"They're not being drafted and forced to go, why should it matter then?"

[liberalhistorian]

Believe it or not, I heard this extremely idiotic question this morning while talking to an aquaintance at the grocery store; I had a hard time imagining that anyone could believe that. SHe said that they voluntarily entered the military and they knew what could happen when they did so.

So, because they're not drafted and they don't HAVE to go into the military, we shouldn't then give a damn about them? We shouldn't care when their lives are treated so cavalierly, when they aren't given the care they need when they return from Iraq, and we shouldn't care about or respect them? I don't fucking think so.

I wonder what the people on the Indian reservation where I work would say to that, since a lot of native americans enter the military? What a disgusting viewpoint. It's as bad as Rumsfeld saying that draftees didn't do much good for the military, when the majority of those killed in wars prior to the Persian Gulf War and Iraq were draftees.

[Deep13]

1. What about the National Guard who joined...

...to guard the nation, not get drafted for some goddammed imperialist crusade?

[liberalhistorian]

6. Bingo! You'd think people would

understand that, but too many of them don't. The National Guard was never meant to be used to support international missions in the way that they are now being used, that wasn't the intent at all. But to say something like that will get you smeared as "anti-American", or troop-haters, or some such similar ridiculous bullshit.

[JVS]

10. One of my buddies who was in the guard told me that the national...

guard isn't designed to defend our country from invasion, but because the regular military is not allowed to be used against US citizens.

[galadrium]

2. The logic is totally stupid.

Its like saying that its totally fine to send soldiers into battle and keep sending them in without a plan, or a win scenario because they aren't being forced to join the military.

We have a responsibility to our military to make sure they aren't simply cannon fodder for a civil war.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Exactly, but every time we try to make

such points, we're hysterically labeled anti-American, or traitors/treasonous, or troop haters, or dirty commie pinko hippies, etc., etc., etc. It seems to me that the ones who truly don't give a damn about either the troops or this country are the ones who blindly support the president no matter what and who blindly support whatever missions the troops are sent on, no matter what.

[galadrium]

7. It is quite amazing...

That the ones who actually support keeping our troops from being killed needlessly are the ones that are labeled as not supporting them. 1984 is here, just a little late.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Cannon-fodder.

Expendable, easily coerced, frightened, and usable pawns in the game that politicians and generals play.

[gratuitous]

4. Were you totally whomper-jawed, or did you have a response?

I can understand if the comment caught you totally off-guard. It might be useful to re-connect with this person later and say that you’ve been thinking over what she said. Tell her that you didn’t think what she said was valid, and then the kicker: Why it wasn’t valid. I’d suggest saying something along the lines that if someone is going to volunteer to put his or her life on the line, the very least the government owes that person is to utilize that life for a worthy cause. Sending someone out to kill and die for us ought not to be done for the flimsy and ever-changing rationales offered by the Bush administration, the worst of which is surely to justify all the lives that have been lost so far.

[liberalhistorian]

11. Frankly, I was too shocked to come up with

much of a comeback other than to say that it was ridiculous to only care about soldiers if they were drafted. I wish I had thought of a better response, but, since this is a small community, I'm sure I'll be seeing her again and can maybe bring up some other points as well.

[gratuitous]

12. Keep in practice

Rehearse your talking points often, and next time (and it sounds like there will be a next time), you'll have some very thought-provoking things to say. The bit about fire fighters and police officers is good: They are volunteer professions as well, and we wouldn't dream of sending fire fighters out with inadequate equipment or police without adequate training and sidearms. Why should the soldiery be any different?

Hard to prepare that first time for such stone-brained ignorance. You'll be ready next time.

[Hav]

8. .

Same could be said about policemen and firemen. They chose their job but still one has to make sure that they have the best equipment and that they only put their lifes on the line when it really matters.

[liberalhistorian]

9. Excellent point, I wish I had thought

of that when I was talking to her! I'm sure, though, that there are people who believe that, because police officers and firefighters have chosen their line of work, then whatever happens isn't that big of a deal and isn't their problem. Pretty sickening, frankly.

[Parche]

13. draft

I have heard that one several times, and that over 3000 killed is not that bad
that over 45,000 people die in car accidents in the US every year.....

What the hell are they talking about?? Like it is ok then ??