Perfect. Wish I had said it myself. And you close with my all time favorite quotation.

Left by MajMike on April 15th, 2005 at 1:45 pm

I’m gonna forward your post to all my recruiter buddies. They need to put it this way when they talk to students, parents, counselors, etc.

Thanks.

Left by Jack Army on April 15th, 2005 at 2:02 pm

I get what you’re saying but I think that sometimes the answer is like trying to describe why you picked nursing over accounting or vo-tec electronics over the police academy.

Not that challenging people to actually come up with a valid “why not” isn’t a good idea, *particularly* at a time when the Army and Marines are having trouble meeting their recruiting goals. “Why not” is likely to be simply that it never occured to them to seriously consider it.

Left by Synova on April 15th, 2005 at 3:58 pm

You seem to deride those who choose not to serve in the military for their ‘selfish’ reasons. Of course no small part of the military are serving for their own ‘selfish’ reasons- often it’s the best opportunity many people have to pick themselves up economically. Is their service somehow less noble?

Appropriately enough, today is Tax Day. It’s ironic to me that many of the people that most glorify sacrifice for our nation on the battlefield are so willing to demean the sacrifices we make today for our country. For political reasons, they heighten the same distrust of our government that you resent when it is directed to the military.

But if you’re asking why won’t I bail out President Bush by enlisting today it is simply because I feel that his policies are not protecting Americans. (Although I wonder- if I were interested in safety- if I might be better off in Iraq- leaving a city that is an increasingly vulnerable to terrorism). Serving in the military is not inherently good- it is valuable only when the goals are just- we can use as an example the poor souls who rushed forward in patriotism and pride to volunteer for the First World War only to have their lives meaninglessly pissed away in pointless trench warfare. Unfortunately, I feel that the President is betraying the trust of those whose lives are in his hands now.

But again I will stress the difference between avoiding a draft and opting out of a volunteer army. When Dick Cheney used five deferments to avoid Vietnam stating that “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service” he was shirking a moral burden that wasn’t explicitly laid at my 18-year old feet during peacetime. But be sure if my country truly needed me I would be willing to fight for it.

Left by Preston on April 15th, 2005 at 4:55 pm

“But be sure if my country truly needed me I would be willing to fight for it.”

What if your country truly needed you, but you didn’t think so? You aren’t talking about the country’s needs at all, but about your own feelings about what is a worthy cause and what is not.

That’s not how it works.

You don’t get to join up for one action and sit out another just because, for instance, you decide that military intervention in Mogadishu is ill advised or that Bosnia is a cluster f**k waiting to happen, or that Iraq isn’t a legitimate threat. The civilian political process works out those things, the congress votes to go to war. The military serves.

Unless you want to do a Heinlein a la _Stomship Troopers_ (not the movie) and only allow the franchise for people who had served in the military? That way the military would, in fact, choose what cause was just and what cause was not just.

Left by Synova on April 15th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

(Though if the military did get to sit out whenever they didn’t like or trust the president, a Kerry win last November would have been an interesting specticle, to say the least.)

Left by Synova on April 15th, 2005 at 7:23 pm

To clarify…

I don’t think any less of any person because they have not served. I know some damned fine people whom I respect mucho that never served.

But I always think more of a person because they have served.

In other words, I don’t respect a man who has served more than a man who has not simply because he has served. I judge every man on his own merit. It’s just that my respect and feelings for a person are magnified if they have served.

Synova brings up an interesting point, and one I hadn’t considered—that for some, joining the military never occurred to them. I can understand that.

I also understand that military service is not for everybody, and not everybody should or can serve.

But what I’m interested in is for those who have made a conscious decision not to serve…what was the reasoning behind their decision?

Left by Robbie on April 15th, 2005 at 8:15 pm

Preston,

After reading your post I have spent the last hour trying to reply in a way that did not come out as an attack. Unlike many on the left who wish to belittle those who have served in the military I have this response.

I did not ask for your permission or demand your respect for serving my country right out of high school under President Jimmy Carter. I did Not respect him as our President nor did I respect the policies that he put forth as the Commander in Chief, but this did not stop me from serving my country at that time.

Nor do I expect so much as a thank you for serving the country a second time today in the National Guard.

Please rest peacefully knowing that there are some Americans who do serve and secure the LIBERTY and FREEDOMS guarnteed in our Constitution for all of its citizens.

These freedoms are only secured by those who serve and sacrifice their time, tears and lives. We do it for ALL Americans, serve both those we may or may not agree with, in peacetime and war.

We do not stand up and attack you for not serving nor do we denigrate you for sitting on the sidelines and letting others feed the tree of Liberty with their blood.

The next time you question what motivated a fellow citizen to serve his country in the military ask yourself this question first:

WHAT HAVE I DONE IN MY LIFE TO SECURE MY OWN LIBERTY AND WHY AM I QUESTIONING WHY OTHERS WHO HAVE FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY?

Maybe, then you might want to say something else to the next veteran you meet.

Left by Bill on April 15th, 2005 at 9:45 pm

I was in the USMC for 4 years during the Vietnam Era. One of my sisters also was in the USMC with me and all three of my brothers served in the Army then too. My Dad was a decorated WW II Veteran who fought under Generals Patton and MacArthur in some of their deadliest conflicts. Though my brothers all tried, none went to Nam. My sister and I were not allowed.

I fully support our president and our troops. But I am ashamed to say I hope my kids don’t join up. Though both are planning to do so, I have not advised them not to join or not join. My nephew was murdered in Kuwait March 5, 2005.

He was a police officer, married with four little girls aged 7 mos. to 7 yrs. old. Since he was raised in our home he was like a little brother, even though by then I was in the USMC. His mother, my sister met his father in the Corps.

His vehicle was rammed at 100mph by two Iraqi sent to Kuwait to kill Americans. It took the Navy 6 months to let us know they considered the “incident” an accident. That means he won’t receive the Purple Heart. He wasn’t in Kuwait 60 days. He was there less than a month. That means he won’t get his medal for serving in support of either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom or the War on Terror.

We have heard many things that make us question the “accidental” death decision. I wrote Senator John Warner about his Purple Heart. He sent me a reply with a copy of a DoD form letter from the DoD in response to his inquiry to them which underlined the reasons Mike would not get the Purple Heart. Oh did I mention the Navy took 6 months to decide? Well that was after my letter to Senator Warner.

Mike’s Grandma has heart and other health problems. Having been raised at home he was like a son to her. Her oldest son, my younger brother died from Cancer one year to the date after he left the Army. His service didn’t cause it but their not finding it caused him to suffer needlessly and experience more pain. They did re-instate his insurance and some benefits. My nephew was born 3 months before he died.

It was like my mom lost another son. Mike’s mom, my sister, lost her only child. Two of Mike’s kids are finally in a grief support group at the reserve unit. They didn’t have it before because they didn’t have “enough” people. Mike’s wife hasn’t accepted his death. One of his other daughters talks to him every night. The baby still calls “dada, dada! The oldest [finally in grief therapy] is mad at her dad for lying about coming home. The other one just clams up.

Our family is devided. My Mom and Mike’s Mom and widow hate Mr. Bush. The rest of us support him. But we can’t get together because Mike’s name always comes up and a family fight erupts.

Mike’s mom developed diabetes and it was a mess because she didn’t eat half the time. Now she has a heart problem. Our middle brother lives at home with my mom and her. His heart is bad. Nothing can be done for him and he can die at any time. My other brother has degeneratice disease in his neck and has retire. He is raising his 12 year old son alone.

He treid to get activated to go to Kuwait. He is a Deputy Sheriff. He thought he could get back in but they didn’t call him or accept his application. Now we know he can’t. I have PTSD unrelated to combat. I would gladly go but couldn’t get past the physical. My two kids, 20 and 22 take care of things at my mom’s place she can’t do. They help my brother [the one who is almost crippled] with what he can’t physically do now. We all keep a close vigil on my mom and Mike’s mom and my brother with the heart condition. Plus keep tabs on Mike’s family. We have to do this on the sly.

We cannot, as a family, handle losing another family member. And though it shames me to feel this way, I pray every day my kids don’t join too. My only saving grace as far as my dignity is I don’t encourage them either way.

I just tell them to think it over carefully and make sure they go in for the right reasons. I also tell them the Military is not for everyone but once they look into it carefully, if that is what they really want to do, then they have to decide and then do what they think is right.

I am devoting every spare moment I can to getting the Purple Heart Guidelines changed. As they are written now, Mike is not the only soldier who hasn’t received the Purple heart. I get emails and psotings on a forum I go to thanking me for trying to change the Guidelines because that will help their loved one get their Purple Heart too. So Far I only have 523 signatures after 6 months but I am determined to get at lwast 100,000 because I was told it would take about that many before Congress will take action.

Do you think I am a bad parent or ciitizen for the way I feel?

Left by devildog6771 on April 15th, 2005 at 11:56 pm

So you’re upset that your nephew was killed? Or that he didn’t get a medal for dying? Sorry, but it’s confusing.

Certainly someone with as many veterans in one’s family, as you do, understands the basic concept that soldiers will die during a war?

I feel your loss, and sympathize with your grief, but did someone pass a law limiting military service to a single death per family?

Apparently you don’t want your sons to enlist, because they might die in a war? Certainly that’s a goal; “Don’t join the military because you might get killed.”

Was that a concern of your father sixty years ago, or for you forty years ago?

Bill: I want to say “thank you.” -strike that- I want to say “Thank God for those of who who have served.” You’ve earned it. And that goes for you and your “clan” of vets, devildog! Thank God for all of you.

Anyway. About Preston. He’s spouting the usual liberal party line that Bush hasn’t made Americans any safer, but oddly enough I don’t remember hearing about the latest terrorist attack on America. Maybe that’s because there hasn’t been any!? Yep, that Bush, he really screwed up on that one.

Not to mention how his administration completely screwed the pooch while helping the Afghanis and Iraqis establish democratic forms of government in their countries. Yep. That was an utter failure.

Then there’s places like Lebanon, the Urkraine, and a couple of the “stans” in Central Asia, where the locals have decided they’re mad as hell, and aren’t going to take it any more. I’m sure that had nothing to do with how Afghanistan and Iraq have progressed.

Why do I have the funny feeling that Preston wouldn’t have had any problem serving for President Kerry? But no, Preston seems to think that Bush is senselessly sending our kids to slaughter (sorry about the alliteration {g}). At least, that’s what I get from the completely inappropriate comparison to WW1. Oh, and Pres: please quit spreading around the old canard that people join the military because they’re poor? Ok? It’s just so … 20th century, you know?

Look, if you think it’s important to serve in the military, then sign up and go. If you don’t want to, or believe you have better prospects elsewhere, or you think you can make a better life for your family as a civilian, knock yourself out. Just don’t insult our intelligence by coming over all moral and concerned about Bush’s policies. If you intend to serve, then shuddup and soldier. I know of more than a few vets who had absolutely no use for Clinton, or his policies, but still served faithfully. I know of one officer in the Army who has no use at all for Bush, personally, but I have no doubt he will faithfully obey lawful order issued by that administration.

You see, the key word above is serve. You don’t get to pick and choose your battles once you join. If that’s your choice, then fine. It’s your life. But don’t use a politician as a BS fig-leaf excuse not to join.

BTW, Preston, take that “Cheney is a chickenhawk draft-dodger,” crap, and blow it out your ass. If you took even sixty seconds to research Cheney, you would find out how moronic that claim is.

First, Cheney was born in 1941. For those with math difficulties, that means he turned 18 in 1959. Hardly big demand for soldiers in ‘59, if you recall. He tried Yale and didn’t do so well.

Now -(again) for the numerically challenged- the Vietnam war didn’t really heat up until 1965. By then Cheney was 24 and married. And we all know how many married college students rushed to join the colors back when the US military commitment to Southeast Asia numbered in five digits.

Cheney, BTW, got his bachelors degree in ‘65, and his Masters in ‘66. And before you get too snippy about “dodging,” recall that just a couple years later mister “Reporting For Duty” Kerry tried to wrangle a one-year academic deferment to study in Paris. Before he had a family. Cheney’s older daughter was born in 1966.

Push all that up five years (i.e. Cheney was born in ‘46) and you might have something remotely resembling a case against the man. Alas, for you, that is not the case. You are falsely accusing a man who had a Masters in poly sci, was married, and had a daughter by the time Vietnam turned into a “real war” for America. Mister “I don’t approve of the current administration’s policies, but I’d join if it was important.” Feh. Maybe Cheney didn’t “approve” of Johnson’s policies. Ever think of that?

Before someone asks, I’m 45, and it really pissed me off when I heard they recently raised the Reserves max age to 39. The bastards.

Left by Casey Tompkins on April 16th, 2005 at 1:44 am

Remember, during the Viet Nam era we had a draft as opposed to a voluntary service now. Lots of young people didn’t agree with the Viet Nam war or the Presidents but only those in college got deferments (cept for physical reasons, etc.). A lot of the guys who served in Viet Nam seriously resented the “rich” college brats who carried protest signs around their comfy campus while their not so fortunate brothers were facing death in the jungle. It wasn’t a fair system.

So, now we have a voluntary service and a reserve service. My own personal belief is that the majority of those who chose to join before Iraq did so to get a career, or get the benefits offered, not thinking they would be serving in wartime and I’m sure lots of reserves never dreamed they’d be serving in wartime conditions for the same length of time as the regular army, navy, etc. people. Proof of this are the many women, many married, who are now in Iraq away from their kids, etc. Sure they were told of their responsibilities before they joined up, but most never believed it would happen. Heck, even the cold war was over. It’s no wonder we’re having trouble getting new recruits now. How many married women are currently joining the reserves compared to 5 years ago? Gee..let’s see, if I thought I could join up and make a few extra dollars but risk having to leave my kids with grandma for a couple of years, what would I do?

I will say this though. Whether it was Viet Nam or now Iraq, etc. those people who served or are serving are to be honored and congratulated for their service to our country and even though many of them didn’t join up to serve in wartime, the vast majority of them are committed and patriotic and proud of what they are doing and quite frankly, I believe my life and the life of my family is in their hands.

If we want to continue to have a strong military, I think we need to face reality and change our system somehow, both from what it was during Viet Nam and for what it is now. I don’t have the answers, I just see the issues. And, once again, to those of you who have served, I thank you.

Left by dianne on April 16th, 2005 at 6:58 am

Synova- of course I can personally choose if the country needs me- the same way that the millions that rushed to recruitment offices after Pearl Harbor or the attack on Ft. Sumter did. When there is an attack on the country citizens rush to respond.

Robbie- That’s a sensible approach- I feel the same way though maybe with a different angle. I feel that military service is one way to serve our community- an act that is essential to being a full member of our society. So I have similar feelings for teachers and those who attend to the poor- especially at their own sacrifice.

Bill- as you might gather from the last comment I don’t have some sort of grudge against the military. Far from it- my parents served, my grandfather was career Army, and I have a cousin in Kosovo at this point. In fact, one of my first posts on this blog, if I recall, did thank Robbie for his service. I, however, am of the opinion that the lion’s share of military actions that this country engages in do not serve the cause of liberty. You can toss me in with Pat Buchanan, if you like…

Devildog- I’m sorry for your loss- I hope you are able to receive recognition for you nephew.

Casey- let’s both hope there are no more attacks on this country’s soil- I would certainly fear for our liberties if that happened. But, I’m not as confident as you seem to be- there was 8 years between the two attacks on the World Trade Center. Though they attempted more attacks in the interim (the Millenium attacks thwarted by the Clinton Administration) our enemies have shown themselves to be patient.

Similarly, let’s see what happens in Iraq and Afganistan. Because our safety now depends on the success of the missions there I am praying for democracy there. However, I’m certainly worried about events in Afganistan where they call Hamid Karzai the ‘Mayor of Kabul’. In Iraq we are through with the parts that were supposed to be the ‘easy part’- lets just hope that the Sunnis are satisfied with their minority role in the new government and don’t begin a civil war. That was always my worst fear for Iraq- a situation where the weapons of the Hussein regime were dispersed among fighting factions- alas, that part has already come true.

Yeah, I understand that Cheney was a real outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War…

Left by Preston on April 16th, 2005 at 7:37 am

Actually I said though I don’t want to see them go I did not try to influence their decision. Second, my nephew was killed by terrorists comitting a terrorists act.He deserves a Purple Heart. As do many others killed or injured who have not been awarded their Purple Heart. Some may consider it unimportant, frankly I don’t. It won’t bring them back, but that is beside the point. I am sure my sister, who lost her only child felt the same way when she didn’t use her option to prevent his deployment!! I was attempting to put in perspective that if my nephew’s loss affected me so strongly, how must these people who lost their sons or daughters feel. Guess I wasn’t too clear!!

Left by devildog6771 on April 16th, 2005 at 1:33 pm

“Similarly, let’s see what happens in Iraq and Afganistan. Because our safety now depends on the success of the missions there I am praying for democracy there.”

Our safety depended on success in those two places all along. Not just now, after we’ve committed ourselves, but fron the beginning.

I’ve always thought so. I’ll guess that you disagree. And that’s what I’m talking about when I say that you can’t decide which action is necessary and which action is not. You could be right or I could be right, but the truth of the matter doesn’t care about my opinion or about your opinion.

And you are right when you say that *now* our safety depends on the success of those missions. You can “wait and see” or you can help get that good result. Refusing to “bail out Bush” is spiteful. The impulse may be understandable, but it’s not just Bush that’s laid out to dry if we don’t get that good result. And is watching Bush fail worth the hardship of people in Afghanistan or Iraq or the people in our own country?

I’m overall optimistic about Iraq and about Afghanistan. The road is bumpy but it’s clear and wide and everything is going to be okay. But think for just a moment about those who believe it’s a disaster and who hate Bush and who, such as those college students protesting recruiters on campus who say things like they hope the “resistance” wins. Is hating the man really worth wishing that on those nations? Is it worth hoping for civil war in Iraq? Heck, at least a “wait and see” isn’t actively hostile, at least it’s not *working* for failure. It is, though, washing one’s own hands of responsibility for the outcome when the opportunity exists to work for a good outcome.

And that is service. That is why three quarters of the military would not have simply gone home if Kerry won the election. Because they’d be working their hardest to get a good result despite the SOB who was president.

Left by Synova on April 16th, 2005 at 2:17 pm

“college students protesting recruiters on campus who say things like they hope the “resistance” wins.”

Please- don’t use some strawman of an anti-war college student supporting Sunni insurgents. Give me a quote of any prominent American- anybody, liberal or conservative- who has said that they want the insurgents to succeed. You have created a myth of an unreasonable political opposition to justify your own beliefs. _Nobody_ wants the insurgents to ‘win’- because ‘winning’ means civil war which means even greater opportunity for terrorist training. It was this calculation that allowed the President to invade Iraq and enjoy the 80% approval ratings as the country rallied around him- we’re all in the same boat now, regardless of how foolish the decisions that brought us here now were.

What do you mean ‘optimistic’? If Iraq establishes a ‘democracy’- meaning a government by and for the people of Iraq- what do you think their attitude to Israel will be? To Islamic fundamentalism? To the theocracy in Iran? To the Kurds in Turkey? The radically uncertain answers to these questions lead me to believe that George Bush either never intends to establish ‘democracy’ in Iraq or is blissfully idealistic about the potential outcomes. (In addition to the Administration’s policy of condoning tyranny in locales from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan).

Perhaps it is spiteful to not want to ‘bail out Bush’- I’ll think about that. But I guess I would expect the same from the President’s own daughters who are much closer to an ideal recruitment age.

Left by Preston on April 17th, 2005 at 9:05 am

Robbie:

After being provoked to think about it by your post I guess I am indeed willing to let other people fight and die for me- except in the aforementioned instances of World War-type conflicts. It’s not something I’m proud of but not something I’m ashamed of either.

It’s just as I allow other people to protect my community from crime and allow other people to rush into burning buildings to save my neighbors. When my family gets sick I would like to be the one who cures them but instead I allow someone else who was willing to suffer years of medical school to do the job.

I agree with you that we need to hold veterans up as people willing to sacrifice their lives for our country but I’m not sure if I reserve that praise for them. I feel that anyone who is working to better their community- either as a professional or a volunteer should be singled out as a true citizen.

I appreciate your post- it’s obviously spurred interesting dialogue and hopefully a bit of thought.

Left by Preston on April 17th, 2005 at 11:43 am

I agree that occupations such as teacher, fire fighter, and police officer are amongst the most honorable that a person can be a part of. And the service that they provide to their communites is unarguably a selfless and invaluable one.

But I still don’t compare those jobs with serving in the military. And yes, I place military service on a higher pedistal for the following reasons:

1) Once you join the military, you can’t just quit if you decide that you don’t like the job or it’s getting too dangerous. If you’re a cop, and you get tired of issuing parking tickets or working patrol, you can quit at any time. The police department can’t stop you.

If you don’t show up for work as a teacher, you get fired. If you don’t show up for work as a soldier, you can go to prison.

In the military, when things get thick, you can’t just pack your bags and take the easy route out. And you know this before joining. Which makes the decision to serve all the more honorable and difficult.

2) As a teacher, cop, or fire fighter, you won’t ever be ordered to move away from your family for a year at a time. Nor would you even be ordered to move city-to-city, or country-to-country without a say. As a solider, you and your entire family can be uprooted and moved across the country every few years. Sometimes (Korea, war, etc.) your family doesn’t get to go with you.

3) As a cop, teacher, or fire fighter, you serve your community. As a soldier you serve your country.

4) An entry level teachers, cops, and fire fighters make more than twice as much as an entry level solider.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2005 at 9:42 am

Point Preston..Counterpoint Robbie…Interesting

Getting down to brass tacks, who is going to join at the bottom of the fish tank for $14,000 per year? Ask yourself that question. Then ask yourself if that same person, for whatever motivates him, is willing to risk his life during wartime for $14,000-$and a couple more thousand+ per year. Let’s see…I can work at McDonalds…but I will get room and board in the Army and maybe learn a career..but in Iraq? Nope…McDonalds.

Ahhh…the National Guard…extra bucks just what I need..couple of weeks of training in the summer…hey Wisconsin is a fun place…few monthly meetings…but wait a minute..two tours of duty in Iraq? What about my full time job? Are they gonna pay me while I’m gone? Will my job be there when I get back? Geeze…what about Cindy and the kids? I might never see them again. What would happen to them?

Couple years of college…smart but burned out…looking for something different…ahhh Army…maybe I can be a linguist..hard to get into school but damn good career possibilities..will take Russian…won’t go to Iraq..ok…sign me up…Or…combat engineer…can learn career…but Iraq possibility high…uhhh I don’t think so. Will take job at PayMeWell construction company instead.

Fresh out of college…whoa…world at my tail..military? What’s happening man? American century Investments? Graduate school? Always wanted to be a jet pilot…looking good..I love adventure…maybe…..But geeze Iraq…wonder what they’ll pay me? How long is this shit gonna last? Yah, Cindy and the kids again..gotta think about them too…I dunno. All my frat buddies have these job offers …

Football player Tillman I think was his name…a rare breed I think…look what he gave up for his country, but how many Tillmans are there out there?

The bottom line…not too many Tillmans. Not too many people willing to die for their country while Iraq may be in their future. It’s different during peace times. This is not a peace time. Even during peace time the Prestons of this world will always be there. Heck I might be a Preston if I was of the age to join up. I don’t like war. I want somebody else to do it for me. They can’t make me…there is no draft. I’m serious. Why would I do it when I wouldn’t even consider being a firefighter?

Robbie…I think we’re in for a hell of a problem with enlisting in the U.S. military.

Left by dianne on April 18th, 2005 at 11:02 am

Good points. I obviously don’t mean to denigrate military service- just to give my perspective of how it fits in with other types of community service.

Clearly, the military is a different type of sacrifice. Reason # 1 strikes me as the most compelling- soldiers have to make an open-ended commitment as we are witnessing now. The reserves that signed up to put out wildfires in the 1990’s are finding themselves in Iraq for long stints whether they like it or not.

I don’t really want to quibble over the other points- we’re both in agreement that it is an honorable thing to serve your community and country- we simply have some differences about specifics.

The one thing I did find provocative was point #3. I don’t distinguish the two types of service- to community and to country. I guess the roots of my patriotism are not simply the result of being born in this country- that tribalism doesn’t really interest me. Though I, of course, share that feeling it’s an impulse common to people in the most repressive regimes and doesn’t speak to higher ideals in my opinion.

The roots of my patriotism are from the pride that we were the first (arguably) nation in history to protect the rights of citizens to govern themselves and to secure rights inalienable as humans. Perhaps this makes my patriotism more fragile- when the US fails to live up to it’s ideals I’m forced to choose- do I side with my country or my ideals?

But because my patriotism is rooted in this humanism I feel that serving my community is equivilent to serving the country because the ideals of the US are in protecting the rights and duties of those individuals. (I know that’s convoluted…)

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2005 at 11:05 am

Dianne:

Clearly the answer is a draft if the country’s military obligations are not able to be sustained by volunteers. The military doesn’t like the idea because they prefer to have willing soldiers but it’s hard argue with the ideal of shared sacrifice. And it certainly puts a burden on our leaders to engage only in military actions that they can defend to voters.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2005 at 11:13 am

Amen. I don’t think we have a choice.

Left by dianne on April 18th, 2005 at 11:20 am

Preston: One last thought before I actually do some work around here. I don’t buy that humanism stuff at all. Please read what you said…the ideals of the US are in protecting the rights and duties of those idividuals…

The U.S. is a country of individuals…it is “us”. Each of us has those “rights” and each of us has those “responsibilities” whether we like it or not.

Be back later.

dianne

Left by dianne on April 18th, 2005 at 11:59 am

We have rights and responsibilities protected by the Constitution. If that were not the case my sense of patriotism would be drastically reduced.

I’m sure the Chinese military feel pride and patriotism about their work. I have a hard time imagining feeling the same if I were in their shoes.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2005 at 12:36 pm

devildog, if u post a link, i would be more happy to sign your petition (assuming it is an online one of course)

Left by kyle on April 18th, 2005 at 5:23 pm

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that I like very much:

Draft Jenna.

Left by Prentiss Riddle on April 18th, 2005 at 8:28 pm

Ha, ha, ha.

Yeah, that’s fucking hysterical. Did the same car (let me guess…either a 2005 Toyota Hybrid, or a 1986 Volvo sedan) have a “Draft the Kerry Kids” sticker, too? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Just like the Left, always eager and willing to send someone else off to war to protect their asses.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2005 at 8:50 pm

Come on Robbie- you might be a bit disingenuous there…

John Kerry wasn’t the one who curtailed weapons inspections in Iraq in favor of ‘Shock and Awe’.

I don’t think it’s outlandish to speculate if the President would have made the same choice to go to war if his own children were in the military.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

You imply that is was President Bush who ‘curtailed weapons inspections in Iraq’.

That’s not true either, and you know that. Saddam Hussein curtailed weapons inspectors. That much we both know.

We tried the weapons inspections route for many, many years. How long do you propose we should have let Saddam curtail those inspectors.

Even the Liberal Bible (the NY Times) has reported that there were WMD in Iraq.

Oh, and unlike Weapons Inspections, shock and awe has worked.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2005 at 10:27 pm

Robbie, I’m even more surprised to hear you say that than I was to hear President Bush say it a year ago or so. And I’m sure I would support the war too if I thought that Saddam Hussein had ended the weapons inspections. But it’s not true.

From the AP on March 18, 2003: “U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

If we had bothered to listen to the weapons inspectors themselves we would have heard them shouting that Iraq no longer had these weapons.
And if it’s weapons you’re looking for, what better way to find them than to ‘inspect’? Certainly not by bombing the country and providing cover for terrorists to loot weapons depots… ‘Shock and awe’ can only be considered sucessful if we are unconcerned with the thousands of tons of explosives that now reside in the hands of terrorists.

About your reports of ‘WMD’: The New York Times is the home of Judith Miller who was pipelining Ahmed Chalabi’s erroneous intelligence and Elizabeth Bumiller who stated that ‘It’s frightening to stand up there’ in the White House Press Room and ask challenging questions. It is most assuredly _not_ the ‘Liberal Bible’. Anyhow, I find your quote from the Times to incredibly damning of the Bush administration: “In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms”

On March 30, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld stated “We know where they [the weapons] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad “. First of all, you can tell from the New York Times 2 years later that we’ve moved the goalposts to the extent that potential equals weapons. That was the urgent cause for war???

Second of all- if we knew where they were- why the hell were they looted?!? Honestly, this makes me furious. Rumseld was playing games with troop levels in the invasion and we were not adequately prepared to secure weapons sites- high explosives, convention arms, or even this machinery that was proportedly the justification of our invasion.

I’m sorry, I know it probably makes you angry to hear criticism of the President during war but the gross incompetence in Iraq _after_ March 19, 2003 was reason enough to fire Bush from his job.

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2005 at 7:56 am

Facts are Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and facts are he had used them. Fact is we were attacked. Fact is we got intelligence from all over the world that said Saddam had WMD. My own personal belief is Saddam had biological weapons prior to shock and awe and they were either moved or destroyed. I don’t care what anybody says. I know from a scientific standpoint what it takes to make a biological … a very small area..easy to produce….storage in vials. No way inspectors could look under every grain of sand. Do you really realize what a small quantity of a biological weapon can do? Our President’s number one sworn duty is to protect us. And, he did what he thought he should do.

Left by dianne on April 19th, 2005 at 7:10 pm

We weren’t attacked by Saddam Hussein.

The intelligence was cherry-picked- former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter for one did not believe WMD’s existed. But I don’t suppose he got to meet with the President. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm (written nearly a year before the invasion.)

It’s true that it’s the President’s responsibility to protect us. But war is not without risk- because of the invasion thousands of tons of high explosives are in the hands of terrorists (enough to take down how many planes?), Iraq is likely to become a Islamic theocracy, and now millions of Muslims believe Osama bin Laden’s assertions regarding US ambitions in the Middle East.

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2005 at 9:55 pm

*wanders off mumbling about eye regulations*

Goddamn DODMERB

Left by Spade on April 20th, 2005 at 1:48 am

Yeah, but good sight is a good think to have in the military.

Left by Robbie on April 20th, 2005 at 12:08 pm

Sure, there are things for which I will fight - but not THIS. Not this lie, and not this half-baked excuse; and sure as hell not on these people’s orders.

Left by ixat on June 20th, 2005 at 12:04 pm

Uh…which lie are you referring to? Because if you’re trying to claim that the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is being fought based on a “lie”, you’re dilusional.

So, please, specify which lies and half-baked excuses you are referring to…and please provide supporting evidence of such.

And let me cut you off before you go there…the WMD issue is not based on a lie. Nor are WMD the only reason for going to war.

You’ll have to do better, ixat…all of your Left-wing talking points have already been refuted ad nauseam.

As to your last point…you wont’ defend nor serve your country simply because you don’t like who’s in charge? Well, that makes you little more than a selfish, cowardly bastard.

Left by Robbie on June 20th, 2005 at 12:55 pm

[...] Carrie French believed in and loved her country enough to die for it. So, again I ask you, “Why haven’t you served“? [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » SPC Carrie French: Godspeed on February 6th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

“Why haven’t you served” Jesus said “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”

Left by Mary on January 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am

Mary, Mary, Mary — The bible also says “an eye for an eye”. So if you murder or kill, then you too shall be put to death. There is a huge difference between murder and killing as judicial punishment or to defend life.

So sad that so many on the Left disagree — yet find it’s convenient to kill babies just before they are born.

Left by Robbie Cooper on January 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm