picky, picky I know.....but this really drives me nuts

[magneto]

Whenever an argument starts up about the war, it quickly devolves into someone on the left telling someone on the right 'why aren't you in Iraq?' I always want to ask them if they believe that every single person who supports the war should be overseas fighting in it?

I come from a military family and there have been several military actions that we've engaged in that I've thoroughly supported, or would support (fighting Hitler, our Revolutionary War, 1812, Cuban Miss Crisis, WWII/Japan etc.--and I wish we'd have done SOMETHING for Rwanda, and I DO believe in a viable Israeli state.)

Especially in the case of WWII--a war that a huge number of Americans believed in--it's ridiculous to say some 80-90% of our population should've been deployed to fight. Logistics alone make it absurd; where were all the people supposed to be housed and trained? What would they eat and where's a good water source? How could our country supply them with guns or ammo (it would take YEARS just to manufacture enough). What about medical care, resupply convoys, troop transport vehicles?

Silly even to think of? Of course it is. However, if the citizens that support a war should fight it, then that's EXACTLY what you'd have. You can't say to war advocates 'go fight' only sometimes, or only when you don't like the war. It's either true all the time or it's not true any of the time.

We have always had a representative military; a small percentage of the population agrees to fight for the rest of us. It's impossible to have it any other way--and those supporters who don't do the actual fighting need to maintain our economy, manufacture the needed supplies, raise kids, keep families together, teach, doctor, run the government, practice law--everything our society needs and runs on.

It's utter nonsense to say all war supporters should go fight.

[Richard Steele]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[Gabi Hayes]

2. pushing back barcalounge....filling bowl with

popcorn

[ulysses]

3. "We have always had a representative military" no we haven't.

We don't now.

And yes, anyone who supports the war, especially now, should enlist and go. That would only be, what, one in three?

[ulysses]

8. aw, c'mon.

Before it's too late. :D

[magneto]

9. you miss the point

I am debating THE STANDARD of 'all supporters go fight'--NOT justifying the war in Iraq.

And by 'representative' I meant that a small number of citizens fight for all the citizens, and as reps of our government, that's all.

[ulysses]

13. in this case the standard works.

I'm only assuming that you're in uniform...

[acmavm]

4. Any able bodied big mouth who can spout off about how justified

the attack on an unarmed country was needs to get their ass up off the couch and into a uniform.

[Minnesota Libra]

5. Excuse me-I too come from a military family and if CONGRESS declares war..

......then ALL FIGHT regardless of political beliefs. But when some damned WH squatting jerk wants a war for profits then let his followers fight the damned thing. I'll even go one better than that, if Bush and his followers want war then their loved ones (daughters, sons, etc) should be be the first on the front lines - with the defective equipment.

Notice my distinction here is CONGRESS DECLARING WAR

Anyone is welcomed to flame me into next week but FIRST tell me why I'm wrong.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

32. Wow. I was deleted.

I gave two website suggestions. :shrug: I bet you can guess what at least one was! :evilgrin:


I will restate that I, to, come from a military family. Many of the men in my family have served during wartime. My career military father asked "Why haven't you enlisted" because he wants these people to put their money where their mouths are. He was dragged to Vietnam... if these idiots are all for Iraq, then they need to enlist. Period.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

45. Nice job!

(For being deleted. Disruptors should indeed go to THAT site, and stay.)

[magneto]

48. ???

Why can't you handle a simple little discussion about this? Surely you're not so fragile as that!

[CrazyOrangeCat]

51. Listen, I've been through way too much . . .

. . . to have to answer to the likes of you.

Your thread was intended to be distruptive, and you know it.

And your answers to direct questions do not make a lick of sense.

[magneto]

55. this is what I know

You need to stop trying to hunt up grievances; it's ridiculous that ALL kinds of questions can't be batted around in here.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

59. This is what I know . . .

You've been asked repeatedly in this thread, "What is your stance on this war?"

You've refused to answer.

Some conclusions can be drawn from that, sir.

[magneto]

61. everyone

Everyone seems to be having enough trouble staying focused....

[Nostradammit]

7. You have been driven nuts.

.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I use it against military age freepoids.

I enjoy watching them stutter. It is not a particularly rational argument. I typically add in that the military has greatly relaxed the 'don't ask don't tell' gay-terra so they should have no problem getting in and staying it, as that results in a sputtering stutter and I find that most amusing.

Point being that it is not intended as a cogent argument, it is intended to off balance the opponent. It works. I intend to keep using it where appropriate.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Is that you George? Comparing WWII to this illegal and immoral

bombing and occupation of Iraq. And yes if you support this, you and everyone else that does, should enlist. :patriot: ASAP!

[magneto]

16. not quite

No, I wasn't comparing WWII and Iraq. I'm saying that it was a war I'd estimate most of the people in America approved of and supported. Thus, if the rule is all war supporters should go fight, WWII would have resulted in more soldiers than civilians in America--and that that's not in any way doable.

[alittlelark]

12. "Why aren't you in Iraq"?

Really...

[Kerrytravelers]

14. Come on... where are you?

20 posts and already whining. I do believe we have a drive by!




Image stolen from Mayberry Machiavelli from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x691507#691650

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. I have to wonder what the OP really expected our replies would be?

:shrug:

[magneto]

17. anti-war

When arguing against the war, we'd sound more believable if we used better arguments--not slick catchphrases. I wanted replies to speak to THAT, that's all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Are you satisfied then with the replies you received?

:shrug:


edit: Are you still concerned about George's happiness, also?

[magneto]

20. nobody has answered this

Logistics alone make it absurd; where were all the people supposed to be housed and trained? What would they eat and where's a good water source? How could our country supply them with guns or ammo (it would take YEARS just to manufacture enough). What about medical care, resupply convoys, troop transport vehicles?

[Richard Steele]

27. You ignore the fact that our military is DESPERATE for recruits.

They are short-handed in every area, BEGGING for anyone to enlist.
They keep lowering the standards, and they STILL can't find enough
volunteers.

Maybe the military can't take EVERY B*shLover, but it damn sure
needs SOME of them.
They can't all "enlist", but they damn sure need to TRY!

Hey, if every able-bodied war supporter volunteered,
maybe the military could stop scraping the bottom of the barrel;
STOP enlisting drug addicts, criminals, and the borderline retarded?

So, I disagree. The gutless chickenhawks need enlistment forms
stuck under their noses at every opportunity.

[hfojvt]

40. In Kansas we have a saying, "fool me once, shame

Oh wait, that's not it. It's "put your money where your mouth is."
It is very easy to support a war that costs you nothing. Nobody is saying that everyone should enlist, only every male under the age of 30 who is not taking care of children under age 1. If a person really supports the war, then they, or their children or spouses, should go enlist. Otherwise, they only support the war when other people, strangers, do the fighting and dying. Which makes them either hypocrites and/or cowards.

[ulysses]

47. but since current support for the war would mean that only

1 in 3 would have to be housed, trained, etc, it's a lot more doable.

[magneto]

22. and nobody has said who should do this then

need to maintain our economy, manufacture the needed supplies, raise kids, keep families together, teach, doctor, run the government, practice law--everything our society needs and runs on.

[peacebird]

28. i'm betting the folks on their third tour of duty in Iraq & Afghanistan

would WELCOME a bunch more enlistees so that they (the current soldiers) could have a couple rotations on the home front....

Just saying - no where near as many folks are signing up to don gear and fight as are riding around with yellow ribbons proudly proclaiming their "support". The military would greatly appreciate an influx of young healthy able bodied patriots.

As Rummy says - troops are "fungible" and unfortunately too many are missing out on the "fun" and coming back too injured to be able to support themselves....

[Tanuki]

31. Has it occurred to you

that plenty of people serving in Iraq have been yanked away from those very activities, and don't get to "raise kids, keep families together, teach..." etc., as you suggest? Thousands of people who joined the national guard under a different understanding of what that would entail are serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq, totally disrupting their lives, families, and careers. I disagree with many of your premises, starting with your assertion that every time the war is debated, the discussion "devolves" into this one issue, which you can see is a silly generalization if you would bother to search the extensive archives here. Your claim that we have always had an army of a small number of citizens who "agree" to serve is also quite naive and inaccurate. We have often had a draft, and I can assure you that the reason we do not have one now is that the president and his ventriloquists know how quickly public sentiment would turn against the war if everyone was at equal risk of being sent to fight. Would you be quite so cavalier about the loss of lives if you knew that you and your friends or relatives would have to make that sacrifice? I am no fan of the senior George Bush, but at least he served his country honorably in wartime, unlike the craven degenerates he spawned. If the combat boot fits, wear it.

[freeplessinseattle]

75. no shit! talk about "support the troops" what better way?

then again, it's a tough call, there's such a shortage of MBA's that are so valuable to the wine and gadget economy.

[Kerrytravelers]

64. Tell you what. All those who support * can go to Iraq, Iran... where ever

And all those who have lost their jobs overseas or who are discriminated against and have trouble finding employment in *'s Amerikkka will somehow manage to pull through without the shrub-lovers. In fact, i suggest we'd have a healthier and more productive country.

And with that, Mr. kt and I are off to enjoy what is left of America before the repubots completely destroy all we have ever known and loved.

[mitchtv]

73. We'll survive

they could afford to be picky about who is accepted. People like Jonah Goldberg who thinks being a chickenhawk is acceptable. Every able bodied War monger should at least present themselves to fight terra

[Sparkly]

74. This reminds me of the "We can't pay off the debt too quickly!" warnings.

Remember when Chimp took office, and everybody warned that if the surpluses continued we might pay down the entire debt so fast, it'd be bad!! (Like there was a big DANGER there!!)

There is no danger of millions of people leaving the country to serve abroad. I say it's fine to point out their hypocrisy until or unless the backdoor draft ends, the guard is back home, and recruitment levels are up. Until then, there's no danger of overfilling the military. (There are a finite number of billets anyway.)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

29. Why do brand new posters..

..ALWAYS know what "we" should do to sound more believable?

And by suggesting that "we" (as in anti-war people) aren't "believeable", you're clearly making your liberal/Democratic credentials quite believable. Good job. :eyes:

[magneto]

42. new posters

If John Kerry joined DU and had 5 posts, he'd have a lower number that even me--but I'd hardly call him inexperienced. Post numbers don't give a true picture if that's all you're looking at.

As far as believability goes, I certainly know a b.s. argument when I hear one--and so do other people. Considering the fact that many of our elections haven't gone too well lately, maybe believability is something we need to rethink. As far as criticism goes--it's my Democratic party too--not just 'yours', so I sure CAN ask for more believability.

[Iris]

35. Here's an answer - "Why do you hate America?"

It's really a question but it seems to work for them.

[madinmaryland]

19. While obviously all 58 million who voted for *, cannot be in the

military at the same time, maybe they should be making sacrifices like happened during WWII, and not driving their gas guzzling SUV's around and bitching about the price of gas. What sacrifices have you made during this "war"?

[misternormal]

21. Why would you say such a silly thing???

You know that it's not what you believe in, it's what you drive... :sarcasm:

[magneto]

23. good post

I agree 100%--the supporters should be doing their part at home with sacrifices etc.

[dogday]

24. It's utter nonsense for men who have never experienced

the pain of war and suffering to commit the troops to war... For those who push this war and have never served, they need a lesson in what it really takes to fight a war. Asking others to fight for their cause while they sit in their air-conditioned offices and make plans for more war and more death is total nonsense....

Oh BTW My Son is currently serving in Iraq.....

[magneto]

33. war

I wasn't speaking of the men who get us into war and make those decisions--by war supporters, I meant the average American. It DOES bother me that our leaders don't have military experience--it didn't used to be that way. I grew up with Eisenhower/JFK/Carter etc. and they all had it.

[SPKrazy]

68. Are You Saying Only Military Men/Women Should Be Leaders?

What if we were in a "real war"

you know, fighting a war against some country that had actually attacked us and all

would only former military people be able to be candidates?

[johnaries]

25. The people who got us in this war AVOIDED combat.

Primarily AWOL Bush and 5-Deferrement Cheney. But also many of the most vocal proponents such as Anal Cyst Limbaugh.

Those who actually served, such as Powell, did not support it. Powell ended up following orders, like a good soldier, but we know what eventually happened to him.

[Beelzebud]

26. Aww someone is tired of being told to Put Up or Shut Up.

Nice try.

Anyone noticing a lot more of these kinds of threads lately?

[dogday]

30. It's better I guess to just drive-by these post

Sometimes, I just can't help it though.......

[Kerrytravelers]

41. Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. I believe we have a winner here.

You can pick up your prize at the door.



This model is a bit different than the toaster you get for signing up more people for the Gay Agenda. They pass out these:


Far more stylish, you see.

[Iris]

34. Well, maybe you can answer this?

Why do war supporters always tell anyone who questions the war if they don't like this country, they should leave it?

[Kerrytravelers]

36. When asking someone if they have enlisted, we're not suggesting

that the entire country should go overseas, just those that scream and yell about patriotism. My question is always very direct. Have YOU enlisted, not hey, help me enlist the 58 million that voted for The Idiot King.

So, what is the point of this thread again? :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Let's just say it's nice DU has a search by author feature. -nt

[Iris]

39. Ah! I see now!

[peacebird]

46. wow - never looked up a persons posts with the search before!

very cool

:toast:

thanks!

[Kerrytravelers]

62. Ah... I see said the blindman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=680762#680949

Magento, if we are mireading you, then restate exactly what you mean. In one thread, you state we will fall without a leader. here, you're chiding us for asking rethugs to enlist. it doens't look too good.

Just saying. :shrug:

[Avalux]

Do you support the war?

If you answer that for me, I might have a better understanding of your post.

[magneto]

43. deliberately misunderstanding

I'll say it again, I'm debating the STANDARD of 'all who support war should go fight'. I am NOT debating the war in Iraq. I am not speaking about the men in our government who make the decisions to get us into a war. I'm speaking about ordinary Americans who support the war and to whom it's been hollered 'go fight if you think Bush is right'.

[Avalux]

44. Thanks for answering my question (not)

Much appreciated. :eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

54. Why won't you answer the question?

Were you for the war or against it? HMMM?

[SPKrazy]

69. No "Ordinary Americans" Support this War!

only Bushbots, and neocons, and fundie crazed whackos, support this war.

At one time, the war had popular support, but that was before all the lies were seen through by the "ordinary Americans", the only ones left standing are the ones listed above!

[havocmom]

38. When those in favor of war sit comfy stateside

doing the armchair quarterback thing, seems perfectly fair to ask them to get off their war mongering duffs and enlist so some of the overworked troops can come home and resume THEIR lives. There are a lot of Guards and Reservist over there on 2nd and 3rd tours!

Those who are all for war, so long as others take all the risks need to be called on their attitudes.

And welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay. :D

[LSK]

49. disagree

Asking them "why arnt you in Iraq?" is a way of personalizing the situation. So many people that I know who support the war are gung-ho 20something and 30something people who think war is cool, they collect guns, brag about how macho and brave they are. Well any idiot can brag about how brave they are and how cool war is when they are thousands of miles from it, however they should put there money where their mouth is. If they think war is so great, why dont they sign up???

Its a way of showing how hypocritical they are.

Do you know many of these types of people?

What is your stance on the war?

[magneto]

52. no

I don't know too many 20-30 year-olds as you describe. I have some relatives that are rightwingers, but I'm steering clear of them for awhile--Christmas break got a little too interesting last year...

[LSK]

56. do you think its valid to ask to these gungho types?

[Cleita]

50. Many of the most adamant supporters seem to be pimply faced youth

who should put their money where their mouths are. Other than that, no I don't think everyone who supports the war should sign up just their military aged children. Barbara and Jenna Bush should support daddy's wars by signing up. IMHO

[maddezmom]

53. sorry, I can say it to and when ever I want to

:D So do you support the War in Iraq?

[magneto]

58. of course you can say it to whomever you please

And I gave you feedback on the impression it makes.

[maddezmom]

60. thanks for the feedback but you didn't answer my question

Do you support GW's War on Iraq?

[recoveringrepublican]

66. ha ha, I ask it all the time

and I have to say I have NEVER heard a response such as yours. Usually it's just silence, then they walk away and yell "fuck you". That or "hey they signed up to fight, I didn't and don't need to". They probably go to the store the next day and buy a couple more yellow ribbons.

ohh I do have to say one had a great response for me "if you like peace how come your not in the peace corps?". Have to admit I've never looked into, but would they accept a very hard of hearing woman with only a high school education and typing skills to her credit?

[SmokingJacket]

57. I believe it's wrong to support a war you, yourself, don't wanna fight.

If it's not worth YOU fighting -- assuming you're healthy -- it's not worth the other guy fighting, either.

I believe we should go to war under only the most extreme circumstances. And those are the same circumstances under which I would put a gun on my shoulder.

If you support the war, you should be willing to quit your job and sign up if the government wants you to -- and it does! It wants YOU! Of course the entire population can't fight -- of course we need firefighters and teachers -- but if you support it, you should be willing to go if asked.

[PBass]

65. It's a fair question to ask, of the Yellow Bellied Elephants

and loud-mouthed Chickenhawks.

Dumbya says this is a global war on terror and a life-and-death struggle, and he says it is going to last for decades.

SO WHY NO DRAFT?

Answer: Because the war is mainly about winning votes first and foremost. A draft would be unpopular, even though the military is stretched thin.

[recoveringrepublican]

63. Utter nonsense huh? Bullshit

Maybe you don't pay attention to the news? We have soldiers involuntarily extended, soldiers on their 4th or 5th tour since 9-11, senior citizens fighting, recruiters having a very hard time meeting their quotas. You will have to excuse me, if on Saturdays nights that I protest outside bars, shops and theaters (www.stpeteforpeace.org) and see many drunk fine young studs walking by shouting "4 more years" "fuck Iraq" yada yada yada, I hand them an enlistment form, or video tape their reasons why they won't enlist so I can send their lame excuses to http://americanshort-timer.blogspot.com/

And yes I believe only those who support the war should fight it, in all cases. Rarely is war EVER fought for any reason but to make rich ass fuckers richer. In fact at the very least I believe we should have STATE militias and each state can decide if they fight or not. Not many wars would break out if the rich and/or stupid who support them were forced to fight.

Your logistics argument is moot, as the point is these assholes WON'T FIGHT it, no need to worry about housing, food, or armour (as if we worry about that now).

I'm also an ARMY brat, married to a former Air Force Russian linguist. I tried to enlist myself, and now looking back I thank God that I have a hearing loss, since I was planing on training to be a nurse, so you know where my ass would be right now.

Maybe I'm reading too much Howard Zinn and "Tales of a Economic Hitman" but no longer will I ever believe there is a just war, unless here in Florida I wake up to see tanks outside my window on the beach.

[magneto]

67. thanx!

Thank you for the thoughtful answer.... I brought up the issue because everyday I hear progressives counter pro-war sentiments by shouting 'everyone go fight' and, as a couple people FINALLY owned up to the fact that they really don't mean EVERYONE, or they'll admit it's not meant to be a solid rationale because it's pretty unworkable.

I see no point in throwing out an argument that is illogical and unworkable--and I think it lowers our position to do so. I want our party to do BETTER than that.

[SPKrazy]

71. No, Not Everyone Should Go Fight! But Maybe You Should? n/t

[recoveringrepublican]

77. You assume those I'm telling to go and fight think any deeper

than how drunk they are going to get after they piss of a liberal. What I am doing is calling them out for the cold hearted motherfucking chickenhawks that they are. (sorry I swear a lot on the subject)

The argument isn't illogical and unworkable. I say this phrase in response to many things like "you hate our troops". How can I hate our troops? My ass isn't the one sitting at home with war pompoms while Americans and Iraqis loose life and limbs. Another one is "unpatriotic", this response to that kind of says it all. The argument is to show how quickly this fuckers would see how pointless and wasteful this war is, once they are forced to fight.

If somehow people who supported this war (and others) had to fight it you can bet your ass peace would prevail, as these little chickenshits would suddenly "see the light, peace is the answer". Let's say they didn't, let's say the 50 million (probably not that many, I know many repukes voted Bush for taxes alone, could care less about the war) plus jerks all signed up. Well many more would be excluded for various reasons, age, health, ASVAB score etc. These assholes will now placed in a much higher tax bracket...oops now I'm talking about paying more money, so I have no doubt if those who supported war were forced to so more than place some yellow ribbons on the back of their car war would pretty much cease to exist for this country.

lol, and it awesome to see that DU includes "chicken shits" in it's spell check.

[Sparkly]

70. There was a DRAFT during WWII.

That's the first difference. Sending 90% of the population who supported the war wasn't needed -- the draft ensured sufficient troops.

The second difference is that people were called upon to make sacrifices at home, and they did. Those were ways of supporting the war and the troops, as well. What have we been asked to do? Buy bigger SUVs?

The third difference is the reason WWII was supported, and this one isn't. This one has gone on for 3 years, showing no signs of winding up with an ace outcome; it was unnecessary in the first place; and it's a misuse of the military.

The backdoor draft of rotations in and out, the long deployment of the national guard, the length of time the military personnel are away from their families, and the frustration of rebuilding a school only to see it blown up the next day have many of these volunteers wanting to come home now.

Unlike in WWII, the volunteer army is stretched thin now (we just withdrew from ICELAND for crying out loud! What does that tell you?)! So if people here are cheering, let them put THEIR asses on the line and let somebody else come home.

[magneto]

78. that's not why

The people saying it to war supporters aren't saying it to boost troop levels, so it doesn't matter if there's a draft or not. To tell a war supporter to go fight in the war he supports is to measure their hypocrisy.

[Sparkly]

79. It's both, in fact. nt

[immoderate]

72. Seems the question is asked of individuals.

Individuals could sign up to fight, right. Yours is an exercise in begging the question. e.g. "If everybody went over there, nobody would be left over here." So who has posed that question to the entire population? Oh. Nobody.

--IMM

[magneto]

76. no

You can't say that's a good standard just for the people you've managed to holler it at. If it's logical to say it to ANY individual who supports the war, then it should be right for EVERYBODY who supports the war--so, yes, it HAS been asked of a sizable number of the population.

[pinto]

80. Locking.

Thread's become a host for repeat accusations, circular arguments and general sniping.