|
|
#21
08-10-2005, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal (AP)
[ QUOTE ]
Let me check my calendar.....nope all full. College or Military I picked college. [/ QUOTE ] You arrogant little SOB.....Many people suffered and died for your ability to make that choice. I see no tone of appreciation or recognition of that fact in any of your posts..... 
|
|
#22
08-10-2005, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
Despite the objections of some here, I really don't think q/q’s question is a bad question to ask. I think it should give us all some pause, regardless of whatever partisan motives he had.
Despite all the criticism q/q is taking, I've only seen two responses: - leighguy's "my cousin is there/what about the tax base?" - FishHook's "I'd rather be at college" Frankly, despite the criticism FishHooks took, at least he was honest. He more or less said he has better things to do. Perhaps we can fault him for such an attitude – but I know it’s an attitude shared by many, including those who have voiced strong support for this war. To leighguy, I would say that: 1) you're not your cousin 2) I doubt that you didn't enlist because of concern over the tax base that helps fund the war. I realize your point wasn't about your own personal reasons, but I can promise that anyone who has had the option to enlist, but didn't - they didn't decline enlistment out of concern for the tax base. Perhaps this is a legitimate reason for our elected leaders to try to dissuade us from fighting – but given that it appears our fighting forces could use the man-power - this reason (we need people at home to keep the tax base strong) is just preposterous, give the facts about current situation. I'll be honest: unless I'm drafted, or feel compelled to go fight in a war, I'll never enlist. And I don’t feel compelled to go fight in this war. I have absolutely no moral, ethical, or otherwise legitimate reason for not enlisting other than I don't feel like it. I've got a wife, a job, a comfortable life - I just don't feel like going. I assume some people here are going to say that I’m despicable to say such a thing, and truth be told, they’re probably right. I’m really just freeloading off the sacrifices of others. I'm not sure if q/q is arguing this or not but - the fact that I have absolutely no interest in going to fight should legitimately moderate my support for any war. I don't think it's fair for me to claim support for a war that I've got no interest in fighting – only to send others off to die in my stead. I think ‘moderate my support’ is putting it lightly: it really would border on out and out hypocrisy for me to support a war I’ve got no interest in fighting myself. In that vein, I think it’s legitimate to call out non-soldiers who claim to have strong support for this war, and ask them for a reason why they’re not off fighting too. I’d assume some have legitimate reasons for not fighting – but similarly, I would assume many don’t. And for those who don’t, I think they have to think long and hard about how they square their support for the war with their unwillingness to fight.
|
|
#23
08-10-2005, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
The point isn't about the tax base. The point is it's physically impossible that all war supporters could enlist.
If we assume the army makes up a very small part of our population, then there is absolutely no way over half the population could enlist. Therefore, by definition most of the people that support the war will not have enlisted. And it's a waste to expect them too when it makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
#24
08-10-2005, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
[ QUOTE ]
The point is it's physically impossible that all war supporters could enlist. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't explain why you didn't enlist. I don't even know how you feel about the war; perhaps you despise it. Perhaps you're a Quaker. Perhaps you're 75 years old. Perhaps you're missing a leg. I don't know your personal situation, and I don't care. Your reasons are your own, and they're no business of mine. I don't have any interest in hearing why you're not fighting. But if you support it, I'm of the opinion you have to think long and hard about your support if you're not there too. And after you think long and hard, I don't know how you can come to any conclusion other than something involving hypocrisy, because I can't think of a way to square support for the war with an unwillingness to fight it.
|
|
#25
08-10-2005, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
If support for the war required enlistment, then 1%< of the population would be allowed to support any war.
Was enlistment required when president clinton sent troops to Bosnia. No war would be possible under your guidelines. I'm not even sure WWII would be possible. Was everyone that didn't go to Europe or Japan a hypocrit.
|
|
#26
08-10-2005, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
[ QUOTE ]
The point isn't about the tax base. The point is it's physically impossible that all war supporters could enlist. If we assume the army makes up a very small part of our population, then there is absolutely no way over half the population could enlist. Therefore, by definition most of the people that support the war will not have enlisted. And it's a waste to expect them too when it makes absolutely no sense. [/ QUOTE ] And that is germane to nothing. Fishhooks is a vocal supporter of the war, and he is 18. The military is stretched thin. So you would think a fine, patriotic, conservative, Iraq war supporting young man like himself would be eager to serve. Oh, but wait! He is following in Bush and Cheney's footsteps. Who when they were young men and Vietnam war supporters did everything they could to avoid risking anything real (like their chickenhawk asses) for a cause they supported. Frank
|
|
#27
08-10-2005, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
The point is there are tons of military age war supporters. Far more then the military could possibly use. You can't expect them all to enlist.
Should the military need additional personal is can start a draft. We all have to serve in the draft. I don't have much of a problem serving as part of a draft.
|
|
#28
08-10-2005, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
[ QUOTE ]
If support for the war required enlistment, then 1%< of the population would be allowed to support any war. [/ QUOTE ] Okay? Your point? [ QUOTE ] Was enlistment required when president clinton sent troops to Bosnia. [/ QUOTE ] Enlistment wasn't required (there was obviously no conscription); but if you supported it, and we're capable of fighting, I would say you ought to have enlisted or you were hypocritical. I’m under the impression that the military was meeting its recruiting quotas at the time, though. Correct me if I’m wrong. [ QUOTE ] No war would be possible under your guidelines. I'm not even sure WWII would be possible. Was everyone that didn't go to Europe or Japan a hypocrit. [/ QUOTE ] If they were physically capable of going and the military needed them and allowed them to enlist; and they supported the war but chose not to go - then yes, of course they were hypocrites.
|
|
#29
08-10-2005, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
[ QUOTE ]
The point is there are tons of military age war supporters. Far more then the military could possibly use. You can't expect them all to enlist. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's clear the military is in need of new recruits, if they self-admittedly failed to meet their recruiting quotas.
|
|
#30
08-10-2005, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t think q/q is out of line here
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much of a problem serving as part of a draft. [/ QUOTE ] If you'll only serve if drafted, I question how necessary you think this war is.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
