PDA

View Full Version : Send your loved ones to war?


elwoodblues
08-30-2004, 11:37 AM
Is it a fair question to ask of someone who supports the war: would you send your son/daughter to fight in Iraq?

Michael Moore asked that of O'Reiley. O'Reiley refused to answer the question and only kept saying "I would fight" not "I would send my son/daughter to fight." Moore replied stating the obvious, we (older generation) aren't the ones who fight - it's our kids.


It reminds me of this (paraphrased) question asked to an anti-capital punishment presidential candidate: "If your daughter was raped and killed would you want the death penalty for the perpetrator?"

Both seem like cheap questions to me. I also think that both can be answered in cogent ways while still supporting one's original position.

Are questions like these fair questions to be asked of our political leaders?

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 11:45 AM
Funny, i just posted a similar question...

It is definitely a fair question, and although the death penalty comparison is similar, it relies on a different foundation. When you ask someone if they would still be against the death penalty, you're really asking if they could control their emotions and still have the same opinion. I don't see where that comes into play with a war. Given any circumstance where someone is a victim of a serious crime, most people are going to want the maximum penalty given to the criminal.

Bottom line, if you support the war, go fight or send someone to fight.. We need more people.

elwoodblues
08-30-2004, 11:50 AM
I've been thinking about posting this for a while --- your post is what prompted it. I didn't want to reply to it with my questions because I didn't want to hijack that discussion.

MaxPower
08-30-2004, 11:58 AM
I think it is a cheap tactic. It is fair to ask the question, but the questioner should not be proud of himself.

daryn
08-30-2004, 12:04 PM
it's clearly a bogus question for this reason:


the people who were sent to iraq SIGNED UP for the military. they were not grabbed from their homes and sent there. o'reilly says he would go fight, and that's a fair enough answer. why would he send his own child off to war when they have no say in the matter?

now if a child of his willingly joined the military, and then was called to iraq, i'm sure o'reilly wouldn't have a problem with it.

elwoodblues
08-30-2004, 12:04 PM
That's kind of where I come down.

For what it's worth, would you feel better about a candidate who answers the death penalty question with something like:

"I would want him executed. That is precisely why I support dispassionate juries to decide these things. We want cool minds to make these decisions beginning with a dispassionate legislature and ending with an unheated jury. If my son were killed, I hope and pray that our system of justice wouldn't want me deciding the fate of his killer."

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 12:05 PM
I think its a stupid question. Parents dont "send" their children to war. The children make their own choice to join or not join. No parent wants their kid to go to war. But its not a parent's choice.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
it's clearly a bogus question for this reason:


the people who were sent to iraq SIGNED UP for the military. they were not grabbed from their homes and sent there. o'reilly says he would go fight, and that's a fair enough answer. why would he send his own child off to war when they have no say in the matter?

now if a child of his willingly joined the military, and then was called to iraq, i'm sure o'reilly wouldn't have a problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't sign his own kids up to go to war, but he certainly could say "Hey, your country needs you, this is really important, I've been supporting it on TV, I feel this country is in danger, we need your help."

So, just because people voluntarily join the army means you can send them whereever the hell they want for any reason????????????? You may have a view that everyone that is there is just doing it for financial reasons, but some people sign up because of patriotism. They do it under the assumption that they will be sent for a just cause. Not as an expendable resource.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think its a stupid question. Parents dont "send" their children to war. The children make their own choice to join or not join. No parent wants their kid to go to war. But its not a parent's choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Is that what history has shown?

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 12:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So, just because people voluntarily join the army means you can send them whereever the hell they want for any reason?????????????

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, yeah. Its part of the deal.

elwoodblues
08-30-2004, 12:16 PM
Parents don't, but decision-makers/commanders-in-chief send children to war.

Is it fair to ask a decision-maker if you are willing to send other's kids, are you willing to send your own?

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 12:19 PM
Sure you can ask them, but I dont see the point. Its just cheap shot predicated on playing on peoples emotions when it comes to children. I would think that any decision maker would answer yes if he was willing to send the armed forces to war then obviously if his child was in the military than he would be going.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, just because people voluntarily join the army means you can send them whereever the hell they want for any reason?????????????

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, yeah. Its part of the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, its ok to start any war cause we have a volunteer army?

OK, I'll go start a fire in an abandoned building since we have a volunteer fire department.

Zeno
08-30-2004, 12:21 PM
I agree with the Vulture. Parents do not send their children to war. All military service is voluntary in the US and age requirements have to be met (at least 18 right?). So kids make the determination themselves. Influenced perhaps by a number of competing factors (that may include their parents) but in general they are adults and make up their own determinations in this issue.

-Zeno

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:25 PM
You guys are getting around technicalities of the question.. If you or someone you know are of age to go and fight, and support the war, is it fair to ask you to go? Let's talk about the spirit of the question.

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 12:25 PM
No its not ok to start any war. But once the decision makers decide that military force needs to be applied, thats it. They can send the troops where ever they want. I really doubt the guiding motivation behind the Iraq war was "Gee we have a military, lets go use it". I know there are people here that will of course argue that is in fact the truth.

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 12:26 PM
That seems like an obvious yes to me. Maybe I just dont get the spirit of the question.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:27 PM
Look at it this way, if we were being invaded, would you send yourself and ask others to fight with you? If the answer is yes, then your answer to the question should be "Yes, everyone who supports the war should be willing to fight in it." Because, our cause should be as obvious and just as if our own country was being invaded. You don't think people were coming up with these same type of questions during world war II, do ya?

Zeno
08-30-2004, 12:39 PM
That is probably a valid question to ask of individuals. If the US were invaded or threaten then I would volunteer to fight and urge others to do so, including my childern. I think that answers the question as posed.

-Zeno

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 12:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That is probably a valid question to ask of individuals. If the US were invaded or threaten then I would volunteer to fight and urge others to do so, including my childern. I think that answers the question as posed.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer reveals your feelings on the war, and most peoples I would assume "if the us were invaded or threatened"........ In other words you don't really feel threatened by Iraq!! (I'm not sure of your stance on the war Zeno.)

ddollevoet
08-30-2004, 01:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is probably a valid question to ask of individuals. If the US were invaded or threaten then I would volunteer to fight and urge others to do so, including my childern. I think that answers the question as posed.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer reveals your feelings on the war, and most peoples I would assume "if the us were invaded or threatened"........ In other words you don't really feel threatened by Iraq!! (I'm not sure of your stance on the war Zeno.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Zeno's answer reveals his feelings about what action he would take if the US was invaded. It gives no opinion on the Iraqi War.

You are now getting away from your original question, which in my opinion, has already been answered.

Unless the draft has been recently re-instated, everyone signed up for the military/reserves on their own free will. Getting sent overseas to fight is part of that package.

Did parents force their kids to join the military? Possibly. Not likely in every case. I stopped listening to my dad when I was 14.

Zeno
08-30-2004, 01:25 PM
Everyone over 18 that supported 'the war' should go and volunteer for the military? Is this your stance? I am not trying to be sarcastic. Just want a clarification and to point out the consequences of what I think you are implying (I could be wrong).

-Zeno

MaxPower
08-30-2004, 01:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That's kind of where I come down.

For what it's worth, would you feel better about a candidate who answers the death penalty question with something like:

"I would want him executed. That is precisely why I support dispassionate juries to decide these things. We want cool minds to make these decisions beginning with a dispassionate legislature and ending with an unheated jury. If my son were killed, I hope and pray that our system of justice wouldn't want me deciding the fate of his killer."

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think isn't important. I'm not the typical voter. I don't think the typical voter would respond to an answer like that. Its too cold.

Its tough to answer that question in an anti-capital punishment way without seeming like a wimp.

For what its worth, I oppose capital punishment, but my opposition has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to punish someone with death.

CCass
08-30-2004, 01:33 PM
I would be proud for my sons to choose to go into the military when they grow up. If they so choose, then I would expect them to go to war if called upon. I probably wouldn't be able to sleep, and would worry myself to death, but I would want/expect them to go.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone over 18 that supported 'the war' should go and volunteer for the military? Is this your stance? I am not trying to be sarcastic. Just want a clarification and to point out the consequences of what I think you are implying (I could be wrong).

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. The point isn't "An open heart surgeon couldn't go and fight cause they would need him here to save lives.." The point is, if the war is just, it should be so to the point where you would want to go and pick up a gun yourself. That's all.

Ray Zee
08-30-2004, 02:59 PM
i grew up during the draft. so then that was a proper question as the poiticians got their sons out and sent the rest of the countries kids to die.
now they are mercenaries and fight for pay. even if they sign up thinking otherwise that is really what they are. but it is unfortunate that many join thinking it is patriotic. and turns out that they are really just pawns for the politicians to play with.
too many times in history has the services knowingly had many harmed for bad purposes. such as lining up our troops in trenches and making them watch the atom bombs go off so they could see how many went blind. salute that flag. or on the beaches of europe having wave after wave get gunned down untill the bodies piled up enough on the razor wire so others could get through. i didnt see any officers leading those parades.
war is hell and shouldnt be entered unless it means your survival.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i grew up during the draft. so then that was a proper question as the poiticians got their sons out and sent the rest of the countries kids to die.
now they are mercenaries and fight for pay. even if they sign up thinking otherwise that is really what they are. but it is unfortunate that many join thinking it is patriotic. and turns out that they are really just pawns for the politicians to play with.
too many times in history has the services knowingly had many harmed for bad purposes. such as lining up our troops in trenches and making them watch the atom bombs go off so they could see how many went blind. salute that flag. or on the beaches of europe having wave after wave get gunned down untill the bodies piled up enough on the razor wire so others could get through. i didnt see any officers leading those parades.
war is hell and shouldnt be entered unless it means your survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you very much.

Wayfare
08-30-2004, 03:19 PM
First off, where is the evidence that soldiers were lined up in trenches to see how many would go blind? Not some website, evidence please? More importantly, the second part of your quote:

"or on the beaches of europe having wave after wave get gunned down untill the bodies piled up enough on the razor wire so others could get through. i didnt see any officers leading those parades."

Ray, what in you talking about in terms of officers not leading the men at Omaha beach? CO's and NCO's were the ones in the field leading those men onto the beach, and actually died in a higher percentage compared to the enlisted men they led. Obviously you can't have generals leading the first wave due to their strategic importance, but plenty of brave officers went in with their men.

Also, it was not the "piles of bodies" on the razor wire which helped the men get through places like Omaha beach. It was the percentage of them that got past the beach to the shingle and helped flank the defensive emplacements. There was a massive ship-bound artillery bombardment proceeding the battle, as well as flybys by Marauder bombers and parachute drops designed to hamper / disrupt the defenses. At every beach except Omaha did those measures prove successful in creating a relatively safe landing.

Any careful study of WWII will contradict almost everything you wrote in your post. Instead of pure cynacism towards the politicians that lead our country into military action, we should remember that at the time of the events in question, Adolf Hitler ruled Europe and was not planning on giving it up without a fight. Those in power had to make difficult decisions, and every possible outcome involved the unavoidable death of brave men. Don't confuse the present situation with the real dangers we faced fifty years ago. Vietnam, Iraq, and WWII are not the same no matter how much equivocation you want to heap upon them.

Toro
08-30-2004, 03:38 PM
It is a great question and it is precisely what the President of the United States should ask himself everytime he sends our sons and daughters into combat.

And the answer should be "only when it's absolutely necessary to protect our national security".

The fact that people in the military are all volunteers now is irrelevant. Yes, they should expect to go when it is necessary but only then.

Wayfare
08-30-2004, 03:41 PM
They should expect to go when they are called to go. It's not your determination when that is the correct time, nor is it theirs. If you are not prepared to go to war for your leaders, DO NOT SIGN UP TO DO IT.

Zeno
08-30-2004, 03:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i grew up during the draft.

[/ QUOTE ]

So did I. I dislike being personal but will to a small extent just for this thread. I was a draft lottery # 25 during the Vietnam conflict (this was based on your birth date and then there was a lottery drawing for those who don't know).

It went so far as I took the preliminary physical (this is where they screen out all the unfit people for the military - and they do reject a high percentage of people). This was a large conflict for me and the country was very divided and with general ugliness on all sides. Friends told me not to go, some said to volunteer and get a choice etc. I will not detail the reasons but suffice to say I decided not to volunteer or go to Canada or anything else. I would just wait until I was drafted and serve to the best of my ability. (Not everyone that was drafted went to Vietnam; the majority did; however, some went to Germany or South Korea etc.)

I received letters from the draft board about what to expect saying...'everyone under lottery number 75 can expect to be drafted in three months."

Then one day I got a letter saying that I would not be drafted. Tricky Dick had 'ended' the war.

I was lucky. Many people were not. But I was going to go.

-Zeno

elwoodblues
08-30-2004, 03:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you are not prepared to go to war for your leaders , DO NOT SIGN UP TO DO IT

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the type of thinking that gets us into trouble.

MaxPower
08-30-2004, 03:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They should expect to go when they are called to go. It's not your determination when that is the correct time, nor is it theirs. If you are not prepared to go to war for your leaders, DO NOT SIGN UP TO DO IT.

[/ QUOTE ]

All Hail King George our divine right leader.

adios
08-30-2004, 04:00 PM
Ok I'll bite should soldiers who sign up for the military have the option to not fight if they're called upon to do so? Put another way, when should soldiers, who volunteered for military service, not be obligated to fight in a war when ordered to do so?

MaxPower
08-30-2004, 04:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll bite should soldiers who sign up for the military have the option to not fight if they're called upon to do so? Put another way, when should soldiers, who volunteered for military service, not be obligated to fight in a war when ordered to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm not even sure why you are responding to me. Isn't there already some kind of process in place for conscientous objectors?

Wayfare seemed to be suggesting that our elected leaders can use the military any way they want and we should not be allowed to question them. I don't agree with that.

adios
08-30-2004, 04:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea. I'm not even sure why you are responding to me. Isn't there already some kind of process in place for conscientous objectors?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain that people who volunteer for the military are screened for their being concientous objectors and I'm fairly certain that they will not be accepted into the military. Could be wrong about that. I'm not sure what happens if a serviceman declares concientous objetor status while in the military. Legitimate concientous objectors could be relieved of their obligation to serve when drafted. In a military where the ranks come from volunteers, having the option to pick and choose what wars they fight on seems like chaos.

[ QUOTE ]
Wayfare seemed to be suggesting that our elected leaders can use the military any way they want and we should not be allowed to question them. I don't agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take it that way at all. I took his comment to mean that if people sign up for the military they're obligated to fulfill their committment. The president doesn't rule by fiat. He had to have the approval of Congress to go to war in Iraq which he got overwhelmingly including a lot of votes for approval from Democrats.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 04:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea. I'm not even sure why you are responding to me. Isn't there already some kind of process in place for conscientous objectors?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain that people who volunteer for the military are screened for their being concientous objectors and I'm fairly certain that they will not be accepted into the military. Could be wrong about that. I'm not sure what happens if a serviceman declares concientous objetor status while in the military. Legitimate concientous objectors could be relieved of their obligation to serve when drafted. In a military where the ranks come from volunteers, having the option to pick and choose what wars they fight on seems like chaos.

[ QUOTE ]
Wayfare seemed to be suggesting that our elected leaders can use the military any way they want and we should not be allowed to question them. I don't agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take it that way at all. I took his comment to mean that if people sign up for the military they're obligated to fulfill their committment. The president doesn't rule by fiat. He had to have the approval of Congress to go to war in Iraq which he got overwhelmingly including a lot of votes for approval from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point isn't whether or not soldiers should follow orders..

It is clear and simple. Stop falling off the path. The question is this: Do you support the war to the point that you would go yourself, or be willing to lose someone you love for it. Clearly there have been times in history when most could say yes. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE TIMES?????????????????????????????

Toro
08-30-2004, 04:58 PM
Read my post! You miss my point completely. Yes they should expect to go when ordered. That's why it is incumbent of our leaders to be sure that the cause is worth the lives they risk.

Just because they volunteer is not justification for our leaders to think "well, they volunteered, so it's ok to send them". The cause has to be compelling enough that if it were their own son or daughter in that unit, the decision would be the same.

adios
08-30-2004, 05:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The point isn't whether or not soldiers should follow orders..

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically yes. In my original response I alluded to the fact that blindly following orders of all sorts no. However, in the case of the Iraq war, my answer is yes. The soldiers volunteered for service and thus they're obligated to go. It's incredible to me that someone would believe otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear and simple. Stop falling off the path. The question is this: Do you support the war to the point that you would go yourself, or be willing to lose someone you love for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, since I would have had to have volunteered to do so of course. Same with loved ones. It was their choice and thus they're obligated.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there have been times in history when most could say yes. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE TIMES?????????????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

In Viet Nam we had this thing called the draft which was involuntary. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could not make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary service and believe it's that such a choice is not very relevant.

BeerMoney
08-30-2004, 06:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point isn't whether or not soldiers should follow orders..

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically yes. In my original response I alluded to the fact that blindly following orders of all sorts no. However, in the case of the Iraq war, my answer is yes. The soldiers volunteered for service and thus they're obligated to go. It's incredible to me that someone would believe otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear and simple. Stop falling off the path. The question is this: Do you support the war to the point that you would go yourself, or be willing to lose someone you love for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, since I would have had to have volunteered to do so of course. Same with loved ones. It was their choice and thus they're obligated.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there have been times in history when most could say yes. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE TIMES?????????????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

In Viet Nam we had this thing called the draft which was involuntary. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could not make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary service and believe it's that such a choice is not very relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

A: 3*3=9

B: No, you're wrong, 7+8=15

vulturesrow
08-30-2004, 07:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is clear and simple. Stop falling off the path. The question is this: Do you support the war to the point that you would go yourself, or be willing to lose someone you love for it. Clearly there have been times in history when most could say yes. IS THIS ONE OF THOSE TIMES?????????????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that wasnt the original question but whatever. I say yes. Every person I have talked to over there says yes. All my friends say yes. There will always be dissenters but I can say with certainty that most of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are proud of what they are doing there and think we did the right thing.

Kurn, son of Mogh
08-30-2004, 07:37 PM
I don't think the question is fair at all. Nobody is being "sent" to fight. We have an all-volunteer military. When you join the military in peace time, you accept the fact that if there is a war, it is your job to fight.

Kurn, son of Mogh
08-30-2004, 07:39 PM
So, its ok to start any war cause we have a volunteer army?

We didn't start this war.