Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then step down from the letter for a second, and please address this point:

Fact: There are plenty of 18-25 year olds in college who support the war(think College Republicans) who could go, but aren't.

How are these kids not hypocrites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're taking the fallacy that support for the war = an obligation to go fight. If all things were that way, things would be a mess. We have a volunteer army, one's ideological and political beliefs do not necessarily lead to the greatest possible action. I wish people like you would understand that you're not making anybody ashamed of themselves. College is a life choice, as is military service. Just because I believe that what someone is doing is right doesn't mean I need to change my entire life.

There are plenty of people who dislike how Bush is running the country, but refuse to take political actions such as running for office. How are these people not hypocrites? See the problems in your attempt at logic?

Go ahead and misquote me again though, since that was what you've already done twice in this damn thread.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you're taking the fallacy that support for the war = an obligation to go fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does.

If you're going to ask people to die in a war, you ought to be willing to die in it yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
If all things were that way, things would be a mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because I believe that what someone is doing is right doesn't mean I need to change my entire life.

[/ QUOTE ]

That thing 'someone is doing' isn't just some run-of-the-mill, everyday chore; it's risking their life in a WAR. I capitilize because there seems to be a general cavalier attitude about war (among some here, at least) - as in "Oh sure, I support war, up until it interferes with my life" - which for many people here includes posting on 2+2 2000 times and 4-tabling 3/6 on Party. Regardless, in the thread started by q/q regarding the Army missing its recruiting goals, I made exceptions for people who are doing things so important in life that serving as a soldier would be detrimental to the war (President Bush is a good example of this). I doubt anyone posting on 2+2 qualifies.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish people like you would understand that you're not making anybody ashamed of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I speak only for myself, but I for one am not concerned about your shame, or lack thereof.

I think you should stop supporting a war you're not willing to fight in it yourself, though.

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of people who dislike how Bush is running the country, but refuse to take political actions such as running for office. How are these people not hypocrites?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say they are hypocrites. But not everyone can be defeat Bush and be President.

Everyone (everyone = the military will accept) can be a solider, though.

[ QUOTE ]
See the problems in your attempt at logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you’re about the 5th poster that’s tried the “look at my example of how other people are hypocrites! SEE, SEE! EVERYONE’S A HYPOCRITE! I’m off the hook! Being called a hypocrite is meaningless!” line of argument that’s failed every time.

Merely because other people are hypocrites doesn’t mean you’re not one too. And the examples other posters have been bringing up typically haven’t had anywhere near the serious consequences that hypocritical support for a war does.

I'll just say that comparing any of the mentioned activities to being a soldier is insulting to our military and unpatriotic.

You don't really mean to be unpatriotic, do you, Edge?

[Edge34]

Hey, one post where you at least don't misquote me. You still haven't shown me one single thing from the piece of garbage letter you posted that makes any sense.

You're nothing more than a troll, I can't believe I thought you might have been better than that. I'm through wasting time on someone whose sole purpose in life is to be just another mindless Bush-basher.

For anybody with half a brain, support doesn't necessarily lead to "[censored] college, sign me up and give me a gun". But then, what would you morans have to write about if you couldn't call people hypocrites.

Scoot, you're a waste of space on this board. I attempted to ask you questions and you have not only failed to answer them, but have continually attributed things to me that I have never said. YSSCKY.

I'm sorry that I misquoted you. It's hard to keep the wingnuts straight on this board sometimes.

[BadgerAle]

On behalf of everyone who thinks bush is a prick, and doesn't support the iraq war, can we end this thread as its making us look bad. There are plenty of good reasons for this position, we don't need horrible logic and half conceived notions like this.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[/ QUOTE ]
Couple of point

1. A lot of republican political capital is being sacrificed fighting this war. Isn't political capital the most nearest and dearest to a politician?

2. Scoot is a troll. I don't think he means to be though. Some people are just born trolls.

Stu

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you're taking the fallacy that support for the war = an obligation to go fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this to be a falacy at all.

I think that the right wing is either missing or intentionally ignoring a very obvious logic that I tried to allude to in my earlier post. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough earlier.

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.

Clear?

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.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe whoever wrote this may be the most ignorant person to ever get something published in a paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody just pasted the move-on.org talking points into a blank letterhead and sent it off. Of course the main stream media ate it up – it furthers their agenda. I'm surprised the term "Moral Authority" wasn’t in there as this has become the media’s new darling phrase