Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention: In order to fight a war, it must be essential to the survival of a nation, or to use the vernacular of this thread, it must be a 'necessity'.

Those who support a war must therefore find the war to be essential. By finding a war to be essential, they support the notion that their nation fighting the war is as a necessity, much like the necessity for food, clothing and shelter.

Conclusion: Anyone who supports a war and doesn't fight in it is leaving the responsibility of meeting their necessities to someone else. By definition, that makes you a lazy, cowardly chickenhawk. If you disagree with this contention, logic dictates that you must disagree that any war is essential to be fought.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things that are essential to the country besides fighting in a war. Even in WWII, the people who stayed in the U.S. and did things like: domestic firefighting, ambulance drivers, nurses and doctors--to name just a few occupations--were also fulfilling a vital role regardless of whether or not they were in the military. The same goes for road and bridge engineers, research scientists, and teachers--and a great many other professions.

Therefore not serving in a war which one supports is not necessarily hypocritical. The country *needs* people to do other jobs too. We wouldn't have much of a country if everyone who supported the war enlisted and went away--there wouldn't be enough people left stateside to be the police, the long-distance truck drivers, the garbagemen, the computer technicians, etc.

If instead you want to change your criteria to: eligible war supporters who don't enlist and who are also full-time poker players--then I'd say you might be closer to having a valid point. Yet even without providing indispensable services to others, poker players do fulfill a role in society by buying goods and services, paying various taxes, and helping make the cardrooms which employ others possible in the first place.

I'd say certain young poker players who believe in the war yet don't enlist might be being a bit selfish or a tad hypocritical. Not that there's necessarily anything much wrong with that. Humans are naturally selfish to an extent and if it apears that others will take up the slack, for the most part many will just let them. Can't say I'd always really blame them either. Even if the war is essential, if it looks like approximately enough others will do the job then why should everyone who fits the description have to do it (even if the criteria is limited to poker players).

So all in all I'd say the central point is significantly flawed, though in some cases less so if the criteria of selection is further narrowed as above (for example, to eligible and supportive young poker players. Then some of the group is more likely to better fit the description of hypocritical).

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop being lame and nitpicking at sentences while ignoring the main points in the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, didn't realize I had to pay attention to only what you want me to pay attention to. The rest of the article is recycled tripe that's all been heard before. It doesn't deserve comment because it's old. There, happy now?

The specific "send your own kids to war" line gets (ab)used so much that it deserves to be singled out and beaten.

[Edge34]

You basically said what I was trying to say, only much better.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention: In order to fight a war, it must be essential to the survival of a nation, or to use the vernacular of this thread, it must be a 'necessity'.


[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is a necessity?

Was WWI a necessity? What about WWII? Is any war ever a necessity? If so, at what point does it become one? Who should be the judge of that? The President? The ACLU? The public at large?

(Believe it or not, we have a Constitution that gives our elected officials the power to be the judge. And they have done that in the case of the Iraq War. And most of them are directly elected by the public at large, with the exception of the President who is somewhat indirectly elected by the public at large.)

All these questions need to be answered before any kind of rational debate can be had on this topic, as long as it's framed around the Iraq War being a "necessity."

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My contention: In order to fight a war, it must be essential to the survival of a nation, or to use the vernacular of this thread, it must be a 'necessity'.


[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is a necessity?

Was WWI a necessity? What about WWII? Is any war ever a necessity? If so, at what point does it become one? Who should be the judge of that? The President? The ACLU? The public at large?

[/ QUOTE ]

We decide ourselves whenever we decide whether or not to support a war.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My contention: In order to fight a war, it must be essential to the survival of a nation, or to use the vernacular of this thread, it must be a 'necessity'.

Those who support a war must therefore find the war to be essential. By finding a war to be essential, they support the notion that their nation fighting the war is as a necessity, much like the necessity for food, clothing and shelter.

Conclusion: Anyone who supports a war and doesn't fight in it is leaving the responsibility of meeting their necessities to someone else. By definition, that makes you a lazy, cowardly chickenhawk. If you disagree with this contention, logic dictates that you must disagree that any war is essential to be fought.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things that are essential to the country besides fighting in a war. Even in WWII, the people who stayed in the U.S. and did things like: domestic firefighting, ambulance drivers, nurses and doctors--to name just a few occupations--were also fulfilling a vital role regardless of whether or not they were in the military. The same goes for road and bridge engineers, research scientists, and teachers--and a great many other professions.

Therefore not serving in a war which one supports is not necessarily hypocritical. The country *needs* people to do other jobs too. We wouldn't have much of a country if everyone who supported the war enlisted and went away--there wouldn't be enough people left stateside to be the police, the long-distance truck drivers, the garbagemen, the computer technicians, etc.

If instead you want to change your criteria to: eligible war supporters who don't enlist and who are also full-time poker players--then I'd say you might be closer to having a valid point. Yet even without providing indispensable services to others, poker players do fulfill a role in society by buying goods and services, paying various taxes, and helping make the cardrooms which employ others possible in the first place.

I'd say certain young poker players who believe in the war yet don't enlist might be being a bit selfish or a tad hypocritical. Not that there's necessarily anything much wrong with that. Humans are naturally selfish to an extent and if it apears that others will take up the slack, for the most part many will just let them. Can't say I'd always really blame them either. Even if the war is essential, if it looks like approximately enough others will do the job then why should everyone who fits the description have to do it (even if the criteria is limited to poker players).

So all in all I'd say the central point is significantly flawed, though in some cases less so if the criteria of selection is further narrowed as above (for example, to eligible and supportive young poker players. Then some of the group is more likely to better fit the description of hypocritical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, what essential task (i.e. ambulance driving, bridge building, etc) are you (all) partaking in that supports our war effort. Besides poker that is.

Along those lines, what were Bush's, Cheney's, Wolfie's, Rush's, and Bolton's essential tasks during Vietnam (a war they ALL openly supported).

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
You basically said what I was trying to say, only much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally agree with you on something.

Between MMMMMM posting your thoughts and other kids fighting your war ...

[Edge34]

Roybert,

If you aren't willing to listen to another person's reasoning, then just say so. MMMMMM has put the point as clearly and eloquently as humanly possible, and all you can come up with is basically "so what are YOU doing that's so damned great?" Sad, really.

By the way, I'm going to college. I find that furthering my education will enable me to be a better provider for my future family and be a more informed, better member of society who understands the way the real world works.

At this point in my life, yes, that's more important to me than fighting in a war. That doesn't mean for one instant that if my country called me, I wouldn't go.

[Edge34]

Roy, ignore my other post. You're nothing but a troll. You must lack the capacity to listen to other people's reasoning with an open mind and all you want to do is attack. If it weren't for the fact that M6 has warned me before, I'd tell you exactly what I think of you.

Suffice to say, unless you change it up, nobody but your closed-minded ignorant Bush-bashing buddies will give two [expletive deleted]s what you have to say.


edited for profanity the filter didn't catch

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Roybert,

If you aren't willing to listen to another person's reasoning, then just say so. MMMMMM has put the point as clearly and eloquently as humanly possible, and all you can come up with is basically "so what are YOU doing that's so damned great?" Sad, really.

By the way, I'm going to college. I find that furthering my education will enable me to be a better provider for my future family and be a more informed, better member of society who understands the way the real world works.

At this point in my life, yes, that's more important to me than fighting in a war. That doesn't mean for one instant that if my country called me, I wouldn't go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did listen and that's why I responded. His point was that those who stayed behind in WWII did so to fill other essential positions (obviously using WWII as an analogy for today). It is therefore reasonable to assume that his contention is that those who support the war but aren't fighting are doing so to fill essential positions today. This makes my question perfectly valid.