|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 19:55:59 [Permalink]
|
I would like to point out that we currently have a volunteer military in this country. I agree with MyCroft that it is wrong to say that anyone who supports a war should be personally willing to fight even if they are ill-suited to do so.
There's a lot of talk here of love-ones and children as if they are property. Do we have evidence that if Jenna Bush or any other loved-one of George Bush joined the military that he would not support them? I do think this is just an emotional appeal. If you want to argue that we are involved in an unjust military conflict that is hurting the USA's relations abroad and making the world a more dangerous and painful place, go right ahead.
That said, I do agree with some of what Mooner says about how if you support a war you should be taking profound action even as a non-military citizen. It bothers me that the word and concept of "war" is thrown around so casually in this nation. My husband doesn't even support the Iraq war and he still broke down and donated money for armor that our government didn't provide for all our soldiers in Iraq. I hear all these stories about victory gardens and families making real economic sacrifices during WWI and II, but even though we call the Iraq occupation a "war" and talk about it all the time, through the actions of average Americans it hardly seems as if we are a nation at war. Americans seem to take this attitude of "Oh, we're the most rich and powerful country with a big fat military so that'll take care of itself" rather than seeing ourselves as part of our country and its leadership.
Thus, I am unimpressed by criticisms of the Presidents daughter. I really don't give a crap about whether Jenna Bush has fullfilled her quota of support-through-action for the Iraq war. The problems I see and changes I'd like to see go way beyond something so petty. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/16/2007 19:56:52 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2007 : 07:41:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I would like to point out that we currently have a volunteer military in this country. |
And I'd like to point out that a great many patriotic Americans joined the military after our nation was attacked on 9-11 for all the right reasons, and now have no choice but to follow bad orders in a war started for all the wrong ones. The people who joined the military were willing to give their lives for this country. That doesn't mean our leaders get to throw them away, draft or not, so I'm not really sure why you find that worth mentioning.
| I agree with MyCroft that it is wrong to say that anyone who supports a war should be personally willing to fight even if they are ill-suited to do so. |
Of all the politicians' sons and daughters who voted for this war, how many support the war and are also physically capable of participating in it? Of those, how many do?
| There's a lot of talk here of love-ones and children as if they are property. Do we have evidence that if Jenna Bush or any other loved-one of George Bush joined the military that he would not support them? |
But that's not what we're talking about. It's not about whether or not Bush would support his daughter if she joined the war. It's about the fact that he and our leaders should have approached the war as if their children's lives were on the line already, and not just some other expendable person's expendable child. Except that's not the case. In fact, the mere idea that such privileged war hawks, so desperate for blood in the first place, might actually share the risk is considered "absurd" and "blood lust." It's about a privileged ruling class who acted carelessly with human life because they know they themselves are untouchable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/17/2007 09:10:38 |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 08:02:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by HalfMooner
No, not sour grapes. People should act upon their convictions, especially people who expect others to do so.
It's important that elites demonstrate courage and noblesse oblige. If they don't, they set themselves up for a fall. Jenna's grandfather knew as much, and fought bravely in WWII. But not her dad, and not her. Cowardice combined with wealth and arrogance is not something Americans will accept forever. She's just another Bush "yellow elephant."
|
That makes about as much sense as saying if you support the arts that you personally should be painting murals, or if you want the government to keep our highways in good repair that you should personally hire on with a road crew, of if you want our schoolchildren to have nutritious meals that you should personally become a school cook.
That's nonsense, of course. You just want to stack the rules against people you disagree with. We live in a representative democracy, if you don't want the US to go to war, then vote for the guy least likely to get us there.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You're damn right the children of the war-mongers, republicans and democrats alike, should be shipped to Iraq. If their parents' idiocy is in any way hereditary, dying for their country would be a good thing to do. Not just for America, but for the entire world.
And it would make politicians think twice before sending them out to a war America has no business fighting. |
This is nothing short of blood-lust. In my opinion it's even more despicable than the thinking of those that got us into Iraq. At least they pursued a policy they believed in, you just want to see your political opponents suffer.
|
Who believed what now?
Those who got America to go to war against Iraq made up the whole (fake) argument for going there. So, who is more despicable? |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 09:20:03 [Permalink]
|
And I'd like to point out that a great many patriotic Americans joined the military after our nation was attacked on 9-11 for all the right reasons
|
Their hearts may have been in the right place, but they joined for all the wrong reasons. Crime does not solve crime.
I think it's fine to say that these people (such as Bush) don't have to pay the price when they make these decisions, but again, I don't want anyone to go, so I'm not going to suggest that they do.
I'm not wondering why Bush and his supporters are not going to war, I'm wondering why they're not going to prison, as that's where most of you would send people who did a lot less damage. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/17/2007 12:23:35 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 09:27:11 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | And I'd like to point out that a great many patriotic Americans joined the military after our nation was attacked on 9-11 for all the right reasons, and now have no choice but to follow bad orders in a war started for all the wrong ones. |
No, they do have a choice. They would have to face other consequences if they decide to defect or refuse to obey further orders, but they do have a choice.
It goes without saying that the people charged with responsibility over the military (the Commander in Chief) should be held to incredibly high standards and should be expected to act intelligently and ethically, which this President and administration has failed to do. I still don't see what that has to do with the expectation that individual politicians' children join the military.
| The people who joined the military were willing to give their lives for this country. That doesn't mean our leaders get to throw them away, draft or not, so I'm not really sure why you find that worth mentioning. |
How did you get from volunteer military to the right of leaders to throw those lives away? I find it worth mentioning that currently no American is expected to serve in the military. It is not a mandatory duty. Why would it be expected of anyone who supports the war if they are ill-suited for combat. Why, then, is it so ridiculous or offensive for Jenna Bush to say that her as an individual joining the military is impractical?
| Of all the politicians sons and daughters who voted for this war, how support the war and are also physically capable of participating in it? Of those, how many do? |
I gotta go again with MyCroft on this in that it is similar to saying that someone supporting the arts should make art themselves. Just because someone is physically capable of joining the military doesn't mean they should or that that kind of service is most productive and suitable for them. During WWI Europe just drafted all able-bodied young men and thereby killed off almost an entire generation of poets, artists, musicians, composers, and others who were more valuable to society in other ways. I think it is great that we have a volunteer military. The only thing that bugs me about it is that I feel too many people are economically pressured to join. The ideal military is one where every soldier is there because they truly feel a calling to that kind of work. People who have their heart and mind in their work do their work much more effectively.
| But that's not what we're talking about. It's not about whether or not Bush would support his daughter if she joined the war. It's about the fact that he and our leaders should have approached the war as if their children's lives were on the line already, and not just some other expendable person's expendable child. Except that's not the case. In fact, the mere idea that such privileged war hawks, so desperate for blood in the first place, might actually share the risk is considered "absurd" and "blood lust." It's about a privileged ruling class who acted carelessly with human life because they know they themselves are untouchable. |
Look, I take all your points well, but this is essentially an emotional appeal. This isn't about Jenna Bush not joining the military, or other political leaders having disproportionately few loved-ones in the military. This is about the fact that this particular war was built on lies and executed horrendously. There are plenty of strong criticism against this war, so to use weak ones such as this weakens the whole argument against the war. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 17:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
It's about the fact that he and our leaders should have approached the war as if their children's lives were on the line already, and not just some other expendable person's expendable child. |
I have to go with Humbert on this one. When making the decision to go to war, politicians should ask themselves if they would be willing to make the same sacrifice that they are asking the parents of those who will serve to make. That should be a serious consideration. “Is this war worth the life of my child?”
Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, but really, should any politician be trusted with such life and death issues if they don't ask themselves that question before sending other peoples children into battle? (Of course, I know that means most politicians can't be trusted, but it's not as though we didn't know that already.) It seems to me that as idealistic as it may sound, that kind of emotional question should play a part in the decision making process as a matter of ethics.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 19:21:02 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: I have to go with Humbert on this one. When making the decision to go to war, politicians should ask themselves if they would be willing to make the same sacrifice that they are asking the parents of those who will serve to make. That should be a serious consideration. “Is this war worth the life of my child?”
Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, but really, should any politician be trusted with such life and death issues if they don't ask themselves that question before sending other peoples children into battle? (Of course, I know that means most politicians can't be trusted, but it's not as though we didn't know that already.) It seems to me that as idealistic as it may sound, that kind of emotional question should play a part in the decision making process as a matter of ethics. |
Don't you think this is getting a little too abstract? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 11:23:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Mycroft, while there have always been members of the elite classes who avoided personal risk while supporting a war, it seems to me that these days this has become far more widespread and acceptable among the elites themselves. I find that disgusting. |
I understand and respect the point of view, but it's an issue that should be handled at the polls, not with any new rules. If your fellow voters agree with you, then candidates lacking wartime combat military experience should have a much more difficult time getting elected. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 11:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
There are plenty of strong criticism against this war, so to use weak ones such as this weakens the whole argument against the war.
|
Bravo!
This is true with any issue. Just because one agrees with the conclusion doesn't make an argument valid. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 12:13:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And I'd like to point out that a great many patriotic Americans joined the military after our nation was attacked on 9-11 for all the right reasons, and now have no choice but to follow bad orders in a war started for all the wrong ones. |
Back in the days before we invaded Iraq I argued that we have an obligation to our soldiers not to place them in harms way needlessly and unless a greater good is served by it. I believe out leaders have failed miserably, and it seems you and I agree on that.
But that doesn't make your proposed solution, compulsory military service, a good idea. It's still bad.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Of all the politicians' sons and daughters who voted for this war, how many support the war and are also physically capable of participating in it? Of those, how many do? |
It doesn't matter. What matters is that the politicians who made the choice are politicians that we elected, and that we have the power to make different decisions in the next election.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
But that's not what we're talking about. It's not about whether or not Bush would support his daughter if she joined the war. It's about the fact that he and our leaders should have approached the war as if their children's lives were on the line already, and not just some other expendable person's expendable child. Except that's not the case. In fact, the mere idea that such privileged war hawks, so desperate for blood in the first place, might actually share the risk is considered "absurd" and "blood lust." It's about a privileged ruling class who acted carelessly with human life because they know they themselves are untouchable. |
I don't believe our leaders took us to war because they believe themselves are untouchable.
In psychology there is a term called a "fundamental attribution error." In layman's terms, it describes our tendency to assume that people who do things we dislike do it because they are bad people, and that we come to this judgment in ignorance because we don't know their true motivations.
I believe elements on the right and elements on the left use this tendency to polarize US politics. Because so much energy is spent creating labels and slogans and making unfounded assertions as to what the motivations of the others are, that it becomes impossible to understand the others point of view.
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 12:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Here's one of the answers that floored me: If the war in Iraq is so noble, why aren't you and your sister serving our country there? —Donald Pence, San Francisco
I understand that point, but there are many ways to serve our country, and I think my skills are better suited for teaching and representing the U.S. in Latin America through UNICEF. I respect the men and women of our country who are over there fighting. It is an unbelievably selfless thing to do. But if people really thought about it, they would know it's not even a practical question. |
[My emphasis.]
Yeah your dumb question is impractical, so screw you. I respect the idiots who die on my behalf, though, the suckers. I'm not like those little clueless, selfless people.
Very impractical question. Evasive, incoherent answer. (Was she coached by Miss Teen South Carolina?) It's more practical to send poor and middle-class youngsters to do the dying for the wealthy, of course.
Jenna Bush's practical answers are as courageous as her Daddy's (booze, partying, and cocaine) during his war.
|
You don't seriously expect the elite to go waste their lives in war, do you?  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 16:23:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Mycroft, while there have always been members of the elite classes who avoided personal risk while supporting a war, it seems to me that these days this has become far more widespread and acceptable among the elites themselves. I find that disgusting. |
I understand and respect the point of view, but it's an issue that should be handled at the polls, not with any new rules. If your fellow voters agree with you, then candidates lacking wartime combat military experience should have a much more difficult time getting elected.
|
I don't propose any law to patch up this ethical black hole. What I do demand is that anyone sending others to war either consider doing so the same as sending themselves or their heirs, or be held up to deserved public scorn. The only acid test for this is what they are actually doing.
For the most part (and I cannot think of a single exception) they and theirs are not fighting.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 16:27:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
[quote]Originally posted by HalfMooner
You don't seriously expect the elite to go waste their lives in war, do you?
|
I certainly hope not! Nor waste the lives of us commoners. If they used this standard, they might only support wars that were unavoidable.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/18/2007 16:27:50 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 05:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by chaloobi
[quote]Originally posted by HalfMooner
You don't seriously expect the elite to go waste their lives in war, do you?
|
I certainly hope not! Nor waste the lives of us commoners. If they used this standard, they might only support wars that were unavoidable.
|
That's where they broke the social contract. In general, we agree to live within a system where they stay privledged, we work to ensure that privledge, and they agree not to run things so that our lives are subjected to unnecessary misery. GW and the gang have violated that contract with the Iraq war and other very bad policies. If the elite keep doing this then the contract will be void and ugly things will happen. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 06:17:24 [Permalink]
|
| I worked with a guy for a long time that enjoyed war. I don't think that necessarily means that he would have made bad decisions regarding war if he were president, but I can't see why presidents wouldn't willingly send their children to war. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jenna Bush answers your questions
