Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[MMMMMM]

[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I'm too old to be eligible.

Secondly, essential tasks don't have to be related to the war effort. Just being a schoolteacher or a civilian electrician is fulfilling an essential task.

I don't know what Bush's cabinet members were doing during the Vietnam war.

[MMMMMM]

Edge34, it's rather ironic, but now I must caution you about the use of profanity.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Clinton "served" his two terms. Got us attacked on 9/11 it looks like too. Good work Slick Willy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeebus F-ing Christ!!! That is even more stupid than attacking Bush because he goes to Texas a lot.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Edge34, it's rather ironic, but now I must caution you about the use of profanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously didn't think that word would get through...I'll go try to edit if I can...

Done. That filter is weird. Didn't try to go around it or anything...meh.

[BCPVP]

I really wonder why anyone really cares whether some lefty on a poker forum calls them a hypocrite. Some of us (myself included sometimes) are a bit too much like Marty McFly.

DVault and Roybert can call me a hypocrite till their blue in the face. But really just boils down to childish name-calling and the need to feel superior to others. These two posters are just as hypocritical in a thousand other ways, by their logic. We all are, if support of a cause requires absolute involvement. Being in the armed forces is no different.

With that said, I'd like to pile on to the incredibly stupid point that many lefties have made that Bush should send his daughters if he likes war so much. It's been mentioned here, but the notion that a parent can "send" their adult children anywhere they don't want to go is simply laughable. The only thing more ludicrous than this argument is the one made by the poster (Scoot, I believe) that "it isn't meant to be taken literally". You've got to be kidding me! You must have the intellectual capacity of an 8 year old to believe this makes any sense.

[Cyrus]

and you know it.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are presenting this from the perspective of the country, in which case, of course, the perspective is correct: As far as the country is concerned, when an ambulance driver dies and needs replacement, it's (almost) the same thing, logistically, as when a soldier dies and needs replacement.

But we are looking at it from the citizen's perspective, you cop-out cop: And, from a citizen's perspective, it is certainly a much, much more perilous occupation to be a soldier at a time of war in Iraq than an ambulance driver in New Jersey at a time of war. (Just don't bring up how people drive in New Jersey...)

So your argument is pasta.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore not serving in a war which one supports is not necessarily hypocritical.

[/ QUOTE ]
It certainly is! I support quite strongly mandatory military service legislation, applicable to all able-bodied males and females. Including poker players.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Baloney bolognese. (You must think everybody else's way beneath your IQ or something, you cop-out cop, you.)

If "everyone" volunteered for soldiering, as you put it, that does NOT mean that the American military would actually suit up more people than it needed in its ranks. And even if the military tried to do so, the military is NOT the only active branch or decision-taking mechanism in the American government! The civilian branches (eg the branch in charge of ambulance drivers) would ask and get their fair share of bodies.

If "everyone" volunteered that would simply mean that "everyone" would have the same chance of getting his legs blown off near the Baghdad river - rather than waiting for the river card in a Stateside cardroom.

So your argument is weak pasta.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will entertain this silly part of your argument, too, only because I think you are unfortunately only half joking. In so many words, that's precisely the justification that people who avoided serving, while vociferously supporting the war in Vietnam, have used for their action; they were supposedly "contributing more" by handing over significant sums of money to the "war effort" or by simply being Upstanding, Money-Making Citizens.

This has been the standard excuse of silver-spoon fed, draft-drodging young men for generations. And it's not an American exclusive, either. But to bring it here, as a legitimate argument in defense of those who support the war in Iraq but rather play poker and let others die for it, well that is astonishing. You must really think you are talking here to the fish.

(I didna know Luca Brasi was a cop thesa days.)

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
I was never full-throttle for the War in Iraq, but some people make some pretty bad arguments against the war. Lets say that Bush is forcing us to fight a war that we don't want to. Even if this is true, what the hell do his daughters have to do with it? They aren't the ones who decided to invade Iraq.

The title of this thread is pretty stupid also. "Bush asks for a sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself." The man is the Commander-in-chief. What more do you want from someone who is fighting a war? Does every general have to fight in the front line to get recognition for fighting? Of course not. It's a stupid argument, think of something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Bush cannot force his daughters to join the military, and their not doing so aligns them with many their age who support the war, but 'have better things to do,' in the words of Dick Cheney about why he didn't serve during the Vietnam war.

But wouldn't it show great strength of character if his daughters did serve in a war they support that their father initiated? They wouldn't be put in a combat role for understandable security reasons. But wouldn't it help the morale of the volunteer force, many of whom are from the middle class or lower economic strata, that the daughters of the President himself were willing to sacrifice their privileged lives for a few years to serve their country?

George Bush Sr. was man enough to serve his country in WWII in a combat role. Which is one of the reasons I think he is a better person than his son the fake macho president.

And many leaders/generals have fought and risked their own lives for their country/cause.

Sacrificing privilege and risking hardship and maybe death for a cause you believe in when you don't have to shows real steel; the lack of such backbone is why so many war mongering poseurs deserve the label chickenhawk.

Frank

[Cyrus]

But I strongly support his right to use profanity if he decides that this is the best way to put across his points.

As long as Edge34 is not crowding out other voices, this has not been, is not and cannot be a big problem. (Except for small-minded people, of course.)

And by "crowding out other voices" is meant the modus operandi of a serial flamer or troller. A look at the frequency and content of one's posts (a facility indeed provided by this website and avaliable to cops and citizens alike) should be sufficient to determine if a poster qualifies as such.

It is mildly amusing, too, that the resident cops, in their zeal to "clean up the site", are promoting modes of debate that would have been quite alien to the Founding Fathers of America -- who regularly used irreverence, profanity and personal putdowns in their arguments.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, Clinton "served" his two terms. Got us attacked on 9/11 it looks like too. Good work Slick Willy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeebus F-ing Christ!!! That is even more stupid than attacking Bush because he goes to Texas a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ. First, I didn't draw any conclusions, there simply are not enough facts yet. However, if you look at what his administration did. REPEATEDLY turning down Bin Laden when he was offered to us by the Saudis. Intentionally putting up barriers between agencies so they could not share information.

I would have to say that IF Clinton had done his job, we would have captured Bin Laden in the late 90s when he was offered to us. We COULD have taken him to investigate links between him and the FIRST WTC bombing.

Furthermore, if the ADMINISTRATION had not gone OUT OF ITS WAY to BLOCK the intelligence community, military, and law enforcement agencies from sharing information its possible, and I dare say PROBABLE that we would have STOPPED 9/11 from happening. (at least when it did)

That's not to say that if Clinton did everything he was supposed to do we wouldn't have to worry about terror now. I just think he totally and completely ignored his duty to defend this nation.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
He is the one who gave the order on March 19th to declare war, after Saddam had not obeyed his call to surrender. To say that anyone other than Bush is responsible for the war is like saying that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Please recheck the facts. GWB did NOT start a war. We were in a state of war with Iraq already, however there was a cease fire, nothing more.

IF you can't even understand this fact, how can anything you write be taken seriously.