
So why do you ask the supporters of an unpopular war to join the Marines, and then chastise them for not doing it?
It's bad arguing. I'm tired of hearing it.
Plus, it's not needed. You can argue against this war all day long without chastising supporters with, "Why aren't you joining the Marines? Why aren't you throwing your children at Iraqi insurgents like hand grenades irrespective of their free will? Didn't you know that if you don't do these things you can't have an affirmative fcuking opinion?"
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today
Whne ppl stat talking about"they" and "them" and "the enemy" w/o any specificity I kind of wonder about their lack of mental clarity.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, they did. And then Khmer Rouge, backed by the North Vietnam government and advantaged by US disengagement in 1973, took control and systematically murdered ~2 million people in a genocidal campaign between 1975 and 1979. Indochina would continue to be destabilized by regional wars for many years culminating in the collapse of all US allies in the region. Was that an acceptable result for US disengagement? Most Americans think it is, but then again most Americans keep the Khmer Rouge and US withdraw from Vietnam intentionally separate in their minds. They don’t like to compare the two. Even more troubling is that in hindsight we realize that Vietnam may not have been a lost cause, but rather we lost because of a lack of political will at home, both in government, the populace and the media.
First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners. So they, them evil commie VeetKong terrorists and genocidal types, done been rehabilitated, they're now former ex-" axis of evil" folks, and our good buddies now. Maybe if that war had ended earlier, they'd 'a been our ALLIES in 2003, part of the dreaded "worldwide coalition in the global war against terror."
Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever. Those happened after we left, and while they are tragic, the USA has no right to stick its big snoot into everything that happenns everywhere on the whole gorram planet, especially if the locals don't want us there.
Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.
"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, 33 years after we crap out on an ally we can regain normal relations with the region.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners.
Quote:Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever.
Quote:There are no world cops. International politics relies on vigilantes in white hats to save the day. The nations most capable of operating in that regard are the rich Western powers, of which America more then most has been willing to put itself on the line.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
the enemy is in Iraq today? that's why we should stay?
I've got news for you, we have enemies everywhere, and we are making new ones every day.
Iraq is a recruitment engine that isn't going to just peter out. Why? because we have not given anybody reason to trust us...we have not proven to the world that we can make things better there,nor that our interests are benevolent. We have not proven it to the iraqis.
90 percent of iraqis believe that Iraq is worse of now than it was under Saddam. 60 percent of them think its okay to kill Americans.
So which Iraqis are the bad guys? The 90 percent who think they were better off under Saddam, or just the 60 percent who think its fair and reasonable if somebody should happen to blow up an American?
If we need to kill 60 percent of the Iraqi population in order to win this war, then I applaud us for our excellent start, but at what point are you advocating more of a genocide than a liberation? And if that is truly what you believe is "winning", then could you please come out and say it already.
People in that country are having a hard time staying neutral because that leaves them with no protection. I wonder how many of them could not be connected to any of those groups you've determined to be the enemies.
Maybe you could define who fits your definition of the good guys we're fighting for in this conflict. That would help me out alot. thank you.
And vague titleslike the iraqi citizens isn't really going to cut it.
This fact really shouldn't need repeating every time you guys start talking about Iraq, but I guess I'll have to repeat it anyway. The Pentagon admits that this war creates terrorists faster than it kills them.
that means that this war has self sustaining reasons for the conflict. It's a never ending loop...a fatal error. We're really going to have to step up how we kill people over there if we want to fill that hole in with manfill, faster than we are digging it.
.........................
on edit
Just to clarify with you----
kurds definitely not our enemy then? that's good to know. I'm sure we don't have any documentation of killing any kurds, because after all, we only kill terrorists over there.
Now that we've identified the good guys, which are 20 percent of the population, we can proceed with a much cleaner and more efficient method of extermination. Thank you for your help.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um... pretty much everyone except the Kurds and al Qaida I mean, whatever happend to "dead or alive"? 9-11? Does this mean you favor attacking Iran and Syria too? And what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the home base and bank (respectively) of al Qaida and the 9-11 terrorists?
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
BTW- there very damn few Iranians or Syrians in Iraq. I like how you swallow the latest bait, hook, line, and sinker.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.
If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?
An interesting point you make there, one that I was thinkin on for a while after telling some of our boardies to go fekkin fight it, if they support it so much.
Yes, if you support it that much, if you believe in it that strongly, YOU go fight it, sure - but as you say, what about those unable to serve ?
I'd say you're morally obligated to find some use of your respective talents to materially support it in a useful fashion, dependant on what those talents are.
And if you have nothing useful to bring, then I say slap a camera in your hand and embed you with a patrol unit.
imop - straight up, if you support a war wholeheartedly as long as it costs you nothing, as long as you have to expend no effort of your own beyond taking a larger tax bite (an effort shared with the unwilling, mind you!) and only as long as someone ELSE pays the cost in blood and sorrow...
Then you damn well DESERVE to be drafted, rocketed through training and shipped to the front... have a good firsthand look at what you are foisting on others without putting forth any effort of your own for.
And that brings me to something I wanted to propose to Zero when he pointed out that he was not physically capable of serving.
You know, given their structure and foul reputation, now that they are serving as more or less mercenaries in an active warzone, Blackwater could probably benefit from the services of a a Provost Marshall and CID team to keep the excesses to a minimum.
Yer certainly bloodthirsty enough, and if you've been honest with us about your employment then you're probably qualified - not to mention it'd probably pay a nice chunk of change.
So how about it, put your money where your mouth is ? or not ?
As for this..
Quote:
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.
So what, they're not, repeat NOT, realistically any threat to me, none, zero, zilch, nada - they're over THERE ------->
<------- and I'm over HERE
Beyond the random chance of being bombed by some crazy, which could just as easily be some homegrown loon like Krar or McVeigh, and that bein the cost of bein a free country, such as it is, those folk are no significant threat to me personally and likely never will be.
For mine own, until someone lands an invasion force, fuck em.
Should that happen, I wouldn't give even odds on them reaching the nearest walmart, but even so, try to save some for when me and the boys from cass corridor get there, we'll give em the drive-by of their lives.
The US Army now, they ARE a threat, ask any resident of NOLA disarmed by the 82nd and thus left unprotected while armed looters and rioters ran wild how they felt about that, ask any WACO survivor for that matter.
But the primary threat to me, personally, from the US Army is felt every day, right in my WALLET, damn yer eyes - someone hasta pay for all those shiny toys, all that ammo, training costs, food and what have you, and that's us, you and me, and I am damned sick and tired of supporting a massive standing army so that imperialist morons can play world police.
And if we hadn't thrown down Mossedeigh and propped up the Shah, thus destabilizing the region and making them despise us in the first place, we would not likely have these problems, it's our damned meddling that causes them in the first fucking place - we propped up the Shah, an
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Have you ever been in support of any conflict anywhere in the world at any time in your life?
Since your position is that anyone who supports any conflict for any reason must personally and materially support the fighting of that conflict, I guess that every conflict that you've supported has resulted in you joining UN Peacekeepers, Marines, becoming imbedded as a reporter, or working at a bomb-making plant.
You can not make someone's opinion or vote contingent upon personal involvement in a war.
It's a rediculous position.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I call it, or what?
-----------------
U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans
...First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
Compounding American doubts about the government’s willingness to go after Shiite extremists has been a behind-the-scenes struggle over the appointment of the Iraqi officer to fill the key post of operational commander for the Baghdad operation. In face of strong American skepticism, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has selected an officer from the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq who was virtually unknown to the Americans, and whose hard-edged demands for Iraqi primacy in the effort has deepened American anxieties.
The Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, will be part of what the Americans have described as a partnership between the two armies, with an American general, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division, working with General Aboud, and American and Iraqi officers twinned down the operational chain.
--------------------------
In order for this to work, the USA has to whole-heartedly occupy Baghdad. In theory, I'm in favor of getting tid of Maliki and creating more of a power balance in Iraq. In practice... unless the Bush administration has some deep plans to scratch up Sunni allies in the area and redeploy all troops to Baghdad... I just don't see how this is going to work.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"
Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was a typo. OOPS!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
I'd suggest that the difference between this war and a popular war is that our military is stretched thin, has to keep changing its recruitment goals and standards, is stop-lossing the soldiers who are over there and want to come home - has just recently changed its policy on tours of duty!
You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice. Being out of shape is a really embarassing excuse in my opinion, to allow others to shoulder the burden for something you believe in. Saying that you are lazy is really disgusting in that context as well.
To be fair though...I'm out of shape, and I'm lazy..and I firmly believe that this war is wrong, and I'm not out there joining protests, and I'm not doing much more than donating a very little bit of the money I have to causes I think could change the conflict, or typing on this computer. I'd be willing to accept tht this condition is both embarassing and disgusting as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice."
I don't support this war. I'm not voting to support this war. I just object to bad arguments.
There are lots of good arguments against this bad war. Telling people that they have to join the military if they support the war isn't one of them.
I know we wouldn't want to hear pro-war people saying, "If you don't support this war, then you should give up citizenship and stop paying taxes, because every dollar collected contributes materially to the war effort."
Such an argument would be equally idiotic.
I want to see a day come when all fallacious arguments, regardless of position, are discarded in favor of logical ones.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fine points...
under the circumstances though, considering the state of our military and the disproportionate burden placed on the soldiers we have on the ground today, wouldn't that make the question somewhat more valid?
A person who doesn't support the war could still support American democracy, and wish to end it by democratic means...thus continuing to pay taxes.
A person who supports the war but doesn't fight, knowing full well that young men and women have already served their country to the extent that they signed up for, and are being forced into longer terms of absolute risk is not a supporter of the troops. Maybe that should be the distinction we make.
You can support the war but not the troops. That seems fair. If that's your stance, then you should not be required to answer for why you don't serve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You can support the war but not the troops. That seems fair. If that's your stance, then you should not be required to answer for why you don't serve."
Naw, that's another fallacious argument.
Let me see if I can get a good example going here.
Afghanistan. A huge helping of american citizens were in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11. In fact, I'm still in favor of invading Afghanistan. Our enemy had a massive support infrastructure there that was actually attackable.
What was the approval rating for Afghanistan? I think it was in the vicinity of 85%. Eighty-five friggin percent! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
(click on October 7th, 2001)
No-one (in their right mind) would argue that 85% of the US voting public should therefore be required to join the Marines, work at an ammunition plant, or imbed as a field reporter.
You see, people still need to get home equity loans, buy groceries, grab a burger at macdonalds, have their car repaired, get gas, get their trash picked up, have working utilities, etc.
It is retarded to imagine that 85% of the United States that supports a popular war (which Afghanistan was at its inception) should stop what they are doing and pack up and get a war job.
No one even imagines suggesting this during a popular war. But as soon as the war becomes unpopular (Iraq) then suddenly supporters are told that they should join the marines and sign up their children. (As though it was possible to sign up your children!)
That's just crap.
How do supporters support a war? By saying "I support that war." That's called support.
Now, I will provide a singular counterexample.
If a Draft is instituted, and a war-supporter is drafted, I don't expect him to run to Canada. That would make him 'full of excrement.'
Until then, he can work at any job he likes, and STILL have his opinion!
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
but again, the difference is that we didn't have a recruitment crisis....correct?
.....
on edit -
It can be completely patriotic to support a war and to go about living your life, paying your bills keeping america going. I never said differently. But when most people are doing that anyway, wouldn't it be a more patriotic choice for mister war supporter to support the troops in a way that is most needed under the current circumstances of a stressed military...by joining up? When that is the need...when soldiers are paying the price for that need, and you can fill that role, and you believe in that mission, isn't it your duty?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.
It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.
The government says, "We are instituting a draft. If you get picked, then we need you to support this war by changing your job."
It will be blindingly clear when/if that occurs.
Then, if I get picked, I will take my lazy, comfortable, out of shape ass and get myself to boot camp. Not because I support the war, incidentally. Rather because I support my country.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
then what do you make of stop lossing and sending injured and mentally traumatized soldiers back to the front lines? What do you make of our lowering of recruitment standards or the Pentagon's abandonment of its own active-duty time limits?
our government has found a temprorary solution to the draft. It's not a good one and it indicates a problem to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"wouldn't it be a more patriotic choice for mister war supporter to support the troops in a way that is most needed under the current circumstances of a stressed military...by joining up? When that is the need...when soldiers are paying the price for that need, and you can fill that role, and you believe in that mission, isn't it your duty?"
When the government decides that they need my fat, lazy ass in this conflict, they will write me a letter that says, "You've been drafted."
At that moment, changing my job becomes part of my support for this government. At that moment, I change my job.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"then what do you make of stop lossing and sending injured and mentally traumatized soldiers back to the front lines? What do you make of our lowering of recruitment standards or the Pentagon's abandonment of its own active-duty time limits?
our government has found a temprorary solution to the draft. It's not a good one and it indicates a problem to me."
Sounds like recruitment is low. When it's in 'CRISIS' as you like to call it, they will send me a letter to let me know.
What part of this is complicated?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From my understanding the optimal troop strength ratio in Baghdad is really much closer to 1:50.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"
Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:From my understanding the optimal troop strength ratio in Baghdad is really much closer to 1:50.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"
Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Yeah, Sig said he mis-typed.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I call it a crisis because of who is paying for the low recruitment.
You don't think any of those things I named are a crisis?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If your point is that people are not being asked to make significant sacrifices at home to support the war then you are right. However your making a pigs ear out of expressing that view.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ooh...what's that?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If your point is that people are not being asked to make significant sacrifices at home to support the war then you are right. However your making a pigs ear out of expressing that view."
My point is this (And how did I become a pro-war supporter by advocating good arguments?)
If someone says "I support the war"
it is NOT a good argument to say,
"If you support the war you must sign up for the Marines and sign up your children, too."
My point is: that response is idiotic.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I should have been clear, the previous comment was directed at Rightous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I personally am not accusing you of being a pro war supporter. I may have thought that's what your earlier post suggested because you said you don't sign up because you're lazy and out of shape, which I inferred to mean you have no other reason not to be part of this war.
I think there's a valid reason for asking somebody why they don't serve in this conflict as it stands currently.
I don't disagree with you entirely though. And to ask somebody why if they believe in a war their children aren't over there is kind of a weird quesion. You'd have to ask them if their kids believe in the war and if so then why aren't they over there, and quite frankly you'd have to ask the kids...and while you could certainly look to the kids answers to make some judgement about the parent, the argument is so far removed at that point that it is really kind of weak.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I looked it up.
what part of my argument do you disagree with fletch?
Pig's ear is a nice insult and all but adds nothing to what I actually consider to be a converstation, and not a battle of ideologies.
It enlightens me in no way. but, i'll admit, it does sting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think there's a valid reason for asking somebody why they don't serve in this conflict as it stands currently."
No, it's only a valid reason if it is asked ALWAYS.
In other words, If it was a popular war, you'd have to ask the same question of 85% of the population. And therein lies the logical fallacy.
The answer, of course, is that the Government does not want 85% of the population to join a war effort. It would devastate the country.
The answer, incidentally, is the exactly the same right now. The government does not want fat, lazy armchair warriors in their military right now. There is no active recruiting campaign that says, "Fat, Lazy? Were you a nerd who never played sports? Are you likely to pull a muscle if you sprint 100 feet? Does climbing a single flight of stairs make you winded? WE WANT YOU!"
Now, in a recruiting crisis, the government does not care anymore. They will take everyone they can. 30 something armchair nerds included. When there is a recruiting crisis, they are no longer picky. They won't just ask you to join, they'll tell you that you have to join because they need you. They will put your fat ass through six months of boot camp if that's what it takes to get you into fighting trim. They will reject only the most obviously flawed individuals. That's what a recruiting crisis looks like. That's when the government sends you a letter in the mail asking you to change jobs.
When I graduated from High School, I had no obvious job prospects. I was working at Radio Shack. I also believed in the mission of the US Armed Forces. I almost joined. I spent a long time seriously considering it. I had extremely serious doubts about my ability to make it through boot camp, and that is the only reason I didn't join. It could have been a rewarding career.
As it is, things have turned out all right for me. I got a good job working for a bank. I can make my mortgage payments and support my family.
But if they did send that letter, if they were desperate enough to want me, I'd sign up. Irrespective of my disdain for the current conflict.
Serving in the military should have nothing to do with your opinion on the war of the moment. Likewise your opinion on the war of the moment shouldn't force your joining of the military.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I looked it up.
what part of my argument do you disagree with fletch?
Pig's ear is a nice insult and all but adds nothing to what I actually consider to be a converstation, and not a battle of ideologies.
It enlightens me in no way. but, i'll admit, it does sting.
Essentially I agree that not everyone is making an equal contribution to the war effort which I think is your point. The problem I have is this weird idea that you should only be allowed to support a war if your or your children are willing to pick up an M16. That's insulting and stupid.
I had 2 uncles that served in WW2. One joined the Royal Navy and was assigned to cuisers. The other was a merchant sailor before the war and as that was a "protected" profession he wasn't drafted. He spent the war mainly in the north Atlantic convoys. After the war my Navy uncle would always say that my merchant marine uncle had the harder time. You don't need to be in the military to fight a war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and it's time we freakin learned it.
Out. Now.
Not my damn problem.
Didn't want it in the first place.
Not on my dime.
Clear enough?
-Frem
Jeez, Frem , you cut right to the chase , don't ya?
Where can I sign on?
Frem for Prez in '08?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.
It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.
How 'bout, " all you National Guardsmen, we're upping your active duty committement to 24 months at a time. So tell your civilian boss, at your civilian job, that we're gonna take you away for 2 years, and then we can call you back again and again, if we need you, as often as we want."
That's the new policy, announced just the other day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At 50:1 civilians to soldiers (it's 30:1 in Kosovo) that brings the required Baghdad force (population approximately 6 million) to 120,000.
BTW, Iraq has had three Prime Ministers since 2005: Allawi, Jaafari, and al-Maliki. Almost as changeable as Italy. I wonder if they'll get a fourth in the very near future?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.
It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.
How 'bout, " all you National Guardsmen, we're upping your active duty committement to 24 months at a time. So tell your civilian boss, at your civilian job, that we're gonna take you away for 2 years, and then we can call you back again and again, if we need you, as often as we want."
That's the new policy, announced just the other day.
And when it all isn't enough, and there's a war still to fight, and they send letters to people like me... that'll be the neon sign that says "Crisis."
I guess we just have a different 'crisis' threshold.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry to beat a dead horse here anthonyt,
but the situations are vastly different between a popular war and an unpopular war.
I've dilineated them. It's a matter of need, and its a matter of the treatment of the currently serving soldiers.
You want to say they are the same. I've said they are different based on the above reasons. If you're going to say they are the same again, then please adress the above reasons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"AnthonyT
I'd suggest that the difference between this war and a popular war is that our military is stretched thin, has to keep changing its recruitment goals and standards, is stop-lossing the soldiers who are over there and want to come home - has just recently changed its policy on tours of duty!"
Your argument then, is that the difference between a popular war and an unpopular war is how thin our military is stretched? That's the criteria that should make war supporters have to join the military?
Well, I can ALMOST see some logic in that.
And I say again that when the military really IS stretched too thinly to do its job, there WILL be mandatory service in the military.
Not based on an opinion.
Rather based on a country of residence.
I will never advocate military service becoming mandatory based on the expression of an opinion. That is, and continues to be, ludicrous. (Perhaps even Plaid!)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?
This isn't directed at me, but I'll answer it. I'll answer it because I HATE this argument whenever I see it.
I would completely support my son's decision if he wanted to join the military, even if it was a time of war. I'd sit down and explain to him that there's a chance he could die horribly or experience grotesque horrors the likes of which modern humans aren't conditioned to see. Then, if he said he still wanted to join, I'd give him a hug, tell him I was proud that he'd found some direction for his life, and give him my every support.
The decision do join the military or not isn't based on your love or hate for the 'war of the moment.' It's based on what you wish to do with your life, and where your priorities lay.
As to part II of that question, "Why aren't I in the Marines?"
Well, because I'm out of shape and lazy. There was a time I considered joining the military. I have a lot of respect for their mission. Namely, protecting and serving the United States of America. But I just couldn't see myself getting through boot camp. Honestly. I've promised myself that if we're ever invaded I'll join the militia and do the best I can with my SKS rifle.
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.
If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?
If we had a popular war, and everyone who supported the war was required to join the Marines, wouldn't that make the country grind to a halt? You wouldn't expect 300 million recruits during a popular war, would you?
So why do you ask the supporters of an unpopular war to join the Marines, and then chastise them for not doing it?
It's bad arguing. I'm tired of hearing it.
Plus, it's not needed. You can argue against this war all day long without chastising supporters with, "Why aren't you joining the Marines? Why aren't you throwing your children at Iraqi insurgents like hand grenades irrespective of their free will? Didn't you know that if you don't do these things you can't have an affirmative fcuking opinion?"
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Looks like I struck a nerve...
Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.
Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.
It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.
Finally, why don't you get off your ass, get in shape, and join up? I'm sure they're all super glad that you "respect the mission." You talk big for somebody sitting stateside. Your excuses fall flat.
And in answer to your next question, yes I did serve in the US Army. I am a veteran and proud of it. I ask you respectfully not to denigrate our armed forces again.
Since there are other valid arguments against the war, this one isn't needed? Bullshit. It just hits too close to home for you.
Your other "arguments" don't merit response.
"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Looks like I struck a nerve...
Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.
Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.
It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.
Finally, why don't you get off your ass, get in shape, and join up? I'm sure they're all super glad that you "respect the mission." You talk big for somebody sitting stateside. Your excuses fall flat.
And in answer to your next question, yes I did serve in the US Army. I am a veteran and proud of it. I ask you respectfully not to denigrate our armed forces again.
Since there are other valid arguments against the war, this one isn't needed? Bullshit. It just hits too close to home for you.
Your other "arguments" don't merit response.
"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"
Hey there Phoenix,
You sure did strike a nerve, and thank you for noticing. Fallacious arguments always strike a nerve with me.
Here is your fallacious argument:
"That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission."
The argument equates to, "Would you kill your son for no reason?"
Well, when you put it that way, no, I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would. But if you ask someone, "Would you allow your son to serve in the military, fight in wars he doesn't choose, and risk his life for his country?"
Well, that's a lot closer to the truth. Even though I can't make anyone serve, nor make anyone not serve, I would completely support my son's decision if that's what he wanted to do. And I'd be proud of him.
As to the other question, "Why don't you get in shape/join up?" The answer is, if I haven't made it abundantly clear: I don't think I've got what it takes.
If the government ever gets to a point that they don't care, and they draft me, I'll go where I'm sent.
Now, Phoenix, if you're still reading, which I doubt, I will explain (again) why I think the argument is a bad one.
You can't make or expect someone to serve in the military for having an opinion.
In other words, it's okay to think the war is a good idea and not sign up to join the military.
There was a book written by Heinlein, a popular Science Fiction writer. It was called Starship Troopers.
In Starship Troopers, only military veterans were allowed to vote. The idea was that only people who were willing to put their lives on the line in armed conflict for their country should have the right to express an opinion that mattered.
We do not live in the Heinlein novel. We live in the real world. In the United States. And in this country, and in this reality, EVERYONE gets an opinion. And they don't have to sign up for military service to have an opinion.
So if someone says, "I believe in this war" it's stupid to counter with, "Why aren't you in the military?"
I believe in putting out fires, but I'm sure not a Firefighter.
I believe in the importance of sanitation, but I don't work in the Sewers.
I have never denigrated our armed forces.
I don't believe that the war in Iraq is a good idea.
I do believe in arguments that work.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it. You certainly have as much or more of a choice to get the hell out, as Anthony has to join the military.
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
Looks like I struck a nerve...
Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.
Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.
It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Have you ever been in support of any conflict anywhere in the world at any time in your life?
That we have been involved in? no.
I did serve a stint, and a further in the reserve - till the army actually violated the terms of my enlistment contract, something we abitrated rather than handling via lawsuit, and still remain on the IRR rolls, although physically too messed up to serve in an active conflict, I can still be called to serve in cases of invasion, civil disorder or natural disaster, which if need be I would do, sure... someone hasta fill sandbags during a flood, might as well be me.
As for invading some other country in clear violation of the Constitution I swore to uphold and protect ? - I would have responded just as I did on two rather notorious occasions before when illegal orders were issued to me, "With respect sir, go to hell!".
(Both times command fully supported such a refusal)
See, when I took that oath, I had a clear understanding of the Constitution, and one of the reasons we went to arbitration was due to the moral crisis of serving a government that was rapidly becoming an enemy of the very things I swore to protect, in a standing army that in and of itself violated those very principles, thus leading to service in the reserves and finally IRR when phsyically mangled (auto accident) beyond the ability to serve actively.
I don't feel it's a ridiculous position at all, if you believe in a cause so strongly you should support it, staunch religous folk pay a tithe and attend church, unless their own principles are in conflict with those things, yes ?
I am not askin someone to do so to voice an opinion, an opinion is just that, but if someone feels so very strongly supportive of something, it's an honest, logical question WHY they're not physically supporting it.
I think this war is asinine, myself, and a disaster, and having served have utmost sympathy if not respect for our guys on the ground - screw politics, most of them don't wanna be there either and have a better appreciation of what a disaster this is, you see.
And so I send em care packages, a lot of the younger guys with no close family especially, without discussion cause there ain't no point to bitchin at THEM, and ride the hell out of my representatives to get em outta there in the meantime.
And so the question is both valid and logical, if someone supports it, then how are they supporting it ?
Quote:
I know we wouldn't want to hear pro-war people saying, "If you don't support this war, then you should give up citizenship and stop paying taxes, because every dollar collected contributes materially to the war effort."
I don't see where the citizenship thing fits in, since the IRS won't accept that anyhow, unless you know of a case where they have, which I don't... but the taxes now, what do you see me throwin a fit ABOUT, eh?
Being forced via threat of violence/incarceration to finance this lunacy.
The problem comes from not getting to choose where that money goes, cause having grown up in some VERY poor neighborhoods, I do wholeheartedly support AFDC and most social services, and if we cut em off those things would suffer long before military spending would, grr
As for a popular war, hell yes, if it's so popular raise some civvie militia and get over there and help, durn it, more boots on the ground don't hurt, and if they've not the training for line service, drive trucks and cook and what have you, freeing more line troops up for the front.
Not a bad idea at all honestly and one that has a great deal of merit.
Still, as I said quite clearly, it's a logical question to ask someone who supports a war in what significant material fashion that they do, that's not screechin at them to 'send their kids off' that's just askin them to put some stakes on the table, is all.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So sayeth King George. God save the King.
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Still, as I said quite clearly, it's a logical question to ask someone who supports a war in what significant material fashion that they do, that's not screechin at them to 'send their kids off' that's just askin them to put some stakes on the table, is all.
-Frem"
Ah, Frem, but the question isn't "How do you support the war?"
The question is, "Why aren't you signing up for service?" (And sometimes, "Why don't you make your kids serve?" which is even more rediculous.)
I myself don't do anything to support this war beyond pay my taxes. I often can be heard to tell people that this war is a bad idea, and that it's going to end badly no matter what we do.
I have been known to support the troops, though. Not with sweat and blood, mind you, nor artillery nor combat boots. But I have been involved in drives to send supplies and care packages to troops. (Including one case of Firefly DVDs!)
Now, if you want to ask a pro-war person, "What do you do to support the war in Iraq?" That would be a valid question. As valid as asking an anti-war person, "What do you do to end the war in Iraq?"
The answer will probably be things like, "I vote for people who support my position. I write letters of support for politicians who vote the way I want, etc."
Now, those are perfectly good questions and perfectly good answers.
But they're not arguments. Asking someone, "Well, if you like the war so much, why don't you join?" isn't an argument.
Or do you think someone's going to say, "Hey, you're right! If I don't sign up for Marine duty, I really DON'T support this war! I'm switching sides in this debate!" ???
Good arguments might begin with other kinds of questions.
Questions like: "How long is it going to take to stabilize Iraq?"
and
"Can we afford it?"
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it. You certainly have as much or more of a choice to get the hell out, as Anthony has to join the military.
I usually expect better of you Finn.
First, and most importantly as it relates to my response, since when did dissent with the government mean a greenlight to a trip out of the country? Since when did anyone with an opinion need to keep quiet about it?
Second, I don't think Phoenixship's point was clear. Would a person(s) send their child voluntarily to fight in THIS war? Not wars in general, not wars of defense, not a forced service somewhere due to a voluntary enlistment. Would YOU give up YOUR child to fight in THIS one; i.e., do you support the ethics/reasons to be in Iraq enough to sacrifice a child for them? I don't think it's an invalid point, however emotionally made it may be. Personally, I could say I would make that choice about many wars, but this one, not so much.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s my point exactly. Since when did not dissenting mean a trip into the military? A lot of military men and women have died so that we could have those opinions.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I usually expect better of you Finn.
First, and most importantly as it relates to my response, since when did dissent with the government mean a greenlight to a trip out of the country? Since when did anyone with an opinion need to keep quiet about it?
And I don’t think anyone should leave the country because they disagree with the government, I just wanted someone to make my point for me, because no one would listen to me otherwise.
Quote:It’s not a valid argument. Whether someone wants their child to die in a war has nothing to do with whether someone believes a war is right or not. You can believe a war is right and still not want your child to die in it. But ultimately, the decision of whether your child joins the military is not necessarily yours. Because no minor can be recruited into the military unless it is his or her deciscion to do so, however few recruits are minors, anyway.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Second, I don't think Phoenixship's point was clear. Would a person(s) send their child voluntarily to fight in THIS war? Not wars in general, not wars of defense, not a forced service somewhere due to a voluntary enlistment. Would YOU give up YOUR child to fight in THIS one; i.e., do you support the ethics/reasons to be in Iraq enough to sacrifice a child for them? I don't think it's an invalid point, however emotionally made it may be. Personally, I could say I would make that choice about many wars, but this one, not so much.
There could be certain cases in which a mother or father may believe in a war in which they try to shield their own child from it. You could call these hypothetical parents hypocrites, but that has nothing to do with the war, because parents often shield their children from things they believe or do themselves. But it strikes me as being a bit insulting to shake your finger at a concerned mother because you’ve got some ideological bent you want to push.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it. You certainly have as much or more of a choice to get the hell out, as Anthony has to join the military.
I usually expect better of you Finn.
First, and most importantly as it relates to my response, since when did dissent with the government mean a greenlight to a trip out of the country? Since when did anyone with an opinion need to keep quiet about it?
Second, I don't think Phoenixship's point was clear. Would a person(s) send their child voluntarily to fight in THIS war? Not wars in general, not wars of defense, not a forced service somewhere due to a voluntary enlistment. Would YOU give up YOUR child to fight in THIS one; i.e., do you support the ethics/reasons to be in Iraq enough to sacrifice a child for them? I don't think it's an invalid point, however emotionally made it may be.[/qoute]
Phoenixship:
Thanks for clarifying if I wasn't too clear. I was referring to this war, and specifically the "surge". Can anyone honestly see this as anything but a hail mary? It's a last-minute attempt at salvaging a legacy for one evil man - paid for with the blood of whoever dies between now and the day he is forced to give up his crusade. How would any of us feel if a loved one perished during that gap of time?
Yes, it's true... it is an emotional appeal. I wondered when someone would call me on that - guilty as charged. You've hit on what is admittedly the weakest aspect of what I said. Emotional appeals are fraught with risk.
sevenpercent:Quote:
Personally, I could say I would make that choice about many wars, but this one, not so much.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
Phoenixship:
Also, to remind anyone, I never proposed that EVERYONE who was in favor of this "war" should be required to sign up - just those of us who are so quick to wave the flag and volunteer others to fight and die.
And as for the suggestion that we're not yet at crisis stage, anyone who thinks so is simply not paying attention. "We're a coupla county lines passed crisis stage."
"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's an emotionally charged artificial argument. NOBODY would deliberately sacrifice their child for any principle, at least nobody that wasn't at least a little crazy. Likewise if someone was at an age where they chose to enter the military then they would be at an age where they had their own life and make their own decisions. I know my mother didn't have much luck persuading my brother not to join.
So at it's core this is a playground argument not much better than "my dad's bigger that your dad" except in this case it's "if you believe in it so much why aren't you the one dying for it?"
But even that's an artificial argument. You don't ask "if you believe in law and order why don't you become a cop?" or "if you want someone to save your family from a fire you should join the local fire brigade." It's generally accepted in our society that we contract certain individuals to perform certain services for the rest of us. That is what the professional military is, a career like any other. He doesn't have to do the job personally to still believe it needs to be done, just like he doesnt need to be in a police cruiser to believe in law and order.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But they're not arguments. Asking someone, "Well, if you like the war so much, why don't you join?" isn't an argument.
Argument or not, it IS a valid question to ask, on that point I will stand.
Also equally valid is the question "So what are you doing to stop this madness ?"
I don't see either question as irrelevant or an affront at all.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think what's at issue for the folks hanging their argument on this "would you send your kid into this mess?" gambit is their belief that something has gone wrong with the pro-surge people's empathy. The pro-surgers seem perfectly willing to believe in this disgusting, face-saving, 11th hour, presidential stunt, in spite of the mountain of bodies and trillions of dollars that point toward another innevitable conclusion to our American Iraqi adventure (if all we needed was 20,000 extra troops to win this thing, why didn't we send them in LAST YEAR?). In their desperation to reach the Finns of the world they try to bring the "reality" of the situation "home."
"Would you feel proud if your son or daughter died fighting in this current war, or would you feel disgusted and used?"
But a lot of times, the folks who most need schooling are the least available for it. In other words, if they could understand what you're trying to teach them, they wouldn't have needed the lesson in the first place.
In my experience, when people turn abusive (that is, lose their empathy) there's no talking to them until they're quite in another mood. America has been stuck in this rageful, vengeful, jingoistic mood for 6 years now. I always thought it would come to an end. After Afghanistan. After Shock and Awe. After Abu Ghraib. After Fallujah. After Iraq?
What I'm certain of is that it will come to an end. The bloodthirsty rage will end. Enough people will have died. And then we will find the strength to put down our swords and get on with the really hard work of living with our mistakes and with our moral failings.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It’s not strength that will allow us do that. The easy option has always been to give up.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Case in point. 
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yawn...Finn,
give up?
Give up on what? this isn't the war we went in to fight. We were lied to, and I personally bought the lie. Now I find out that our mission wasn't what I threw my support behind. that's not giving up...that's asserting control as citizens over our rogue government. To do otherwise would be to give up.
We're there for the wrong reasons...it took lies to get us there...we are doing more harm than good there...I'm done with the "well we're there now" argument, and "we can't be quitters" bullshit.
At least put the argument in the right context. That of, "we fucked up over there and leaving might not be the best way to handle things."
That kind of candor could go a long way towards finding an actual solution. I don't know what we should do at this point, but I surely know we should stop lying to ourselves about it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see why we can't just compromise Hero.
Why can't we just mind our own f
ing business and become an isolationist country, and retain the right to bear arms and smoke a fing cigarette when we feel like it?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You want candor? Remember AnthonyT, the guy you were just trying to paint as a hypocrite because he wasn’t towing your line? He’s on your side! He’s opposed to the war. He wants to leave Iraq. But unlike you, he actually had intelligent arguments and an actual interest in discussion. You don’t. You don’t have a clue what I think, and you wouldn’t listen to me if I told you. What you and Pheonix and HK have is ad hominem. If someone disagrees with you, then their hypocrites or they hate their children or they don’t have any empathy, i.e. their “evil.” How the hell does that go anywhere towards finding a solution?
Originally posted by Righteous9:
That kind of candor could go a long way towards finding an actual solution. I don't know what we should do at this point, but I surely know we should stop lying to ourselves about it
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're wrong about whether I would listen to you. I would. Every once in a while my political and world beliefs really do come under crisis. Every once in a while I do discover that I was in fact wrong as I see it now. I really do listen to what you have to say, and care more than you know.
But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.
Where was I guilty of the ad hominem you suggest? I really do wish to watch those sorts of things.
I also don't know where I was painting anthonyt as a hypocrite, except in one post where I also indicated that yes, I might be a hypocrite also.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause.
Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.
Baghdad ??? !!!
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not going to get into all of your points, the ad hominem and sophomoric arguments which are specifically designed as red herrings are clearly presented in this thread and many people including AnthonyT, Fletch2 and myself have pointed them out. You don’t need me to review them for you. But as for my response to HK, that’s a valid question and the answer is that it isn’t supposed to further any discussion. HK’s position is that I’m evil (lacking empathy) if I don’t agree with him. And I’m not going to argue on that puerile level, so my response to him was sufficiently curt. But it was true. It is easier to give up, after all giving up ends the war, right? Well, not really, it just ends it for Americans. The “rageful, vengeful, jingoistic” violence will continue magnified many times, but it will be easier to put out of sight and mind for most Americans, and perhaps some people will sleep better, but I will not. Maybe you and HK can’t understand my point of view, which makes me reluctant to spend too much time presenting it to you, but I don’t want another Khmer Rouge, because America gave up. And maybe that’s inevitable or maybe Iraq will surprise us all and stabilize after we’re gone, I don’t know but I want us to try and make sure.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.
Edited to add: After eating a hotpocket and reviewing my last two post here, I wonder if I haven’t been overly pointed in my language? I think HK ticked me off with his implication that I’m evil, and I lost it at Righteous. Anyway, just imagine that I’m using more measured language.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment, and it is often a long commitment. Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad. We’re securing Baghdad because that’s where the violence is, not because it’s our last stronghold. Before you can reverse a “stunning loss” you first have to identify that such a thing exists. The nature of the war in Iraq is a counterinsurgency in Baghdad. There’s no stunning loss, that’s just what the war is.
Originally posted by rue:
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
The only place going well is nothern Kurish Iraq. And that is being destabilized by the influx of Sunni refugees. The US military has given up the entire Anbar province. They say there is nothing that can be done to 'win' that part of the country. The British, who formerly had an easier time in the south have given that up as well to entrenched militias..
Baghdad has become a focus not because the rest of the country is going so well, but because it is literally the only place left the US (and Britain) hasn't given up on.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The war in Iraq is all about Baghdad, because that's where the violence is. I don’t think your characterization of it fair. Anbar province is a big dessert with huge international borders that will probably always be difficult to police. But the problem is Baghdad. You claim that Baghdad is our “last stronghold,” but in reality most of the war occurs there, so it’s hardly a stronghold much less our last. And it’s also critical to maintaining control in Iraq. If Baghdad falls, so does the country.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
In all fairness, I don't think that you can control a country by controlling a single city. I don't think that the 'enemy' is entirely located in a single city. I think that most of the fighting happens in baghdad because that's where most of THEIR enemy is.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do what Bush is doing- redefine the objectives and "enemy" so that a loss is a success and the enemy becomes our ally.
The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause. Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.
Baghdad ??? !!!
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
Which is in all likelihood the better course. Bush& Co really stepped in it when they defined Sunnis as "the enemy" and cast their lot with the religious, Iran-oriented, vengeful majority Shiites. (The Kurds are more or less not in the picture.)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is most definitely NOT true. If the hostile forces- however defined- entrench, that actually makes things easier because you can conquer territory decisively. But the biggest problem that our armed forces have is that the warring forces have been very mobile- "melting away" in the face of force only to return when force is w/drawn. As one of the generals said "willing to trade space for time".
First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment,
Quote:Yes
and it is often a long commitment.
Quote:Not true. "The insurgency" is alive and thriving in Anbar Province according to this Jan 15 article
Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad.
Quote:www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_49344.shtml
According to counter-insurgency experts, many young insurgent recruits were trained in six towns in Anbar: al-Qaim, Haditha, Anah, Hit, Fallujah and Ramadi. As a result, these five towns have witnessed particularly heavy clashes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of local citizens and the destruction of thousands of shops, schools, houses and government buildings.
"Today, the situation is spiralling out of control with the return of insurgents and the increase in the number of those displaced as a result of sectarian violence," said Muhammad Rabia'a, media officer for Anbar province council in Ramadi, some 115km west of the capital, Baghdad
You can't control a nation from a single city and I don't think that is the intent. The problem in Iraq is power struggles. Where one group clearly dominates, there is no problem. But Baghdad is a very mixed city.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it.
That attitude is an insult to the ideals this coutry was built upon.
Blind obedience, or get the hell out? The Founding Fathers would spit in your face for that.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is it too pointed to notice that Hero has slunk away since he "forgot" al Qaida as the number one enemy in Iraq? Is it too much to hope that he may wake up one day and realize that he's letting people do his thinking for him... to the point where he can literally forget one "crisis" (al Qaida) in favor of another (Iran/ Syria) within the space of one month and some propaganda?
Quote:Finn was being facetious to draw a parallel between "If you support the war join the army" and "if you disagree with policy get the hell out". Not sure I buy that it's an exact parallel (needs more thought) but that was his intent.
Blind obedience, or get the hell out? The Founding Fathers would spit in your face for that
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
since it was kind of brought back up, rereferencing finn's comment, I'll tackle the question of "why haven't you signed up" again.
I'm not really of the mind that the question is rhetorical...i mean just asking the question isn't winning the argument...nor is it an ad hominem attack.
It's a question that should be asked because the answer is relevant to the people who we have running our government. When we ask of Cheney "if you believed in the vietenam war, why didn't you serve?" that's not a spike the ball touchdown moment, and should not be used as such.
It's not the question, but his answers that are enlightening.
I do believe the question could be answered well. I don't think athonyt's example of being "out of shape and lazy" were good answers, because they beg the question, "if you believe in this country and this war then shouldn't you get in shape and stop being lazy and support the troops already?" those are things you are in direct control of after all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He doesn't need to reply because it's a stupid equivalence has as been mentioned by numberous people before.
To illistrate the point. Thomas Jefferson probably believed in the Revolutionary War, after all he was one of the folks that wrote that nice "Declaration of Independence" thing. By your reconing he should have been one of the first to collect a musket and charge down those Redcoats? As it was he spent his time in Virginia building his political career.
But at 33 he was probably a little too old at that time so let's say we give him a pass.
So lets look at James Madison, Father of the Constitution, who was 25 at the time about the same age as the kids in Iraq. Created the bill of rights, so definately a believer... bet he was charging those baracades..... hummm seems he was in Virginia too.
So even back way back in the birth of the nation nobody seems to have made the equivalence that just because you believe in the principle of a war you are obligated to fight in it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello all,
I'll revisit this one:
"Why don't you join the military?"
There's a lot of things I believe in that I don't support with anything more than words and money.
Fire control, disease control, and crime control among them.
I don't think I'd make a good fire man.
I don't think I'd make a good doctor.
I don't think I'd make a good police dept employee. (Actually tried that one.)
I don't think I'd make a good soldier.
It's not in me, man. I'm sorry if you see that as some kind of failing. I do things I think I can do well.
In an ideal world, I'd be a military policeman with emergency medical traning and a part-time civilian job as a firefighter.
I live in the real world. In the real world, I love our troops, I hate this war, and I work for a Bank.
Maybe YOU actually DO all the jobs that you are in favor of. Not me, man. Not me.
To quote Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations."
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you’re confusing a counterinsurgency with an insurgency. The counterinsurgency does not define the hostile forces, in this case. Clearly an insurgency however is not anything that could be described as an entrenchment; it is always offensive.
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is most definitely NOT true. If the hostile forces- however defined- entrench, that actually makes things easier because you can conquer territory decisively. But the biggest problem that our armed forces have is that the warring forces have been very mobile- "melting away" in the face of force only to return when force is w/drawn. As one of the generals said "willing to trade space for time".
Quote:Yes. It was facetious. Something I thought I had made clear, but thank you for point it out again.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn was being facetious to draw a parallel between "If you support the war join the army" and "if you disagree with policy get the hell out". Not sure I buy that it's an exact parallel (needs more thought) but that was his intent.
I’ve been accused of lacking empathy for American servicemen and told that the founding fathers would spit in my face, evidently, my own counterinsurgency has failed.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think you're use of jefferson or madison is an equivolence either, though I'll refrain from words like stupid...etc. They did sign their names to the declaration of independance...they did risk their lives. They did probably think they were best serving the indepencance where they were. See, that would be a good answer.
The fact is Cheney did answer. At one point he said he had "other priorities" and at another point he said "I would have been happy to serve had I been called." Of course he had been called 5 times previously. See, that's what's telling about the question.
and just to add, because I just read Anthonyt's last post, that truly might be an acceptable answer to the question. I'm not sure how i'd feel about it coming out of Cheney's mouth but it's certainly better than what he did say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The implication of your question, even if you don't come out and say it, is that if you support a war and do not fight in it you're a hypocrite. It's one of those snide, condeming questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?" You keep insisting that it's a legitimate question to which I will keep answering that if it is then it's a stupid one. It suggests that you can only express an opinion about a subject if you are willing to place your life and liberty or that of someone else on the line for it. I’m sorry but that's the rational of the fanatic. It's what makes ideas like "save a baby -- shoot an abortion doctor" possible.
I believe in law and order, I am not a cop. Does that make me a hypocrite? If I saw man acting strangely on my street I would dial 911 and have a professional look into it, not takeout a gun and do it myself. By your dubious logic I'm obviously not committed enough on the law and order question because I'm not taking personal risk, yet in most jurisdictions making the 911 call makes me a "responsible citizen" and using a gun to confront a stranger on the street makes me a “vigilante"
As to the Declaration, your argument works for Jefferson because he did indeed sign it, but Madison did not. So what was his excuse? Was he a hypocrite, which is where the logic of your argument would take us, or did he not make the same fanatical equivalence that you seem to be making? I also find it interesting that for the plebes the test of hypocrisy is apparently "do you believe in this principle enough to sacrifice your CHILD for it” but for important folk an “important job” is enough to avoid having to take up arms personally.
Nice to see you stand up for the little guy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Madison was an idealistic twit who didn't think we needed the bill of rights, specifically the second amendment, because "no one would ever dare.." etc etc.
His influance set us up for the horror that was Lincoln and the Civil war.
Don't even get me started flaming on him, Patrick Henry did a fine job of roasting him every chance he got, and history has proven Mr. Henry correct on every single point between them.
That being said...
It *IS* a legitimate question - if you are supporting a war, willing to send other people to their deaths, but unwilling to *materially* support it if YOU have to put forth any effort, if YOU have to take any risks...
How the hell do you sleep at night ?
The only reason folk are ducking it and calling it a stupid question is that they are having some conflict of conscience in there because they don't have any decent answers to the question.
And by the way, save the strawman arguments for someone who cares.
While some folk may have put forth the concept of putting yourself or your kids in this war, to which the reaction has been pretty nasty, let's turn that one around a bit then, for them that support this madness.
So, it's not ok to send your OWN kids, but perfectly fine to send OTHER PEOPLES ?
To send MINE ?
Think real hard about what you are saying.
You're saying "No, I wouldn't send MY kid, but I'll sure as hell vote to send YOURS."
Gee, real nice of you, thanks.
I've been nice, I've been reasonable, but on this completely asinine point, that's about to not happen.
Sure, have your opinion, that's all you, and of no concern to me, if you feel it's a good idea, what have you, who am I to say different, sure.
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it, it is at that point I want YOU to put an equal ante on the table, or face some well deserved scorn and vitriol for being hypocritical, thieving, murderous scum.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Precisely. It’s a sophomoric question designed to dismiss other people’s opinion by attacking their character, not further the discussion. Doesn’t make any difference whether it’s used against Cheney or not, although the idea that the legitimacy of question is defined by whether it can be used to attack a public figure speaks volumes as to its intent.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The implication of your question, even if you don't come out and say it, is that if you support a war and do not fight in it you're a hypocrite. It's one of those snide, condeming questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?" You keep insisting that it's a legitimate question to which I will keep answering that if it is then it's a stupid one. It suggests that you can only express an opinion about a subject if you are willing to place your life and liberty or that of someone else on the line for it. I’m sorry but that's the rational of the fanatic. It's what makes ideas like "save a baby -- shoot an abortion doctor" possible.
Do you believe in feeding starving people in Africa? Well, if you did, then you would be in Africa feeding starving people. Since you’re not, you’re obviously a callous twit and nothing you have to say about Africa, vis-à-vis starving people is worth listening to.
Do you believe in fighting crime? Well, if you did you would be a cop? Since you’re not a cop, you’re obvious a callous twit because you want to see old women mugged, and you’re not worth listening too.
Essentially, an infinite number of such questions could be posed, which leads us to a real problem since none of us can do everything that is required in order to meet the criteria requisite in these questions in order to have an opinion.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:King George wasn't that bad
Originally posted by SignyM:
So sayeth King George. God save the King.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"And by the way, save the strawman arguments for someone who cares.
While some folk may have put forth the concept of putting yourself or your kids in this war, to which the reaction has been pretty nasty, let's turn that one around a bit then, for them that support this madness.
So, it's not ok to send your OWN kids, but perfectly fine to send OTHER PEOPLES ?
To send MINE ?
Think real hard about what you are saying.
You're saying "No, I wouldn't send MY kid, but I'll sure as hell vote to send YOURS."
Gee, real nice of you, thanks.
I've been nice, I've been reasonable, but on this completely asinine point, that's about to not happen.
Sure, have your opinion, that's all you, and of no concern to me, if you feel it's a good idea, what have you, who am I to say different, sure.
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it, it is at that point I want YOU to put an equal ante on the table, or face some well deserved scorn and vitriol for being hypocritical, thieving, murderous scum.
-Frem"
Speaking of sophomoric straw man arguments...
There are two problems with your vitriol.
1) Nobody has voted to send anyone's kids into combat. Some people would like to deploy adults who have volounteered for military service into a warzone.
2) A society can not function unless people are prepared to vote to send other people to do jobs that they themselves are unable or unwilling to do.
The fact that you are not a Part Time Garbage Man, Police Officer, and Firefighter means that you are as much a Hypocrite as those you rail against.
It gets worse. Not all Police Officers are Bomb Disposal experts, yet they probably all believe in the virtues of Bomb Disposal, and would sit idly by (perhaps even offer support!) while other people's kids are sent to disarm bombs. The Hypocrites! Why aren't they taking courses in Bomb Disposal and suiting up in Bomb Suits themselves? Arseholes!
And you, Frem... I BET YOU SUPPORT THE BLOODY FIRE DEPARTMENT! YOU SCUM!
Why isn't it you running into all the burning buildings, Frem? My Cousin is a Firefighter, Frem. WHY DO YOU WANT MY COUSIN TO DIE?!
Shame on you, Frem! Go to hell, you cold, calculating Hypoctitical Bastard!
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That being said...
It *IS* a legitimate question - if you are supporting a war, willing to send other people to their deaths, but unwilling to *materially* support it if YOU have to put forth any effort, if YOU have to take any risks...
That's not what's being said though. Look back, I completely agreed with the point that we are seeing disproportionate sacrifices in this war. We aren't selling war bonds, we're not even having organises drives to get materal to comfort the troops let alone paying in higher taxes the cost of running the war. If that was his point he'd have my complete agreement. Since it isn't he doesn't.
Quote:
How the hell do you sleep at night ?
With a machine to help me breathe. You?
Quote:
So, it's not ok to send your OWN kids, but perfectly fine to send OTHER PEOPLES ?
To send MINE ?
No, what's being said is that to be "hard core," to be allowed any opinion you, Fremdfirma must be willing to put your kids lives on the line for it. Your opinion on the south, Lincoln, reconstruction? Retoric, worthless because you obviously don't really believe in it unless you are willing to sacrifice little Frem.
That's fanatic thinking. That's the kind of logic that says a real Muslim mother should be proud of her suicide bomber son because he proved he was a true Muslim dying for Jihad.
Quote:
You're saying "No, I wouldn't send MY kid, but I'll sure as hell vote to send YOURS."
Gee, real nice of you, thanks.
Right now nobody is sending anybody that didn't choose to place themselves in a possition to be sent. My little brother is a fireman. If your house caught fire and little Frem was trapped upstairs you'd probably want my brother to go into that house and try to rescue little Frem, because you know, that's his job. You love lil Frem you want to save her, I love my brother and want to keep him safe. I think we're probably both normal folks in wanting that. My baby brother, being who he is, will do whatever he can to save your kid. I didn't send him in there, you can't blame or praise me for that, he chose to do it because that's the kind of guy he is and the job he chose to do.
We have a professional military, nobody was drafted, nobody was press ganged off the street. Are there some in it that saw it as a short cut to college and didn't think they would have to actually fight? Possibly, but the intent of a military force is to fight an enemy and when you sign up to join it that's what you signed up to do just like firemen sign up to fight fires and cops to uphold the law.
If your house is on fire, if little Frem is screaming in a window and my little brother shows up with his crew you reasonably expect my brother to help. You have no problem potentially sacrificing him for your home and loved ones. I don't immediately think you are a heartless monster for wanting my bro to put his life on the line in that situation. I don't demand that the price for expecting your fire to be fought is that you join the brigade or force your child to. My brother is a professional and a hero in my eyes, I let him know that.
Quote:
Sure, have your opinion, that's all you, and of no concern to me, if you feel it's a good idea, what have you, who am I to say different, sure.
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it, it is at that point I want YOU to put an equal ante on the table, or face some well deserved scorn and vitriol for being hypocritical, thieving, murderous scum.
-Frem
Why don't you tell me what you really think?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
duplicate
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Frem's world, this country of ~300 million people contains a 1% elite who are allowed to have an opinion about war. This elite consists of the less than 3 million active duty military personnel serving in the US Armed Forces.
Frem himself is not one of those people. While he may have had the balls to risk his ass for an opinion in the past, he is no longer on active duty. So, since he is no longer personally taking the risks, he no longer gets a vote.
Frem does not get to have an opinion about when/if a burning building is put out by Firefighters. If he is not an actively serving Firefighter, he is not allowed an opinion. Only Firefighters are allowed to have any thoughts on the matter.
Frem does not get to have any opinions about crime, until and unless he straps on a badge. Only police officers can have such opinions.
In Frem's world, there are a hundred thousand voting blocks. Each of these voting blocks gets to form opinions only about jobs and situations that they are physically, personally involved in.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
I owe you an apology. My last post here was really kind of a mish-mash of a whole bunch of ideas that got crammed together into a too short post. I was having a whole crowd of thoughts and I felt I had some insight into some folk's obsession with a question which amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmail. I was trying to say that if you feel the need to resort to that kind of thing, and we all do from time to time, whatever you're trying to say won't get heard because the gulf between you and the people you're arguing with is too wide.
At the same time I was feeling like you and the other pro-surge folks were completely off your rockers for backing the thing. So the two issues (dumb-ass inflamatory argumentation, my own dismay over communication with the folks who support the surge) got mixed up and I ended up pretty much siding with the folks I was trying to critique. I'm no stranger to self-critique or to paradox so as I wrote the post it seemed reasonable enough to me. My bad.
I'm sorry for not taking the time to make myself clearer. I don't think you're evil by any means, but I do believe that you are gravely, gravely mistaken about our prospects in this war and have been from the get-go. As things just get worse and worse over there, I find your continued support of the project dismaying 'cause I know you to be a well informed and intelligent person. That the surge has gotten any traction at all in Congress and the nation brings my dismay and outrage over the whole stinking war to new heights. I believe the surge to be the latest in a long line of dispicable face-saving stunts perpetrated by this White House, one which our soldiers will pay for dearly. Honestly, it makes me a little crazy to contemplate it and I get a little mixed up about the whole thing sometimes. I see other anti-surge people getting mixed up and I can empathize.
But getting back to the rather more trivial issue at hand: I think this question "Would you send your kids?" Is a crappy, rhetorical, irrelevant, passive-aggressive attack. Americans obviously don't mind electing draft-dodgers into the White House. Not because Americans suck and lack courage or whatever, but because Americans are rightly, obviously, vastly ambivalent about warfare.
"Oh, no!" the b.s. questioner exclaims, "Ambivalence is the Devil and if your behavior can be seen to be inconsistent from any angle I can devise, you and everyone like you is a hypocrite!"
Inconsistency is not a crime, nor is ambivalence, particularly when it comes to huge issues like war.
Furthermore, I'd like to call b.s. on the over-the-top macho undercurrent of the question, the implication that Anthony "isn't a man" or some such crap for feeling too out of shape to be a soldier. Goddamn, people, let up, nobody's perfect, not even Frem.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the reasons you ask questions of public figures is because you want to know who you are voting for or who is representing you in office.
So I guess it does speak volumes that I would like to know those answers.
I absolutely agree with the both of you that the question has been used badly in the past...is still often used badly...
but the answer can be telling. I don't like the idea of having our soldiers sent into a conflict by people who were unwilling to serve themselves for a war they believed in..and that would go for Clinton as well. I'm not sure what his thoughts are on the vietnam war, but I know he didn't serve. I think an answer from him on that question would be more than warranted. It isn't the end all be all. It isn't any kind of coup-de-gras. But it's important to know.
When it's asked of people who aren't in office, I think HKCavalier is right, it's out of trying to get at some common thread with the person we are talking to...to get them to see what we don't think they see. Is the war worth the cost or risk of their son's and daughters? If they can not say yes to that, than maybe they should reevalute whether its worth the sons and daughters of their neighbors. That doesn't mean the people we're talking to don't see, but there is an obvious disconnect between us and them...these types of questions are in your opinion inflamatory, but in my opinion are an attempt at conveying something and of trying to understand.
I can't speak for everybody who uses the question, but you can't speak for me and why I think its an important one, though you certainly have taken the liberty to do so.
You also mischaracterize me pretty blatantly when you paint me as an elitist who thinks that there are different standards for different stations. I even said at one point that anthonyt's later post may be a valid answer to the question. that it's an important question doesn't mean that there's a right answer and a wrong answer.
Also,
You can believe in law and order and not be a cop, sure. Until you find an example of the closest thing to the comparison to servicemen who have no say in where and how long they are deployed, which has gone well and beyond what they sigened up for, you don't have an equivolent metaphor though.
the point is you are placing this burden on these soldiers, and up to the point where they signed up and did their time, that was a burden that they themselves took on, but it's gone way beyond that now. So fuck yes, it's a valid question. One that everybody should ask of themselves anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes. It was facetious. Something I thought I had made clear, but thank you for point it out again.
I’ve been accused of lacking empathy for American servicemen and told that the founding fathers would spit in my face, evidently, my own counterinsurgency has failed.
-- Cicero
Appologies for my knee-jerk reaction. I can take things a bit literally at times.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Until you find an example of the closest thing to the comparison to servicemen who have no say in where and how long they are deployed, which has gone well and beyond what they sigened up for, you don't have an equivolent metaphor though.
Now you're trying to change the subject. That's a question of degree, not principle. A lot of people in crisis situations are expected to work far longer than they are contracted to. I don't disagree that the military is being misused but to suggest that I can't use cops of firemen as comparable examples because of the extra effort the military is expected to put in is plain evasion.
Still I commend you, folks on both sides of the issue think your question is BS. It's nice to see that there are still some things on which we can all agree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Blah blah blah, and more blah blah blah....
Just get the troops home asap!
Get them out of the middle of that religious civil war...bring them all home now.
There is absolutley NO REASON to stay any longer.
We've done a noble thing....liberated a country from a ruthless mass-murdering tyrant, and given them an opportunity for freedom & democracy, 3 elections for a new governement, trained their police & military....BUT Iraqis don't want what we've tried to give...they just wanna fucking kill eachother and we have no business being there anymore.....and NO I really don't care if Iran attacks Iraq..not one iota..in fact maybe that would force the UN & Europe to do something... for once.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently there's been a reading comprehension failure here.
Quote:
Sure, have your opinion, that's all you, and of no concern to me, if you feel it's a good idea, what have you, who am I to say different, sure.
An opinion is just that, an opinion.
Quote:
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it
Different story, at that point - that's you, robbing me, is how I see it.
Doesn't look like anyone's gonna be reasonable, and it sure doesn't look like folks are going to re-examine sending others to die for something they only vaguely support in a halfass fashion, so screw it, my point is completely lost on folk it seems, guess that's a big part of why this mess continues.
And yes, if I support something so wholeheartedly as to strongly believe in it, I DO put forth on it - case in point, folks too drunk to drive.
Most cab companies have a seasonal program where they take a loss for PR value by running home drunks for free during new years, but the rest of the year yer pretty much out of luck.
I started offering said service year-round, it's not that much of a bite to my pocket all things considered and I feel better knowing these fools are NOT on the road, and cleaning vomit off the backseat is a helluva lot better than scraping some poor sodder and his victims off the asphalt, in my opinion.
Certain bars started putting up a kitty to pay me back for the service, which seems to be substantially contributed to by a lot of shall we say, repeat customers thereof, and so I don't lose out much if at all anymore, and in the end you have less folk climbing behind the wheel when they shouldn't be, which is a good thing, and one I believed in.
If imma jackass for asking folk put up an equal share for something they vote to have stolen from me, then imma jackass, so be it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I doubt there's any votes that say, "I vote to take money from Frem and to sacrifice his first born."
Rather it's more likely everyone gets to pay money, and everyone who volounteers for military service is at risk...
so how is your share unequal? How are you putting up more than anyone else?
I don't see your logic even one iota.
As for your drunk driving intervention, congratulations. That is a good and wholesome act.
That doesn't begin to make me believe that you back every vote you make with personal, physical involvement. Unless you hardly ever vote? That's possible.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG how did this happen?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I got a three-peat.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?
That is a MUCH better question.
Of course, those who have been paying attention know that I wish to end this fiasco as soon as possible.
My only excitement about the recent Bush proposal is that it was attached to an expectation of withdrawal before next year.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?
I'm against it. It takes time to set up a draft, select people, tran, equip and deploy them and that's just to get your most basic "point a gun in the right direction" infantry grunt.
If the government institutes a draft it means either they think the war will run at least another 2 years or they will need a LOT more men fairly soon. Otherwise the cost and disruption of the program doesn't make sense over just recruiting more folks into the military through inducements. I'm not sure anybody really want to be there more than another 2 years or wants large numbers of hastily prepared and rudementarily equiped troops thrown into the fray.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue has the better question sure...
Look, i'm snippy about this cause i've buried friends over it, ok?
Little knew what he was getting into, and nobody who defuses or disables dud ordinance for a living has any illusions about what'll eventually happen to em, but as for the rest - how do you explain to the kids mother when he signed up to get out of the hood and into college, and he comes back in a box, and for what ?
How do you explain that to the grieving parent of a friend ?
When it's bought us as a people essentially nothing but risk, debt and misery ?
And then to hear someone evidence support for it, but a distinct unwillingness to put anything on the line for it, how exactly do you think imma take it ?
As a general rule I tend not to ask folk to do anything for me that I would not do if the situation demanded it, is that so wrong then ?
And it's one thing to volunteer for service, and another to be held past your term and repeatedly stoplossed till your employer eliminates your position, your house is foreclosed and your wife bails - talk to some of these guys, especially the older ones who they dredged up from the IRR program, which was meant as a last-ditch defensive concept, it's sadly too common - we're askin a lot even of the ones who do come back at least half-sane and in one piece.
Quote:
That doesn't begin to make me believe that you back every vote you make with personal, physical involvement.
You didn't see the brawl around here over jackin my property taxes to build an un-needed new school in someone else's district...
They wanted a 'blank check' for their contractor buddies to sponge on, and no way in hell does a town with a population of less than a thousand need a school with EIGHT tennis courts no-thank-you.
We shot that proposal to bits, and then city council whines about taxpayers not being 'educated' enough to vote intelligently (i.e. how they wanted!) and wants to spend more tax dollars on a propaganda campaign to 'educate' us before the slap this idocy back on the ballot ?
To quote Book - "Not.Gonna.Happen."
If I put a vote to it, if I care that much, yeah, I'll generally do somethin about it - went down to Woodward to a meeting and fronted some bills out of pocket for Dean (yeah, I voted for him, afore he sold out to the DNC) and backed up Jenny Granholm pretty solid - and would love to see that useless criminal Cox right straight out of this state on a rail.
And of course, Firefly, right ?
Maybe i'm strange, maybe a lot so, but if I believe in something, yeah, i tend to back it up such as is possible, so forgive me if i don't really understand folks who don't.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Frem,
I guess you're just a superior human being.
Me? I believe in a lot of things, but only physically involve myself in a few.
I've voted on a myriad of issues, but I've never had the balls to 'brawl' anyone over my vote, much less to 'shoot' their bills. I never did more than place a ballot in a box. I also never personally fronted all of the money a political candidate needed to enact bills.
I *have* had co-workers die and get f-up on the job, but I never had to talk to little Johnny and explain why dad didn't come home.
Hell, I never even drove a drunk home who wasn't my friend.
I always thought I could have an opinion, even vote, without getting my ass personally involved in the issue in question. I thought I could do that and still be a man. Even a good man.
But now I realize I'm hypocritical scum that deserves to weep while Frem plays a humbling tune on the virtiola.
*sets the bar on high, and engraves it 'Frem'*
Behold, the bar upon which humanity is judged.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now yer just bein an ass.
Look, lemme put it in such a simple form as to get it through your pin head.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion.
But when you vote for something like this...
How can you morally justify sending people off to die for something you only vaguely give a shit about ?
Your moral position sucks, and you know it, and all the lame excuses in the world just do not cut it with me.
Your Mileage May Vary.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME