Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How about a tour in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I agree that when you join the military, you have to serve wherever they send you. That doesn't mean that it is ok for the White House to sent them into harm's way without a damn good reason. It is up to the Congress, the media and the public to make sure that the President is given the authorization to go to war only as a last result. In that we all failed.
    I can't run no more
    With that lawless crowd
    While the killers in high places
    Say their prayers out loud
    But they've summoned, they've summoned up
    A thundercloud
    They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mraynrand
      How did you come up with 25%? What was your definition of success? What was your Dad's definition?
      success would be to create sustainable momentum towards stability. "sustainable" means done with a modest commitment of U.S. troops. The U.S., for a variety of reasons, can't indefinitely be the cop there.

      To give the surge strategy a 25% chance now would be optimisitic.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
        Originally posted by SkinBasket
        As far as the whole "sending your kids to fight argument," I think it's just more pussy ass nonsense. The "kids" signed up to be SOLDIERS, not peace corps workers,
        You are ranting against a straw man. The "kids to fight" conversation was about war supporters, not the soldiers.

        But whatever, maybe the straw man had a good kick comin.
        Yeah, you're right. I guess I should have realized you were focusing on all the people sitting around talking about the fighting instead of the people doing the fighting, because they're the important one's in all of this. They have much more at stake.

        But fine, let's pretend that this is about war supporters, and their apparent need to have a personal stake in the war in order to support it. Does this view extend to people who don't support the war? Do you think anyone who doesn't have a child in uniform should be allowed an opinion or belief regarding the war or that they can only be allowed an opinion that corresponds to yours? Just wondering since you haven't mentioned them.
        "You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SkinBasket
          Do you think anyone who doesn't have a child in uniform should be allowed an opinion or belief regarding the war
          nah, I don't care about Cindy Sheehan's opinion just because she had a kid in the war. I'm not saying people need a connection to the military to be taken seriously.

          I suggest that people should treat decisions about war with the same seriousness they would in risking their own personal safety. If you (hypothetically) wouldn't put your own ass on the line, or your kids, than don't put your fellow citiczen out there to die for an iffy cause.

          I understand that we have a volunteer army, and when fighting needs to be done, that's their job to do. But they are not mercenaries! In the first place, it is dishonest to treat them as hired guns, many of them joined for patriotic reasons, they were told that they are helping to protect America & American values. And secondly, it is suicidal to think that we could survive with a military detatched from public support, it would unravel under stress.

          Comment


          • #20
            Team America: World Police
            Originally posted by 3irty1
            This is museum quality stupidity.

            Comment


            • #21
              that was a damn funny movie.

              Comment

              Working...
              X