Why We Need a Draft: A Marine’s Lament

[Nbadan]

Interesting points on a military draft, some I have made many times in this forum, from a obviously liberal, Chavez-loving, US Marine....

Why We Need a Draft: A Marine’s Lament


Aug. 28, 2007 - “Maybe we would have only lost those three instead of 13,” I thought to myself on a dusty Friday in Fallujah in early November 2005. I was picking up the pieces of a truck that hours before had been blown apart by an IED, wondering why our equipment wasn’t better and why three more Marines were dead. Ramadan had just ended, the period in which a suicide bomber gets double and triple the virgins for killing himself in the name of jihad, and my weapons company, Second Battalion Second Marines, had lost 13 men in the last two weeks—not from firefights but from roadside bombs likely being imported from Iran. The insurgents were ramping up their technology, and here we were in the same old trucks. At least these didn’t have cloth doors like the ones last year. But seriously, was this the best technology we have?

Just then I noticed a big vehicle driving by, one owned by a private contracting company. This thing made our truck look like a Pinto in a Ferrari showroom. It was huge, heavy, ominous, indestructible. I wanted to commandeer it. I wanted to live in it. If only we were in one of those, I would definitely come home, and a lot of the guys who won’t would too. As it passed I stared at what I would later learn was called the MRAP vehicle (Mine Resistant Ambush Protective Vehicle). I never thought I would see something in Iraq that enticing, but there it was, rumbling past in all its glory.

...

It’s not hard to figure out who suffers. The 160,000 servicemen and women in Iraq are the latest generation of Americans to represent their country on the field of battle. And like their predecessors, they are abundantly unrepresented in the halls of power. As a result, they’ve adopted what I find to be a disturbing outlook on their situation: many don’t want the draft because they believe it will ruin the military, which they consider their own blue-collar fraternity. They have heard the horror stories from their dads and granddads about “spoiled” rich officers. Have no doubt: there is a distinct disdain for networked America among the fighting class of this country. When a politician would come on TV in the Camp Fallujah chow hall talking about Iraq, the rank-and-file reaction was always something like, “Well, I am blue-collar cannon fodder to this wealthy bureaucrat who never got shot at and whose kids aren’t here. But I know I am making America safer, so I’ll do my job anyway.” And they do, and have been for the last three and a half years, tragically underequipped but always willing to fight.

The real failure of this war, the mistake that has led to all the malaise of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the failure to not reinstitute the draft on Sept. 12, 2001—something I certainly believed would happen after running down 61 flights of the South Tower, dodging the carnage as I made my way to the Hudson River . But President Bush was determined to keep the lives of nonuniformed America—the wealthiest Americans, like himself—uninterrupted by the war. Consequently, we have a severe talent deficiency in the military, which the draft would remedy immediately. While America’s bravest are in the military, America’s brightest are not. Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I’ll bet that in six months they could render IED’s about as effective as a “Just Say No” campaign at a Grateful Dead show

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20478293/site/newsweek /)

A military draft would effectively end America's involvement in Iraq thereby negating any real need for a Draft - unless Dubya bombs Iran....

[Holt's Cat]

A military draft would effectively end America's involvement in Iraq thereby negating any real need for a Draft


http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/pics/1126duck-autosized141.jpg

Wha.....?

[Spurminator]

A military draft would effectively end America's involvement in Iraq thereby negating any real need for a Draft

But they would be needed to battle the violent uprising that would occur HERE as a result of bringing back the draft.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it would do more to convince me that we are in a war for our very survival.

[boutons_]

There's not enough votes to stop the war,
and there's not enough votes to start the draft.

So the war continues, and dubya keeps throwing money at the poor fuckers:

======================

Many Take Army's 'Quick Ship' Bonus
$20,000 Is Lure to Leave Within Days

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 27, 2007; A01

More than 90 percent of the Army's new recruits since late July have accepted a $20,000 "quick ship" bonus to leave for basic combat training by the end of September, putting thousands of Americans into uniform almost immediately.

Many recruits who take the bonus -- scoring in many cases the equivalent of more than a year's pay -- leave their homes within days, recruiters said. The initiative is part of an effort by Army officials to meet year-end recruiting goals after a two-month slump earlier this year. With the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, the Army hopes the extra cash motivates those interested in joining or entices those just considering enlisting.

The program began on July 25, and in three weeks the Army had enlisted 3,814 recruits using the bonus, according to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Ky. Those recruits accounted for 92 percent of the 4,149 recruits who signed contracts between July 25 and Aug. 13.

The $20,000 bonus is a hefty sum for many of the individuals the Army targets most aggressively: young men and women who have not settled on a career. The Army estimates that soldiers coming out of initial training are paid $17,400 a year on average.

But the effort, experts said, could pose problems for the Army in the coming months, because those who might have helped fill recruiting quotas later this year or in early 2008 are instead joining now.

Bethany Moore, 19, of Jessup, visited a recruiting station Wednesday, knowing that she wanted to sign up in the hopes of building a stable career. A 2006 graduate of Northern High School in Calvert County, Moore had worked a series of "regular jobs" and wanted to make a serious change. "I just wanted to do something better with my life," she said.

Although she expected a six-month waiting period to go to basic training, she learned of the bonus and immediately accepted. She will ship out within a week. "It was a welcome surprise," Moore said. "And it's a lot of money."

Military personnel experts said the signing bonuses are a transparent way for the Army to meet its annual goal of 80,000 recruits amid an increasingly difficult recruiting environment. They also said the rush to get people into uniform might have more to do with meeting numerical targets than with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, though many of those who join the Army face the possibility of deployment to combat soon.

The Army hopes the bonus will increase its recruiting numbers for August, a month whose goals are among the largest of the year. The Army will announce the August numbers in early September.

"The Army is intent on trying to meet its recruitment goals in terms of numbers by the end of the fiscal year, so they're doing just about anything they can to bring those numbers up," said Cindy Williams, an analyst at the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "To me it signals something that we've been seeing already from the Army, a trade-off in terms of quality and quantity. My sense is that right now, they're willing to take anybody who is willing to walk in the door and ship by Sept. 30."

Army officials have lowered standards and increased waivers in recent years to meet their recruiting goals, in part to deal with the strain of the wars and to quickly expand the Army. But the Army has been more concerned with nose-diving public opinion about the war in Iraq and the role of "influencers" -- parents, teachers and coaches -- who have been increasingly unwilling to recommend the military as a career option to young people.

The $20,000 bonus can be enticing, especially to those who lack a steady job, languish in debt or are worried about their future. Staff Sgt. Kevin Gordon, a recruiter in Glen Burnie, said a majority of the people who come into his office have already decided to join the service and then jump at the chance to leave now.

"They have school loans, mortgages, they have family concerns," said Gordon, whose three recent recruits all took the bonus. "It's a great incentive because something like that leaves families in a good financial posture, and they feel a little more comfortable knowing their bills will be taken care of."

The way the bonus works is simple: Recruits willing to ship out within the next month will receive $10,000 upon completion of basic training and advanced individual training. Then, over the course of their initial active-duty enlistment, they will receive $10,000 in even annual sums. For a young recruit with no college education, the bonus, which is taxable, could be the equivalent of a year of pay over the course of a three-year enlistment. And the recruit can still qualify for other sign-up bonuses.

The quick-ship bonus spurred John C. Davis III, 24, of East Baltimore to sign his enlistment papers on July 27, two days after the program began. Davis received a two-year college degree in graphic design in 2005 but has been stuck in a "dead end" job without much pay, loading tractor-trailers. He will ship out Wednesday after doing regular workouts with his recruiter in Towson, Staff Sgt. Brian Grotz.

Davis will also get a $25,000 bonus for taking an Army position as a petroleum specialist, meaning he will have a year's salary in his bank account before he starts his first Army job.

For Davis, who has 4-year-old twins and relies on his mother for help, the bonuses will give him a start on finding a nice place to live and a foundation for a graphic design business someday.

"When I first heard about the bonus, I thought that I could really get my life in order," Davis said. "Pay some bills, put some money aside, help my mother. I was really going to go in anyway; I just wasn't planning to go this soon."

Sgt. Willie Thomas, a recruiter in the Woodbridge office, said the quick-ship bonus is helpful as an eye-catcher, but he thinks that it is not enough to change attitudes about the military or the Iraq war. Although his office has a sign on its door advertising the bonus, he said it is one of the last things he mentions to a potential recruit.

He says he emphasizes "Army benefits" above all else, such as a stable job, work experience and health care.

"They would have to be really interested in the Army before I would mention the bonus," Thomas said. "I don't want anyone making a commitment based on $20,000. That amount of money doesn't last a lifetime."

But James Hosek, a defense manpower expert at the Rand Corp., said that though the quick-ship bonus is a "very smart move" by the Army, it could attract people who are less motivated to be in the service.

"There's a risk of bringing people in with lesser attachment or commitment to the Army," Hosek said. "Adding money will, for some people, sweeten the deal enough to persuade them to enter."

[PixelPusher]

Well, it would do more to convince me that we are in a war for our very survival.
It would force everyone else in this country who is otherwise unsure or merely indifferent to consider if, in fact, Iraq is essential to "our very survival", and the sober conclusion would be "no"...which is exaclty why there won't be a draft.

[1369]

Why didn't you attach the rest of the article?


On a macro level, we are logistically weakened by the lack of a draft. It takes six to seven soldiers to support one infantryman in combat. So, you are basically asking 30,000 or so “grunts” to secure a nation of 26 million. I assure you, no matter who wins the 2008 election, we are staying in Iraq. But with the Marine Corps and the Army severely stressed after 3.5 years of desert and urban combat in Iraq—equipment needs replacing, recruitment efforts are coming up short—you tell me how we're going to sustain the current force structure without the draft? The president’s new war czar, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, essentially said as much earlier this month, when he announced that considering the draft “makes sense.”

Of course, the outcry was swift and predictable. America has rejected selective service before, though always in the guise of antiwar movements. But they should really be viewed as antidraft movements, and they existed, en masse, when the wealthy could buy their way out of serving—as Teddy Roosevelt’s father and his ilk did during the Civil War, or as countless college kids did during the deferment-ridden Vietnam conflict. Not every draftee has to be a front-line Marine or soldier, but history shows us that most entrepreneurial young men, faced with a fair draft, almost always chose the front. A deferment draft, however, is a different story, and ultimately counterproductive because of the acrimony it breeds. By allowing the fortunate and, often, most talented to stay home, those who are drafted feel less important than what they are asked to die for. At the end of the day, it was this bitterness that helped fuel the massive antiwar movement that pushed Nixon to end the draft in ‘73.

I don’t favor a Vietnam-style draft, where men like the current vice president could get five deferments. I am talking about a World War II draft, with the brothers and sons of future and former presidents answering the call (and, unfortunately, dying, as a Roosevelt and a Kennedy once did) on the front line. That is when the war effort is maximized. Quite simply, the military cannot be a faceless horde to those pulling the purse strings of our great economy.

The draft would even hasten a weaning away from foreign oil, I believe, if more Americans felt the nausea that I do every time I go to the pump and underwrite the people who have nearly killed me five times. This war on the jihadists needs to be more discomforting to the average American than just bad news on the tube. Democracies at war abroad cannot wage a protracted ground operation when the only people who are sacrificing are those who choose to go. This is the greatest lesson of my generation. Young Americans: you may not want to kill jihadists, but they are interested in killing you and your loved ones. Wake up.

Cpl. Mark Finelli is an inactive, noncommissioned Marine Corps officer who served in Iraq from July 2005 to February 2006. He is currently writing a book about surviving 9/11 and fighting in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

Is there any active military on this board?

[boutons_]

"you may not want to kill jihadists, but they are interested in killing you and your loved ones. Wake up."

There were no jihadists in Iraq, only oil.

And Finelli probably never killed a jihadist, or even shot at one in Iraq.

Wake the fuck up, Capt Finelli, you simpleton, your CiC should not be followed.

[DarkReign]

While America’s bravest are in the military, America’s brightest are not. Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I’ll bet that in six months they could render IED’s about as effective as a “Just Say No” campaign at a Grateful Dead show

I LOLed...

[1369]

Wake the fuck up, Capt Finelli, you simpleton, your CiC should not be followed.

Still working with that whole reading comprehension thing?

Keep plugging at it, it will come soon enough.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Has there been any political thread, serious or no, in which chumpdumper only adds his opinion without asking a question in an attempt to attack someone elses post which more times than not already contains enough material to convey the fact that it was partly in jest to begin with and not to be taken completely seriously?

Thats the main reason i like CD's austin toros threads.

[ChumpDumper]

Couldn't that question have been structured better?

[atxrocker]

:lol

[Spurminator]

If he really wants a Draft, he should just vote Republican in the next Presidential Election... It worked in 2004. Remember that inevitable 2005 Draft? I'm sure there's another one coming in 2009.

[RighteousBoy]

If he really wants a Draft, he should just vote Republican in the next Presidential Election... It worked in 2004. Remember that inevitable 2005 Draft? I'm sure there's another one coming in 2009.

Actually he should vote democrat - Charlie Rangel (D) New York is the one who was pushing for the draft in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why didn't you attach the rest of the article?


Democracies at war abroad cannot wage a protracted ground operation when the only people who are sacrificing are those who choose to go.

So...did you volunteer yet?

[E20]

Why do we need a draft? So E20 can dodge it like Micheal Vick does Pitbulls. Sorry for spamming, but I didn't read the article and I'm bored.

[1369]

So...did you volunteer yet?

Was that directed at me?

1989-1992 USMCR "C" Co. 4th Reconnaissance Battalion/4th AT TOW.

Who were you with?

[ChumpDumper]

Is there any active military on this board?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Was that directed at me?

1989-1992 USMCR "C" Co. 4th Reconnaissance Battalion/4th AT TOW.

Who were you with?

I was never in the military, but it sounds like it's time for you to re-enlist.

[1369]

I was never in the military, but it sounds like it's time for you to re-enlist.

Last time I checked, they didn't want 40 year olds with bad knees.

So you never thought about joining the military?

And, if your on some misguided attempt to question or impugn my dedication to the United States, you need to find someone else's leg to hump.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Last time I checkedd, they didn't want 40 year olds with bad knees.

So you never thought about joining the military?

nope, it never crossed my mind

[ChumpDumper]

Last time I checked, they didn't want 40 year olds with bad knees.I don't think that's a deal breaker these days.

[1369]

nope, it never crossed my mind

Rather have someone else do the heavy lifting then?

I do find it a shame that more people don't feel it necessary to give back to the country that has provided them so much.

[Jamtas#2]

I don't understand this obsession saying that if you support the war you must be willing to enlist. Are those who are opposed to the war required to engage in anti-war rallies and demonstrations?
Seems like a double standard to me. Everyone should be free to voice their opinions no matter what side they take on this. I don't think one side should have requirements be made of them before their opinion can be accepted.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Rather have someone else do the heavy lifting then?

I do find it a shame that more people don't feel it necessary to give back to the country that has provided them so much.

I wouldn't have given back much had I joined when I was the right age because nothing was happening that required as many troops as we need now. Now that I am nearing the age where I'd be too old to enlist I still wouldn't join (even if I so desired) because I have a family and a career.

EDIT: And I having been giving back by being a hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen for my entire adult life.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't understand this obsession saying that if you support the war you must be willing to enlist. Are those who are opposed to the war required to engage in anti-war rallies and demonstrations?
Seems like a double standard to me. Everyone should be free to voice their opinions no matter what side they take on this. I don't think one side should have requirements be made of them before their opinion can be accepted.Why not? Aren't we at total war for our nation's very survival? That's what I've been told by supporters of the war.

I would serve this country if called to, but I don't trust the current government to use the military properly.

[Jamtas#2]

Why not? Aren't we at total war for our nation's very survival? That's what I've been told by supporters of the war.

I would serve this country if called to, but I don't trust the current government to use the military properly.

So those who oppose this war can rant and rave all they want and not have to show how much they oppose it by physically participating in their beliefs, but those who support the war must be active military and physically show their support or their opinions don't count?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So those who oppose this war can rant and rave all they want and not have to show how much they oppose it by physically participating in their beliefs, but those who support the war must be active military and physically show their support or their opinions don't count?

those who are opposed do not expect others to sacrifice their own lives for their cause. you really can't compare holding a sign with holding a rifle.

[Jamtas#2]

I wouldn't have given back much had I joined when I was the right age because nothing was happening that required as many troops as we need now. Now that I am nearing the age where I'd be too old to enlist I still wouldn't join (even if I so desired) because I have a family and a career.

EDIT: And I having been giving back by being a hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen for my entire adult life.

Not to say you haven't done anything to give back to your country, but that is a poor example. That's like saying I support the troops because i put a bumper sticker on my car.
Does paying your required property taxes mean you give back to your community? Or does that require extra effort and doing something that isn't required of you?

[Jamtas#2]

those who are opposed do not expect others to sacrifice their own lives for their cause. you really can't compare holding a sign with holding a rifle.

Actually, you can. They are both making an effort to support their cause.
Its very easy to support or oppose something without having to make much of an effort. If you are going to hold up one side of the arguement to a higher standard, you must hold yourself to that same standard.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not to say you haven't done anything to give back to your country, but that is a poor example. That's like saying I support the troops because i put a bumper sticker on my car.
Does paying your required property taxes mean you give back to your community? Or does that require extra effort and doing something that isn't required of you?

Working hard is not giving back? Being a good citizen is not giving back? Putting my hard earned money back into the stream of commerce is not giving back?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Actually, you can. They are both making an effort to support their cause.
Its very easy to support or oppose something without having to make much of an effort. If you are going to hold up one side of the arguement to a higher standard, you must hold yourself to that same standard.

Effort you ask of soldiers (but not yourself btw)=death, grave injury, psychological trauma

Effort you ask of protesters=make signs, march around, maybe get pepper-sprayed or arrested for a Class C misdememanor.

Yeah, those are quite similar.

[Jamtas#2]

Working hard is not giving back? Being a good citizen is not giving back? Putting my hard earned money back into the stream of commerce is not giving back?

Is there no consequence to not paying them? Is there not a consequence to breaking the law?
Now if you are donating extra money that you don't have, then yes that is giving back. If you are helping out in your community or volunteering your time to improve the lives of other, yes that is giving back.

[Jamtas#2]

Effort you ask of soldiers (but not yourself btw)=death, grave injury, psychological trauma

Effort you ask of protesters=make signs, march around, maybe get pepper-sprayed or arrested for a Class C misdememanor.

Yeah, those are quite similar.

Real quick here Oh, Gee. When have I said that I ask anything of our soldiers that I'm not willing to do? I haven't even given you my stance on the war, you are just assuming what my position is. I only stated that it is wrong to tell the po-war folk that they must enlist or their opinions don't count, while the anti-war people don't have to make any effort to support their position.

[ChumpDumper]

So those who oppose this war can rant and rave all they want and not have to show how much they oppose it by physically participating in their beliefs, but those who support the war must be active military and physically show their support or their opinions don't count?Protesting IS ranting and raving, so I don't see the issue there. My time to protest the war is well past, since I knew once we were there we would be stuck. If you know of any "Partition Iraq" demonstrations, let me in on it.

OTOH, the hyperbole used by war supporters about jihads total war and the survival of this country is not matched by their actions. If you truly believe this war is worth the ultimate sacrifice for the men and women of the armed forces, then what will be your personal sacrifice? What are you willing to to give right now?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Real quick here Oh, Gee. When have I said that I ask anything of our soldiers that I'm not willing to do? I haven't even given you my stance on the war, you are just assuming what my position is. I only stated that it is wrong to tell the po-war folk that they must enlist or their opinions don't count, while the anti-war people don't have to make any effort to support their position.

The efforts required are inherently different, so your analogy doesn't make sense.

[Jamtas#2]

The efforts required are inherently different, so your analogy doesn't make sense.

I agree that pretty much anything doesn't compare to risking death and wielding a gun. However, it is a question of talking the talk and walking the walk. If you tell pro-war people they must "walk the walk" then you must be prepared to "walk the walk" on your stance. It is very hypocritcal in my opinion to do otherwise.

[Jamtas#2]

Protesting IS ranting and raving, so I don't see the issue there. My time to protest the war is well past, since I knew once we were there we would be stuck. If you know of any "Partition Iraq" demonstrations, let me in on it.

OTOH, the hyperbole used by war supporters about jihads total war and the survival of this country is not matched by their actions. If you truly believe this war is worth the ultimate sacrifice for the men and women of the armed forces, then what will be your personal sacrifice? What are you willing to to give right now?

Protesting can be ranting and raving, you are correct. But if you are going to tell people that posting their support of the war on a message board isn't really supporting the war, than protesting it here isn't really protesting it either. Keep the same standard for both sides.
If you truly believe that this war is wrong, what will your sacrifice be to make sure it is ended? Are you willing to give to the movement to end the war?

[ChumpDumper]

I am pretty sure that most war protesters are perfectly willing to not go to war to substantiate their beliefs.

And as I said, I am perfectly willing to join a Partition Iraq rally. Do you know of any happening this weekend??

[Jamtas#2]

I am pretty sure that most war protesters are perfectly willing to not go to war to substantiate their beliefs.

So they are willing to do nothing. How much effort that must take to substantiate their beliefs.

[ChumpDumper]

So they are willing to do nothing. How much effort that must take to substantiate their beliefs.Not much, but they don't have to do much. They didn't want to go to war in the first place. The burden is squarely on those who want to send young men and women off to die.

As for me, I said, I am perfectly willing to join a Partition Iraq rally. Do you know of any happening this weekend??

[Jamtas#2]

Not much, but they don't have to do much. They didn't want to go to war in the first place.

As for me, I said, I am perfectly willing to join a Partition Iraq rally. Do you know of any happening this weekend??

No, but if you are willing to show your beliefs, you are more than welcome to arrange one.

I'm not saying that you have to be active to oppose/support the war. I'm only saying that if you are going to impose that standard on the opposing side, then apply it to yourself.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I agree that pretty much anything doesn't compare to risking death and wielding a gun. However, it is a question of talking the talk and walking the walk. If you tell pro-war people they must "walk the walk" then you must be prepared to "walk the walk" on your stance. It is very hypocritcal in my opinion to do otherwise.

"Walking the walk" on the anti-war side would require someone to attend a protest or rally here-and-there, vote, make some calls, volunteer their time. But at the end of the day you get to go home and spend time with loved ones.

"Walking the walk" from a soldier's perspective is a lot different. The soldiers are in danger 24 hours a day and may never get to go home and spend time with loved ones.

Again, your analogy just doesn't work.

[xrayzebra]

Holy smokes. The twilight zone.

[Jamtas#2]

"Walking the walk" on the anti-war side would require someone to attend a protest or rally here-and-there, vote, make some calls, volunteer their time. But at the end of the day you get to go home and spend time with loved ones.

"Walking the walk" from a soldier's perspective is a lot different. The soldiers are in danger 24 hours a day and may never get to go home and spend time with loved ones.

Again, your analogy just doesn't work.

Again, the situations are very different. But the fact that you are making an effort is the point. If you are going to require one side to make an effort to support their beliefs, then you need to make an effort on your side as well. (Before you post it again, I know it won't be the same level of effort as risking your life.)

[ChumpDumper]

No, but if you are willing to show your beliefs, you are more than welcome to arrange one.

I'm not saying that you have to be active to oppose/support the war. I'm only saying that if you are going to impose that standard on the opposing side, then apply it to yourself.I think when one side paints the war in terms of the survival of western civilization, that side needs to prove it is really that serious to them in all aspects of their lives.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think when one side paints the war in terms of the survival of western civilization, that side needs to prove it is really that serious to them in all aspects of their lives.

and when one side wants to continue sinking more money and bodies......well, you know the rest.

[Jamtas#2]

I think when one side paints the war in terms of the survival of western civilization, that side needs to prove it is really that serious to them in all aspects of their lives.

Well, then I guess if the other side is going to paint it as another Vietnam and is effectively ruining our country and how important it is for us to leave Iraq, they must prove that it is serious to them as well.

[Jamtas#2]

and when one side wants to continue sinking more money and bodies......well, you know the rest.


All the better reason for the anti-war side to make the effort, wouldn't you agree?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, then I guess if the other side is going to paint it as another Vietnam and is effectively ruining our country and how important it is for us to leave Iraq, they must prove that it is serious to them as well.I don't see it that way, so I'm off the hook.

Many war supporters on this board, however, have described the war as I have posted above.

[Jamtas#2]

I don't see it that way, so I'm off the hook.

Many war supporters on this board, however, have described the war as I have posted above.

I'm sure many supporters don't think of it as the survival of western civilization. does that mean you won't fire back with a "why aren't you enlisting if you're for the war" for them?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, then I guess if the other side is going to paint it as another Vietnam

*cough* dubya *cough*


and is effectively ruining our country and how important it is for us to leave Iraq, they must prove that it is serious to them as well.

how would you prove you are serious about leaving a place?
The answer is really simple: by leaving it.

who has the power to let us leave? Not you or me.

who has remained steadfast in his determination to remain in Iraq despite the fact that most of the country wants us out? who has ignored critics and protesters?

[Oh, Gee!!]

All the better reason for the anti-war side to make the effort, wouldn't you agree?

especially when the people with the power to decide are open to suggestions.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure many supporters don't think of it as the survival of western civilization. does that mean you won't fire back with a "why aren't you enlisting if you're for the war" for them?Then why did we start the war?

[Jamtas#2]

*cough* dubya *cough*



how would you prove you are serious about leaving a place?
The answer is really simple: by leaving it.

who has the power to let us leave? Not you or me.

who has remained steadfast in his determination to remain in Iraq despite the fact that most of the country wants us out? who has ignored critics and protesters?

Well, if you and me have no power to end the war. Then why do people have to prove they are for it by enlisting? They don't have the power to continue the war as per your point above.

And I know bashing Dubya is easy, he doesn't make it difficult. But why are you changing the subject? What has his lousy leadership got to do with the discussion we were having?

[xrayzebra]

who has remained steadfast in his determination to remain in Iraq despite the fact that most of the country wants us out? who has ignored critics and protesters?

Who is "most of our country". Seems as tho most of
our country doesn't hold our dimm-o-craptic congress in
much esteem. And they haven't really done much to get
anyone out of anything. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Seems as tho most of our country doesn't hold our dimm-o-craptic congress in much esteem. And they haven't really done much to get anyone out of anything. Wouldn't you agree with that?

I agree the democrats haven't done much of anything.

[ChumpDumper]

Who is "most of our country".
Americans have had enough: 61 percent support withdrawing U.S. troops by April 2008 — nearly twice the number that oppose withdrawal on that timeline (32 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289976,00.html

[xrayzebra]

I agree the democrats haven't done much of anything.


You know you and I agreeing is kinda scary....... :p: :lol
And you know people will talk...... :blah

[xrayzebra]

Americans have had enough: 61 percent support withdrawing U.S. troops by April 2008 — nearly twice the number that oppose withdrawal on that timeline (32 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289976,00.html


Really Chump. Then why haven't the dimms done anything
about it.
Wow 61 percent. Hell that should get all of them re-elected
and statues on the mall.

[Jamtas#2]

Then why did we start the war?

From my recollection, the reasons given for why the war was started was because Iraq had WMDs, a link to al qaeda, Saddam was an evil man....


I'd venture to guess that there are some war supporters who are only supporting finishing our work there, regardless of the reason we went in. Bill Maher who is not so Republican/Bush friendly is one from that group.
I don't think it is fair to say that every war supporter is a blind Bush supporter, nor is every anti-war person someone who opposed from the beginning.

But, that still doesn't really address the point I was making that it is wrong to have a double standard in an arguement. If you want to oppose the war, that is fine. You have every right to do so and make a valid point. But if someone wants to support the war, then you have to give them the same opportunity to make their point. Freedom of speech goes the same for things you are for and things you are against.

[ChumpDumper]

Really Chump. Then why haven't the dimms done anything
about it.Because they don't hold a large enough majority in either house. Pretty simple.

Wow 61 percent. Hell that should get all of them re-elected
and statues on the mall.If you are disputing the numbers, take it up with Fox News.

[Oh, Gee!!]

They don't have the power to continue the war as per your point above.

Those who support it give Congress and the WH the ability to maintain the status quo. Once the republicans start getting threatened by their constituents (meaning republican voters--not democrat war protesters) with ouster, they won't back the Prez. The Prez won't have the votes, and the end will be in sight.


And I know bashing Dubya is easy, he doesn't make it difficult. But why are you changing the subject? What has his lousy leadership got to do with the discussion we were having?

That's kinda like asking "why are we talking about a chicken when discussing the presence of an egg?"

[ChumpDumper]

From my recollection, the reasons given for why the war was started was because Iraq had WMDs, a link to al qaeda, Saddam was an evil man........which threatened the survival of western civilization.



But, that still doesn't really address the point I was making that it is wrong to have a double standard in an arguement. If you want to oppose the war, that is fine. You have every right to do so and make a valid point. But if someone wants to support the war, then you have to give them the same opportunity to make their point. Freedom of speech goes the same for things you are for and things you are against.People can make any point they want. So what?

War protesters aren't arguing for people to sacrifice their lives. War supporters are. That's the difference.

[Jamtas#2]

Those who support it give Congress and the WH the ability to maintain the status quo. Once the republicans start getting threatened by their constituents (meaning republican voters--not democrat war protesters) with ouster, they won't back the Prez. The Prez won't have the votes, and the end will be in sight.

Those who are against it were able to make a change in the make-up of congress. maybe if they can help to change the minds of the republican supporters, they can create more influence for their cause.



That's kinda like asking "why are we talking about a chicken when discussing the presence of an egg?"

No its like saying, we are discussing the merits of a double standard and you want to bring in an easy target to change the subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Those who are against it were able to make a change in the make-up of congress. maybe if they can help to change the minds of the republican supporters, they can create more influence for their cause.They already have. Republicans are looking for a way out before the next election. Which of course begs the question: Are they or were they ever serious about the war?

[Jamtas#2]

....which threatened the survival of western civilization.


People can make any point they want. So what?

War protesters aren't arguing for people to sacrifice their lives. War supporters are. That's the difference.

Using that logic: If we were debating abortion I could say to you "if you are pro-abortion, then you should have a baby aborted. Otherwise, you aren't really a pro-abortion supporter."

I really don't agree that is the case. Which is why I would let you make your arguement and not give you a standard that you must physically participate in it to have a valid point.

[xrayzebra]

Because they don't hold a large enough majority in either house. Pretty simple.
If you are disputing the numbers, take it up with Fox News.

No Chump I am taking it up with you. You made the
statement. Why haven't they done anything about it?

[Jamtas#2]

They already have. Republicans are looking for a way out before the next election. Which of course begs the question: Are they or were they ever serious about the war?

I agree, you might have a point there. I am all for having discussions of the war, but before this gets off track, the merits of the war wasn't my point. I was only saying that its not right to tell someone that they be serve in the military to support the war or they are just full of it.

[ChumpDumper]

No Chump I am taking it up with you. You made the
statement. Why haven't they done anything about it?I told you.

[ChumpDumper]

Using that logic: If we were debating abortion I could say to you "if you are pro-abortion, then you should have a baby aborted. Otherwise, you aren't really a pro-abortion supporter."You aren't using much logic at all in that case.

[DarkReign]

I wouldnt fight in Iraq if I were drafted yesterday. Not because I am a coward, but because I am not willing to give my life to cause I dont believe in. That simple.

Now, if some organized, highly motivated, large number of people decided to revolt and start over with this country, I would gladly enlist my life for that.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree, you might have a point there. I am all for having discussions of the war, but before this gets off track, the merits of the war wasn't my point. I was only saying that its not right to tell someone that they be serve in the military to support the war or they are just full of it.I am asking anyone here what personal sacrifice they have made for this war.

Total war demands sacrifice from everybody and many here have portrayed this as a total war.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No its like saying, we are discussing the merits of a double standard and you want to bring in an easy target to change the subject.

You said non-supporters should protest if they wanna "walk the walk." My point was that those to whom they would protest (meaning dubya) would turn a deaf ear. I don't think I said anything else about the Prez aside from the fact that he doesn't listen to or care what war protesters say.

[Jamtas#2]

You aren't using much logic at all in that case.

How am I not using logic in that case?

If you are for the war, you must join in the war and risk life to support it.
If you are for abortion, then you must be willing to have one.

Seems like the same logic.
I don't agree with the above example by any means.

I don't see why it is so hard to accept that having a double standard for war supporters is hypocritical.

[Jamtas#2]

You said non-supporters should protest if they wanna "walk the walk." My point was that those to whom they would protest (meaning dubya) would turn a deaf ear. I don't think I said anything else about the Prez aside from the fact that he doesn't listen to or care what war protesters say.


Portesting is also about raising awareness. By having rallies and organizing supporters to the cause you will put pressure on our leaders to change. Bush is not a dictator, if enough people in congress feel that they might not get re-elected a mjority can be formed to overrule the president. Don't be so apathetic to thing that if bush won't listen you shouldn't even try.

[xrayzebra]

I told you.

You told me nothing, which is normal!

[ChumpDumper]

Seems like the same logic.Nope. No one is demanding that other people must have abortions.
I don't see why it is so hard to accept that having a double standard for war supporters is hyprocritical.Supporters demand sacrifice, yet make none of their own. Protesters demand no sacrifice.

[PixelPusher]

How am I not using logic in that case?

If you are for the war, you must join in the war and risk life to support it.
If you are for abortion, then you must be willing to have one.

Seems like the same logic.
I don't agree with the above example by any means.

I don't see why it is so hard to accept that having a double standard for war supporters is hypocritical.
If people who support the right to abortion were railing for "total abortion" throughout the world, for all pregnant women, then you'd have a point.

[ChumpDumper]

You told me nothing, which is normal!I told you why the Democrats couldn't do anything about it at this time. Next year things will be much easier.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Portesting is also about raising awareness. By having rallies and organizing supporters to the cause you will put pressure on our leaders to change. Bush is not a dictator, if enough people in congress feel that they might not get re-elected a mjority can be formed to overrule the president. Don't be so apathetic to thing that if bush won't listen you shouldn't even try.

awareness is at an all-time high, and so is the public's dissatisfaction with the war, but nothing changes. you might start seeing some people flip which will take power away from the prez; but with the new public announcement push on talk radio to get republican voters to contact their representatives to threaten them with ouster if they sway from the party line, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Jamtas#2]

Nope. No one is demanding that other people must have abortions.Supporters demand sacrifice, yet make none of their own. Protesters demand no sacrifice.


Well, I believe I've seen you post on the need to go to Dafur (I could be worng on this, thought it was you). Does that mean if we were to go to Darfur and intervene that you would be enlisting?

[Jamtas#2]

awareness is at an all-time high, and so is the public's dissatisfaction with the war, but nothing changes. you might start seeing some people flip which will take power away from the prez; but with the new public announcement push on talk radio to get republican voters to contact their representatives to threaten them with ouster if they sway from the party line, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And it is at an all time high thanks to the protestors and anti-war movement who did do something and not remain apathetic. If the anti-war movement hadn't picked up so much support, we might still have been under a republican congress. If you expect overnight change, you're in for a disappointment. It takes time and effort, apathy never solved any problem.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I believe I've seen you post on the need to go to Dafur (I could be worng on this, thought it was you). Does that mean if we were to go to Darfur and intervene that you would be enlisting?Actually that was a counterargument to those who said we went to Iraq and had to stay for the Iraqi people and avoid having some more of them die. If they wanted to wear the white hat, they had to keep it on. Anyway we wouldn't be fighting much in Darfur if the government allowed us in. I have only read of about 10 casualties from the African Union peacekeepers in three years.

And I wouldn't consider peacekeeping in Darfur as a fight for the survival of the United States.

I believe service to one's nation is an honorable thing and there is an implicit trust that the government will use those making the sacrifice to be in the service only in extreme circumstances as a last resort. This administration has done no such thing.

[clambake]

If you are for the war, you must join in the war and risk life to support it.
If you are for abortion, then you must be willing to have one.


This war is an abortion. You got both. What else would you like? The only reason people suggest that supporters enlist is so they can go see it for themselves and carry the banner of their belief. Then, you can come back and teach us a lesson, provided you're not in a box.

[Jamtas#2]

This war is an abortion. You got both. What else would you like? The only reason people suggest that supporters enlist is so they can go see it for themselves and carry the banner of their belief. Then, you can come back and teach us a lesson, provided you're not in a box.

I got both? What else would I like?
What are you talking about? Do you know what this discussion is about or did you wander in halfway and assume you knew?

[clambake]

I got both? What else would I like?
What are you talking about? Do you know what this discussion is about or did you wander in halfway and assume you knew?
I think it was your comparison between abortion and enlistment that peaked my curiosity.

If this is considered conservative logic, then it is the best discovery from an autopsy ever recorded. I'm just guessing, but it might be a genetic flaw.

[Jamtas#2]

I admit it was a stretch of logic now in retrospec. I find it humurous though that I seem to be portrayed as a "conservative" now by a few people. Nowhere during my arguement have I argued for or against the war. I know that it is the Dem/Rep way to immediately characertize anyone who you feel as disagreeing with you as the other party. I am a member of neither party. I personally think it would be a bad decision on my part to commit to a party rather than evaluate the candidates on a case by case basis and choose the most qualified one.
That rant aside, my point was that it is not right to make all the pro-war supporters have to go fight to listen to their views, while its ok for the anti-war people to not have to make any effort to support their views by their actions. People should have their views counted regardless of how they decide to support their beliefs, but if you choose to put a restricition on one side, the restriction needs to be put on the other as well.
Otherwise, all those on the board who are preaching for a better environment had better be using all the alternative renewable energies to power their home, heat their water, etc., and be driving hybrids or walking/bike riding instead of driving a regualr auto.

[clambake]

completely agree with the first paragraph.

second paragraph, not so much. their views are counted, thats where we find ourselves, because of these views.

third paragraph is something we should all afford to practice, but this is not a cheap endeavor. my solar panels were an expensive purchase and they still require backup. the hybrid wasn't so much, but we don't take it for long trips. it's not practical. the tankless waterheater was 3K plus, installation included.

[Oh, Gee!!]

People should have their views counted regardless of how they decide to support their beliefs, but if you choose to put a restricition on one side, the restriction needs to be put on the other as well.

Agreed. You go to war; I'll go march in a protest.