Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the army doesn't haev as many troops that it feels it needs at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I covered this in another thread. When was the last time the military as a whole started turning away capable people? Probably never? So there isn't a special need at this point. The military needed people before Iraq and it will need people after Iraq.

Also, for those that have been in the military (especially vulturesrow/Myrtle), how would this hypothetical sign-up-for-Iraq plan work? Can you just sign up to be "sent", or are you assigned to a unit, and the military decides if it needs that particular unit? My gut tells me it's the latter, but I could be wrong.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what's your point? The military made their goals in 2003 and 2004, but doesn't look like it will in 2005. What does that mean related to my point?



[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the army doesn't have as many troops that it feels it needs at this point. Your original thread argued that it was ludicrous to argue that everyone who supported the war should quit their jobs and join the military. The fundamental flaw with this logic is that it assumes that the military would accept everyone who tried to join. Come on, you know that the military wouldn't allow over 50% of the population to sign up. At a point, they would start turning people away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I am not sure how to answer. You have twisted my own words, attributed your argument to me, and made totally illogical conclusions based on a few missed recruitment numbers. Let's start with the recruitment goals. How can you conclude that missing a few months’ recruitment goals means they don't have as many troops as it “feels it needs?” You do realize that a large part of the military is always rotating in and out of theatre, and that the military is constantly redeployed all over the world, don't you? You do realize that the have announced they will be drawing down the numbers in Iraq in the next year. So, there are plenty of soldiers to go around. The recruitment goals you were so proud to talk about were off a few thousand soldiers. Certainly a problem to be handled, but they'd have to miss a few years of recruitment goals before it would make a difference.

You point out the fundamental flaw of the logic of having everyone quitting their job to enlist. The problem is that isn't my theory ... that is your theory. It was you, or perhaps others taking your side of this debate, who are saying that we can't be for the war if we are not willing to enlist. Now you are saying we obviously can't enlist, we’d be turned away. Does that mean because they will turn me away that I still can't be for the war? If so, you got some circular logic going there that has me chasing my tail.

By the way, I noticed that you seem to have simply ignored that my posts were better than yours.

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel that we as a nation are so threatened by Iraq that war is essential to our well-being, you should volunteer to fight in that war (assuming you are of the right age, able-bodied, and not currently employed in an essential position). Let the military decide if they need you or not. Currently, it looks like at least the Army certainly does.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here you go again. You just told me that you know I can't volunteer because they will turn me away, but now I have to or I can't assert, in your words, that we "are so threatened by Iraq that war is essential to our well-being." You want it both ways, don't you? I can only argue for the war if I, and the other 50+% are willing to volunteer, but you know that we will be turned away because they don't need us.

As to your insistence that I volunteer, I told you already that I live in the real World, not your imaginary world. You see, in my world, I pay taxes to raise and maintain a standing military to do my fighting for me. It isn't my job, and I don't want it to be my job. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Just because I think it is a just, and I'll use your word ... "essential" war, doesn't mean I have to do the fighting. And there is nothing hypocritical about that. Would I ever fight in a war? Sure, if the situation arose where the volunteer military was not sufficient and they needed 45 year old guys like me, I'd go. Or, if our homeland was attacked in a "Red Dawn" sort of way, yeah, I'd give my life to protect my country. It is my hope that by taking the actions as we have in Iraq, and maintaining the top military force in the World, that will never happen.

Now, give up this illogical, silly line of argument. There are ample, real, policy differences that could be debated. Who knows, you might surprise me and be good at it. But this, "unless you volunteer you can't be for the war" stuff is moranic!

NCAces

[Cyrus]

First of all, do not get hung up on the word "emergency" in "war emergency". Just think "war"! Is you is or is you not at war in Iraq? (Time perhaps to unearth the leftist arguments about how the war was illegitimate in the first place!..)

If we agree that the United States is at war in Iraq, then we must also accept the full premise of my example :

In times of war, the MOST ESSENTIAL job is a soldier's.

Then, you gotta accept that, on top of the above, there seems to be, by all accounts, a true crisis in manpower needs over there (eg tours extended, draft quotas short of target, etc).

Which means that

[Cyrus]

Imagine if the young men (and women) of Israel were to adopt the same attitude about serving in the military that the American folks seem to display here. Forget for a moment that military service is mandatory in Israel and assume that, in both countries, in the US and Israel, the military service is a voluntary, paying job.

You are beginning to see the difference!

The difference in the two attitudes (because, rest assured, the Israelis would flock at almost equal numbers to enlist) is caused by the difference in the perception of outside threat. And, irrespective of whether Israel is "right" or the Arabs are "right", the threat against Israel from the Arab outsiders (and insiders...) is perceived by almost all Israelis as absolutely real. (Again, forget for a moment whether the Arabs could ever present any credible threat to one of the most powerful armies in the world.)

But at the United States of America, while the danger is recognized as quite real, the "outside threat" is seen as involving mostly police work, i.e. the job of arresting terrorists in Newark --which should be handled by specialists, or just another standard foreign adventure by America, such as in Grenada etc, i.e. a job for the mercenaries who are paid to carry the imperial burden.

I have no problem with the second justification.

I just wish you guys would come right out and admit it, instead of trying to argue about why you do not enlist.

[BCPVP]

I'm going to borrow another poster's argument in a related thread (NC Aces, I believe). We pay the government for a professional, volunteer army to do our fighting for us, just as we pay Senators and House Reps (and a plethora of other gov't officials) to do a job that we do not want to do/do not have time to do.

I think your notion that a soldier in Iraq is the most essential job in America right now is not only arbitrary, but is designed to discredit anyone who supports the Iraq war but is not over there. It's not some high-minded ideal you have, because you only seem to apply it to this particular war and not to a great number of other institutions for which many Americans (and probably yourself included) support, but don't actually physically partake in.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
But at the United States of America, while the danger is recognized as quite real, the "outside threat" is seen as involving mostly police work, i.e. the job of arresting terrorists in Newark --which should be handled by specialists, or just another standard foreign adventure by America, such as in Grenada etc, i.e. a job for the mercenaries who are paid to carry the imperial burden.

[/ QUOTE ] - Cyrus

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to borrow another poster's argument in a related thread (NC Aces, I believe). We pay the government for a professional, volunteer army to do our fighting for us

[/ QUOTE ] - BCPVP

[ QUOTE ]
I just wish you guys would come right out and admit it,

[/ QUOTE ] - Cyrus

I think BCPVP more or less just did admit that.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But at the United States of America, while the danger is recognized as quite real, the "outside threat" is seen as involving mostly police work, i.e. the job of arresting terrorists in Newark --which should be handled by specialists, or just another standard foreign adventure by America, such as in Grenada etc, i.e. a job for the mercenaries who are paid to carry the imperial burden.

[/ QUOTE ] - Cyrus

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to borrow another poster's argument in a related thread (NC Aces, I believe). We pay the government for a professional, volunteer army to do our fighting for us

[/ QUOTE ] - BCPVP

[ QUOTE ]
I just wish you guys would come right out and admit it,

[/ QUOTE ] - Cyrus

I think BCPVP more or less just did admit that.

[/ QUOTE ]

....and perhaps the thought that 'we pay for our muscle' is one of the root cause rationalizations for this particular mind set?

There's an old term called "Sunshine Patriot" that needs to be brought into this discussion. In short, when things are good, and the sun is shining, it's very easy to wave the flag along with everyone else. It's what happens when the first rainclouds show up on the horizon that test the mettle of ones' patriotism.

I would submit that those who duck & run when it appears that the clouds are going to rain on them might not be as fully vested in their citizenship as they would like to think that they are.

One can rationalize one's position on this issue until the cows come home, but it's just an exercise in self delusion.

History is full of examples of the pitfalls of this type of rationale.

Read (or re-read) The Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire for one of many good examples.

Those who do not learn from History are Doomed to Repeat its' Mistakes.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the army doesn't haev as many troops that it feels it needs at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I covered this in another thread. When was the last time the military as a whole started turning away capable people? Probably never? So there isn't a special need at this point. The military needed people before Iraq and it will need people after Iraq.

Also, for those that have been in the military (especially vulturesrow/Myrtle), how would this hypothetical sign-up-for-Iraq plan work? Can you just sign up to be "sent", or are you assigned to a unit, and the military decides if it needs that particular unit? My gut tells me it's the latter, but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

BC,

Although I am a veteran, I do not claim to be an expert on all things military.

However, unless things have changed, the way it works is pretty simple.

If you volunteer, the only thing that YOU really get to choose is what branch of the service you would like to enlist in. It used to be that if you had a critical special skill that is needed by that branch, one could make that known, and there would be a very good probability that you could essentially 'choose what you do' upon enlistment.

However you must truly understand the concept of military service. Once you have signed on the dotted line, the priviledge of 'free will' that you have enjoyed as a citizen is mostly a thing of the past.

The military will put you where they feel that they need you; end of story. If you think that you've been mis-assigned, you can always attempt to point that out to your immediate superior. Rotsa Ruck, as we used to say.

You will more than likely find out that 'not going along with the program' may get you to places that you really don't want to go.

As far as your specific question of 'signing up for duty in Iraq'? I'm sure that if you made that point clear to the recruiter, they would be sure to attempt to put you in a unit that is either there, or scheduled to go there, given that you could meet their requirements and pass all of the tests.

[Cyrus]

Let's dissect completely your last stand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Your notion that a soldier in Iraq is the most essential job in America right now is not only arbitrary, but is designed to discredit anyone who supports the Iraq war but is not over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye on the discredit part, Nay on the arbitrary part. Simple questions:

1. Your president claims that the US is at war with terrorism. Your president also claims that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terror. Do you accept your president's claims? If you don't, stop what you're doing and come join us. If you do, proceed to the next question.

2. War is the most critical situation a nation can find itself in, short of physical catastrophe. Do you suscribe to this notion ? If you don't, kindly explain why not and provide one example of a situation which is more critical. If you do, proceed to the next question.

3. In times of a critical situation, the most essential jobs are the ones the directly address the relevant crisis (for examples look here). Do you agree ? If you don't, you are being illogical since you are contradicting the very assumptions on which the notion of war's criticality is based. If you do, proceed to the next question.

4. An American who finds his fellow Americans in a critical situation, where he can help directly and essentially, but chooses instead to skip the essential (leaving others to carry it out), is a coward. Do you agree that he is a coward ? And if the situation is like Iraq, where besides everything else, he supports the war, but still does not want to fight it, then he is also a hypocrite. Do you agree that he is a hyprocrite ? Which is it ?

I knew we would agree eventually...

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there are not enough soldiers to fight the war, then being a special ed teacher or fireman, or cop, is not as important as enlisting, if the war is in the defense of a clear and present danger of our national security.

Otherwise, I agree with you.
[/quote

Fair point, depending on degrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a "clear and present danger" is identified by the President and supported by Congress, then that is what it is.
That is why it is important for everyone who is eligible, to vote, and to cast an educated vote.
If we cannot count on those we place in service of our needs, then our government is a joke.
All of us will not agree with all decisions made by our government, that is a given, however, we can achieve more by remaining united on the most crucial decisions once they are made. It will help bring things to and more expeditiously.
So, let's take care of business in Iraq; get our troops out and then address our displeasure with the decision.
Or, we can do as I do and just press on with my own life, planning for my future, understanding I am just a pea in the pod.